On Tuesday, a federal appeals court issued an injunction on a statute that would have severely limited gun rights in the District of Columbia. The 2-1 ruling represents a victory for Second Amendment advocates, and another setback in the effort to curb gun rights in the nation’s capital.

The D.C. measure in question is commonly referred to as a “good reason” clause. It directs the police chief to set guidelines to limit gun possession in the city, making an exception for those who could justify carrying a weapon. But a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the Supreme Court’s guidance made clear that such a law would violate the Second Amendment.

Writing for the majority, Judge Thomas Griffith cited a 2008 Supreme Court ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down D.C.’s 32-year ban on handguns.

The District of Columbia v. Heller ruling proved that “the Second Amendment erects some absolute barriers that no gun law may breach,” wrote Griffith.

He added, “At the Second Amendment’s core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions.”

Gun rights in D.C. have followed a pattern over the last decade: the city passes an ordinance to curb gun rights; the ordinance is blocked in court. From 1976 to 2008, handguns were banned in D.C.

With the Heller ruling, D.C. repealed its ban, and issued a new ordinance that made it impossible to obtain a permit to carry outside the home. In 2014, that measure was ruled unconstitutional. In response, D.C. amended the ordinance, making permits available to those who could show “good cause” to carry a handgun.

Unsurprisingly, gun advocates cheered the court’s decision. Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said in a statement that “the opinion makes it clear that the Second Amendment’s core generally covers carrying in public for self-defense.”

He added: “To read the majority opinion and not come away convinced that such ‘good reason’ or ‘good cause’ requirements are just clever ways to prevent honest citizens from exercising their rights is not possible.” 

But Judge Karen Henderson argued in her dissent that, “the sole Second Amendment ‘core’ right is the right to possess arms for self-defense in the home.”

She added: “By characterizing the Second Amendment right as most notable and most acute in the home, the Supreme Court necessarily implied that that right is less notable and less acute outside the home.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Appeals Court Blocks D.C. Effort to Curb Gun Rights appeared first on Law Street.

Governor Gary Johnson is the nominee of the Libertarian Party, a party that places heavy emphasis on fiscal conservatism, limited government, and civil liberties. After studying political science at the University of New Mexico, Johnson founded Big J Enterprises. The construction contracting business became a lucrative success before he sold it in 1999. Johnson ran for Governor of New Mexico in 1994, won, and held that office from 1995-2003. During his tenure, Johnson drastically cut the size of the state government, lowered taxes, favored privatization of services like prisons and Medicaid, and was known for frequently exercising veto power. Johnson was also the Libertarian Party nominee in 2012.

Where does he stand on some of the prevalent issues of 2016?

Economy:

Many of Gary Johnson’s high-priority proposals have to do with Libertarian revisions to the economy. Johnson wants to end the corporate income tax to draw companies and jobs to the U.S., introduce a single consumption tax, and cut government spending by at least 20 percent.   

Immigration:

According to Johnson’s platform, he believes that making it easier for immigrants to legally obtain work visas and enter the U.S. will create a safer national environment. Johnson opposes an increase in border security and building a border wall.

Gun Rights and Control:

Johnson strongly defends gun ownership and wants to seek provisions to make it more difficult for individuals suspected of terrorism and mentally ill individuals to obtain guns.

Health Care:

Gary Johnson favors the repeal of the Affordable Care Act in exchange for privatized healthcare based on free market principles. Johnson has expressed intentions to cut funding to Medicare and Medicaid. He also supports the right for a woman to have an abortion.

Privacy and National Security:

In line with Libertarian Party ideology, Johnson is in fierce defense of personal privacy. He has expressed intention to dismantle the National Security Agency (NSA) if elected. In his book, “Seven Principles of Good Government,” Johnson also expressed that the Patriot Act should be repealed. His platform expresses fierce opposition to foreign military intervention.

What are Gary Johnson’s priorities?

Gary Johnson places strong emphasis on civil liberties, government downsizing, and the private, laissez-faire economic strategy. His platform consists of 13 points: wasteful spending, taxes, job creation, civil liberties, internet freedom, abortion, immigration, the war on drugs, criminal justice reform, education, foreign policy and national defense, creation of term limits and the environment.

Who is Gary Johnson’s vice president pick?

