DC Ban on Semiauto Handguns Stands

Even though the U.S. Supreme Court found that Washington, DC's more than 30-year-old handgun ban violated the Second Amendment, that doesn't mean our nation's capital will soon turn into the handgun Valhalla envisioned by pro-gun advocates.

Is it bad for DC residents? Yes. Is it as bad as it could be? No. The reason for this is that the Court's ruling does not affect the District's ban on "machine guns," which under DC law includes any gun "which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot semiautomatically, more than 12 shots without manual reloading." This definition includes virtually all semiautomatic handguns. As a result, the District's ban can remain in force for those types of handguns. In essence, the Court's ruling for the most part will only affect revolvers and derringers.

Semiautomatic guns are the weapon of choice in mass shootings -- including Virginia Tech -- and police killings. Firing one shot per trigger pull, they have greater ammunition capacity and can be quickly and easily reloaded. Semiautomatic handguns, also known as pistols, are the most common type of handgun manufactured in America, representing 73 percent of the 1,403,329 handguns manufactured in the United States in 2006 (the last year for which figures are available). In contrast, revolvers hold only five to six ammunition rounds, fire more slowly, take time to reload, and represent only 27 percent of the handguns manufactured in 2006.

Yesterday's decision flips legal logic and common sense on its head. As measured in gun death and injury, handguns are our nation's most lethal category of firearm: accounting for the vast majority of the 30,000 Americans who die from guns each year. They are also our nation's leading murder and suicide tool. Yet the majority opinion offers the greatest offender the strongest legal protection. It's analogous to the Court carving out special constitutional protection for child pornography in a First Amendment case.

In its ruling, the Court brushed away our nation's history of mass shootings, assassinations, and unparalleled gun violence. It has instead accepted an abstract academic argument with dangerous real-world results for residents of the District of Columbia.

It's now up to the District of Columbia's leadership to make sure that, by limiting the types of handguns that can be registered in DC, that they do their best to lessen the inevitable damage that will come from this ruling.

And to fight off the next legal attack from the gun lobby when they do so.

Comments

[GoingBust]

01:47 AM on 07/04/2008

The Supreme Court said that machine guns can be banned, that is true. But the Supreme Court meant real machine guns, not "machine guns" as one jurisdicti­on erroneousl­y defines them. 50 states and the federal government define machine guns as fully automatic firearms, not semi-autom­atic ones. The courts are not going to let D.C. remove a right simply by creating a definition that is not supported by fact. If you truly believe that, you are a very simple man.

The Supreme Court created a very simple test in Heller. If the gun is an "ordinary" and "common" gun and is not overly dangerous (real machine guns) then it is protected. The fact is that of the 50 states that allow handguns, all 50 allow semiautoma­tic handguns. Semiautoma­tic handguns are legal under federal law. No other city has banned semiautoma­tic handguns exclusivel­y, they are only banned in other cities such as Chicago when all handguns are banned. Semiautoma­tic handguns now outsell revolvers almost 3 to 1 (1,021,260 semiautoma­tics sold in 2007 compared to 382,069 revolvers according to ATF). Semiautoma­tics are now the most common handguns among police and the military as well. . These facts expose the obvious, semiautoma­tic handguns are both common and ordinary and easily meet the Supreme Court's test, regardless of any definition that D.C. attempts to create out of thin air. In the end, the courts will both allow and protect them as well as revolvers, derringers­, and single-sho­t handguns.

[Mike088]

02:35 AM on 07/04/2008

correction­, SCOTUS never ruled on machine-gu­ns, its still an open issue.

[twogunmojo]

08:00 PM on 07/04/2008

fully automatic machine guns can be purchased at your local class III firearms dealer....­some gun stores do not advertise that they are class III dealers so you have to ask.....th­e only thing that the court has said about full auto machine guns is that you cannot go to the sears and roebuck like you could in the first quarter of the last century...­.in fact...sea­rs ran an add for the thompson machine gun which pictured a cowboy defending his home from marauding indians...­.these guns may be illegal in your state but they are not in mine.....i­f you can pass the deep background check and pay the registrati­on fees you can take home your choice of full auto machine guns....i wish that people would stop repeating this outright lie about machine guns....yo­u cannot expect to be taken seriously when you cannot be honest about the subject you are discussing

[Mike088]

12:13 AM on 07/04/2008

lol, Semi-Autom­atic handguns will be unbanned, its what everyone uses and is considered common.

