# Handguns now legal in DC **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 9, 2007, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312 "2007-03-09T20:49:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2007, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/181 "2007-03-16T00:56:37Z")
If “the militia” means only organized military units, then by what right can the Federal government draft civilians? The Constitution says that the Federal government can call out the militia to repel invasion, suppress insurrection and to execute the laws of the United States. That last phrase has been held to justify a draft when Congress has declared war or otherwise passed some sort of resolution, and has been universally held to mean “all eligible males” for purposes of a draft. ---
**Author:** ![cerberus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@cerberus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cerberus)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2007, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/182 "2007-03-16T02:37:35Z")
Even if the ruling holds, DC can still _regulate the Hell_ out of weapons ownership - a total ban was struck, but in practice, they can very likely construct a virtual ban without it infringing the 2nd. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2007, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/183 "2007-03-16T04:47:25Z")
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF] Who, exactly, is religiously sure? Certainly not I. [/quote] I use the term to refer to those who at least seem to equate the second half of the 2nd Amendment with holy writ, something whose examination and reconsideration is equivalent to heresy, requiring an emotional rather than reasoned response. You do see how it can look that way, don’t you? > [@](#): > > Actually, definitively decided. In spite of your assertions in this thread, as has been amply demonstrated, _Miller_ did not do so and may potentially be reversed. Anything _may_ be reversed, as you well know. But that isn’t the way to bet. Nor, to your assertion, have I claimed Miller provides a complete and final determination, just strong guidance. There is always room for quibbling around the margins, as this thread also amply demonstrates, and always will be. > [@](#): > > For the record, I assess the odds of a ruling in favor of individual rights at 50/50. Imagine that. I would if I had any idea what basis you have for that, other than wishful thinking. As noted, even **Bricker** isn’t offering to bet. > [@enipla](#): > > But doesn’t the precedence in the Miller case revolve around the sawed-off shotgun/ Why don’t you think it revolves around the \*reason \* they declared the sawed-off unprotected? The constitutional standard that they determined applies when assessing the protectedness of a firearm? To reach the narrow interpretation you and **ExTank** prefer, you have to ignore the reasoning and look only at the result, just like dismissing the first half of the amendment and considering only the second half. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2007, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/184 "2007-03-16T04:49:23Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] I would if I had any idea what basis you have for that, other than wishful thinking. As noted, even **Bricker** isn’t offering to bet. [/QUOTE] It’s a binary solution set. The answer is either yes or no. 50/50. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2007, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/185 "2007-03-16T06:26:18Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] I would if I had any idea what basis you have for that, other than wishful thinking. As noted, even **Bricker** isn’t offering to bet. . [/QUOTE] Oh hell, I’ll take your bet. _If_ SCOTUS takes the case, then I’ll bet the results will be close to what Bricker has suggested. But I’ll also bet they don’t take the case. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2007, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/186 "2007-03-16T08:47:25Z")
[QUOTE=Lumpy] If “the militia” means only organized military units, then by what right can the Federal government draft civilians? [/QUOTE] Not sure how important this is but the term “the militia” does not appear in the Second Amendment. It says _a well regulated_ militia, not _the_ militia. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2007, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/187 "2007-03-16T13:22:52Z")
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF] It’s a binary solution set. The answer is either yes or no. 50/50. [/QUOTE] The number of possible combinations is not related to their probability. Either the world will be destroyed tomorrow in a great battle between the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or it won’t. Which “50%” would you rather bet on, though? **Dr. Deth** , I agree it’s most likely that they’ll leave it alone, at least until after the next Presidential election, rather than allow a polarizing issue hurt the Republican’s chances. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2007, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/188 "2007-03-17T13:21:48Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Why don’t you think it revolves around the \*reason \* they declared the sawed-off unprotected? The constitutional standard that they determined applies when assessing the protectedness of a firearm? To reach the narrow interpretation you and **ExTank** prefer, you have to ignore the reasoning and look only at the result, just like dismissing the first half of the amendment and considering only the second half. [/QUOTE] Nope, not at all. I did look at the reason. That was the whole point really. > [@enipla](#): > > IMHO, the Miller case has nothing to do with this. Sawed off shotguns were not issued as regular military weapons. Though short barreled 18” trench brooms where and still are. > > The point of the Miller case deals with sawed off shotguns that were not and are still not arms that are issued to the regular military. It’s not a typical military weapon. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2007, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/189 "2007-03-17T15:56:13Z")
And you _don’t_ think that confirms the Constitutional standard by which \*any other \* firearm’s protectedness must be evaluated? The Second doesn’t say “sawed-off shotguns”, it says “_arms_”. Sawed-offs were a test case under which the general standard was established, not a “bottled oddity” irrelevant to any other kind of arm, wouldn’t you say? I just don’t see how you can read it any other way without being merely result-driven. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2007, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/190 "2007-03-17T16:45:55Z")
