And an enterprising YouTuber came up with their own version:
Maybe Everytown should talk to Nikki Turpeaux about the subject. Nikki is a victim of domestic violence and she made the decision that it would never happen to her again.
Founded in 1938. Over 75 Years of Protecting Virginia's Gun Rights and the Shooting Sports.
That prediction — Washington will be safer without the gun ban — stems from what's known as the "more guns, less crime" hypothesis. It argues that violent crime declines in places where more legal gun owners carry the weapons in public, both because those people are capable of self-defense, and because would-be criminals know they're out there. "More guns, less crime" has been an incredibly potent idea in local policy debates over gun laws. But is there evidence that it's true?
The District, which is appealing the decision, isn't buying it.In the next paragraph you get a sense of where that term "deeply contested" may have originated. Badger went to Johns Hopkins University gun ban researcher Daniel Webster. Webster was part of the Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy that held a "summit" at UVA at the end of last year. Webster is currently involved in a project of the Police Executive Research Forum funded by the U.S. Department of Justice where he is studying a City of Sacramento ordinance requiring purchasers of ammunition in the city to sign a log and leave a fingerprint at the time of purchase and what impact it may have had on reducing crime.
The theory has largely been fueled by a deeply contested 1997 paper by economists John Lott and David Mustard, who concluded that "concealed handguns are the most cost-effective method of reducing crime thus far analyzed by economists." If states without concealed-carry laws had them back in 1992, Lott and Mustard calculated, that year they could have avoided hundreds of murders, thousands of rapes and tens of thousands of assaults.
"John Lott’s research was in my opinion very instrumental over decades in having more states pass laws to make it easier to get permits to carry concealed loaded guns, and to lessen the barriers for those permit holders to take guns in ever more places, whether it's bars, or places of worship, or schools," says Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. "It’s all based upon Lott’s scholarship that has been completely discredited."In fact, the very study that Webster sited to Badger as proof that Lott's research on concealed carry is flawed was itself challenged in the research paper, Trust But Verify: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy. The Abstract to that paper notes:
In a recent article, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang claim that they are unable to replicate the regressions published by the National Research Council in Chapter 6 of Firearms and Violence. They conclude that the NRC regressions must have been based on bad data supplied by John Lott. The implication is that earlier studies that found that right-to-carry laws reduced crime were flawed because of bad data. However, we can replicate the NRC results with Lott’s original data and with the data set used by the NRC. The earlier studies are not flawed by bad data.But even more important. Webster's quote in the blog post that "My opinion is that I think there’s greater evidence that they probably have had some harmful impact" just doesn't hold up when you look at the numbers. For instance, between 2006 and 2012, the number of firearms sold in Virginia increased 101% while crime committed with a firearm decreased 28%. Firearm related crime has dropped in Virginia for four consecutive years. A VCU criminal justice researcher put it this way:
“This appears to be additional evidence that more guns don’t necessarily lead to more crime,” said Thomas R. Baker, an assistant professor at Virginia Commonwealth University’s L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs who specializes in research methods and criminology theory.Those who question Lott's research usually are on the side of the argument that wants to place more restrictions on law abiding gun owners. So, why doesn't the media openly question the bias that a proponent of gun control may have in their research?
"I don't think you ought to be able to sell somebody an AR-15, either. Because, law enforcement should have those kinds. We've had to give our law enforcement in Tazewell County AR-15s because, you know, they go up a holler, some guy's got one. He's bought one. Virginia's gun laws are pretty doggone liberal."As of this writing, NRA-PVF has posted an "AQ" rating for Hymes for the special election set for August 19 to fill the vacant seat of former State Senator Phil Puckett (State Senate District 38). That rating is based on responses on the candidate's questionnaire. We have to presume he told the NRA that he is against gun control to get that rating. Clearly, the above comments would indicate otherwise. So, is Hymes trying to have it both ways?
"I do believe you ought to register handguns, we ought to have something. If they had not let that assault rifle ban drop, then that probably wouldn't be a problem. So that's kinda where I am."
