‘Violent criminals are already armed,’ Tom Palmer, a gay libertarian activist and scholar, told the Blade last year. ‘The mayor seemed to be surprised that the criminals don’t obey this law. It’s the law-abiding people who are disarmed by the law, not the lawless.’ (Blade photo by Henry Linser)
Gay rights and gun rights Supreme Court case over D.C. gun control law has important implications for GLBT Americans
Friday, February 15, 2008
THOUGH
IT’S
GOTTEN
very
little
attention
in
the
gay
press,
an
important
case
affecting
the
lives
of
gays
and
lesbians
is
now
pending
in
the
U.S.
Supreme
Court.
The
case
challenges
the
constitutionality
of
the
District
of
Columbia’s
unusually
strict
gun
control
law,
which
bans
handguns
and
effectively
prevents
people
from
possessing
firearms
for
self-defense
in
their
own
homes.
A
brief
filed
in
the
case,
on
which
I
offered
some
counsel,
argues
that
the
law
is
especially
harmful
to
gay
Americans.
The
brief
joins
a
large
coalition
of
groups,
including
the
National
Rifle
Association,
arguing
for
individual
rights
under
the
Second
Amendment.
The
brief
was
filed
on
behalf
of
Pink
Pistols
and
Gays
&
Lesbians
for
Individual
Liberty
(GLIL).
Pink
Pistols
is
an
international
group
formed
a
few
years
ago
with
the
basic
mission
of
advocating
gun
ownership
and
training
in
the
proper
use
of
firearms
by
gay
people.
GLIL
is
a
libertarian
gay
group
that
consistently
defends
individual
rights.
The
gay
gun
rights
brief
argues
that
the
D.C.
gun
control
law
violates
the
Second
Amendment,
long
the
forgotten
and
some
say
most
“embarrassing”
part
of
the
Bill
of
Rights.
The
Second
Amendment
says:
“A
well
regulated
Militia,
being
necessary
to
the
security
of
a
free
State,
the
right
of
the
people
to
keep
and
bear
Arms,
shall
not
be
infringed.”
MANY
PEOPLE
HAVE
long
argued
that
the
reference
to
“a
well-regulated
militia”
means
that
the
right
is
limited
to
citizens
serving
collectively
in
a
modern-day
military
force,
like
the
National
Guard.
Under
this
interpretation,
the
amendment
would
not
protect
any
individual
right
to
bear
arms
outside
the
militia
context,
meaning
that
the
government
can
entirely
ban
private
gun
ownership,
even
guns
needed
for
self-defense
in
the
home.
However,
as
even
many
liberal
scholars
now
acknowledge,
that
interpretation
makes
little
sense
of
the
text
and
history
of
the
amendment
and
of
the
Bill
of
Rights
generally,
which
contains
a
series
of
individual
rights.
The
gay
gun
rights
brief
adds
an
important
perspective
to
this
argument.
It
makes
several
points
about
the
connection
between
firearms,
gay
rights
and
the
practical
self-defense
needs
of
gay
Americans.
First,
the
brief
argues
that
the
right
to
keep
and
bear
arms
is
especially
instrumental
for
a
population
at
once
subject
to
pervasive
hate
violence
and
inadequate
police
protection.
From
1995
to
2005,
according
to
the
FBI,
more
than
13,000
incidents
of
anti-gay
hate
violence
were
reported
by
law
enforcement
agencies.
When
you
consider
that
fewer
than
half
of
all
violent
crimes
are
reported,
it
is
certain
that
even
this
number
seriously
underestimates
the
problem.
Worse
still,
gays
are
often
afraid
to
report
anti-gay
crimes.
There
is
a
sorry
history
of
hostile
or
skeptical
police
response,
public
disclosure
of
the
victim’s
sexual
orientation,
and
even
physical
abuse
by
the
officers
themselves.
Investigative
bias
and
lack
of
police
training
further
complicate
the
picture.
The
upshot
is
that
gays
must
be
responsible
for
their
own
defense;
they
cannot
rely
solely
on
law
enforcement
for
it.
Anti-gay
hate
crimes
share
several
other
characteristics
that
make
the
use
of
firearms
for
self-defense
especially
significant.
