Support For Gun Control Fades

A new Gallup poll shows that the number of Americans who favor tougher gun control laws has dropped to its lowest point in nearly 20 years.

Gallup asked the question, “In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now? Forty-four percent said more strict, 12 percent said less strict, and 43 percent said the laws should be kept as they are now — making for a 55-44 majority opposed to tougher laws.

That 44 percent is the lowest number since Gallup began asking this particular question in 1990. A year ago, in October 2008, 49 percent wanted stricter laws. Four years ago, in October 2005, 57 percent wanted tougher laws. In May 2000, 62 percent favored tougher laws, and in August 1999, 66 percent felt that way. Going farther back, in March 1993, 70 percent favored stricter laws, and in September 1990, 78 percent felt that way.

Gallup also asked respondents whether they believe there should be a law “that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons.” Twenty-eight percent said yes, versus 71 percent who said no. That 28 percent who favor a ban is the lowest figure in the 50 years — yes, 50 years — that Gallup has been asking the handgun question. Five years ago, 36 percent of those surveyed favored a handgun ban, and in 1993, 42 percent were in favor. On the flip side, the 71 percent who oppose a handgun ban is the highest that figure has ever been in five decades of polling.

Gallup found that support for more restrictive gun laws has gone down in every sub-group measured — age, sex, race, education, political philosophy, etc. But even with that decline, majorities in some groups still support tougher laws. For example, 59 percent of people in the East support more restrictive laws, as do 55 percent of women, 55 percent of people who have post-graduate education, and 67 percent of people who describe themselves as liberals.

Source

h/t Instapundit

Make what you will of that last paragraph.

Gun and Ammo Sales Still Hot

http://baguns.com/New_Folder/baguns4.jpg

Start with a president who concerns gun-rights advocates and throw in a pending state bill that would require records be kept for handgun ammunition sales, and it’s easy to understand why gun shops are doing a brisk business.

“Yes, we are benefiting because of an individual I didn’t vote for, nor did anybody I know vote for. It is kind of ironic, isn’t it?” Rich Howell, general manager of Olde West Gun & Loan, said of President Barack Obama’s impact on his business.

Guns and ammunition sales at Howell’s shop in Redding jumped about 50 percent in the first three months of 2009 compared with 2008.

The fevered sale pace has cooled. But business could pick up again as Assembly Bill 962, a bill that directs all California handgun ammunition vendors to keep records of ammunition sales and make them available to law enforcement, moves through the Legislature.

Authored by Assemblyman Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, the bill also would require all handgun ammunition sales to be conducted face-to-face and vendors to be licensed by the Department of Justice.

The Assembly approved the bill 42-31 on June 3. It’s moved to the Senate Public Safety Committee for a hearing later this summer.

“I’m not saying AB 962 and some other aggregate bills simmering in Sacramento don’t put fuel to the fire. They do to a certain extent,” Howell said. “But on the other hand, we have seen a tremendous increase in ammunition sales and gun sales since after the election, and really after the first of the year it took off.”

The state reported that 9,512 guns were sold in Shasta County in 2008, a 3.3 percent increase from the 9,211 that were sold in 2007.

There were 425,244 guns sold in California in 2008, up from 370,628 in 2007, state statistics show.

Shasta County and state gun sales statistics for 2009 weren’t available.

Shopping for handgun ammunition Wednesday at Olde West Gun & Loan, Rene Raak of Douglas City lamented about the difficulty she’s had finding ammunition. Raak had not heard of AB 962.

“Everybody seems to want to grab whatever comes into the gun shop here,” Raak said. “It’s been hard to find even regular bullets like .357 (caliber) – we have been shooting .38s instead. Gosh, it’s harder to find even find .22s. Seems like everybody is buying them off the shelves, like they’re afraid they are not going to be there tomorrow.”

De Leon cites a 2006 RAND study that shows more than 10,000 rounds of ammunition were sold to criminals in a two-month period. Extrapolated statewide, that would mean that more than 500,000 rounds are sold to criminals in gun shops in California every year.

Gun store owners like Patrick Jones of Jones’ Fort in Redding don’t buy it. The bill is simply another infringement on their rights to legally own and use a firearm, Jones said.

