- No tailgating allowed at Super Bowl XLVIII
- Pentagon to transport African troops to Central African Republic
- Chinese man fed up with his girlfriend’s shopping jumps to his death
- Ukraine leader to talk with protesters; Washington urges caution
- Pope Francis: A nun saved my life
- Israeli P.M. Netanyahu backs out of Mandela funeral
- Elian Gonzalez makes first trip outside Cuba since custody battle
- U.S., British intelligence agents enter online sci-fi world to spy on gamers
- Sarah Palin to host the outdoors show ‘Amazing America’
- CIA admits $3 billion intelligence operation was a flop
Fenty wastes effort on guns
Yesterday, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty made good on his promise to appeal Parker v. the District of Columbia to the Supreme Court. The lawsuit contended that the District's gun laws — which virtually ban handguns, and require that long guns be stored, locked and unloaded — violate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. An appeals court agreed, striking down the laws, though they remain in effect pending the Supreme Court's decision.
Assuming the court hears the case (the odds are very high), Mr. Fenty's main problem is his argument. It relies heavily on a misreading of the Supreme Court's last gun case, 1939's U.S. v. Miller. Mr. Fenty interprets Miller to mean that only state militia members have the right to bear arms. In Miller, the Supreme Court sided against a man who'd been convicted of possessing a sawed-off shotgun. The court did in fact note that the Second Amendment was written to protect militias. However, the court also observed that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
More importantly, the court's decision did not hinge on the fact that the man was not a militia member. Rather, the problem was that he failed to prove that a sawed-off shotgun was a militia-type weapon. So, Mr. Fenty's investment in this case is quite a gamble. David T. Hardy, an Arizona attorney who has written extensively about Second Amendment law from an individual-rights perspective, predicted Mr. Fenty would lose. He counted Justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in the pro-gun camp and said any of the five other judges could join them.
Looking at trends in the murder rate, the 1976 ban clearly had little effect. When the drug wars came a decade later, the law did little to halt the carnage. As mayor, Mr. Fenty needs to pick his battles. Between the high risk of losing and the low payoff of winning, this one isn't worth fighting.
By Brahma Chellaney
Beijing's creeping aggression signals a challenge to U.S. presence in the Asian Pacific
- CURL: Obama tells a whopper on IRS scandal
- Tech companies call for an end to NSA online snooping
- Chinese man fed up with his girlfriend's shopping jumps to his death
- Obama lied about Syrian chemical attack, 'cherry-picked' intelligence: report
- WOLF: The president's other Obamacare lies
- Lawmakers see 'false narrative' of Obama as a terrorist fighter
- Ted Cruz sees legal landmines ahead for Obamacare
- MSNBC host: Obamacare a 'wealthy white men' racist word
- MILLER: Brady Campaign says Colorado recalls due to NRA, not grassroots opposition to gun control
- Mike Shanahan says he'd like to return; RG3 might be benched
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Brazen, leading-edge, “call it like it is” columns and reporting from Ohio native, radio host and writer, Sara Marie Brenner.
Let’s talk about everything, especially the absurdity of it all
Find the latest news and happening that effect those in the Washington D.C., Northern Virginia and Maryland Metro region.
Never apologetic. Never afraid. Lieutenant Colonel Allen B. West joins Communities to bring tales from the biggest Foxhole of them all, the one inside the Beltway.
White House pets gone wild!
Let it snow