John Lott is one of America’s leading scholars of gun rights and the 2nd Amendment. His Foxnews.com column explains today’s ruling in favor of the Constitution and explains how the 2008 Heller decision led to less murder in Washington, DC.
With another closely decided 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled today that state governments are not able to ban most Americans from owning most types of handguns. The court ruled that firearms are “essential for self-defense.” The court found that if the Second Amendment indeed protects an individual right to own a gun, the notion that the government can’t ban all handguns is the minimum protection the Constitution can offer. …When the “Heller” decision was handed down in 2008 striking down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban and gunlock regulations, Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley predicted disaster. He said that overturning the gun ban was “a very frightening decision” and predicted more deaths along with Wild West-style shootouts and that people “are going to take a gun and they are going to end their lives in a family dispute.” Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty similarly warned: “More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence.” Yet, Armageddon never arrived. Washington’s murder rate has plummeted — falling by 25 percent in 2009 alone. This compares with a national drop of only 7 percent last year. And D.C.’s drop has continued this year. Comparing Washington’s crime rates from January 1 to June 17 of this year to the same period in 2008, shows a 34 percent drop in murder. This drop puts D.C.’s murder rate back to where it was before the 1977 handgun ban. Indeed, the murder rate is as low as was before 1967. Other gun crimes have also fallen in Washington. While robberies without guns fell by 7 percent, robberies with gun fell by over 14 percent. Assaults with weapons other than guns fell by 7, but assaults using guns fell by over 20 percent. …Neither the latest justice, Sonia Sotomayor nor the next potential justice, Elena Kagan are sympathetic to an individual’s right to self-defense.
I wonder, is there any significance to the fact that this was again a 5-4 decision, when the subject of the case was simply extending the Heller precedent from the Federal Government to the States, as opposed to voting all over again on the Heller case. Or did the 4 dissenters see it as another immediate chance to overturn the Heller precedent, set just a mere year ago?
Speaking of those four, it frustrates me to no end that for all their knowledge and (supposed) intelligence, the phrase, “…the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is not clear enough for them.
[…] the left has basically given up on trying to violate the Constitution (though keep in mind that the Supreme Court has been upholding the Second Amendment by the narrowest of margins, so Obama – or Romney – can undo that victory in the next couple of […]
[…] In the aftermath of the Heller decision, Lott explained how more guns resulted in less crime in DC. […]
[…] In the aftermath of the Heller decision, Lott explained how more guns resulted in less crime in DC. […]
[…] In the aftermath of the Heller decision, Lott explained how more guns resulted in less crime in DC. […]
[…] In the aftermath of the Heller decision, Lott explained how more guns resulted in less crime in DC. […]
[…] In the aftermath of the Heller decision, Lott explained how more guns resulted in less crime in DC. […]
[…] the left has basically given up on trying to violate the Constitution (though keep in mind that the Supreme Court has been upholding the Second Amendment by the narrowest of margins, so Obama – or Romney – can undo that victory in the next couple of […]
[…] In the aftermath of the Heller decision, Lott explained how more guns resulted in less crime in DC. […]
[…] the Stevens oped. Even though he was on the wrong side of the case, he effectively admits that the 2008 Heller decision enshrined and upheld the individual right to own […]