“This won’t affect the criminal because they’re not buying guns from us and they don’t buy ammunition from us,” said Jones, who recently went to Sacramento to lobby against AB 962.

What’s happening in California is playing out across the country as concerns grow that the Obama administration will enact new gun-control measures.

“The combined increase in demand for firearms and ammunition is clear and largely being driven by the political concerns of gun owners,” Ted Novin, spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said by e-mail from Newtown, Conn.

Ironically, the U.S. House of Representatives in May passed a measure that expanded gun rights, allowing concealed, loaded firearms to be carried in national parks.

The proposal passed 279-147, with overwhelming Republican support and a significant number of Democrats backing the measure.

Novin’s group reported that FBI criminal background checks were up 15.4 percent in May 2009 over May 2008. Federal law requires individuals who purchase firearms from a licensed dealer to get a background check. The checks serve as a gauge of actual sales, Novin said.

Last month’s increase in background checks follows a 30.3 percent increase in April, a 29.2 percent gain in March, and jumps of 23 percent in February and 28 percent in January, the National Shooting Sports Foundation said.

Novin said the demand for ammunition extends across caliber lines, and manufacturers are working at full capacity. Anecdotal evidence suggests those efforts are working and supply is beginning to catch up with demand, Novin added.

Reporter David Benda can be reached at 225-8219 or at dbenda@redding.com.

Source

Join The NRA Now. Hey, It’s Free!

Really. One year free. GO HERE NOW.

join-nra1

H/T Nuke’s place

We Want Your Guns—It Will Be Good For Mexico

What The F*ck  Did He Say?


eric_holder_obama.jpg


Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.
“I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.” Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.

That’s Eric Holder Attorney General of the United States. He wants to take away your gun rights because Mexico can’t control their drug cartels. Just incredible! This has to be the most blatant gun grab I’ve ever heard of. Take American citizens guns away because it will be good for another country. Where does it stop? These people (Obama’s administration) are not even trying to hide their intent any more. They want you disarmed so they can control you. Socialism first, then what? Whatever they can get away with, however far they can push their agenda. Be afraid, be very afraid.

“Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades,” the warning said. “Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico, but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez.”

Automatic weapons and grenades are already illegal in the United States. Just another excuse to disarm the American Public. Disarm so they can control. A bit more than a month in office and already starting to disarm the public because of a crisis in another country.

h/t Moonbattery

Source

Also: Yes We Can….Ban Guns–Obama

!UPDATE! Pelosi Backpedals. I don’t believe for one minute she doesn’t want to ban guns. I think it was the way Holder said it.

Join The NRA Now!

Gun Control, You Make The Call

I found this video at Velvet Hammer’s site. After you watch it go see what else she has to say, you won’t be disappointed.

Mumbai Police a Big Failure

Here is a first hand account from the train station in Mumbai. The man telling the story is Sebastian D’Souza, a picture editor at the Mumbai Mirror who heard the first shots fired and ran to the station to document the carnage. As it turns out he had a lot more courage than the police.

A gunman walks at the Chatrapathi Sivaji Terminal railway station in Mumbai, India, Wednesday, Nov. 26, 2008. Teams of gunmen stormed luxury hotels, a popular restaurant, hospitals and a crowded train station in coordinated attacks across India's financial capital, killing people, taking Westerners hostage and leaving parts of the city under siege Thursday, police said. A group of suspected Muslim militants claimed responsibility. AP

“I first saw the gunmen outside the station,” Mr D’Souza said. “With their rucksacks and Western clothes they looked like backpackers, not terrorists, but they were very heavily armed and clearly knew how to use their rifles.

“Towards the station entrance, there are a number of bookshops and one of the bookstore owners was trying to close his shop,” he recalled. “The gunmen opened fire and the shopkeeper fell down.”

But what angered Mr D’Souza almost as much were the masses of armed police hiding in the area who simply refused to shoot back. “There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything,” he said. “At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, ‘Shoot them, they’re sitting ducks!’ but they just didn’t shoot back.”

As the gunmen fired at policemen taking cover across the street, Mr D’Souza realised a train was pulling into the station unaware of the horror within. “I couldn’t believe it. We rushed to the platform and told everyone to head towards the back of the station. Those who were older and couldn’t run, we told them to stay put.”

The militants returned inside the station and headed towards a rear exit towards Chowpatty Beach. Mr D’Souza added: “I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera.”

If a few of these people had the right to carry a gun this may have ended fairly quickly.  Guns have been outlawed in India, so the people are sitting ducks. And with the police afraid to shoot the bad guys, there’s little hope for the public. I’m sure glad we have the Second Amendment, for now anyway.

Read It All

H/T Swampie

!!Update!! The terrorist in the picture has been captured and is crying like a baby and begging for his life. Pat Dollard has the story

!!!UPDATE #2!!! There’s more from Pat Dollard’s site. !!Warning!! Graphic Images and Video

“Yes We Can . . . Ban Guns”–Obama

Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign slogan, “the audacity of hope,” should have instead been “the audacity of deceit.” After months of telling the American people that he supports the Second Amendment, and only hours after being declared the president-elect, the Obama transition team website announced an agenda taken straight from the anti-gun lobby–four initiatives designed to ban guns and drive law-abiding firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business:

!UPDATE! YOU WILL NOTICE THAT “THE ONE” HAS SCRUBBED HIS WEBSITE SO SOME LINKS MAY NOT WORK, LIKE THE ONE JUST ABOVE. WONDER JUST WHAT HE IS HIDING? HE HASN’T ANSWERED VERY MANY QUESTIONS IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS, (hell, he hasn’t given a straight answer in two years) AND THE ONES HE’S CHANGED HIS MIND ON ARE BEING SCRUBBED CLEAN AS WE SPEAK. THAT MUST BE THE CHANGE HE WAS TALKING ABOUT. I GUESS THE “HOPE” IS THAT WE CAN SURVIVE FOUR YEARS OF HIM.

NewsBusters has a story on the scrubbing. Washington Times Has It Now!!! His whole website has been scrubbed.

“Making the expired federal assault weapons ban permanent.” Perhaps no other firearm issue has been more dishonestly portrayed by gun prohibitionists. Notwithstanding their predictions that the ban’s expiration in 2004 would bring about the end of civilization, for the last four years the nation’s murder rate has been lower than anytime since the mid-1960s. Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun prohibition or gun control reduces crime. Guns that were affected by the ban are used in only a tiny fraction of violent crime-about 35 times as many people are murdered without any sort of firearm (knives, bare hands, etc.), as with “assault weapons.” Obama says that “assault weapons” are machine guns that “belong on foreign battlefields,” but that is a lie; the guns are only semi-automatic, and they are not used by a military force anywhere on the planet.

“Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment.” The amendment–endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police–prohibits the release of federal firearm tracing information to anyone other than a law enforcement agency conducting a bona fide criminal investigation. Anti-gun activists oppose the restriction, because it prevents them from obtaining tracing information and using it in frivolous lawsuits against law-abiding firearm manufacturers. Their lawsuits seek to obtain huge financial judgments against firearm manufacturers when a criminal uses a gun to inflict harm, even though the manufacturers have complied with all applicable laws.

“Closing the gun show loophole.” There is no “loophole.” Under federal law, a firearm dealer must conduct a background check on anyone to whom he sells a gun, regardless of where the sale takes place. A person who is not a dealer may sell a gun from his personal collection without conducting a check. Gun prohibitionists claim that many criminals obtain guns from gun shows, though the most recent federal survey of convicted felons put the figure at only 0.7 percent. They also claim that non-dealers should be required to conduct checks when selling guns at shows, but the legislation they support goes far beyond imposing that lone requirement. In fact, anti-gun members of Congress voted against that limited measure, holding out for a broader bill intended to drive shows out of business.

“Making guns in this country childproof.” “Childproof” is a codeword for a variety of schemes designed to prevent the sale of firearms by imposing impossible or highly expensive design requirements, such as biometric shooter-identification systems. While no one opposes keeping children safe, the fact is that accidental firearm-related deaths among children have decreased 86 percent since 1975, even as the numbers of children and guns have risen dramatically. Today, the chances of a child being killed in a firearm accident are less than one in a million.

