Yesterday afternoon, a federal judge in the District of Columbia ruled that D.C.’s “complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional.” Alan Gura is the attorney on the case. We talked earlier today about the ruling and how D.C. might comply.
Gura, along with Clark Neily of the Institute for Justice and Cato Institute chairman Robert A. Levy, served as cocounsel to Dick Heller in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller. The lead plaintiff in this case is Cato Institute senior fellow Tom G. Palmer.
On his blog, here’s how Gura characterized the win:
With this decision in Palmer, the nation’s last explicit ban of the right to bear arms has bitten the dust. Obviously, the carrying of handguns for self-defense can be regulated. Exactly how is a topic of severe and serious debate, and courts should enforce constitutional limitations on such regulation should the government opt to regulate. But totally banning a right literally spelled out in the Bill of Rights isn’t going to fly.
Instead of yelling, “You had one job! One job!” about it, I’ll just draw your attention to this: an actual voter registration form for the District of Columbia:
Full image here. (Hat tip Heather Curry, who discovered this problem.)
D.C. wants you to make sure you really want that tattoo:
A mandatory 24-hour waiting period is among the provisions included in a 66-page package of draft regulations governing the “body art” industry released by the city Health Department on Friday.
If the waiting period is adopted, D.C. will become one of a very few places in the nation where a person cannot walk into a tattoo parlor and walk out with a tattoo.
I have a better idea. Let’s get tough on “impulse tattoos.” Instead of forcing people to wait a day to get the tattoo they’ve chosen, let’s turn the tables. Let’s instead make them get a tattoo that they’ll regret.
You don’t want to get your tattoo spellchecked before you have someone ink you? Fine. We’ll give you a tattoo riddled with spelling and usage errors.
You think a tattoo of “#sharknado,” “Robin Thicke Forever” or the URL of your LinkedIn profile will stand the test of time? Okay. We’ll give you a tattoo that enshrines your bad decision better than parachute pants or a Hypercolor shirt ever could.
You don’t want to spend even one day discovering if your tattoo artist can do a faithful, tasteful reproduction of your child’s face? No problem. We’ll make sure you receive a tattoo that screams, “Why didn’t I spend even one day discovering if my tattoo artist could do a faithful, tasteful reproduction of my child’s face?!”
These punitive tattoos imposed by the D.C. government will serve as a lifelong reminder of the choice they made and they’ll serve as a warning to others to seriously think about the tattoo they want before they get it.
Some might call this proposal “too much.” I think anything less is too little, too late.
I thought I’d misheard this, but apparently not.
“The fact that D.C. criminals have to import their guns from other jurisdictions demonstrates that D.C.’s strict gun laws actually work.”
That’s Dennis Henigan with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence making the laughably ridiculous and meaningless statement.
Funny, then, that Henigan is the author of a book entitled Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy. I guess technically his quote above isn’t a myth. More of a tautology.
Has complicating the relatively new (post Heller) process of firearms registration for residents who want to follow the law made D.C. safer? By Henigan’s own reckoning, shouldn’t the murder-by-gun rate count as evidence one way or another as to the effectiveness of a gun law better than, say, the existence of the law itself?