William “Bill” Weld, like Gary Johnson is a former Libertarian-Republican governor. Weld has served as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, the head of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, and as Governor of Massachusetts from (1991-1997). He was also nominated as Ambassador to Mexico, ran for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts in 1996, and was a candidate for Governor of New York in 2005. While Governor of Massachusetts, Weld had a similar track record to Johnson. He cut taxes, pursued the elimination of state employees and privatization of human services, and drastically reduced state spending.

How is Gary Johnson polling?

According to the last national poll conducted by Public Policy Polling on July 30, Gary Johnson is currently polling at 6 percent.

You can read here about the other third party candidate, Jill Stein of the Green Party.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who is Gary Johnson? appeared first on Law Street.

Ariana Grande Barred From White House Because She “Hates America” 

It seems Debbie Wasserman-Schultz isn’t the only woman affected by the DNC emails released by WikiLeaks last week. When DNC Finance Chair Zachary Allen asked in an email if pop star Ariana Grande could be vetted for a performance at the White House, one of the responses he received was literally “nope, sorry.” Why? Last year, Grande was caught in a viral video licking donuts that were on display and saying “I hate America.” How immature, Ari? Even though Grande has issued multiple apologies since then, the video has come back to bite her in more ways than one.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 25, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

This post is part of Law Street’s continuing analysis of the recent Supreme Court rulings. To read the rest of the coverage click here.

Gun Control: Voisine v. United States

The decision: The 6-2 ruling prevents anyone convicted of “reckless domestic assault” from being able to own firearms.

Some background

This case involves two men from Maine, Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong III, who were convicted of unlawfully possessing firearms due to previous convictions for domestic assault. Under both state and federal law, anyone with a domestic violence conviction cannot possess firearms.

Both men claimed that, under federal law, they were allowed to own firearms because their convictions were deemed “reckless” conduct rather than “knowing” or “intentional.”

Under Maine state law, it is a misdemeanor to “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly” cause bodily harm to another person. The Federal law, however, only mentions “intentionally” or “knowingly” causing harm as a misdemeanor, so Voisine and Armstrong tried to claim that their convictions fell under “reckless” domestic assault. As a result, they claimed that under federal law they were lawfully allowed to possess firearms despite their misdemeanor convictions.

While this may seem like a minor technicality, it would’ve potentially allowed people convicted of misdemeanor domestic assault to be able to lawfully own firearms.

The Court shut these claims down by ruling that “reckless domestic assault qualifies as a ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.'”

Justice Thomas’ Dissent

Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the two justices who did not join the majority decision, wrote a scathing dissent accusing the decision of being restrictive of Second Amendment rights. He wrote in his opinion:

We treat no other constitutional right so cavalierly. At oral argument the Government could not identify any other fundamental constitutional right that a person could lose forever by a single conviction for an infraction punishable only by a fine.

This isn’t the first time that Justice Thomas has been outspoken on this case. Back in February, Thomas famously broke a 10-year streak of never asking a question during oral arguments for this same case. With his question, he claimed that the federal laws that prevented domestic abusers from obtaining firearms were in violation of constitutional rights.

What does today’s ruling mean?

While it was technically already illegal for anyone with a misdemeanor conviction of domestic assault to own a firearm, today’s ruling just closed a loophole. It demonstrated the court’s general support for some gun control measures by offering greater protections to victims of domestic violence.

The decision was another win for advocates of stricter gun control measures.

Read the full opinion here.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Decision Prevents Domestic Abusers from Owning Firearms appeared first on Law Street.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C. ruled Tuesday that part of D.C.’s new gun law, which requires that individuals must show “good reason” to get a concealed-carry permit for firearms, is unconstitutional.

In his ruling, District Judge Richard J. Leon called the requirement “inconsistent” with the Second Amendment and put in place a preliminary injunction to stop its enforcement in the District. In order to hold a concealed-carry firearm in the District, residents need to go through a multi-step application process to obtain a concealed-carry license (open carry is out of the question in the city). A part of this process requires applicants to demonstrate a “good reason” for why they would need to carry. For example, a resident could demonstrate a “good reason to fear injury to a person or property,” such as threats or attacks, or the need to carry a gun for employment purposes.

Judge Leon called the law “overly zealous,” and stated that it “likely places an unconstitutional burden”on the constitutional right to bear arms.