Source: NRA-ILA

Don’t be fooled, he WILL take our guns. It’s in the socialist handbook. Stock Up Now!

Here are some good places to start. If anyone has a favorite gun seller, leave a link in the comments and I will add it to the list.

GunBroker.com

GunsAmerica.com

Choice Firearms

BudsGunShop.com

Obama: I Wont Take Your Guns, Until I Have The Votes

The MessiUH says it all in two sentences.

The Obama campaign talks a lot about new ideas and expanding the political map, but in the swing state of Pennsylvania, which the campaign has focused on almost exclusively since the Democratic convention, old-school issues still rise to the fore.

The latest example came Friday during a small political event at SCHOTT North America Inc., a glass factory in Duryea, Pa., where even a hand-picked crowd threw Barack Obamaa curve ball.

A woman in the crowd told Obama she had “heard a rumor” that he might be planning some sort of gun ban upon being elected president. Obama trotted out his standard policy stance, that he had a deep respect for the “traditions of gun ownership” but favored measures in big cities to keep guns out of the hands of “gang bangers and drug dealers’’ in big cities “who already have them and are shooting people.”

“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,’’ Obama said. But the Illinois senator could still see skeptics in the crowd, particularly on the faces of several men at the back of the room.

So he tried again. “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.’’

And note that this question came from his hand picked crowd. Do ya think he helped his case with those “sportsmen” with that second sentence? And another thing. He seems to think the constitution means nothing if he can get the votes in congress. That’s arrogance!

From WSJ via NewsBusters.

Second Amendment Affirmed

I’d be remiss if I didn’t post something about the first Supreme Court decision on the second amendment in 70 some years. But I’m going to link you to a favorite blog of mine, and a favorite person as well. SwampWoman has this covered better than I could, so without further ado, I send you to her site. A1A South

You Are Not Robbing This Bank

NewsBusters has this great story about a guy and his gun.

In the latest in a long series of Armed Citizen stories that the media works strenuously to ignore, a man named Nabil Fawzi is the toast of the Detroit area. Courtesy of Cam Edwards once again, see the Detroit News report:

A longtime customer brazenly stood up to a suspected would-be bank robber at a Comerica bank on Monday and detained the man until police showed up.

At about 9 a.m., police said a 54-year-old Washtenaw County man walked into a Comerica branch in the 45400 block of Michigan Avenue and handed the teller a handwritten note demanding money.

It also indicated he was strapped with a bomb, police said in a release.

When the suspect demanded “bands of 50s and 100s,” police said, the clerk hit the bank’s silent alarm and began placing money in a bag.

A teller at an adjacent counter noticed the incident and alerted the longtime customer.

Police said the customer then pulled out a gun, pointed it at the suspect and told him, “You are not robbing this bank.”

“But I have a bomb,” the suspect said, according to police.

The customer replied: “I don’t care. You are not robbing this bank!”

The customer, who has not been named, then led the suspect to a chair, sat him down and held him at gunpoint until police came.

The Detroit Free Press offered more:

The celebration honoring Nabil Fawzi on Friday at the Sunoco gas station in Ypsilanti continued long after the free hot dogs ran out and the discounted gas was hiked back to $3.89 a gallon.

It seemed like everyone who stopped at the station at Ecorse Road and Redwood Avenue during the late afternoon wanted to shake his hand, hug him or tell him what a good job he did.

On Monday, Fawzi, 39, of Dearborn, who is known to his customers as Bill, thwarted a robbery at a Comerica Bank branch on Michigan Avenue in Canton.

“It’s been a long four days, five days,” Fawzi said. “It’s been like this all day.”

Media outlets from around the country have sought interviews since his identity was released Tuesday. He’s already done 14 radio interviews, he said.

The local TV stations, the networks, cable news outlets and various newspapers all want to know about the bank customer who pulled out a 9mm handgun and faced down a man who claimed to have a bomb…

Fawzi, a Lebanese immigrant who served in the army during that country’s civil war, runs Mr. Bucks, a check-cashing service based at the gas station. On Friday, he fielded questions and compliments from his customers.

“I heard about that when I was working,” said Nicole Fisher of Ypsilanti. “That’s awesome.”