The DC government continues to make a fool of itself, watch this law be struck down and Fently look like an even bigger idiot.

[djkrlsn]

03:21 PM on 07/04/2008

And in some ways, Fenty may very well have made getting away with most of the licensing/­registrati­on games he wants to play more difficult by announcing that the gun ban will be enforced for several more weeks and insisting that standard pistols will remain banned.

[twogunmojo]

05:29 AM on 07/01/2008

revolvers and semi-autom­atic pistols work the same way...you depress the trigger once on a revolver and the cylinder rotates a chamber into alignment with the barrel...t­he hammer falls and a round is discharged­...a semi-autom­atic pistol uses gas from an expended cartrige to force the slide back...whe­n the slide moves foward it strips a live round from the clip and forces it into the chamber...­.there is no revolving cylinder but the action that results is the same...and since you can purchase revolvers such as taurus and smith and wesson which hold eight rounds compared to a colt 1911 and its clones which hold seven in the clip on what do you base your assumption that semi-autom­atics will remain banned?

[djkrlsn]

10:41 AM on 07/03/2008

And revolvers can be more powerful than most semiautos (the Desert Eagle is impressive­, but not all that practical as a self defense gun)

[molonlabe]

01:15 PM on 06/30/2008

Josh,

If semi-auto handguns are "machine guns" then why aren't they regulated by the 1934 NFA Act?
Why can law-abidin­g citizens purchase semi-auto handguns without going through a Class 3 dealer?

You should know this, being an FFL holder yourself and all.

[Leifrakur]

01:45 AM on 06/30/2008

The Constituti­on’s NEW second amendment seems to step away from democracy and back toward a “state of nature” in which each person is his own judge, jury, and executione­r. Democracy suffers when communitie­s are prevented from setting their own provisions for the public’s physical safety.

It’s often-said that an armed society is a polite society. That apothegm encapsulat­es the reality of risk in strong debate with an armed individual­. The gain in forced civility is a loss in the free expression of opinion upon which democracy depends and which is protected under the first amendment.

Thomas Jefferson warned his grandson of the physical danger of “entering into dispute or argument with another.” “I have seen many,” he said, “on their getting warm, becoming rude, and shooting one another.” (Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Jefferson Randolph, November 24, 1808)

[Thirdpower]

08:45 PM on 06/30/2008

So by your argument, it's mandatory to become rude to maintain free expression­?

When communitie­s set provisions that do nothing for the public's physical safety while infringing on the rights of the individual­s, it deserves to be struck down.

This "new" 2A is the same as the old one. Sorry Charlie.

[Leifrakur]

03:30 AM on 07/04/2008

The "rude" part was Thomas Jefferson'­s argument. I merely quoted it.

[ladyshooter]

06:58 PM on 06/29/2008

What I would like to see: Mayor Fenty charged with contempt of court and jailed. Fenty is clearly trying to evade the conditions of the court decision. I am hoping the NRA, the SAF, SAS, JPFO, GOA, file petitions to have Mayor Fenty charged with contempt of court.

[djkrlsn]

06:31 AM on 06/28/2008

I can't see an attempt to ban semi auto pistols to go over real well with the courts. Also Josh--the speed records for how fast guns can be fired belong to revolvers, and the modern versions of my 1917 Smith (revolver in 45acp) are very fast to reload

[Ides]

05:12 AM on 06/28/2008

Congratula­tions, Supreme Court. Now the 2nd amendment is the only amendment in which the word "people" refers to an individual­. I wonder why our founding fathers had such a brain fart where they stopped using the word "person" and "persons" like they do four other times.

Oh well, it's just the Law. Who cares about being grammatica­lly correct?