The ruling stems from a case filed late last year by Matthew Grace, a D.C. resident and a member the Pink Pistols, a guns rights group that describes itself as “an international organization dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for the self-defense of the sexual-minority community.” The group claims that the “good reason” clause is a “travesty of justice” and filed a lawsuit against the District of Columbia claiming that the law was unconstitutional.

So what does this mean for D.C. residents? The injunction puts a hold on the “good reason” requirement for the time being, which will make it easier for applicants to receive concealed-carry permits. The law has only granted 74 permits since the law was put into place in 2014, so D.C. will likely have more concealed weapons on its streets.

If and how this ruling has an impact on gun violence in the city remains to be seen, but this is a major development for guns rights activists.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Judge Says D.C. Residents Don’t Need “Good Reason” for Concealed-Carry Permits appeared first on Law Street.

A well-known cliché when talking about gun control in the United States is the saying, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” It would be more accurate to say that guns don’t commit murder since a gun can accidentally kill you. But for a murder to have been committed there needs to be some level of intent on the part of a human being. Depending on the degree and the state, those levels of intent are different, but when we think of a killing as a murder we typically think of something that the person did “on purpose.” Back in the day criminal law referred to this mindset as “malice aforethought,” a phrase still sometimes used when discussing murder. It isn’t very illuminating since “aforethought” can mean in the blink of an eye and you don’t really need “malice,” or motive, to be found guilty of murder. But it does show that in criminal law, usually what we are looking to determine is whether that individual meant to kill someone.

Tort law is different. Most tort law is all about negligence. Were you acting as a reasonable person would act in that situation? If not, we may feel the need to punish you. This mythical reasonable person is the standard for how we should behave in society and people who are injured by someone not acting up to that standard should be compensated. The word “reasonable” appears so many times in a torts casebook that a law school drinking game involving it would be “outrageous.” That is also what you need to prove for some intentional torts–any conduct that would cause a reasonable person to shout “Outrageous!”

Tort law is all about economics. We do so much commerce and interact so often with each other that people are bound to get hurt. We use products every day that are dangerous, in some cases extremely dangerous, without thinking much about it.

Take ovens, for example. The convenience of using them far outweighs the potentially catastrophic costs if yours happens to explode. Modern ovens are pretty safe, I’m guessing. I didn’t research how often they explode so as not to freak myself out. But even if they were not, we have decided as a society to have them anyway and if a few of us lose our eyebrows it is just the cost of doing business. Rather than have everyone give up ovens, we have come up with a system where the injured party can be compensated by the person who made the oven. If they deviated below the standard of care that a reasonable person, in this case, a reasonable oven maker perhaps, would give to its construction.

Are guns any different? The issue of manufacturer liability for the makers of guns has become a hot topic in the presidential primary, particularly on the Democratic side. The argument centers around a 2005 law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), and whether it should protect companies that manufacture guns from civil liability for injuries or deaths caused by the guns they make. Not if the gun explodes because it was improperly made, but if someone purchases it and then shoots a victim. Given the extent of gun violence, should we have a different standard for a product that is designed to kill?

Are Guns Special?

Before we delve right in, take a look at this clip from one of the Democratic debates where Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders tackle the issue of gun manufacturer liability. It provides a good overview of some of the main points and emotional influences on the debate.

When Can You Sue?

The great myth surrounding this question is that somehow the gun manufacturing industry has somehow finagled a way to be completely immune from all liability for any defect in their products. That isn’t the case. If you’re out hunting and you fire your weapon and the bullet flies out of the wrong end of the gun and kills you, your estate will be able to sue the manufacturer of that weapon under a few different theories. Either because that gun (the individual gun involved or all the ones like it) was improperly made, or it was made according to a faulty design. Either way, if you really were using the gun as a reasonable person would you’d likely have a winning case. Even a jury that didn’t know a whole heck of a lot about guns would probably think you were right to assume the bullet would shoot away from you when you pointed it at your target.

What the PLCAA essentially does is it declares that we are not going to allow courts to hear a lawsuit from a victim or a victim’s family against a gun manufacturer when a third party used that gun in a criminal act. If this law did not exist, these cases could be brought to trial but that doesn’t necessarily mean the gun manufacturers would or could be held liable for what happened. It would just mean that instead of having a blanket rule about this kind of case, we are going to force judges to dismiss the same thing over and over. PLCAA is really just a law saying “don’t even bother” to people seeking to bring this type of suit.