One man gave Fawzi a thumbs up. “Good work at the bank,” he said.

Cam interviewed Fawzi on Friday night, and you can find it at NRANews.com. We’ll see if any national news outlets ever notice.

Buy Guns And Ammo Now!

!!UPDATE!! BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA HAS BEEN ELECTED PRESIDENT. HE WILL TAKE YOUR GUNS, DO NOT FALL FOR HIS LIES. SEE THIS POST NOW! Yes We CanBan Guns–Obama

If you live in California, and love your Second Amendment Rights, you need to do two things. First, stock up on ammo and buy some new handguns. Second, try to stop these idiots from making new laws.

In the future, you may have to leave a copy of your driver’s license if you want to buy .22-caliber rounds from your local big-box store.

The California Assembly further reinforced the state’s reputation as having the most stringent gun laws in the nation by passing two bills late last month that would put more restrictions on buying and selling handguns and handgun ammunition. Both bills must now win state Senate approval.

One bill, AB 2235, would require any new handgun sold in the state to have a device installed that prohibits anyone other than the owner from pulling the trigger.

The caveat is that the technology for such devices isn’t yet available for sale and the bill wouldn’t take effect until after it is, according to the legislation.

The other bill, AB 2062, would require that ammunition sellers copy an ammo-buyer’s photo ID before selling them handgun rounds.

The bill also would require that handgun ammunition be stored behind the counter and that retailers have special licenses to sell more than 50 rounds.

Rifle and shotgun rounds are exempt.

However, bullets that work in both rifles and pistols, like the popular .22-caliber round — small, cheap bullets popular with varmint shooters and target marksmen — would fall under the regulation, said Dan Reeves, a spokesman for Assemblyman Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, who wrote the bullet bill.

Reeves acknowledged that such provisions won’t be popular in rural Shasta County, which has among the highest gun ownership rates in the state.

“It’s a major burden to the people of Redding, but if you have hundreds of people being murdered (by handgun ammunition) every year, it seems like a small sacrifice,” Reeves said.

Redding City Councilman Patrick Henry Jones, owner of Jones’ Fort gun store in Redding, said the legislation wouldn’t do anything to stop gun crimes.

Rather, it merely makes it more difficult to buy and sell firearms and ammunition, he said.

“Through incrementalism, they’re taking (gun rights) away a little slice at a time and making it harder for dealers to survive,” Jones said.

National anti-gun advocates like Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke say the user-identification systems on pistols in AB 2235 will prevent gun crimes if the technology becomes available.

“‘Owner-authorized’ handguns will help reduce injuries, homicides, suicides, school shootings and accidental shootings in California,” he said in a statement.

That bill would take effect 18 months after California’s attorney general releases a report saying the devices are available for sale, according to the legislation.

Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, who voted against both bills, said AB 2235 is particularly offensive because the technology isn’t even available on the market.

He called it “Jetsons” legislation, referring to the futuristic cartoon of the 1960s.

“It’s like trying to pass a law for tailpipe emissions for something, a technology which we don’t even have yet,” he said.

He said he opposed the bullet restrictions because criminals will be able to get bullets regardless of ineffective bureaucratic requirements.

Reeves disagreed, saying the bill also includes provisions that forbid documented gang members from possessing ammo and makes it illegal for someone to buy ammunition and give it to a felon.

He said the proposed ammunition requirements would price criminals and shady gun dealers “out of the market.”

“Right now, criminals, children and gang members are going to Big 5s, Kmarts and gun stores to get ammunition,” Reeves said.

State Sen. Sam Aanestad, R-Grass Valley, will vote against the bills in their current form, his spokesman, Bill Bird, said.

Source

Guns And God? Hell Yes!

A great article today from Mark Steyn. It looks like Hussein Obama’s remark isn’t going to just go away. They’re not just words you know.

I think a healthy society needs both God and guns: It benefits from a belief in some kind of higher purpose to life on Earth, and it requires a self-reliant citizenry. If you lack either of those twin props, you wind up with today’s Europe – a present-tense Eutopia mired in fatalism.