Such
crimes
are
unusually
brutal,
often
involving
multiple
and
vicious
attacks.
They
are
highly
likely
to
involve
multiple
assailants.
Attackers
often
themselves
use
guns,
making
anything
short
of
a
like
defense
almost
completely
ineffective.
Surprisingly,
almost
one-third
of
anti-gay
bias
crimes
occur
in
the
home,
the
precise
location
where
the
D.C.
gun
law
forbids
the
effective
possession
of
firearms
for
self-protection.
IT’S
TRUE
THAT
gun
possession
does
not
guarantee
protection
from
violent
crime.
The
gun
may
be
incompetently
used,
for
example.
But
where
the
Constitution
itself
protects
an
individual
right,
it
is
not
for
the
government
to
say
the
citizen
may
not
enjoy
the
right
simply
because
she
may
not
make
effective
use
of
it.
Second,
the
gay
gun
rights
brief
points
out
that
unless
the
Second
Amendment
protects
an
individual
right
to
possess
firearms,
gay
Americans
are
effectively
disqualified
from
any
exercise
of
the
right.
That’s
because
under
the
current
prevailing
interpretation
of
the
Constitution,
the
government
may
entirely
exclude
gays
and
lesbians
from
military
service
(“the
militia”).
If
the
Second
Amendment
protects
only
the
collective
right
of
a
state’s
citizens
to
possess
arms
within
a
militia,
and
if
gays
may
be
excluded
from
that
militia,
then
the
Second
Amendment
is
a
dead
letter
for
gay
Americans.
They
have
no
rights
on
the
subject
the
government
is
bound
to
respect.
I
do
not
own
a
gun.
Frankly,
I
don’t
much
like
them
and
have
never
felt
I
needed
one
for
protection.
But
for
many
other
gay
people,
especially
the
ones
living
on
the
margins
of
life
in
crime-prone
or
anti-gay
areas,
owning
a
gun
is
one
important
part
of
a
comprehensive
plan
for
protecting
life
and
property.
Gun
ownership
might
at
the
very
least
give
them
peace
of
mind.
And
widespread
knowledge
that
many
gays
are
packing
might
give
their
would-be
attackers
second
thoughts.
Gun
rights
are
gay
rights.
The
following comments were posted by our readers and were
not edited by the Washington Blade. We ask that you
treat others with respect; any post deemed offensive will
be removed.
3fgburner on 2/21/0811:28 AM:
Jeri, a gun is just a tool. Where it's different from a sword, or spear, or sharp rock, is that it doesn't require massive strength to operate. Longbows and crossbows helped the commoners to stand up to the knights, as did pikes. They still required strength to operate. A gun lets a 90-pound citizen defend him or herself against a 300-pound assailant. Incidentally, martial arts have the same drawback as swords. The mighty will beat the weak. Accidents, thanks in large part to the "eevil" NRA, are rare and have been declining for a century. And, if wishes were fishes, we'd all eat seafood.
jeri . on 2/20/087:33 PM:
Dex, most are not afraid of guns. They only hate what they stand for. Violence. And of course there are the accidents. I wish the world was a place where weapons were no longer necessary. Don't you? In any event, I know that it isn't. And the right to defend yourself and your own life is the most basic right. DC has outlawed firearms for private citizens. It remains a city plagued with crime and violent assaults, often perpetrated by criminals with firearms. Law abiding citizens obey laws. Criminals do not. No brainer. The DC law undermines the intent of the 2nd amendment. It's a disgrace.
3fgburner on 2/20/085:49 PM:
I have a suggestion, for those who are afraid of guns. Come on out and try them! There is a PinkPistols chapter in Northern Virginia, where DC's gun ban doesn't apply. While not as active as some other PP chapters, we do get out occasionally to shoot at the NRA range. Before those three letters cause you a case of the vapors, I would point out that NRA's range officers are the most fanatical about safety in the region.
