Anti-Gun Group Makes Their Point With Lies*

Walter Smith, writing in that bastion of impartial reporting, the Washington Post, says

Let the District Have Its Gun Law

It's not full of scare tactics and hyperbole. It's well written, and probably sounds reasonable to the average person.

However

There are two parts of this piece that do not reflect the truth. First one is this:

Nearly every state has a law banning some type of firearm, such as assault weapons or sawed-off shotguns. And those laws vary not only as to the kinds of arms they ban but in many other ways as well.

This is a lie designed to help him make his case. By lumping the federally restricted sawed-off shotgun in with the political construct "assault weapons", he elevates both to "oooh, scary" status and lends credence to his argument.

In the District -- where handgun violence is particularly acute -- our elected mayor and council struck this balance by prohibiting handguns in the home but permitting rifles and shotguns. Congress could have overturned this decision, but it did not.

This, while not an outright lie, is far from the truth. These "permitted" rifles and shotguns were only "permitted" when they were rendered inoperable and locked away. Hardly a "balance [of the] people's desire to possess weapons for self-defense against the obligation to protect public safety."

Then, we are told

The plaintiffs in Heller would prefer a gun control law different from the one enacted by the D.C. Council. But the Supreme Court should not defer to the plaintiffs and use the Second Amendment as a vehicle for federal courts to micromanage gun laws in this country.

In other words, throw out the law and let DC do what it wants to, Constitution be damned.

Sorry, Walter. It's not happening this time.

*In other news, General Francisco Franco is still dead.