A while back, I was struck by the words of Oscar van den Boogaard, a Dutch gay humanist (which is pretty much the trifecta of Eurocool). Reflecting on the Continent’s accelerating Islamification, he concluded that the jig was up for the Europe he loved, but what could he do? “I am not a warrior, but who is?” he shrugged. “I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”

Sorry, it doesn’t work like that. If you don’t understand that there are times when you’ll have to fight for it, you won’t enjoy it for long. That’s what a lot of Reade’s laundry list – “gun-totin’,” “military-lovin'” – boils down to. As for “gay-loathin’,” it’s Oscar van den Boogaard’s famously tolerant Amsterdam where gay-bashing is resurgent: The editor of the American gay paper the Washington Blade got beaten up in the streets on his last visit to the Netherlands.

God and guns. Maybe one day a viable society will find a magic cure-all that can do without both, but Big Government isn’t it. And even complacent liberal Democrats ought to be able to look across the ocean and see that. But, then, Obama did give the speech in San Francisco, a city demographically declining at a rate that qualifies it for EU membership. When it comes to parochial simpletons, you don’t need to go to Kansas.

Be sure to read it all

H/T Instapundit

Latest Second Amendement Update DC v Heller

For The Latest updates, see the link at the bottom of this page.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to endorse the view that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns, but was less clear about whether to retain the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns.

The justices were aware of the historic nature of their undertaking, engaging in an extended 98-minute session of questions and answers that could yield the first definition of the meaning of the Second Amendment in its 216 years.A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, left little doubt about his view when he said early in the proceedings that the Second Amendment gives “a general right to bear arms.”Several justices were skeptical that the Constitution, if it gives individuals’ gun rights, could allow a complete ban on handguns when, as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out, those weapons are most suited for protection at home.”What is reasonable about a ban on possession” of handguns?” Roberts asked at one point.But Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that the District’s public safety concerns could be relevant in evaluating its 32-year-old ban on handguns, perhaps the strictest gun control law in the nation.

“Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate…to say no handguns here?” Breyer said.

Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, supported the individual right, but urged the justices not to decide the other question. Instead, Clement said the court should allow for reasonable restrictions that allow banning certain types of weapons, including existing federal laws.

He did not take a position on the District law.

The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Looks promising for our side. The rest

For the very latest UPDATES

Update: DC v Heller: Ollie’s Take On 2nd Amendment Case

Oliver North gives his take on the second amendment case to be heard Tuesday. In his article it sounds like the Heller has a pretty good case.

WASHINGTON — When the Council of the District of Columbia enacted the toughest gun control law in the nation in 1976, the city fathers — according to what they said at the time — believed they were making our nation’s capital a safer place. The measure failed miserably. Since passage, the murder rate in the District has skyrocketed by more than 200 percent. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has a chance both to make our capital safer and to ensure that the Second Amendment to our Constitution is enshrined as an individual right for every law-abiding American.

No matter how well-intentioned, the D.C. firearms statute has been unfathomable from the start. On its face, the law bans handguns and requires rifles and shotguns to be registered. They also must be stored unloaded and either locked or disassembled. While it allows business owners to use firearms to protect their cash registers at their stores, they cannot use those same firearms to protect themselves and their families in their homes. Individuals who protect federal officials and property in the District with firearms are not permitted to provide similar protection for themselves and their families in their own domiciles.

In fact, the case that the Supreme Court will hear, District of Columbia v. Heller, was brought by Dick Heller, a security guard. In carrying out his duties, Heller carries a handgun on federal property. However, when he sought to register the same weapon to safeguard his home, he was denied. Heller says the D.C. law has it backward: “I can protect (federal workers), but at the end of the day, they say, ‘Turn in your gun; you can’t protect your home.'” Heller maintains that disassembled rifles and shotguns are no substitute for handguns “any more than the government could prohibit books because it permits newspapers and considers them an ‘adequate substitute.'”

Last March, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, 2-1, that the District’s prohibition was not only unreasonable but also clearly unconstitutional. Attorneys for the District of Columbia promptly appealed the decision. That is why on March 18, for the first time since 1939, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether such a gun ban for law-abiding citizens is constitutional. Their verdict, expected later this year, will have profound implications for all Americans.

Be sure to read the rest from Townhall.com. It’s worth your time.

For The Very Latest Click Here

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: