One of the things I do not recall hearing in all the discussion was this; has the DC ban had any appreciable effect one way or the other on crime rates, homicide rates, etc?
It seems to me that DC is pretty well known as a high-crime area, with the ban in place. If so, it appears to have little effect, at least on criminals.
I was checking crime stats on DC this morning and they seem to rise and fall like the tides. One year they're way up, the next year they're down but overall violent crime rates rise, and then there's the declining population which means it would require math to make a real argument and I don't like math so I stayed the hell away from it.
If anyone else wants to try and make heads or tails of it I was looking at these numbers.
I think that there's a simple way to ascertain what these statistics mean. Build a second, identical version of Washington, D.C. and populate it with clones of the residents of the current Washington, D.C. Then have 1 version with the existing gun law and another without. See which one has the higher crime rate.
It would seem to be possible to normalize the data for all the socio-economic factors that contribute to crime, but nobody seems to be able to do it accurately. I'm content with merely pointing out that both the overall crime rate and the violent crime rate were lower in the most recent year than in any of the 7 years prior to the handgun ban. Others can feel free to cherry-pick whatever year(s) support their position.
Yup. Violent crime rates are higher in my state than New York. Conversely, Washington DC has twice the crime rate per 100,000 people of any state and a horrifying murder rate that's well over twice any US property listed except Puerto Rico.
I'm content with merely pointing out that both the overall crime rate and the violent crime rate were lower in the most recent year than in any of the 7 years prior to the handgun ban. Others can feel free to cherry-pick whatever year(s) support their position.
"rate" implies normalized by the population, so the population drop has been taken into account.
One could make the case that the population decline in D.C. was largely due to the more affluent, less crime-prone (not counting income tax evasion ) people moving away, so that all other things being equal the crime rate should have been expected to increase. I imagine that a pro-gunner will come up with an analogous argument in the other direction.
But it's not. If you're looking at the chart I linked it doesn't figure those crimes into population per hundred thousand. It's total population, and total number of crimes.
So yes, when the population drops a drop in the crime numbers doesn't mean the crime rate has gone down at all... unless I'm reading that very wrong.
Yup. Violent crime rates are higher in my state than New York. Conversely, Washington DC has twice the crime rate per 100,000 people of any state and a horrifying murder rate that's well over twice any US property listed except Puerto Rico.
It's rather disingenuous to compare Washington, D.C., which is a city, with a state. The homicide rate in the city of Miami, Florida (Florida being the state that supposedly has become so much safer because of their "must issue" concealed weapons law) is higher than in any state.
ETA: The violent crime rate (or at least the total of murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults, according to the 2003 statistics) in Miami was higher than in Washington, D.C. despite the "must issue" concealed weapons law in Florida.
It's rather disingenuous to compare Washington, D.C., which is a city, with a state. The homicide rate in the city of Miami, Florida (Florida being the state that supposedly has become so much safer because of their "must issue" concealed weapons law) is higher than in any state.
ETA: The violent crime rate (or at least the total of murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults, according to the 2003 statistics) in Miami was higher than in Washington, D.C. despite the "must issue" concealed weapons law in Florida.
If they banned all guns in Miami I'd be a lawbreaking mofo if I ever had to go within five miles of Liberty City ever again. It really is like Beruit, right down to the gutted-out, burning cars.
I meant when you thought it was crime rates and challenged us "pro-gunners" to cherry pick it for another meaning.
ETA: And Miami probably played a role in the passage of Florida's CCW law, because you'd be a damned fool to be a law-abiding citizen without one down there.
This is a really good point. I know that we've discussed it in other threads, so I don't want to go into too much detail. Just search the forum for "stare decisis" and see what comes up.
Precedents get clarified, distinguished, narrowed, even completely overruled for various reasons. Usually, the Court won't do any of these unless there is an articulated reason. "I just don't like what that case holds" is not an articulated reason. In most cases, "I wouldn't have ruled that way if I had been on the Court back then" is not a good reason, either. Certainly the Plessy case was not overruled merely because it was an annoyance. There were compelling considerations that caused it to be discarded. (The case that overruled Plessy was the famous case of Brown vs. Board of Education.)