Taking into account the summaries from the WaPo and from Fox31, it is clear that one should not read them as if they were legal codes. For example, the WaPo article indicates that non-residents “without felony records” can carry in D.C. It is possible that Chief Lanier said this, but it seems more likely that the D.C. Attorney advice which she transmitted to the D.C. Police was more restrictive than the article’s text would literally mean. Federal law (18 U.S.C. 922(g)) sets up 9 categories of persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms. A felony conviction is the best-known of the “prohibited persons” classes, but not the only one. It seems doubtful that the new D.C. order allows gun carrying by persons dishonorably discharged by the military, persons convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor against an intimate partner, and so on, who are prohibited by federal law from gun possession.And Kopel notes other things to consider:
Nothing in the District Court’s opinion invalidates the D.C. ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Nothing in the opinion addresses the numerous federal and D.C. laws which prohibit carry in a huge number of locations within the District–such as most federal buildings, lots of federal property, as well as schools and colleges. (The D.C. “school” ban even encompasses a school of cosmetology whose students are all adults.) Under a 2009 federal statute, National Parks must follow the arms-carrying policies of their host state. The National Park Service regulation implementing this statute includes the following exemption to a general ban on weapons in National Parks. “(h) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Chapter, a person may possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms within a national park area in accordance with the laws of the state in which the national park area, or that portion thereof, is located, except as otherwise prohibited by applicable Federal law.” 36 C.F.R. § 2.4. Thus, it might arguably be lawful to carry a concealed handgun at the Jefferson Memorial, if you have a handgun carry permit from your home state (or if you are a D.C. resident with a registered handgun).The order provided to Metropolitan Police Officers by Chief Cathy Lanier can be found here.
In 2012, Guns Save Life took up 65 clunkers to trade for perfectly good cash. Some of our guns were fire-damaged, others were just pre-1898 rust-ruined barreled-actions and some were literally held together with tape.
We received $6240 that day for our collection of junk – including one starter pistol that wouldn’t fire a real bullet on the best day, but did gain us yet another $100 gift card.The results:
We’ve been spending that money on ammunition for the nation’s longest-running NRA Youth Shooting camp each year, held annually at Darnall’s Gun Works and Ranges in Bloomington, IL. This year was the 20th anniversary of the camp, and Guns Save Life spent the final $2000 of that Chicago money on ammo to teach 151 young people, ages roughly 9-16 how to safely handle guns over the four-day, three-night camp.I'd say that's putting Chicago's money to good use!
D.C. police have been ordered not to arrest people for carrying pistols and deadly weapons in public. Washingtonians can still face criminal charges for carrying unregistered firearms and ammunition, but the millions of people who visit the nation’s capital are exempt from those provisions under an order from Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier. The chief’s guidance effectively put the District’s firearm regulations, at least for non-residents, on a par with the most permissive gun jurisdictions in the country. D.C. police got additional guidance from Lanier on Monday afternoon. She clarified that the ruling applies only to handguns, not long guns or shotguns that are still illegal, and that committing crimes with handguns remains illegal.This guidance could be short lived as the D.C. Attorney General has filed for a stay of the ruling, sighting the Madigan case from Illinois where the 7th Circuit stayed the ruling for 180 days. This gave Illinois time to come up with a plan to issue permits. It is unclear if D.C. wants the stay to appeal the case or to comply with it.
For non-residents, legal possession of a handgun in D.C. is based on the laws of their home jurisdiction, meaning D.C. police will be responsible for knowing and enforcing licensing and permitting restrictions from around the country. Lanier noted that additional information on gun laws in other states will be forthcoming and said that in the meantime, officers can call a 24-hour information line.
Lanier’s orders came in response to Judge Frederick Scullin Jr.’s July 26 ruling in Palmer v. District of Columbia that D.C.’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional. In the 19-page decision, Scullin wrote that he was stopping enforcement of the law “unless and until” the city adopted a constitutionally valid licensing mechanism.
In her follow-up guidance to officers, Lanier nodded to the confusion. “Unfortunately, this ruling has left many unanswered legal questions that are currently being reviewed by the [Office of the Attorney General],” she stated.
Charges against two men whom Capitol Police allegedly stopped from bringing 9 mm handguns to Capitol Hill could change, as attorneys scramble to interpret the effect of a federal judge overturning the District’s handgun ban.
On July 26, Judge Frederick Scullin Jr. ruled in Palmer v. District of Columbia that D.C.’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional. In the 19-page decision, Scullin wrote that he was stopping enforcement of the law “unless and until” the city adopted a constitutionally valid licensing mechanism.
D.C. police were subsequently instructed not to enforce the law against carrying pistols in public. In two separate incidents that are raising questions about campus security, Hill staffer Ryan Shucard and pork executive Ronald William Prestage were charged with violating that law when police uncovered handguns and magazines during administrative searches at the Cannon House Office building.
The order not to enforce the law came from Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier on Sunday and is being implemented “until further notice,” according to her notice.Likely stopped, at least for now, by the ruling from proceeding on charges related to violating DC city ordinances, federal prosecutors are considering charging both with violating the prohibition on possessing a firearm at the Capitol building or grounds.
First, his book echoes the National Rifle Association’s executive director’s stated view that the answer to gun violence is more guns for everybody. Most people reject this Wild West attitude to law enforcement by shootouts. He offers the fact that there is no evidence to justify limits on magazine capacity.Note that Florio trots out the gun ban lobby's talking point about the lack of research. But Lott has addressed that too:
Aside from the fact that the NRA has forced Congress into prohibiting gun violence research, by following his logic, there is no hard evidence that proposed limits don’t provide better protection. Common sense, however, dictates that when seconds count, a mass killer needs time to change magazines.
Despite his widely publicized claim, no evidence has been provided that firearms research actually declined either after the Dickey Amendment to the Centers for Disease Control funding was passed in 1997 appropriations or restrictions were imposed on the National Institute of Health and other federal health agencies funding gun research. What Bloomberg measures is firearms research relative to all other research. And, indeed, after the 1996 restrictions on federal funding, firearms research in medical journals did fall as a percentage of all research but total research on firearms has increased over that time.
People make choices their entire life and have to live with those choices and accept responsibility for their actions.Kyle Scott, who teaches American politics and constitutional law at Duke University and the University of Houston, referred to it as a lack of a moral compass. Watson would probably agree.
Gun-control advocates have long asserted that 40 percent of gun sales nationwide are made by private sellers and thus not subject to background checks. President Barack Obama cited the number last year, unsuccessfully urging Congress to pass a law mandating "universal background checks."
But that figure, which Colorado legislative analysts and CBI officials say was the best available for the basis of their estimation calculus, comes from a 1997 National Institute of Justice report that gun-right's activists criticize as inaccurate.
Catherine Mortensen, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, said that using the 40 percent figure as a basis for Colorado's projection "calls into question lawmakers' access to accurate information on not only this, but all firearms-related legislation."That 1997 NIJ report was based on data collected from a survey in 1994, the same year that the Brady Act requirements for background checks came into effect. The questions concerned purchases dating as far back as 1991 which was before the Brady Act became law. This means that some, if not many, of the firearm sales included in that study were bought in a pre-Brady environment. But of course, the gun banners retreat to their time worn "if we only stop one person..."
"The bottom line," he said, "is even if one, or five, or 10, or 10,000 or 20,000 people are being blocked, that's less dangerous people walking around with guns."Never mind that most criminals are going to buy their firearms legally to start with.
Capitol Police confiscated a 9mm Ruger handgun from the bag of Camden, S.C., resident Ronald William Prestage shortly after 9 a.m. on Wednesday morning at the Cannon House Office Building. Prestage, 59, was arrested and charged with carrying a pistol without a license, a District of Columbia offense that carries up to five years in prison.Are there really this many people that don't know about D.C.s gun laws and their propensity for make examples of anyone caught with a firearm inside the city?