DC's gotta gun (bwahamp-a-bwamp)

A US Appeals court struck down, 2-1, a Washington D.C. law banning the personal ownership of handguns (at least if it's kept in the home).

First, to this I say, "Hoooray."

Now on to the article. First, this is going to be a major blow the to DC's tourism industry. Because, since the law went into affect in 1976, if there's one place in the country synonymous with "safety" it's Washington DC. I mean, I can't even remember the last time I heard about gun related violence in the nation's capital. I can't imagine what overturning this wildly successful law will mean. And here, gentle reader, is where I have to admit I was wrong. IAfter doing a little research it appears that DC is not the crime free utopia I imagined (for if it was illegal to own a handgun, how could there be any crime?) First I checked here for yearly crime stats for DC and was shocked to see that violent crime in 2005 was about the same per capita as violent crime in 1976 (it has been much worse over the interim, but never really better), not only that but DC is the 16th most dangerous city in 2005. But wiht handguns are illegal to have in the home, why didn't crime go away? Man was I ever wrong.

On to the judges. All three were appointed by Republicans, but the dissenter, Karen Henderson had this to say,

because the capital district isn't a state, the Second Amendment doesn't apply to it.

Now, I'm no Constitutional scholar (but I play one on the blogosphere), but I always thought it applied to the people, not the states. Using Judge Henderson's logic DC residents have no constitutional protections what-so-ever. Seriously, she's a judge.

Also, and just to demonstrate that "Judicial Activism" has no real meaning, and is really just clever code for "I disagree with the judges decision" Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence said "is judicial activism at its worst.'' Then adds, "Two federal judges have negated the democratically expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia." You can bet that if the court ruled in favor of the law that NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam would have said the same thing. In fact, here's my handy reference card for judicial decisions.

If the court agrees with you, say, "We think the court made the right decision.'' For color add, "It's good to see the courts make a reasoned decision that sticks to the principles laid down by our Founding Fathers."

If the court disagrees with you , say, "This is judicial activism at its worst." For color add, "This is another case of renegade judges using forcing their political agenda on the people, with total disregard for the the principles laid down by our Founding Fathers."

Bottom line? In my humble opinion the USC was helped out today, and the Second Amendment may be on the path towards a comeback. It was a good day.