Not to pick on Justice Kennedy, but his remarks in oral argument were critical of the Miller decision though he did not articulate what was wrong with it. He didn't like it, but he didn't say why. In the event he thinks (or others on the Court think) Miller ought to be narrowed or overruled, he would ordinarily have to set forth pretty good reasons for setting it aside.
Just a reminder, there is a wealth of information in the briefs, available at this web site. Crime stats, history of the Second Amendment, perspectives from a range of views... a lot of that is available in the briefs.
GENERAL CLEMENT: I think to make the same argument about machine guns would be a much more difficult argument, to say the least, given that they are the standard-issue weapon for today's armed forces and the State-organized militia.
I believe that the General misspoke here. "Machine Gun" is a specific category with a strict definition. They are distinct from Assault/Select-Fire/Automatic Rifles or Carbines, Automatic Pistol, and Sub-Machine Guns (aka Machine Pistol).
A machine gun is a weapon which fires only in fully automatic mode, uses standard rifle or larger type ammunition in a belt-fed configuration, and is intended to be operated by a two-man crew or vehicle mounted. They are also known as "crew-served weapons". Examples are the Squad Automatic Weapon (5.56 caliber), the M60 Machine Gun (7.62 caliber), and the M2 machine gun (.50 BMG caliber).
An assault rifle is a weapon small enough to be carried and operated easily by a single individual, uses smaller rifle calibers, typically 5.56 or 7.62, and is fed from a quickly-replaceable magazine. The mode of operation is selectable between single-shot autoloading, and either full automatic or 3-5 round burst.
An automatic pistol is a single-shot, autoloading pistol, typically in 9mm or .45 cal, fed from a quickly-replaceable magazine. It fires only in single-shot mode.
A sub-machine gun (aka machine pistol) ranges in size from pistol to small assault-rifle, fires only in fully-automatic mode, and uses pistol rounds fed from a quickly-replaceable magazine.
Machine guns (crew-served weapons) are not standard infantry issue, they are special issue, typically limited to one per squad, or one to two per platoon (armoured vehicles typically mount one or more); and serve in a specialized niche role. Depending on the individual's role, standard issue all-purpose weapons are either an assault rifle or cabine (typically the M16 or M4), an automatic pistol (typically the M1911), or an automatic pistol and a sub-machine gun (typically the M3 "grease gun").
If the intent of the framers of the Second Amendment was to permit standard infantry weapons, then they would not have included machine guns. Someone made the comment that only basic infantry weapons would have been used in the Revolutionary war, but that is not the case. In fact, cannon of various sizes were commonly used; and light mounted "crew-served" cannon loaded with grapeshot would have been the battlefield equivalent of modern machine guns.
I would also take exception to another of his comments, to wit, "plastic" guns, aka, firearms intended to evade metal detectors. This is a red herring commonly used by handgun ban advocates, and has no basis in reality. There are a number of firearms on the market which contain resin composite "plastics" as part of their construction, as well as ceramic composites; but these also contain substantial metal parts as well. They are not created for the purpose of evading metal detectors, but for issues of weight and long-term durability and reliability. They are easily caught by properly maintained and monitored metal detectors; and should fall under normal Second Amendment protections.
The only firearms created to evade inspections are those which are improvised or modified to appear as other objects, such as cell phones or portable music players; and I don't believe these would be or should be protected by the Second Amendment.
If the intent of the framers of the Second Amendment was to permit standard infantry weapons, then they would not have included machine guns. Someone made the comment that only basic infantry weapons would have been used in the Revolutionary war, but that is not the case. In fact, cannon of various sizes were commonly used; and light mounted "crew-served" cannon loaded with grapeshot would have been the battlefield equivalent of modern machine guns.
For what it's worth, I think these comments are really helpful, especially in pointing out some of the difficulties that the Court faces.
