In 1976, Washington, DC passed a law banning handguns. In 2003 , Richard Heller, a security guard, and others, sued the District of Columbia after it rejected his application to buy a handgun for home protection."Make no mistake about it, this is a public safety case," D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty said. "The reason the city council enacted the gun ban in the 1970s because crime was getting out of control and guns were the cause of a disproportionate number of fatalities. When the gun ban became law, violent crime dropped significantly in the city and has steadily gone down since then."
The District of Columbia law not only bans ownership of handguns, but requires other guns like rifles and shotguns that may legally be kept in the home to be disassembled or kept under a trigger lock.
The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court. The court decided to hear the case and is expected to make a decision in June. The Supreme Court has not heard a case on the 2nd Amendment since 1939. This case is being called the most important gun case in 70 years.
The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The good news for gun rights advocates, is that the court seems prepared to rule that the Second Amendment ensures individuals the right to own guns for personal use. The more complicated and unsettled issue, however, is whether the Second Amendment allows government restrictions on firearms use in the name of public safety.
Because none of the justices now on the court have ever confronted a Second Amendment case, any prediction about how the court will rule is little more than pure speculation.
What do you think? Should residents of DC be allowed to have handguns? What about the rates of violent crime?
21 comments:
This is a difficult situation. First off, I can see why the government wants more restrictions on guns and how to handle them. If the only way to keep crime down is to be stricter on gun control then i think that that is what the government should do. But on the other hand, i think that if the second amendment says that it is the people's right to bear arms than i think that we shouldnt' interfere with what the constituion says.
I wonder how much the crime rate went down. It seems like it wouldnt go that much down because people can still get guns even if there is a ban. I do think that people should have the right to own a gun if they want too. I guess I would have to know more about the crime rate to really now if the ban was worth it.
Yes, this is definately an important case for the safety of our country. I don't see why people need handguns if they already have other guns in their home. The people who want these guns may think that they will use them properly, but what about all of the people who will abuse this right? The rates of crime have been dropping since they banned handguns and I think that they should continue to ban them. Anything to keep our country safe.
Yea i must say i think it is important that we do not infringe on peoples rights and that we have a responsibility to ensure that we dont, however if removing handguns from the public is what it takes to keep people from causing harm to others then by all means lets do it. one thing thats strikes me as interesting is that some years back Australia put ban on firearms in order to put a curb on crime rates, however this backfired and crime rates have risen.
It's written in the constitution that we have the right to bear arms and it should be so. The supreme law of the land states it so we need to follow it. If other states can have handguns and such then why not there? The type of people that they sell them to should be overhauled a little bit in order to try to curb it. Banning completely the use of handguns won't make it that tough for a criminal to still obtain a handgun. It would be a waste of time to try to ban them.
Yes i do believe this is a good idea, for the safety of people, and for crime rate to go down, but yet i do agree with rachael, that what the constitution says that is how it should be. Just put stricter laws, and do more back round checks on people if you are so scared about who is owning a hand gun.
I dont think letting people walking around with guns is going to help the crime rate go down. if anything it will go up because your just lettin people walka round with guns who knows how many crazy people there are out there who ill just abuse this .. i think its kinda scary i wudnt feel safe walking around with everyone carring guns.. ha
I think that we should have to right to bear arms anywhere we go. The supreme court should not be able to take that right away from us. I think that if people want to buy and bear rms the should be able to. Handguns are easier to handle than rifles are if you have someone in your house. I think that there should be more laws on people if they want to buy guns.
I don't think that the crime rate will go down if there are people who have hand guns on them. I don't think the crime rate has gone down much. If there was a ban people would still get guns. Its scary thinking about people walking around who are carrying them.
I think that this is a very difficult situation because i can see why the government wants for restriction on hang guns because if the wrong person gets a hold of one there would be a lot of danger to the people. And i know there are a lot of ways that you can properly handle a gun. I think that if you properly use a gun for properly use a gun you should be allowed to have one. The second amendment did say that it is the right for people to bare arms and i dont think that we should interfere with that .
The government shoudl be more strict on gun control. They should make it possible for people to ahve the right to own any fire arm but at the same to be strict enough so that not everyone can own a fire arm. People who use fire arms in the correct way and not using them to "bust caps" and "split wigs" should be given the right to bear arms. the government should enforce back ground checks on anyone who is wanting to buy a fire arm, if they have any history of crimes they have committed they should not be allowed to buy any fire arm. If the government allows background checks for crime it should decrease the number fire arm related crimes. If the poeple who are a risk with fire arms can't buy fire arms then we should really have to worry.
I dont think they should be allowed to own handguns. Since the crime rate has continued to drop ever since they banned handguns. It seems like they are doing better while handguns are banned. No matter what some people are going to get a handgun and if people are able to own them then handguns will be easier to obtain for people who will use them for crimes.
The crime rate will increase with the allowance of handguns, and that is the major reason why I am against the law. Obviously some people feel safer if they are allowed a gun but some pyscho could go on a rampage and kill many victims.
I think by allowing people to bear arms is not going to help the crime rate decrease. If anything at all it will go up. Its hard to trust somebody to have to right to bear arms when they could be some crazy person who is going to go on a shooting spree. Its a decision that should get alot of attention and be questioned about all the possibities that could happen.
I think by allowing people to bear arms is not going to help the crime rate decrease. If anything at all it will go up. Its hard to trust somebody to have to right to bear arms when they could be some crazy person who is going to go on a shooting spree. Its a decision that should get alot of attention and be questioned about all the possibities that could happen.
The ban of handguns I feel is a little ridiculous because the people who commit the crimes with the guns can get the guns anyways. This is taking the guns out of the hands of people protecting themselves from the people who get them illegally anyways.
We have the right to bare arms and the supreme courts should not have a say in it! Go NRA
I think that banning guns is a bad thing to do. Law abiding citizens cannot protect themselves from criminals with out them. I say let people keep the guns till they commit a crime then take the guns away and don't let them get access to them
ALL i gotta say is the gun ban was enstated by liberals and should be recognized as such... a very moronic idea!!!!!!!! the constitution is the constitution don't mess with it ya anti-gun fairys...all i know is they will never take my guns away... did you know that in britian there was and i beleive still is a gun ban altogether... the crime rate didn't drop it hightened... black market sales for weapons sold in great britain ballooned... give people their guns you libs...
I guess this depends on how much the crime rate goes down. If it goes down alot then they should make more restrictions on guns i want to be safe and if it would keep people safe it would be a good thing. I think with the 2nd amendment yes you do have the right but there should still be restrictions on who can get one and stuff.
I agree that safety for our country is something that we should all want, but laws that are passed must obey the constitution. I personally believe that guns do not kill, it it the person with the gun. And, that gun that kills, though it may have been banned, can still be bought illegally, and probably pretty easily. I think that if someone really wanted to kill someone else and they were not allowed to have hand guns, they could still use other guns anyway. I think it would be a waste of time and money to try ban these guns.
Post a Comment