John Lott Says DC Ban Proponents Missing . . . Well, Some Facts

"Whatever the court decides, no one expects them to end gun control any more than the First Amendment's "congress shall make no laws" has prevented the passage of campaign finance regulations. The decision is likely to be limited to just whether a ban "infringed" on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

"If the D.C. ban is accepted by the court, it is hard to believe that any gun regulation will ever be struck down. If the court strikes it down, where the courts draw the line on what laws are considered "reasonable" regulations will take years to sort out."

So say John and Maxim Lott, in a column that has appeared in a number of print and online news sites. They add there was nothing special about the gun ban in the District of Columbia that kept it from working. In particular since gun bans have been causing crime to increase in other cities as well.

"D.C. cites the Chicago ban to support its own. Yet, before Chicago's ban in
1982, its murder rate, which was falling from 27 to 22 per 100,000 in the five
years, suddenly stopped falling and rose slightly to 23 per 100,000 in the five
years afterwards."

John and Maxim Lott add that something that has not gotten much attention is that for the first time in U.S. history an administration has provided conflicting briefs to the Supreme Court. Vice President Dick Cheney put forward his own brief arguing that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right that is no different than freedom of speech.

"Factual errors underlie the rest of the argument — for in D.C., rifles and shotguns become illegal as soon as they are unlocked. That means the city can prosecute anyone who uses one in self-defense, even if it was locked before the incident. Is that a "reasonable" restriction on self-defense? Gunlock requirements are also associated with more deaths and more violent crime as they make defensive gun uses more difficult. Machine guns are also not banned . It makes sense that the DOJ is backing the ban, given that it would lose regulatory power if it were struck down. As the DOJ lawyers note in the brief, striking down this ban could cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation."

Yes, it also makes sense that BATFE as an agency has to protect its jobs, much like its predecessor did at the end of Prohibition.

"The Department of Justice and D.C. politicians can talk all they want about how necessary handgun bans are to ensure public safety and the "reasonableness" of the restrictions. But hopefully the Supreme Court will see past that. At some point, hard facts must matter. This is one point where public safety and individual rights coincide."

Well done, gentleman. Read the entire column by clicking here.