PA Bill Number: HB2663
Title: Providing for older adults protective services; and making a repeal.
Description: Providing for older adults protective services; and making a repeal. ...
Last Action: Referred to AGING AND OLDER ADULT SERVICES
Last Action Date: Nov 19, 2024
D.C. needs more time to prepare for legal carrying of guns :: 09/08/2014
The D.C. attorney general's office has asked U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. to reconsider or at least stay his order that could make it legal for people to carry guns on our city's streets. The judge has signaled a reluctance to do so, but to deny the request would be deeply irresponsible, force hasty lawmaking on a complex, sensitive public safety issue and put lives at risk.
Scullin, who is based in Syracuse, N.Y., and is sitting by designation in this case, made his July 26 decision effective immediately. Catching District residents, law enforcement and elected representatives off-guard, the D.C. government asked for time to respond. Scullin gave the District go days — until Oct. 22. The next full D.C. Council meeting is Sept. 23.
Without a further stay, either the council will have to pass a law in less than a month or the District will have to allow the unregulated carrying of firearms on city streets until legislation is passed.
Scullin's breezy opinion disregarded key issues, including the unique status of our nation's capital: It is the home of the president, federal judges, members of Congress, ambassadors and foreign dignitaries.
The people of the District have spoken through their elected representatives to keep our community safe from deadly gunfire by regulating very strictly who can have firearms and where they can take them within our borders.
If Scullin refuses to give us more time, the council should give discretionary power to Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier to grant licenses to carry guns that comport with our community's powerful and unique interest in public safety.
In 2008, attorney Alan Gura — who argued the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case and is spearheading the current lawsuit — told the Supreme Court that he'd be fine with laws that license carrying guns as long as they have "objective standards" and aren't "arbitrary or capricious." He even gave examples: "knowledge of the state's use-of-force laws," "some sort of vision test," "demonstrated competency" and "background checks, of course." Let's apply these as a comprehensive set of objective standards.
Applicants would have to undergo a thorough criminal and mental health background check, requiring known associates to vouch for their character and fitness to carry a firearm. Any suggestion of a violent, drug-using or law-breaking character could be cause for denial. If the applicant disagrees, he or she could appeal to a judge. Gun carriers would be required to have substantial training and practice with gun safety, range time, active shooter situations and gun laws. Also, the District should require proof of insurance that would cover any accidental or unlawful damage before it issues a license, just as drivers are required to have. Take your car out on the road? Better have insurance. Take your gun out on the streets? Same thing. And applicants would be subject to a "Barney Fife" rule: One accidental gunshot would mean the loss of the license for a year; a criminal gunshot would mean permanent revocation.
But one part of Scullin's decision should he fought all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. His order that non-residents be authorized to carry guns deeply threatens the safety of everyone in the District. Because of the patchwork of state regulations governing the records of background checks, with gaping holes in some states' criminal and mental health records, there would be no objective way for the District to be sure that a non-resident could safely be issued a license to carry a gun.
Nearly two dozen of our citizens were shot over six days after Scullin's ruling was handed down, including a D.C. police officer. In the final analysis, whatever the Supreme Court eventually tells us the Second Amendment means, it is not a national suicide pact. Contrary to the implications of Scullin's ruling, James Madison did not tell us he wanted wife-beaters and stalkers and alcoholics and the dangerously mentally ill to get any gun they like and carry it wherever they please.
We can have our guns and protect public safety. Figuring out how to do this responsibly in the District is what Scullin should give us time to do.
By Doug Pennington
The writer is a communications professional.