During oral argument, there was some discussion about what sort of modern weapons ought to be deemed to be the "descendants" of the weapons of 200 years ago. The musing was that the Second Amendment would apply to such descendants, but not to weapons that had no such ancestors (machine guns, probably also flame throwers, mines, grenades, etc.). Such a rationale, it seems to me, is unlikely to be adopted, simply because it is too messy. One could say that NO modern weapons are even remotely similar to the weapons back then (which may be true), so no modern weapons could truly be deemed to be descendants; and another could say that even weapons like machine guns came from incremental improvements to earlier weapons (which also may be true), so all modern weapons should be deemed descendants. The point is not to say how this question ought to be resolved; rather, the point is that adopting the "descendents" analysis will make life very difficult for the federal judges who actually have to apply the rule.
Justice Scalia tossed out the notion that the Second Amendment ought to apply to weapons that lots of people commonly have, but that rationale has the disadvantage of being equally unworkable. Arms preferences vary by region, plus dealers might start selling weapons that they couldn't sell before, thereby making the notion of commonly held weapons arbitrarily expansive. And of course, that rationale is tautological. Once again, the federal judges who would have to apply such an analysis would have a very difficult task.
Saying that the Second Amendment protects an individual right (which is what smart money says the majority is going to do) will not decide the truly controversial issues. I repeat: The key questions will be (1) the extent of the individual right, (2) the extent to which the right can be regulated by the government, and (3) the standards by which the court will determine whether a government regulation is valid.
How the Court answers those three questions may answer this question: Do US citizens have a constitutional right to keep machine guns?
I think it is likely that the Court will intimate that constitutional protection does not extend to posession of machine guns, but the rationale by which individuals have rights to some kinds of weapons but not to others is going to be difficult to articulate.
Actually, a case could be made that it indeed does relate to the states. If it is decided that the purpose of the 2nd A. is for the benefit of militias, and since militias are solely a function of the state, then individual gun rights come down to the needs of the individual state militias. Since the constitution does not specifically address gun ownership otherwise, then the (otherwise gutted) 10th amendment applies.
Saying that the Second Amendment protects an individual right (which is what smart money says the majority is going to do) will not decide the truly controversial issues. I repeat: The key questions will be (1) the extent of the individual right, (2) the extent to which the right can be regulated by the government, and (3) the standards by which the court will determine whether a government regulation is valid.
How the Court answers those three questions may answer this question: Do US citizens have a constitutional right to keep machine guns?
Although there is more case law with respect to limits, if I am not mistaken, the other 9 amendments that make up the bill of rights have been broadly construed to apply to an individual. How could it make sense that the framers would have had this one exception?
As I understand it the two essential points at issue are the intent of the Second Amendment, and whether the Second Amendment applies to Washington DC.
<snip>
If the decision is made favorably on DC's argument it will raise the question of what rights the citizens of DC do have.
Robert Klaus
I agree with Pope130 and believe that the ONLY issue addressed by the SCOTUS will be the idea of DC as a Federal District and therefore whether or not the 2nd amendment applies.
While I suppose you could make this argument, I have wondered about this myself, I don't see any of the other rights curtailed in the District. It is of course the site of some of the largest protests in the country. Should they be allowed to pick and choose which of the bill of rights to extend to the District? (If you were to presume the bill of rights doesn't apply there.)
I believe that the General misspoke here. "Machine Gun" is a specific category with a strict definition. They are distinct from Assault/Select-Fire/Automatic Rifles or Carbines, Automatic Pistol, and Sub-Machine Guns (aka Machine Pistol).
A machine gun is a weapon which fires only in fully automatic mode, uses standard rifle or larger type ammunition in a belt-fed configuration, and is intended to be operated by a two-man crew or vehicle mounted. They are also known as "crew-served weapons". Examples are the Squad Automatic Weapon (5.56 caliber), the M60 Machine Gun (7.62 caliber), and the M2 machine gun (.50 BMG caliber).
Just to point out: Heavy weapons platoons are still infantry, right, and they get, as standard issue... well... HEAVY weapons.
