Thursday, October 30, 2008

There has been a push in the political arena for a “stronger” 2nd amendment right. It started back in June of this year when the Supreme Court ruled that it was unlawful for the District of Columbia to have a ban on having a hand gun in the home. This is came as a surprise to many in the DC government who called a special session of government and created new laws “banning” guns again. In a new turn of events the House of Representatives have passed legislation to force the District of Columbia to repeal many of the banning laws set up by the DC government. For example this repeal will target the DC laws banning semi-automatic pistols, the requirement of having the firearm disassembled (or secured with a trigger lock in the home), the extensive process for getting a gun registered and licensed (multiple visits to the police station, ballistic testing, fingerprinting, not including the written test on the district’s gun laws). This bill has bi-partisan support and passed 266-152. Some opponents to this bill lost some of their ammunition two days later when the FBI report came out stating that the top 3 cities with the highest murder rate where the cities with some of the strongest gun restrictions (Detroit, Baltimore, and DC). The top 3 cities for robbery are Detroit, Philadelphia, and once again DC. This information is in contrast to a drop in violent crimes nation wide (it has never been lower since 1974). As I was investigating this issue I read on the NRA, (yes, I know they are bias, but they do have some good points), that during the presidential debates gun laws did not come up. I know that they were mentioned in the republican nomination debates (I think that republicans like their guns more then most democrats do). On a personal note; I think that Texas has a good policy. You are required to have a permit and pass a shooting test to prove that you know how to use a handgun safely. I would prefer that it would not cost so much (the permits and classes cost as much as a handgun sometimes). I believe that if you are using a handgun for personal defense you should have the right to keep it loaded and prepared in case the worst happens. I agree with the House of Representatives decision to change the over stringent laws on DC gun control. I see this as good example of the national government stepping in to defend the rights of a city population. Many have said that it just makes it easy for criminals to get guns, in truth when you make laws to disarm the public, you only disarm the good citizens, while enabling the bad citizens with power to do what they want.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Thumper’s blog was very informative and surrounded with facts that clearly supported his point. I fully agree with him because it makes no sense for District of Columbia to continue fighting to ban handguns in homes especially when that right is fully protected by our constitution. I read the case of District of Columbia vs Heller and Parker vs District of Columbia and was quite pleased that the Supreme Court interpreted the second amendment in favor of our right to bear arms correctly. Thumper also raised a good point in pointing out that the top three cities with the highest murder rate were the same cities with some of the strongest gun restriction. This is pure logic, if you take guns away from good citizens you will obviously empower criminals and also give them a sense of security.