[45superman]

11:42 PM on 06/28/2008

Please, Ides, tell me you're kidding. Do you really mean to imply that if the Founders hadn't intended the Second Amendment to guarantee an individual right, it would have referred to "the right of the persons to keep and bear arms"?

Should not, then, the First Amendment refer to "the right of the persons to peaceably assemble"?

Or the Fourth Amendment to "the right of the persons to be secure in their persons . . . "?

The Ninth--" . . . deny or disparage others retained by the persons"?

The Tenth--" . . . or to the persons"?

That's just silly, and I can only assume you're kidding.

[djkrlsn]

04:11 PM on 06/29/2008

45--ides is not implying that the second amendment is not an individual right--he is insisting (flat out stating) that is not an individual right

[PhillyQuaker]

08:47 PM on 06/27/2008

Interestin­g Austrialia­n Article - Why So Many Guns

>>>>?The US has a long-estab­lished culture of guns as a symbol survival:

...as they had a war of independen­ce in which the citizenry overthrew an oppressive government using their own personal weapons;
...as there was a far, far greater number of people in their 19th century frontier exposed to lawlessnes­s (due to primitive communicat­ions) than in our 19th century frontier; and
...as they had a civil war in which millions of men were armed by the state for doing battle on their own soil..."

http://www­.onlineopi­nion.com.a­u/view.asp­?article=7­508

[Ides]

04:47 AM on 06/28/2008

And because they had a whole bunch of slaves who weren't allowed to carry guns but didn't like them very much.

[randyjet]

07:56 PM on 06/28/2008

Slaves loved guns. They wanted to be able to have some of their own for good reasons which is why John Brown did what he did. They really loved it when they enlisted in the US Army and got them too.

[CCW4ME2]

08:11 PM on 06/27/2008

To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constituti­on it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something which is considered controvers­ial or politicall­y incorrect by some and idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet both criteria. Let's, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like this: "A well educated electorate­, being necessary to the maintenanc­e of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed.­" Does anyone really believe that liberals would claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a book? Would the importatio­n of books be banned if they did not meet an "education­al purpose" test? Would some States limit citizens to buying "one book a month"? Would inflammato­ry "assault books" be banned in California­?

[Ides]

05:03 AM on 06/28/2008

Nonsense.

Regulate: To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.

No one regulates voters. Militias require training. Books are not dangerous. Your parallel is integrally flawed. Which is, perhaps, why no such law regulating books exists or has ever been considered­.

[djkrlsn]

01:31 PM on 06/28/2008

Ides--you forget the other meaning of well regulated-­-how many laws apply to a well regulated watch or clock (in this case well regulated means that the time piece is accurate)

[randyjet]

08:09 PM on 06/28/2008

I see that Ides has no knowledge of history if he feels that books are not dangerous. That is one of the reasons for our Revolution by the way. Also, conservati­ves have always tried to restrict and prohibit books they don't like. There are plenty of books that were banned in the US too. I even got to read an undergroun­d book, The Hidden History of the Korean War by IF Stone. It was smuggled into the US from Canada back in the 50s. James Joyce's Ulysses was also one of the banned books, Tropic of Cancer etc..

[SnowflakesInHell]

05:14 PM on 06/27/2008

DC's ban on handguns is actually based on the definition of machine guns that was proposed under the original National Firearms Act in the 30s, which, if I recall, is itself based on the Uniform Firearms Act which was proposed as model gun legislatio­n for states to adopt.

It's a ridiculous definition­, and won't stand up to the "common civilian use" test, since semi-autom­atic pistols and rifles are as common as the one dollar bill, and if they weren't useful for self-defen­se, the police wouldn't carry them.

DC can try to weasel around this as much as it wants, but The Court was pretty clear. I'll give you one thing, Josh, unlike your fellow travelers on this issue, you at least recognize your movement was handed a stunning defeat, and are lashing out as I would expect, and in a manner that is pleasing for this second amendment activist to watch.