It gets into the weeds a bit when you start looking at sellers of guns who may target individuals who aren’t legally allowed to buy a gun, or who sell to a “strawman,” or a buyer who buys in bulk just to sell to others in order to avoid a background check. But are those sales where the seller, and or, gun manufacturer themselves doing something illegal or helping others to subvert the law? That’s a very different scenario from a legally purchased product, which meets safety standards for that industry, then being used to commit a crime.

You can once again see Senator Sanders trying to make that distinction here. It’s also one of the few times you’ll hear someone bragging about getting a “D-.”

Standards for Guns

The statutory shield for gun manufacturers that the PLCAA puts in place does not necessarily grant greater immunity to gun manufacturers relative to the immunity that other industries enjoy.

It is just one that we have put in place for a product that, by its very design, is meant to injure and kill. Other products that can injure and kill are not regulated to the same extent but they do not enjoy this statutory immunity. Not because they have a powerful lobby but because there aren’t enough cases to warrant passing a law that tells people to not waste court time bringing a suit that is likely to be dismissed.

Take knives as an example. I have a set of knives; I bought them on Craigslist. Not from a manufacturer but from someone who had some knives to sell. There was no regulation telling her she should assess my mental state and Henkel (the original manufacturer) had absolutely no idea that I was buying knives they made. They’re well-balanced and sharp. Equally adept at slicing chicken or people (I presume). If I used those knives to cut up my mother into tiny pieces instead of a chicken (just an example!) my father would be laughed out of court if he sued Henkel. Why? Because they had nothing to do with it. Their knife did the job it was intended to do and with remarkable German efficiency sliced what I wanted to slice. We don’t bother to have a law that says you can’t sue the manufacturer of a knife for this because so few people try doing it. That isn’t the case with guns.

The argument could be made that knives have a dual functionality, a legitimate one to make food, and an illegitimate one to commit harm. Guns only have one purpose, which is to cause injury, and on that basis, the regulation should be different. Manufacturers are on notice that their product is likely to be used to commit a crime and they have decided to make them anyway. Therefore, it is justifiable to hold them partially responsible when someone commits a crime with their gun. That argument may not hold water. In fact, it may lean even more heavily toward not holding manufacturers liable because the one thing that makes a properly functioning gun part of a crime is the person using it. Their behavior is the difference between a tool that stops your home from being burglarized or a tool that kills innocent children. It has nothing to do with the product. You could make the same argument about a sex toy used in a rape or sexual assault. What makes it part of a crime is the intent of the criminal actor, not the company that made it.

That isn’t to say that a manufacturer should never be held liable for a product that isn’t defective but is improperly sold or marketed. Using sex toys again as an example, if the manufacturer advertised the product as ideal for raping someone or targeted their advertising to a sex offenders registry, they could potentially be held liable civilly for their actions, maybe even criminally. But as with gun manufacturer liability, they would be being held liable on the theory that they did something illegal or helped others to do so. Not for anything to do with the functionality of their product.

We don’t currently have a separate rule for guns. What we have done is codified the idea that criminals are the ones responsible for the crimes that are committed with guns specifically. The way we have already acknowledged in our legal structure that criminals are responsible for the crimes that they commit with any product.

Conclusion

Guns are the weapon of choice for criminals for several reasons, one of which is that they are relatively easy to get–just check online. And while a criminal armed with a semi-automatic or an automatic weapon is more dangerous to more people than one armed with a knife, the mass shootings still make up a relatively small percentage of crimes. A gun policy based on that fails to deal with the many types of crime where other weapons, such as a knife, would be as effective.

If you think back to the Democratic debate in the first clip you’ll notice Secretary Clinton make the argument that increased liability is an attempt to deal with the epidemic of gun violence. There is a very real problem in the United States with people who get access to guns, sometimes through illegal means and sometimes through perfectly legal channels, who go on to commit violence. Perhaps the situation has changed since 2005 when the PCLAA was enacted and we need to reassess the balance that was struck with allowing these kinds of lawsuits to go forward. The law puts a standard in place for the manufacturer to have “knowingly” sold a weapon to someone who fails to pass a background check, but shields them in cases where they didn’t “know.”