The M2 Browning machine gun, in the infantry/ground variation has select fire, semi- and full-automatic. The M60 machine gun is single-man operable with he addition of an ammo bag on the side and a tin can in the feed slot to smooth out the belt. The SAW is man-portable and can fire from standard M16 magazines.
An assault rifle is a weapon small enough to be carried and operated easily by a single individual, uses smaller rifle calibers, typically 5.56 or 7.62, and is fed from a quickly-replaceable magazine. The mode of operation is selectable between single-shot autoloading, and either full automatic or 3-5 round burst.
There really isn't an, "assault weapon," category in the military.
Weapons are described as man portable or crew-serviced, air or water cooled, magazine or belt or magazine AND belt fed, semi-automatic, full-automatic, selectable semi- or full- automatic or N-round burst (where N is a number), bolt or gas or blowback operated weapons.
The M16 is a man-portable, 5.56 mm NATO caliber, air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine fed, selectable fire rifle. It's not an, "assault rifle."
An automatic pistol is a single-shot, autoloading pistol, typically in 9mm or .45 cal, fed from a quickly-replaceable magazine. It fires only in single-shot mode.
A sub-machine gun (aka machine pistol) ranges in size from pistol to small assault-rifle, fires only in fully-automatic mode, and uses pistol rounds fed from a quickly-replaceable magazine.
Machine guns (crew-served weapons) are not standard infantry issue, they are special issue, typically limited to one per squad, or one to two per platoon (armoured vehicles typically mount one or more); and serve in a specialized niche role. Depending on the individual's role, standard issue all-purpose weapons are either an assault rifle or cabine (typically the M16 or M4), an automatic pistol (typically the M1911), or an automatic pistol and a sub-machine gun (typically the M3 "grease gun").
If the intent of the framers of the Second Amendment was to permit standard infantry weapons, then they would not have included machine guns. Someone made the comment that only basic infantry weapons would have been used in the Revolutionary war, but that is not the case. In fact, cannon of various sizes were commonly used; and light mounted "crew-served" cannon loaded with grapeshot would have been the battlefield equivalent of modern machine guns.
The Pennsylvania rifle was not a standard issue firearm. It was the assault rifle of its day, with human-target accurate ranges out to 200 yards. General Washington included as standing orders to the Continental Army to protect riflemen at any cost.
Excellent point, too, about the cannon, quite a lot of which were privately owned. Shipping, for instance was crucial, and American merchantmen didn't set off into the Atlantic without a compliment of guns.
I believe that the framers of the Constitution, although unable to foresee the day when a single infantry issue weapon (can you say, "Davy Crockett?") could destroy an entire city and make the ground underneath unusable for decades, meant civilians to have weaponry comparable to the best, or BETTER, than the military of this or any other country.
There really are SOME weapons I think should not be under the control of a single private human being, but you have to get up into and past the, "whole house," kind of damage if there's an accident for me to think that.
On the other hand, I really, REALLY want an FN P90, so I wonder if that Hughes Amendment of the Firearm Owners Protection Act would be found to be unconstitutional, what with:
1) it's arbitrary in its setting of a weapons manufacture cut-off date, and
2) it's ultimately a disarmament law because you can't replace your worn-out M16 rifle with a new one.
I would also take exception to another of his comments, to wit, "plastic" guns, aka, firearms intended to evade metal detectors. This is a red herring commonly used by handgun ban advocates, and has no basis in reality. There are a number of firearms on the market which contain resin composite "plastics" as part of their construction, as well as ceramic composites; but these also contain substantial metal parts as well. They are not created for the purpose of evading metal detectors, but for issues of weight and long-term durability and reliability. They are easily caught by properly maintained and monitored metal detectors; and should fall under normal Second Amendment protections.
The only firearms created to evade inspections are those which are improvised or modified to appear as other objects, such as cell phones or portable music players; and I don't believe these would be or should be protected by the Second Amendment.
I agree completely, but I know some that would disagree.
Banning a firearm just means that the people who would use them reasonably safely and legally won't have them. It's the people that SHOULD NOT have them that won't CARE about the law and carry them anyhow.
If what you're looking for is another crime with which to charge illegal carriers, tighten up the laws on who's allowed to carry firearms.