Dex,
NoVA coordinator, Pink Pistols.
uccellobello on 2/16/084:59 PM:
Here is one such link about China's school violence. Unfortunately, mentally ill individuals who target schools is not that uncommon: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-09-20-china-school_x.htm
uccellobello on 2/16/084:57 PM:
To the guy who said that Switzerland does not see gun violence. This is not true. There have actually been a few incidents of gun massacres in Switzerland, the most recent in 2001 in which a man stormed a regional parliament hearing killing 14 people and wounding 12 more. The US media rarely reports on things that take place in other countries. Do not assume no news is good news. Google school attacks and you will be surprised what you read, especially knife attacks. Check out China's national problem with this.
mexicanamericanadonis on 2/16/089:03 AM:
"Switzerland, supplies every male citizen with a fully automatic, NATO assault rifle to take home after their compulsory 2 years of military service. Every single (male) citizen owns a gun. What they don't seem to have a lot of is murder, crime, or bullets."
Ummm... Do we really need to ask that question?
mexicanamericanadonis on 2/16/089:01 AM:
I know this will come to a shock to many of you europhiles, but countries with strict gun bans also have the highest incidents of violent crime. Now let's get something clear right away, I'm not talking about murder rates, I'm talking about OVERALL violent crime rates, including armed robbery, rape, street violence, even hate crimes. According to the UN and several other independent studies, Britain and Australia, which happen to have very strict gun bans, have the highest overall violent crime rate in the Western world. London currenlty has a crime rate 18x higher than New York City.
kdogg36 on 2/15/0810:25 PM:
TonyJazz: "A civilized society has no need for these items, except in
the hands of law enforcement."
How can you believe this when, as I noted below, the overwhelming
evidence of history shows that guns in the hands of agents of the State
are far more dangerous than in the hands of private citizens? And I
don't exclude very recent history -- the present actions of our own
federal government alone would be enough to make the point.
Folks who believe we can make a better world by taking guns off the
street should really start by breaking up the concentrated firepower of
the State.
jeri . on 2/15/0810:24 PM:
tony, violence is ugly and hateful. there are ugly and hateful people that practice violence, and they will always have guns. making guns illegal only tips the scale in their favor. i don't like it, but i'm not going to pretend it isn't true. and of course, there are the accidents. you probably don't know the tragedy firsthand...i do. i hate that, too. but there are automobile accidents, industrial accidents. most do not have to happen. training and education comprise the answer - not outlawing work or automobiles - or personal ownership of firearms.
TonyJazz on 2/15/085:42 PM:
This is an interesting, but a tragic point of view. Guns are weapons for attack and provide no defensive value. Even more importantly, bullets need to be removed from nearly all segments of society. A civilized society has no need for these items, except in the hands of law enforcement. (The collegiate killing yesterday was yet one more example of why personal ownership of weapons and bullets is illogical.) Thankfully, the Pink Pistols only represent a handful of people on the fringes of the gay community (like gay republicans). It's a shame that they are not more rational...
justjohn on 2/15/0812:44 PM:
One of most liberal countries in Europe, Switzerland, supplies every male citizen with a fully automatic, NATO assault rifle to take home after their compulsory 2 years of military service. Every single (male) citizen owns a gun. What they don't seem to have a lot of is murder, crime, or bullets.
kdogg36 on 2/15/0810:40 AM:
Beckygrll - two things:
(1) I think you have misunderstood the passage you quoted, which says precisely that the State *cannot* violate the right just because it isn't always exercised effectively. Although the situations aren't really related, this doesn't at all aid any argument against marriage equality - quite the opposite, if anything.
(2) The overwhelming evidence of history (including recent history) shows that it is agents of the State who cannot be trusted with deadly weapons. They have always and everywhere done far more damage with guns than private citizens ever could.
jeri . on 2/15/0810:27 AM:
Becky, please explain how was that phrase construed to deny rights to anyone, much less support an argument to deny gay marriage? Our Founding Fathers passionately defended all personal rights, particularly the most basic one, the right to live. The supported the personal ownership of firearms. Jefferson stated that they were our only safeguard against tyranny from our own government. i know, it can't happen.***”This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”
Adolf Hitler
Beckygrrl on 2/15/085:41 AM:
"...where the Constitution itself protects an individual right, it is not for the government to say the citizen may not enjoy the right simply because she may not make effective use of it."
What an utter crock. That's exactly the argument commonly used in the courts to deny gays the right to marry, the inability to procreate.
Guns = death. The best thing that could happen in this country is if guns were made completely illegal and inaccessible all but police, military and other government personnel who require them to their jobs effectively.