There are more options than having the manufacturer need to actually know they are selling it to someone who failed the background check and a blanket liability whenever someone commits a crime. The mens rea (guilty mind) for murder comes in a variety of flavors, from intent to depraved indifference. Even extreme negligence can get you jail time in some cases. If we wanted to increase the number of people who could potentially sue a gun manufacturer but still keep it somewhat limited we currently have the legal tools to do so.

The question is–should we do so? Does the nature of a gun as a weapon, and the modern day weapon of choice for criminals, make it somehow unique among the various dangerous products we use? We know that we have a problem with gun violence and increased liability for gun manufacturers would probably put a lot of them out of business–depending on how easy you made it for them to be sued and the kind of judgments that were awarded. It might decrease the amount of guns available, which might reduce gun violence.

Or do we have standards for liability for guns the way we do for other products that could be used as weapons, holding them responsible if their product is defective or their sale is criminal but not holding them responsible for criminal acts from third parties. That would mean we treat guns like any other product that we sell instead of a special category of goods that need different rules.

Resources

New York Times: Congress Passes New Legal Shield For Gun Industry

PolitiFact: Clinton: Gun Industry is ‘Wholly Protected’ From All Lawsuits

NPR: Are Gun-Makers ‘Totally Free’ Of Liability For Their Behavior

Cornell University Law Schoo: PCLAA

New York Times: Justices Reject Suit Faulting a Vaccine

CNN: Why Sandy Hook Parents are Suing a Gunmaker

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Should Gun Manufacturers Be Held Accountable By Victims of Gun Violence? appeared first on Law Street.

Jamie Gilt is not having a great month: the Florida mom and pro-gun activist, who was shot by her four-year-old son on March 9, now may be facing charges for allowing her son access to firearms. Police are recommending that Gilt face a misdemeanor charge, which could carry a sentence of up to 180 days. Ironically, the same day that the incident took place, Gilt had bragged on Facebook that her son “gets jacked up to target shoot,” according to The Washington Post.

The shooting occurred while Gilt was driving, when her loaded gun slid out from underneath the front seat into the backseat where her son Lane was sitting. To add to Gilt’s bad luck, Lane had also apparently just learned how to unbuckle himself out of his booster seat, so he was able to pick up the gun and shoot it through the seat into his mother’s back.

Her Facebook page, “Jamie Gilt for Gun Sense,” has since been taken down, but was apparently flooded with criticism after the incident went public. Her posts included “pro-gun messages, Second Amendment memes, and posts supporting the NRA, as well as photos of her posing with weapons.” Her Twitter account also appears to have been deactivated.

Jamie Gilt bragged about how her son gets “pumped” about guns …

Her 4 yr old shot her in the back.

* sigh * pic.twitter.com/Qg7Iww0lJg

— SuperSoulSistah (@ctv556) March 9, 2016

Under Florida law, it is a second degree misdemeanor if a firearm is not safely stored, and a minor is able to gain access to it as a result. Gilt’s gun was loaded and unholstered under the front seat, which authorities allege could be a violation of this law.

What may be the biggest irony here: the woman who was a strong advocate for gun rights can now be an example for why stricter gun control measures are beneficial.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Pro-Gun Activist Shot By 4-Year-Old Son to Face Charges appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a little while since my last “People Suck” post, so I thought what better way to revive the Law Street pseudo-series than with a story about a two gun rights groups planning to stage a fake mass shooting at the University of Texas this weekend. Because if people blaring gunshot sounds from bullhorns on a hypersensitive college campus days after the horrific attack in San Bernardino doesn’t scream “People Suck,” I don’t know what else does.

Gun rights groups want to hold a fake mass shooting. There’s no way this could go wrong. https://t.co/lqQ4vmlrAO pic.twitter.com/abJshCIfvw

— PB Post NOW (@PBPostNOW) December 9, 2015

But UT students can expect to see and hear much more than gun shots echoing though their campus. The Open Carry Walk and Crisis Performance Event will also include fake blood, cardboard weapons, and a cast of crisis actors playing first responders.

The event was organized by Come and Take it Texas and DontComply.com in order to protest “gun-free zones” on the campus. Matthew Short, a spokesman for the groups, told Statesman.com,

Criminals that want to do evil things and commit murder go places where people are not going to be able to stop them. When seconds count, the cops are minutes away.