If what you're after is to disarm the reasonably safe and legal users of firearms, ban away, but remember that the guys who are likely to jackassulate with a gun won't pay you the slightest heed.
(I'm still expecting SCOTUS to weasel out of this one.)
My question is this. Does anyone honestly believe that the citizens owning a few rifles and handguns is really going to be sufficient for a rebellion against TODAY'S army, in the event that the government became tyranical?
A rifle is a lot better than fists and rocks. Also, I think you forget that in recent history (and even today) insurgent groups have been able to beat or at least wage successful campaigns against well equipped modern militaries.
It seems to me that if your main argument for the right to bear arms is that it's needed to form a proper rebellion, you can't stop with rifles. You have to submit that the citizens have the right to bear Hawk fighter jets, Abram tanks, and rocket launchers.
And every one of those things is 100% legal to own, operate and purchase. Most of them are, in fact, totally unregulated.
I'm not saying that I'm for outlawing guns, because I'm still rather on the fence about it. Heck, I'm not even trying to make an ad absurdum argument. I'm just pointing out that realistically, that's what it would take for the citizens to take up arms against the state. Whether we would actually want the average joe to own such things... well that's to be decided. I'd argue that that's an extreme I wouldn't want, but knowing liberarians... they might think there's no limit. Then again, they seem to think that someone should be free to ignore someone asking to be saved from a well, just as the person in the well is free to... starve to death, which is a KIND of freedom.
The IRA did pretty well for themselves against a modern state sponsored army. So did the Viet Cong, Viet Minh, Yugoslav Partisans, Croatians, Solvenians and Kosovars. The Chechens and Palestinians are probably next.
Yes, but Heavy weapons are still not standard issue.
Army doctrine is that "Every troop is an Infantry troop"; that is, every single member of the Army has the training necessary to act as basic infantry, should the need arise. Every troop is trained on a specific weapon, the M16/M4; and nearly every mounted/mechanized troop is trained with the Colt 1911, while nearly all officers are trained with the M9 Beretta, both pistols. These are basic infantry weapons.
The M2 Browning machine gun, in the infantry/ground variation has select fire, semi- and full-automatic.
Right. I misspoke on that one, as I'm more familiar with the mounted version (having been Armour rather than Infantry). In any case, it's not standard issue, and the infantry configuration is a crew-served/portable rather than individual weapon; and requires additional training beyond basic infantry.
The M60 machine gun is single-man operable with he addition of an ammo bag on the side and a tin can in the feed slot to smooth out the belt. The SAW is man-portable and can fire from standard M16 magazines.
The M60 is single troop operable under certain specific conditions (and not easily at that); but is not single-troop portable. While the SAW is technically single-troop portable and operable, doing so defeats the purpose of the weapon, since it replaces the lighter and less cumbersome M16/M4 with no inprovement in firepower, and a decrease in long-distance accuracy. In any case, neither of them are BIWs, and require additional training. And while the M60 is included in supplemental infantry training for most (not all) troops, the SAW is not. No one in my training regiment or Guard unit ever saw one.
There really isn't an, "assault weapon," category in the military.
The terms "Assault Rifle", "Assault Carbine", and "Assault Weapon" were in use when I was trained, as sort of a quasi-official shorthand, although the more common doctrinal term was Basic Infantry Weapon. The doctrine of a BIW was a weapon that was easily carried by a single infantry troop in addition to his other regular-issue gear, along with a standard load of ammunition sufficient for a single average mission/engagement; with which the troop was expected to maintain proficiency through regular practice and qualification; and with which every troop would be trained and could be issued if necessary. This applies to light arms such as pistols and assault rifles/carbines. This does not apply to machine guns such as the M60 and SAW, and certainly not to larger more specialized weapons such as the M2, AT4, or even M203. I don't know if it's changed, but when I was in the military, even REMF troops were still required to practice and pass yearly qualification with the standard-issue M16 and/or M1911/M9.
