Recently an aid to Senator Jim Webb, of Virginia, was arrested for carrying Webb's loaded weapon in a briefcase. Something like this happened to me when I lived in northern Virginia, so I can understand how it can occur. Virginia is an "open carry" state, which means that anyone without a criminal record can carry a handgun openly, as long as you don't mind people staring. However, to carry a concealed handgun (either in a briefcase on on your person) one must take a weapons course and pass a 45 day background check. I had a permit, and had become so used to carrying my weapon that I didn't notice the extra weight or pressure. One day I was on my way to an appointment in DC on the Metro. About the time the train got to Arlington Station (just prior to crossing into DC) I suddenly I realized I still had my handgun!
DC gun laws are draconian to the point of lunacy. As I recall, one can get a ten year sentence for simply having a spent .22 casing! I immediately called the people with whom I had the appointment and told them I'd be about 40 minutes late. I then turned around, went back to my starting point in Virginia, left my weapon in a safe place, and returned for my appointment.
Perhaps it's about time congress thought about changing DC's weapons laws, at least to the extent of allowing the law abiding folks under siege to own a weapon for self protection! Maybe there are a sufficient number of pro-gun Democrats like Webb who'd be willing to take on the issue and end the DC ban once and for all? The murder rate in the District is several orders of magnitude higher than in Virginia, and at least part of the reason is that predators have to discount the odds that some private citizen can unexpectedly impose a cost higher than they're willing to pay for their predation. Recently, a survey of convicted felons indicated that they're far more worried about law abiding citizens with concealed handguns than about the police.
I do not believe that concealed carry has the potential to end violent crime, because the causes of crime lie in complicated social issues (primarily family disruption). However they can hold a lid on crime rates by imposing costs, under conditions that leave criminals uncertain about their "rewards", a form of random reinforcement for abandoning predatory behavior.
Dude, get witht the program! Many of DC's craziest rules were recently struck down as violating the Second Amendment. We'll see what SCOTUS makes of this.
Not the ban on carry, though. That's still effective.
Rob:
Thanks. I no longer live in the area, so haven't kept up. I used to dread taking a wrong exit in N. VA and ending up unexpectedly in the District, getting stopped for some minor violation. I think they'd still probably cut off your hands for carrying though.
Is SCOTUS expected to uphold the ruling?
There also used to be an exception in Virginia in the Dulles Corridor, that folks were working to correct, on the appropriate theory that the law ought to be uniform across the state. Don't know if they were successful, but that was another nightmare for those carrying in VA.
There are good reasons why SCOTUS should take the case, given that this splits not only federal circuits, but also the DC Ct. App. and the DC circuit. My vote counting gets me to 6-3 minimum to uphold, with a real chance at 7-2 or better.
But there's no reason anyone should believe that I can count them correctly.
I think you got it backwards, Demosophist. The DC gun carry ban should be extended to Virginia. Does it make you feel like a cowboy carrying a pistol around? Please.
Wei --
Carrying a concealed weapon "equalizes" things, for women, the disabled, and elderly. In real life, even in the suburbs, people do awful violence to each other.
A strong, large, physically fit man who looks capable of dealing out violence is a different story than a slender woman who is merely a victim for brutal violence. Unless she has an equalizer.
Skill at carrying and using a firearm to defend one's life or person is not that hard to come by. It does not require superhuman physical conditioning or lifetimes of training. It is effective.
What the gun ban is all about is preventing ordinary people, who cannot afford special government privileges (gun-banners Diane Feinstein, CA State Senator Perata, Sean Penn the convicted spouse abuser all have concealed weapon permits and carry guns) or armed bodyguards (Rosie O'Donnell).
Modern liberalism is nothing more than the endless search to make ordinary people second-class citizens with lower status, legal privileges, and quality of life than the chosen Liberal Few.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the tide of Liberal privilege and elitism will wash over the Democratic Party and propose a national gun ban and confiscation. So that only "important" people like Sean Penn and Rosie get the benefit of protection.
I mean really, who do ordinary people think they are? Worthy of the same rights as Sean Penn?
Wei #4:
What Jim said. I'd have thought you'd have been satisfied with the bone that CCW wasn't the cure-all Lott's analysis says it was, but I'm on empirically pretty sound ground saying that it holds a lid on predation, simply because it "diminishes" the stature of the predator.
What could be clearer?
What is clear is that unless your walking around drunk after hours in a tough neighborhood with a high crime rate, with a fat wallet in your back pocket or a bag from the Apple store, the odds of being targeted for assault, robbery or even a profanity are miniscule, regardless of whether you're carring a gun or not.
You're not, I'm assuming, an old lady, so whatever point you think Jim and you are making is completely lost on me.
The fact that most Americans never experience such crimes in their lifetimes and do not display armaments seems to argue very clearly in my favor.
My problem with what you are advocating is that I believe you are making it less safe for both yourself and for others by letting them know exactly where they can go to obtain a weapon, which is more likely to be used against you than by you. Three guys pin you down and take your gun. Three guys pin me down and take my wallet. I'd rather be me by a long shot.