After the demonstration, the groups plan to walk through Austin with loaded weapons, which are currently banned from UT’s campus until next August when a new campus carry law goes into effect. Short explained to the Statesman,

We want criminals to fear the public being armed. An armed society is a polite society.

The groups have said outright that they don’t find the timing of the event to be insensitive at all, despite the mass shooting in San Bernardino being labeled the deadliest terror attack on American soil since 9/11.

But how could it not be?

As news of more and more attacks surface each month, mass shootings have gone from a hypothetical situations that you’ll probably never find yourself in to possible realities. Schools have continued to receive threats of more violence, and some community members find themselves in a state of constant vigil.

Therefore, simulating most Americans’ worst nightmare shouldn’t be at the top of these people’s list. Gun rights activists are more than welcome to hold meeting, demonstrations, and even bake sales for their cause if they so choose, but scarring college students with fake gunshots and blood is just weird and cruel.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post People Suck: Gun Rights Groups Plan Fake Mass Shooting on TX Campus appeared first on Law Street.

Last Sunday, an armed citizen named Patrick Ewing shot and injured a man who had drawn his weapon and fired at civilians. The story did not get a lot of media attention, but the coverage it did receive sensationalized the event, focusing on Ewing’s concealed carry permit. Some gun rights activists and conservative news sources dramatized and championed the what happened as proof of the benefit of concealed carry permits. Unfortunately, this event, like certain other gun-related incidents, was given disproportionate attention and used to defend simplistic approaches to gun laws.

According to police, 62-year-old Thomas McCary was engaged in an argument with a woman when Patrick Ewing, her brother, approached to check on the situation. McCary then pulled out a .38-caliber handgun and fired three shots. Ewing then drew his own weapon and fired three shots back, hitting McCary once in the leg. After retreating into his house and grabbing another gun, McCary returned and began shooting at the woman he was arguing with, as well as her one-year old son and a third man. Ewing fired more rounds at McCary in order to divert his attention while the others retreated into their home.

While Ewing’s actions almost certainly saved lives, arguing that more people should carry guns in public is far too simplistic. Neither shooter proved very effective with their weapon, with Ewing only hitting McCary once in the leg. People often imagine that licensed gun carriers can effectively defend themselves and the people around them, but the reality is that such accuracy is difficult and guns are not often used in self-defense. The use of weapons in dangerous situations, even by well-meaning citizens, is complex and potentially dangerous.

This exaggerated emphasis on a single event is also often true of those who support stronger gun control laws. Events such as the recent theater shooting in Louisiana have prompted politicians to again talk about the issue of gun control–a recurring response to mass shootings. Despite the well-intentioned rhetoric, these calls to action by politicians also rarely result in substantive change. When such events are no longer in the headlines, politicians are content with moving on to other issues. While mass shootings invoke media attention, they account for less than one percent of gun murders, meaning these events may not be the best basis to determine gun policy.

Sadly, most Americans are desensitized to mass shootings and the gun control rhetoric that follows. Instances of heroic gun-toting civilians are not very common, which is why these stories can resonate so strongly, but also why they should not be used as evidence of the norm. For issues like guns and gun violence, it is important to rely on facts instead of anecdotal evidence.

There is evidence on both sides of the debate over the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Some evidence suggests that increased access to guns, especially through concealed carry permits, reduces gun violence. These studies conclude that high gun ownership leads to decreases in crime and that gun laws have been ineffective at stopping criminals from getting access to guns. On the other hand, there is evidence that counters these conclusions. The correlation between gun ownership rates and gun deaths in the United States, as well as large loopholes in current gun laws, point to the need for stricter gun control. Also, one NIH study found that guns being used in self-defense are not very common, with only one instance of self-defense per seven assaults, eleven suicide attempts, and four accidents involving guns.

The fact of the matter is this: the jury is out on the effect of gun ownership on gun violence. It also important to remember that although it is certainly an important factor, the prevalence of gun ownership is not the only issue to consider. Mental health treatment, increased gun training, and community-based violence prevention initiatives are all important avenues to explore. These solutions, which take a more comprehensive approach to the issue of gun violence, are more likely to be effective than gun restrictions alone.

Too often, the activists and biased media–on either side of the issue–can sensationalize certain events. And while blaming media coverage for motivating mass shooters is not supported by data, there is something to be said for the media’s effect on the general public. Despite dramatic decreases in crime over the past few decades, the public’s perception of crime is that it is either increasing or stagnant. This is at least partially due to the sensationalization of crime, as well as new media’s ability to cover more stories. There are, however, responsible sources that try to look at the whole picture when it comes to the debate over gun control and it is crucial for citizens to do their best to remain properly informed. In order to foster a productive conversation about gun control, the discussion must be driven by facts, instead of the sensationalized events that fit into each side’s rhetoric.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post We Need to Stop Sensationalizing Gun Self Defense appeared first on Law Street.

The nation’s capital is not having a good summer.

Just weeks after Congress tried to overturn a few of D.C.’s laws, a U.S. District Court judge has ruled that the city’s ban on carrying handguns in public is unconstitutional.

If that sounds familiar, it’s because this is the second time that a court has overturned a D.C. gun law in the past six years. The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the district’s 32-year-old ban on private handgun ownership was unconstitutional in the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller. This was the first time that the Supreme Court had ever stated that the Second Amendment guaranteed gun ownership for every American. For D.C., it meant the city had to rewrite their gun laws.

These new laws allowed residents to keep registered handguns in their home and required gun owners to obtain a permit before carrying in public. However, the city had a policy of refusing to issue any of these permits. This amounted to a de facto ban on handguns in public. Authors of the law argued that D.C.’s status as the nation’s capital gave it reason enough to ban handguns, since they would put the many federal buildings, government officials, and memorials at risk. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier put it this way at a hearing in January:

The District of Columbia, as the seat of the Federal government, with its multitude of critical official and symbolic buildings, monuments, and events, and high-profile public officials traversing the streets every day, is a city filled with ‘sensitive’ places. Our laws should reflect that reality.

This reasoning did not fly with Senior District Court Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. Heller and a similar ruling in Chicago gave Scullin enough precedent to strike down the ban. Chicago attempted to ban the sale of firearms within city limits. U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang found this law to be unconstitutional. Chang was not convinced that banning the sale of firearms would reduce gun violence.

What’s next?

D.C. will appeal this ruling, and they have reason to be confident. In 2012, a U.S. District Court struck down a Maryland law which only issued carry permits to individuals who could provide a “good and substantial reason” for carrying a firearm outside of the home. The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned this ruling one year later. This provides an important precedent for proponents of the D.C. ban. There are reasonable restrictions that can be placed on an American’s right to carry a firearm in public. Even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said as much in his majority opinion in Heller:

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

While the court ruled in 2008 that citizens are allowed to own firearms, it added that restrictions on such ownership were not unconstitutional. Specifically, Scalia’s majority opinion argued that “the carrying of firearms in sensitive places” can be forbidden. It might be a stretch to claim that the entire District of Columbia is a “sensitive place,” but at least D.C. has a leg to stand on.

In the meantime, how will this ruling impact D.C. residents?

The D.C. Attorney General has requested a stay, but one has not yet been granted. This means that, for now, it is legal to carry a handgun in the nation’s capital. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier has instructed officers to not arrest anyone holding a registered handgun. Those visiting D.C. who have a carry permit from another state will also be allowed to carry their handgun.

As frustrating and frightening as it is to see a judge allow any Joe Schmo to carry a gun in a city that is home to so many important people and high-profile targets, the city should have seen this coming, especially in the wake of Heller. To respond to a court’s rejection of your strict gun ban with another strict gun ban is foolish, and claiming that an entire city is a “sensitive place” is laughable. Yes, many parts of D.C. are home to federal buildings, but there are large areas of D.C. that look like any other city. There are shopping centers, grocery stores, apartment complexes, and everything else that makes a city a city. There are also threats to the safety of the average citizen, and D.C. residents have the constitutional right to defend themselves from those threats with a gun.

For the safety of D.C. residents, Mayor Vincent Gray and the city council need to approve new and sensible gun laws that balance the need to protect our government officials with the right of all D.C. residents to defend themselves. Banning or allowing guns everywhere in the city are not viable options.

—

Eric Essagof (@ericmessagof) is a student at The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Robert Nelson via Flickr]

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post D.C. Gun Laws Ruled Unconstitutional, Again appeared first on Law Street.