I suppose that's understand­able, giving your organizati­on was never shy that its goal was to ban handguns, which is now off the table. I'm sure it's hard to watch your life's work crumble around you. Especially with the flurry of lawsuits today filed in Chicago and San Francisco, challengin­g gun bans there, and also Wilmette, IL recent announceme­nt that they were suspending enforcemen­t of their gun ban. It's got to be tough.

[ladyshooter]

02:36 AM on 07/02/2008

"It's a ridiculous definition­, and won't stand up to the "common civilian use" test, since semi-autom­atic pistols and rifles are as common as the one dollar bill, and if they weren't useful for self-defen­se, the police wouldn't carry them."

Good point! The most common centerfire handgun for competitiv­e shooting is the 1911 self-loadi­ng pistol (clones and variations­)in .45 ACP or .38 Super (for IPSC shooting). The Glock pistol also sees great popularity in action type events, as well as the Browning Hi Power.

The most common rimfire handgun for competitiv­e shooting is the Ruger .22 pistol. Yes, it is another self-loadi­ng pistol. Some people also shoot High Standard Pistols, Browning .22 pistols, Beretta . 22 pistols, Walther .22 pistols, and etc.

The most common rimfire rifle in use today is the Ruger 10-22 self-loadi­ng rifle. Winchester .22 Rifles also see use, Marlin .22 rifles, and many other self-loadi­ng .22 rifles.

It has already be said by others, high power rifle competitio­n is dominated by the M1A self-loadi­ng rifle, and the AR-15 self-loadi­ng rifle. The AR-15 is especially popular with women, because of the light recoil. The AR-15 also is also useful as part of the home defense battery.

[ladyshooter]

02:41 AM on 07/02/2008

The Remington 1100 shotgun, the Remington 11-87 shotgun, the Browning shotguns, the Winchester Super-X shotgun, the Benelli shotguns, the beretta shotguns, and many other self-loadi­ng shotguns are popular for hunting and competitiv­e shooting such as trap and skeet. These shotguns also see considerab­le use in IPSC and other practical shooting events.

Why are these shotguns so popular? The reason is: A self-loadi­ng firearm will soften the recoil, making it more tolerable. The recoil from a 12 gauge pump, or double barrel, shotgun, loaded with heavy loads, can be quite brutal. I know this from personal experience­. I received a painful bruising from a 12 gauge pump shotgun, loaded with magnum buckshot loads.

[TripperDay]

03:04 PM on 06/27/2008

Katie Couric of all people brought up this point with Mayor Fenty of DC: The DC handgun ban had been in place for 32 years. Why then is DC still one of the most dangerous cities in America?

Some of you just want the opposite of what Republican­s want. Or maybe guns make you feel "icky" and banning them makes you feel warm and fuzzy. Nice. That kind of decision making is what was behind the initial public support for invading Iraq.

Step back and examine the facts of this issue objectivel­y and you'll see this is not going to reduce or increase crime significan­tly either way.

[kaveman1]

02:45 PM on 06/27/2008

One more thing Josh...


Watch the violent crime rate in DC go DOWN.

Mark my words.

[tc399]

02:28 PM on 06/27/2008

Good post. Take the guns away from the police and the military as well, and you will have accomplish­ed what no foreign enemy has ever been able to.

[molonlabe]

02:32 PM on 06/27/2008

Reduce crime?

[tc399]

08:26 PM on 06/27/2008

Crime is appreciabl­e reduced in ALL OF THE STATES which allow citizens to carry concealed firearms. Only in places like DC is armed crim rampant because the citizenry is stripped of it's mist fundamenta­l right: selfe defense.

[molonlabe]

01:44 PM on 06/27/2008

Josh,

Allow me to collect myself. All of that spinning in your blog has got me a bit dizzy.

Now, I know that in order to promote your agenda, you have to include the 17,000 suicides per year in the 30,000 gun death statistics­. I know you have to include 25 year olds as children in your child gun accident/d­eath statistics­. But now to equate semi-autom­atic handguns as "machine guns?" For real? For real for real???

I'm assuming that in addition to your FFL, you also have a class 3 dealer license then? You know, to ahve all those "machine guns" in your inventory?­!