Weapons are described as man portable or crew-serviced, air or water cooled, magazine or belt or magazine AND belt fed, semi-automatic, full-automatic, selectable semi- or full- automatic or N-round burst (where N is a number), bolt or gas or blowback operated weapons.
These are not commonly used by the US military, and are typically classified as sub-machine guns/machine pistols, not automatic/semi-auto pistols (a firearm capable of discharging multiple rounds with a single operation of the trigger mechanism, vs. a single round per operation). But even so, they would still fit the requirements for a BIW; and would IMO qualify for 2nd Amendment protections.
See above. "Standard issue," doesn't mean that everyone has one.
No, it means that everyone can use one in a basic infantry role.
Excellent point, too, about the cannon, quite a lot of which were privately owned. Shipping, for instance was crucial, and American merchantmen didn't set off into the Atlantic without a compliment of guns.
As were many walled/barricaded towns in contested zones, for protection against First Nations tribes, Spanish raiders, etc. But not all merchant ships carried cannon or demi-cannon. Many carried only a single demi-culverin or long-gun swivel-mounted fore and aft to repel pirates; while the marjority of the defensive firepower resided in matchlock and caplock muzzle-loader rifles and pistols, and swords were typically used to repel boarders. It was primarily during wartime, or periods of heavy piracy, that merchant ships were more heavily armed.
I believe that the framers of the Constitution, although unable to foresee the day when a single infantry isue weapon (can you say, "Davy Crockett?") could destroy an entire city and make the ground underneath unusable for decades, meant civilians to have weaponry comparable to the best, or BETTER, than the military of this or any other country.
I agree, but from my reading that applied only to BI weaponry. Not necessarily heavy weaponry. Which would apply to pretty much all weapons easily carried and operated by single individuals, up to and including sub-machine guns and large-calibre rifles (such as the Barret Light .50).
There really are SOME weapons I think should not be under the control of a single private human being, but you have to get up into and past the, "whole house," kind of damage if there's an accident for me to think that.
I don't think it even needs to get to that point. BIW doctrine is sufficient, and covers a substantial range of hardware. Machine guns are, though I hate to use the word, overkill. It's certainly a gray area; but such weapons are simply unnecessary in the context in which the 2nd Amendment was written.
On the other hand, I really, REALLY want an FN P90, so I wonder if that Hughes Amendment of the Firearm Owners Protection Act would be found to be unconstitutional, what with:
1) it's arbitrary in its setting of a weapons manufacture cut-off date, and
2) it's ultimately a disarmament law because you can't replace your worn-out M16 rifle with a new one.
Not sure how it would be ruled under law, but it certainly qualifies as a BIW, and ownership should be protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Banning a firearm just means that the people who would use them reasonably safely and legally won't have them. It's the people that SHOULD NOT have them that won't CARE about the law and carry them anyhow.
But that's the entire point of disguised firearms. They are used exclusively by those who are not legally allowed to carry them, in order to circumvent security processes in place to prevent unlawful possession and use. There is really no valid purpose for disguised firearms for law-abiding citizens, whose rights to posess and concealed-carry firearms is respected. They are not usable in a defensive situation, and are exclusively tools of assassination and intimidation.
They are also typically very dangerous to use, as they are less accurate than standard firearms, their construction makes them highly likely to fail catastrophically and injure more than their intended targets.
If what you're looking for is another crime with which to charge illegal carriers, tighten up the laws on who's allowed to carry firearms.
I'm afraid I have to agree with you on this one. The current bench, like those for the last 30 years, has steadfastly avoided making a strong ruling one way or the other on this issue.
My question is this. Does anyone honestly believe that the citizens owning a few rifles and handguns is really going to be sufficient for a rebellion against TODAY'S army, in the event that the government became tyranical?
Keep in mind that at the signing of the Constitution rifles alone were no match for then modern armies with artillery. There has never been parity between civilian guerrilla groups and government sponsored military. It's all about strategy and tactics (see American Revolutionary war, Vietcong, Iraqi insurgents).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
) people moving away, so that all other things being equal the crime rate should have been expected to increase. I imagine that a pro-gunner will come up with an analogous argument in the other direction.
