DC: 'Safety in Defenselessness'

Jacob Sullivan, writing in Reason magazine, observes that the District of Columbia is trying "to save its gun law by misreading it."

"Although three of the original plaintiffs in the D.C. gun ban case said they wanted to keep functional long guns in their homes, the District did not claim they already were allowed to do so. Instead it dismissed the very idea of armed self-defense as self-evidently absurd. "It cannot be seriously contended that the Second Amendment, even if applicable, guarantees private persons a right of ownership or possession of firearms on the basis of an asserted need to resort to self-help," D.C.'s lawyers told U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan."

That's just to remind you of DC's argument. Where it gets even more odd, Sullivan notes is on the subject of "safe storage."

"But when the plaintiffs appealed Sullivan's dismissal of their complaint, the District suddenly began to suggest there might be exceptions to the "safe storage" requirement that are not mentioned in the statute. "The [D.C.] Council appears to have recognized that on rare occasions, in the event of a true emergency when necessary for self-defense, a gun could be unlocked," it said . . ."

"In its Supreme Court brief, the District asserts that an exception for self-defense at home "is fairly implied in the trigger lock requirement," but it does not explain how. Courts reasonably could read the law's specific "safe storage" exceptions to mean there are no other exceptions."

Check out Sullivan's full column by clicking here.