A federal judge on Saturday overturned Washington D.C.’s ban on carrying handguns outside the home, saying it was unconstitutional.
“There is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny,” Judge Frederick Scullin said in an opinion.
“Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional,” he added in his 19-page ruling.
The court ordered the city to allow residents to carry handguns outside their homes and to let non-residents carry them as well. [Sources: msn.com, foxnews.com 7/27/14]
The basic dispute over gun control is: Do individuals have a right to self-protection, or not?
Phrased that way, most people will reply, “Yes, of course.” But when asked if they support gun control or bans, the number hovers around 50 percent. (As one example, see cnn.com Dec. 2013)
Why the contradiction?
First of all, unless you’re an anarchist, you’ll agree with the idea that government must retain a monopoly on the use of force. Government’s purpose is to outlaw the initiation of force against others. That’s the only way we can avoid chaos and destruction when criminals or frauds seek to victimize innocent people.
However, in many people’s minds I suspect the issue gets confused. Two things get lumped together that should not be. One, “Government should have a monopoly on the use of force, so we can restrain criminals.” True. Two, “Government should control all weapons.” Who says?
What this reasoning evades or misses is a very significant context: The situation where people are using weapons not to initiate force, but for self-protection.
Most of today’s politicians propose or enact gun laws because, they assume, anyone who wishes to carry a gun (aside from perhaps a hunter) by definition has a questionable or dangerous motive. If someone owns or wishes to own a gun, the premise implies, then they must be criminals in the making. So why not simply outlaw guns, since nobody reasonable and peaceful would ever wish to own one? That’s what the D.C. law did, and that’s the open intention of pretty much any gun law – not merely to regulate or screen for sociopaths, but to erase the right to gun ownership. (Gun control advocates settle for something less than a ban only to bide their time until they get a law like the D.C. ban.)
People who support such laws usually have no concept of a person owning a gun rationally and self-responsibly for self-protection. Either they don’t believe that such a thing occurs, or they simply don’t care. “I don’t like guns, so outlaw them.”
Ridiculous.
It is perfectly reasonable to assert your choice as follows: “I don’t like guns. I don’t wish to own one. I’m more frightened by having one in my home or business than I am at the prospect of a crime. And I’d never dream of carrying one.”
That’s your choice, and nobody has a right to force you to own a gun, or to carry one. You’re free to count on the police arriving in time to protect you, should you need them. At the same time, you also have a moral right to own a weapon in order to protect yourself. And the government does not have a right to automatically assume you’re a criminal, and therefore have no right to own one.
Gun rights are actually an instance of pro-choice. It’s ironic, given that most pro-choice advocates for abortion would never be pro-choice when it comes to owning a means of self-protection.
I recognize that most of the people who support bans on gun ownership are the same people who support government subversion of nearly all other individual rights: the right to keep what you earn (think: progressive income tax); the right to associate with whom you please in a business (think: anti-discrimination laws, mandated racial quotas); the right to take responsibility and ownership of your own medical care (think: Obamacare, Medicare). Little or nothing I’m saying here will hold sway with people who don’t see the necessity of consistently upholding individual rights in other areas. They think it’s ludicrous, childish and unsophisticated.
However, it seems worse than naïve to think that outlawing guns for everyone—treating everyone as if they’re a criminal-in-waiting—is practical, either. Police already have their hands full trying to chase down and apprehend violent criminals. By outlawing guns, we’re requiring police to keep tabs on, and chase down, the non-violent majority, many of whom own their own weapons (and will still do so, even if a national gun ban is ever established). Also, violent criminals – irrational brutes by definition – could not care less about gun laws. They won’t follow them anyway.
If you’re part of the 50 percent who support gun control or bans, you might do well to consider that if your peace-loving neighbors are permitted to carry guns, then would-be criminals don’t know who’s carrying one, or not. Legal gun ownership makes life a little less predictable for criminals. It might actually make you a little safer, without ever even having to own a weapon of your own.
So why do we insist on making it harder than it already is on law enforcement, when some of us are perfectly willing and able to take responsibility for self-protection?
The issue is really control more than safety. Dictatorships never want anyone to own guns. Under a dictatorship, all citizens – peaceful or not – are a potential threat to the ruling elite. The government of a truly free country only cares about restraining actual violent criminals. Such a government, if anything, welcomes the self-initiative of people to protect themselves.
Be sure to “friend” Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest.