A Double Constitutional Whammy for Washington (one cent)

The sad facts:

1. Washington's gun law, prohibiting keeping hand guns in residences, was declared unconstitutional by a D.C. Court of Appeals panel of three Republican judges, including Judge Silberman, who has always been controversial. The argument of course is that the second amendment to the Constitution allows us to have a gun in our house. What kind of gun? How many guns? Those questions have not yet been adjudicated.

The sad fact is that guns kill people, and injure them. Gun fanciers, when its convenient, say you need guns for sport, and, when its convenient, say you need them for self defense. And, they appear to say, the second amendment protects the ownership of guns for these, and presumably for any, reason.

The argument about what the second amendment really says will go on forever, because there is no answer. It becomes, in my mind, irrelevant.

What is relevant is that, from everything I have seen, guns kept for self defense kill and injure more innocent people accidentally than the kill, injure or scare off intruders. And a significant number of those people are children.

We don't know yet if the ruling will remain, and if the District's gun control laws will, to this extent, be unenforced. But if they are, and if casualties result,I suggest we keep a new statistic in the District of Columbia.

And that we call it the Silberman count.

2. D.C. Representation in Congress. The bill to give D.C. a single vote in the House of Representatives (and to Utah an additional one) will pass the House of Representatives, but it is not clear that it will get the 60 votes necessary to pass the Senate under Senate rules.

Whether such a law would be constitutional is a matter of hot debate (and, unlike the silly debates over the second amendment, is a legitimate one), and in fact the law may not be consitutional.

But the recently announced White House opposition to the law on consitutional grounds is, if not unexpected, certainly misguided. Let the court's decide the consitutionality, if that is in question, and come up with an alternative plan (say, a Constitutional amendment) if it is not.

Imagine. Can you see the Bush White House supporting a democratic regime in Iraq based on the simple premise that all Iraqis 18 years of age and older can have representation in the Iraqi parliament, except for those residing in Baghdad?

What is the difference?, I ask.

And, by the way, getting back to the Constitution, the Constitution talks about the need for a militia to ensure a free state, and therefore that the right to own and bear arms should be protected. Of course, it says nothing about where the owners of the guns shall be permitted to keep them. And, it talks about the right being necessary to ensure a free state. What is a "state"? Is it a country, like the United States (see the difference-- 'state' or 'States'), or a state like Louisiana? It surely isn't a state like D.C., is it? So maybe the second amendment doesn't even apply to our nation's capital. It's a thought. No sillier than some of the other constitutional arguments made with regard to the Second Amendment.

By the way, the Cato Institute lawyer who brought the gun case, a man named Robert Levy, who does not live in the District, was the subject of a biographical piece in this morning's Washington Post. Now, I understand that newspapers are not always accurate in their descriptions. But I will say this: if they are only half accurate in their descripton of Levy, he is an awful human being.

I know that is harsh, but read the article and decide for yourself.

Maybe we should have two separate gun crime statistics. The Silberman count and the Levy count, one for juvenile casualties and one for adults. I don't care which is attached to whom; take your pick.