Marian Wright Edelman - Gun Banner

The Supreme Court must uphold D.C’s handgun ban - It's for the children!

This year, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to overturn a lower court decision striking down the District of Columbia’s 1976 handgun ban designed to reduce violent crime. If the Court reverses the lower court and upholds the ban, it will keep in place a crucial measure for the protection of the health and safety of our children in our nation’s capital, and in communities nationwide.

Ms Edelman, DC is one of the most violent, crime-ridden city in the nation. How do you reconcile this fact with your statement?

Those seeking to uphold the ban contend the measure was written for an 18th century America that did not maintain a large standing army. They see the amendment as providing for the collective rights of state militias of citizens who, if called upon, would provide their own weapons in response to an emergency.

Actually, that's only partly true. A militia is also useful in responding to government tyranny, like the tyranny we revolted from in the first place.

They argue that the Constitution does not deny communities the right to enact gun-control laws designed to protect public safety. It is important to note that the D.C. ban does not prohibit shotguns or rifles.

It is equally important to note that those shotguns and rifles had to be either locked away or rendered inoperative. Either way, they were useless. There would be no way to respond to an emergency quickly under current DC law, regardless of the firearm used.

As organizations committed to the well-being of all children, we see handguns as an ominous threat to the health and safety of our young people.

I'm sure there a lot of criminals breathing a sigh of relief now, knowing where you see the threat.

In the brief, we state and believe that “the absence of handguns from children’s homes and communities is the most reliable and effective method to prevent firearms-related injuries to children and adolescents.”

Education is also an effective method to reduce firearms-related injuries. As is keeping criminals off the streets.

Our brief further asserts that while “statistics reflect the devastating impact of handguns on people of all ages, handguns pose a unique danger to children and adolescents. Handguns are light, portable and easy to handle, they are also accessible, romanticized in media available to adolescents, and fascinating to children.”

Fascinating to children? Not all of them. If a 5 year old knows better, then I'd have to place the blame elsewhere.

Gun-control measures in other countries do work. Australia integrated gun-control laws and government-sponsored gun-buyback programs that resulted in cutting firearm homicides by more than half.

Yes, but that isn't America:

Australian citizens do not (and never did) have a constitutional right to own firearms — even before the 1997 buyback program, handgun ownership in Australia was restricted to certain groups, such as those needing weapons for occupational reasons, members of approved sporting clubs, hunters, and collectors. Moreover, the 1997 buyback program did not take away all the guns owned by these groups; only some types of firearms (primarily semi-automatic and pump-action weapons) were banned. And even with the ban in effect, those who can demonstrate a legitimate need to possess prohibited categories of firearms can petition for exemptions from the law.

My question is: If the ban is so effective, why isn't DC the safest city in America, instead of one of the most dangerous? If you can answer that question satisfactorily, I'll listen.

Like that'll happen.