You are certainly not on safe ground claiming a reduction in "predation" for those who visibly carry guns, unless you can provide some kind of justification for this comment beyond what you are presuming are de facto arguments.
Such is our culture of fear that otherwise reasonable people like yourself actually think it is better to have more weapons than fewer. A solution can only come when it is recognized that fear motivates irrationality. Ever wonder why theres such strong connection between the NRA and the modern Republicans? But hey, that's another thread ain't it?
Keep in mind that if D.C.'s gun laws get reformed by Congress in the immediate future, the Parker decision gets mooted, and we lose our first real shot at getting the Supreme court to address the 2nd amendment. Maybe our last real shot at it, too.
“Is SCOTUS expected to uphold the ruling?”
The government is expected to first appeal to the entire bench of the Court of Appeals. With a 2-1 decision, there is a possibility that the full nine judge panel might break down differently. Possibly not, since the panel is mostly Republican appointees, but OTOH Bork and Rehnquist were examples of conservatives that don’t agree with the individual rights view of the Second Amendment. If the SCOTUS ends up accepting the case, I think the result is completely unpredictable.
Except I don’t think a decision would ever prevent Congress from passing laws preventing arms being taken into federal buildings anymore than Congress is compelled by the First Amendment to allow me to defecate on a burning flag in the rotunda.
Let me see now?
This doofus walks into the Capital with a loaded handgun, as well as two loaded magazines for same, and this is a Second Amendment case?
Mike
Well, yeah; If you can't exercise rights explicitly guaranteed in the Bill of Rights in the capital, where exactly are you entitled to exercise 'em? In a designated "civil rights zone" somewhere in a corn field in Iowa?
tcg: reading comprehension. "I do not believe that concealed carry has the potential to end violent crime..." The goal is to make criminals wonder if you're packing. Open carry is legal, but many gunnies (myself included) don't regard it as a wise option for the reasons you give.
Such is our culture of fear that otherwise reasonable people like yourself actually think it is better to have more weapons than fewer.
I've never understood this sort of argument. If we had more cops, we'd have more weapons. Would society be worse off? I have a safe full of guns--far too many to carry them all at once. If I buy another one, does it make me more dangerous to society? Nobody argues that we need to reduce stabbing by reducing the number of knives in society. The issue isn't weapons, it's criminals.
Wei: you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but your 1) failure to state any rational ground for it and 2) insulting people who are different from you just makes you a troll.
tcg#7:
Well, carrying concealed makes one look fat and has other associated inconveniences and costs... so if you've a CCW you can always choose not to carry. As Churchill is purported to have quipped: "A man rarely needs a pistol, but when he needs one he generally needs it very badly."
The difference between you and I is that I assume adults can discount the costs themselves, rather than leaving it to the nanny state to do for them.
Mainly because I never made such a case, or anything like it. We're talking about concealed carry, which if done competently means the bad guys have no idea. Think about it...
Rob:
According to this Michelle Malkin post (and others I don't have time to cite) the ruling on the unconstitutionality of DC's gun laws hasn't yet resulted in a new regime on gun possession. It appears that the old laws are still on the books, which means there's no way to register a handgun even if possession would be otherwise legal. It'd sure be interesting to see this go to SCOTUS.
I remain confused about what seems to be a central issue for me. What rights do Senators (or their close aids) have to carry guns in D.C. or on capitol grounds that normal citizens do not have? One of the key protections against absurd laws is their equal applicability. The comment in the Malkin post seems too glib to me (if you have connections). Eugene Volokh is asking for legal references on this issue today.
It will take time for a new regime to come into existence. This decision is fewer than 20 days old. The case was remanded to the district court with an order to find for the plaintiff...but the mandate won't issue until the time for appeal to the whole DC circuit or SCOTUS has passed (assuming such an appeal is filed), and if such an appeal is filed, then the mandate won't issue until that runs its course.
So nothing will change for a while, which is sensible because we don't know how SCOTUS will act.
Let me also add, that I'm not a big fan of Webb (bad reaction to his book on the Scots-Irish), but if he is going to let the staffer hang out to dry, he is contemptible. Its about not walkin' the talk.
tcg (#7):
What you said--or, maybe you're just minding your own business in "heart of Seattle's swanky downtown shopping district". It's hard for some people to tell the difference between the two, apparently.
PD:
If Volokh is correct that awareness (or at least reasonable suspicion) of possession is necessary for there to have been a crime then Webb's statement that the situation was "completely inadvertent" probably sets things up for dropping the charges against Thompson.
Or Webb himself might be guilty of a conspiracy to break whatever law was broken if Webb was aware of what happened.
I might have been tough on Webb, since we clearly don't know all the details (no thanks to Webb). How did his gun get from his possession to the exhibit room? I think the public has a right to know these things so we can decide how reasonable or unreasonable the DC laws are.
And back to the court case. If this person is actually lead counsel for the Parker lawsuit and he is writing this kind of stuff, I revise my previous expectations and predict that the SCOTUS will not take the case and if it does, it will conclude that the Second Amendment issue was moot and should not have been addressed. There is a conservative objection to how the Parker case was brought and decided, involving the improper use of the courts to decide political issues.