Exactly. I am not ignoring the first clause. It speaks about the militia (however that is defined). It seems to me that the reason that sawed off shotguns where outlawed in the _Miller_ decision was BECASE of the first clause. Because sawed of shot guns are not a normally issued arm used in militias or the general army. And yes, I do think it was a ‘bottled oddity’. And I think the SCOTUS decision did use the first clause to outlaw them. I also think that the intent of the 2nd amendment was to allow people to defend themselves. Either on their own or in groups. The first amendment for free speech is pretty much a given. The second was the obvious next step and I don’t think the authors thought that anyone would contest it. The Second is ambiguous to some, I see that. Was it meant to be ambiguous? Or was the right to self defense so obvious to the authors that they did not spend much time on it. Or is the language of the period being mis-interpreted? ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2007, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/191 "2007-03-17T19:56:41Z")
[QUOTE=enipla] The Second is ambiguous to some, I see that. Was it meant to be ambiguous? Or was the right to self defense so obvious to the authors that they did not spend much time on it. Or is the language of the period being mis-interpreted? [/QUOTE] So you’re arguing that it was _so obvious_ that they didn’t need to say it? Seems a rather facile argument. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2007, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/192 "2007-03-17T21:39:00Z")
> [@lowbrass](#): > > So you’re arguing that it was so obvious that they didn’t need to say it? Seems a rather facile argument. Good point. Maybe it wasn’t obvious to everyone. But I do think that it is telling that the SECOND amendment tried to secure rights for the people to show disent. And protect their ability to speak up. I think that the second amendment came about as a way to try to protect the first. Is it wrong to have laws that are ‘obvious’? We have lots of them. Thousands and thousands. IMHO the 2nd amendment allows people the right to protect themselves from harm from others including the government. That’s just a start really. I don’t think we should need the 2nd amendment. Our forfathers thought differently. And I think that they where right. There are way, way too many people that would confiscate guns for no other reason that they fear something that they don’t understand. I guess I am ‘pro-gun’. I never really thought about it until I found out how many ‘anti-gun’ people there were. Again and again and again, I hear news reports or an anecdote that demonstrates how little the anti-gun groups know about guns and the millions of responsible gun owners. I’m a gun owner. And I am on the fence about a few things. But every time I hear another shrill anti gun rant by someone that does not know a thing about guns, there history, and there uses, I get off the fence on the pro-gun side. And I am not speaking to any one in this thread about being ‘shrill’. But we have all heard it in other threads. From both sides. It’s nuts. I hate having to kill a spider in our house, but I own 8 guns. Can a person understand that a peaceful person such as my self would own a gun? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2007, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/193 "2007-03-17T21:48:36Z")
I should note that, to quote Wikipedia on Miller, > [@](#): > > Subsequent rulings have been allowed to stand, indicating that short-barreled shotguns are generally recognized as ordinary military equipment if briefs are filed (e.g., see: Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 922 (1st Cir. 1942), describing use of short-barreled shotguns in specialized military units.) Sawed off shotguns _are_ quite handy in military units. The Supreme Court just wasn’t able to take notice of it, because it was not brought up in defense. As there was no defense. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2007, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/194 "2007-03-17T23:52:49Z")
[QUOTE=enipla] Good point. Maybe it wasn’t obvious to everyone. But I do think that it is telling that the SECOND amendment tried to secure rights for the people to show disent. And protect their ability to speak up. I think that the second amendment came about as a way to try to protect the first. [/quote] I’m not aware of any evidence that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to allow people to defend their freedom of speech specifically. How exactly would that work? “If you don’t let me talk I’ll shoot you”? The evidence tends to show it was about defending liberty in general. At any rate, that’s not what most gun-owners are arguing for today. As I said before, they’re arguing for a right to personal self-defense, hunting, and recreational shooting. > [@](#): > > Is it wrong to have laws that are ‘obvious’? We have lots of them. Thousands and thousands. Strawman. I did not say “it is wrong to have laws that are obvious”. What I’m _saying_ is: your contention that the Second Amendment only mentions _one_ use of arms because the other uses were “obvious” doesn’t hold water. > [@](#): > > IMHO the 2nd amendment allows people the right to protect themselves from harm from others including the government. That’s just a start really. You’re entitled to your opinion. I agree that it protects the right of states to form militias to defend against encroaches on liberty. I do not agree that it protects an individual right to personal self-defense with a gun against common criminals. > [@](#): > > I don’t think we should need the 2nd amendment. Our forfathers thought differently. And I think that they where right. There are way, way too many people that would confiscate guns for no other reason that they fear something that they don’t understand. I disagree. It’s not fear; it’s concern. Huge numbers of people are killed or injured by guns in the U.S.; what is it that isn’t understandable about that? > [@](#): > > I guess I am ‘pro-gun’. I never really thought about it until I found out how many ‘anti-gun’ people there were. I never thought about it until I realized how many _pro_ gun people there are. The pro’s are much more vocal than the anti’s. > [@](#): > > Again and again and again, I hear news reports or an anecdote that demonstrates how little the anti-gun groups know about guns and the millions of responsible gun owners. > > I’m a gun owner. And I am on the fence about a few things. But every time I hear another shrill anti gun rant by someone that does not know a thing about guns, there history, and there uses, I get off the fence on the pro-gun side. I know that guns are often used to murder people. Did _you_ know that? Because you don’t seem to acknowledge it. > [@](#): > > It’s nuts. I hate having to kill a spider in our house, but I own 8 guns. Can a person understand that a peaceful person such as my self would own a gun? That seems a strawman of sorts. You’re arguing that the second amendment protects your individual right to own a gun for personal self-defense, and others are arguing that the second amendment does _not_ protect such a right. I haven’t heard anyone argue that there are no peaceful people owning guns. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2007, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/195 "2007-03-18T14:21:45Z")
> [@lowbrass](#): > > Strawman. I did not say “it is wrong to have laws that are obvious”. What I’m saying is: your contention that the Second Amendment only mentions one use of arms because the other uses were “obvious” doesn’t hold water. My thought is that the _Miller_ ruling was based on an interpretation by SCOTUS that the second only protects arms that are typicaly used in the militia or general army. > [@lowbrass](#): > > I know that guns are often used to murder people. Did you know that? Because you don’t seem to acknowledge it. :rolleyes: Oh please. My observations, have been that the anti-gun people just want to ban ‘dangerous’ guns. Not all guns. Just the ‘dangerous’ ones. They then go on to pass regulations that ban weapons based mostly on cosmetics. It’s difficult to take many anti-gun folks seriously because they won’t seem to educate themselves beyond the basic ‘guns are often used to murder people’ comment like you just made. Anyway, trying to get away from this and back to my post #179. I was just wondering why some people thought that the overturning of the DC handgun ban had anything to do with the _Miller_ ruling. And it seemed that some pro-gunners thought that the _Miller_ argument would have to be overturned. That is why I joined this thread. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2007, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/196 "2007-03-18T15:49:18Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] I know that guns are often used to murder people. Did _you_ know that? Because you don’t seem to acknowledge it. . [/QUOTE] Actually, guns are RARELY used to murder people, less than 1% of the guns in America are even used in a crime. ---
**Author:** ![diggleblop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac91a4/32.png) [@diggleblop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/diggleblop)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2007, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/197 "2007-03-18T16:08:42Z")
[QUOTE=Renob] As a former DC resident who actually owned a gun there (a legally registered shotgun), let me say that I’m glad this day finally came. It’s fairly obvious to anyone who lives in DC that there are plenty of guns there. The criminals paid absolutely no attention to the law. The only ones who bothered to do so were people like me, who went through the absolute hassle of taking the gun to the court house (you should have seen the looks I got!), being fingerprinted, paying the fee, etc. And, of course, if I had ever used it in self-defense, I’m sure I would have been prosecuted. The law was a ridiculous failure as well as being unconsitutional, and I’m just sorry I’m not there to take advantage of it. [/QUOTE] So basically, you’re saying that the old adage that says, “Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them” rings true. I agree with this decision as well. I’m glad _Americans_ can now own a gun in DC ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2007, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/198 "2007-03-19T06:22:00Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] Actually, guns are RARELY used to murder people, [/quote] False. Most murders are committed with guns. In 2005, there were 16,692 murders. 68% were committed with firearms. [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent\_crime/murder\_homicide.html](http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html) I think what you meant to say was most guns aren’t used to murder people. That only proves there is an excessively large number of guns in the country. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2007, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/199 "2007-03-19T06:35:30Z")
[QUOTE=enipla] :rolleyes: Oh please. My observations, have been that the anti-gun people just want to ban ‘dangerous’ guns. Not all guns. Just the ‘dangerous’ ones. [/quote] This argument seem disingenuous. Surely if people wanted to ban _all_ guns, you would object to that as well, would you not? You don’t really object to just banning ‘dangerous’ guns, you object to banning _any_ guns. > [@](#): > > They then go on to pass regulations that ban weapons based mostly on cosmetics. It’s difficult to take many anti-gun folks seriously because they won’t seem to educate themselves beyond the basic ‘guns are often used to murder people’ comment like you just made. You’re right in that I have no interest in studying guns, since I have no desire to own or use one. But how exactly does your self-proclaimed expertise on the differences between models of guns change the fact that guns are used to murder people? Does one have to know the difference between a V-6 and a V-8 to know that drunk driving is dangerous? Is it your contention that all guns are equal? Are you saying that there’s no such thing as a gun that’s designed to inflict as much human damage as possible? Do you think it wouldn’t have made any difference if the North Hollywood bank robbers had been carrying .22’s? If someone passes a poorly written and hard to enforce law, that should be remedied. I don’t see as how that’s an argument that guns aren’t dangerous, though. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2007, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312/200 "2007-03-19T06:59:55Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] False. Most murders are committed with guns. In 2005, there were 16,692 murders. 68% were committed with firearms. I think what you meant to say was most guns aren’t used to murder people. That only proves there is an excessively large number of guns in the country. [/QUOTE] Good way to quote someone out of context, the complete qoute ended with “less than 1% of the guns in America are even used in a crime.” So, I said what I meant. There are over 200 million privately owned guns in America, that means less than 1 gun in 20,000 was used in a murder. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handguns-now-legal-in-dc/395312.md?page=11)