D.C. needs even better gun law

The Supreme Court ruled in June that provisions of Washington, D.C.'s gun laws are unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the city has responded with new regulations that are a flagrant attempt to circumvent the court's decision.

It's time for Congress to use the power granted to it in the Constitution to "exercise exclusive legislation" in the District and uphold its residents' constitutional rights. It can do so by passing the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act now pending in Congress, with a few adjustments.

This bill, introduced on July 31 with 57 cosponsors, would prevent D.C. from passing regulations that discourage the private lawful use of firearms or otherwise suppress residents' Second Amendment rights. It is the result of a compromise between the National Rifle Association and House leaders.

To ensure broad-based, bipartisan support, we propose four modest congressional actions that would preserve some home-rule authority while erecting a commonsense framework for restoring the right to self-defense in our nation's capital.

First, Congress should change how D.C. processes gun registrations. Currently, residents must complete an application form, submit photographs, prove residency and good vision, pass a written test, pay a fee, be fingerprinted, and have the gun ballistics tested. The entire process can take months.

Congress should mandate a more streamlined process for D.C. based on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is already required by federal law for all retail firearm sales. Background checks are usually completed within a few hours.

Second, D.C. still bans all "machine guns," improperly defined as any gun capable of firing 12 or more rounds without reloading -- even if the gun owner has a magazine with fewer rounds. As a result, only revolvers or single-shot handguns can be registered. But semiautomatic handguns constitute about three-quarters of handguns sold in the U.S. Banning them violates the Supreme Court's rule in District of Columbia v. Heller against "prohibition of an entire class of 'arms' that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society" for lawful self-defense.

The new guidepost should be that a firearm may not be banned unless it is prohibited by federal law or subject to the National Firearms Act, which covers weapons such as real machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.

Third, D.C. still requires that weapons in the home be unloaded and either disassembled, trigger-locked or kept in a gun safe. An exception is made for a firearm while being used against a threat of immediate harm within the home. That exception is unconstitutionally vague. According to acting D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles, a homeowner cannot have an unlocked and loaded gun even when investigating the sound of intruders in her backyard.

Any rule requiring a crime victim to wait until her attacker has actually entered the home is unreasonable. Congress should bar D.C. from prohibiting or infringing a home use of firearms for self-protection. Within that constraint, D.C. can fashion sensible safe-storage regulations.

Fourth, under federal law, buyers may acquire a handgun only within their state of residence: Out-of-state sellers must first ship the gun to someone in-state who has a Federal Firearms License.

However, because of the District's 1976 gun ban, there are no stores selling guns within the city, and only one or two federal firearms licensees willing to take delivery from outside on a limited basis. It will be months before gun dealers are licensed. Thus, D.C. residents who do not own a handgun cannot obtain one, and cannot exercise their constitutional right, affirmed by the Supreme Court, to defend themselves where they live. Congress should revamp the federal restrictions on interstate handgun sales to allow, at a minimum, District residents to purchase handguns in Maryland or Virginia. Like rifles and shotguns, handguns should be obtainable from an out-of-state licensee if the sale complies with laws applicable where the buyer resides and where the sale occurs.

Over the years, our elected representatives have adopted a court-centric view of the Constitution -- a view that decisions about constitutionality are properly left to the judiciary. But members of Congress also swear to uphold the Constitution. Congress can make good on that oath by restoring the right of Washington, D.C., residents to possess functional firearms in their homes.

By:Robert A. Levy and David B. Kopel, Voice of the Times

Judge Denies Bid to Temporarily Allow Guns at Airport

For now, guns are still banned at Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta International Airport. A federal judge has denied a bid to allow licensed gun owners to bring their weapons to unsecured areas of the airport. The issue landed in the courts after a new state gun law went into effect on July first.

The author of the law, Republican state representative Timothy Bearden, says his legislation is intended to allow gun owners to carry firearms in areas such as ticketing and baggage claim.

But the day the law took effect, city and airport officials declared that the airport would remain a gun-free zone.

Bearden, and a gun lobby group called Georgia-Carry-dot-org, filed the lawsuit, claiming that the ban violates their constitutional rights.

Bearden says he's still optimistic about winning the larger case:

BEARDEN: This is just for a temporary restraining order. It didn't go through. I have complete confidence in the people of Georgia and the Constitution and the way the law was written, and the legislative intent.

In his ruling, Federal Judge Marvin Shoob said the new law does not explicitly mention the airport. He also said lifting the ban would pose a serious threat to public safety and welfare.

By: Odette Yousef, PBA Online

Campus shootings prompt concealed carry legislation

FORT COLLINS, Colo. (U-WIRE) - Following a string of campus shootings last year, universities and colleges across the nation have taken to examining the safety policies of their campus, including allowing students to carry concealed weapons on campus, a practice banned in most states.

The issue has achieved debate in the state legislatures of both Virginia and Illinois, and has turned many eyes towards the few campuses that have legalized concealed carry.

Last year in Utah, state government enacted a bill legalizing concealed carry on campuses across the state, a decision that has yet to result in a documented incident.

Colorado State University is one of the few campuses where students are permitted to carry concealed weapons, granted they carry a carrying concealed weapon permit. The policy allows students with a permit to carry their handgun most places on campus including classrooms but not residence halls.

On campus - Anthony Ryan, a senior art major and campus leader for CSU's chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, says it might help increase security if students started carrying guns on campus.

"I think it could happen anywhere, and that's why I think the administration here at CSU and the campus police department allow us to do what we do," Ryan said. "They know it is a possibility."

The issue, Ryan told The Rocky Mountain Collegian, is one that affects all students.

"This isn't just about active shooters," he said. "This isn't just about [Virginia Tech] and [University of Northern Illinois] scenarios. This is about any kind of protection from any kind of an assault. We can't say that there's not going to be an active shooter, we can't say that there isn't going to be an assault."

Some students, however, feel less safe on a campus that permits concealed carry.

Mark Spowart, a freshman open option major, said he felt uncomfortable with the fact that anyone with a concealed weapons permit was allowed to carry a gun at CSU.

"I think it's pretty messed up," Spowart said. "Ten years ago I would have been fine with it, but in light of everything that's been going on, there's a lot of [explicative]-up people out there. … I don't want them walking around campus with a gun. Some people may have it for self-defense, but that nut who says he has it for self-defense and then starts unloading on a crowd. … I'm not cool with it."

Ericka Taylor, a sophomore chemistry major, said it's not up to students to worry about a shooting, but that students who could carry guns on campus made her nervous.

"I really don't like the fact [that concealed carry is allowed] because we really don't need it here on campus," she said. "We have police, you should feel safe, so I don't get why you should feel you need to bring your own weapon here on campus when it's safe already. It makes me nervous that people can be walking around with [guns]."

Ryan argues that those who carry concealed weapons are generally of a more healthy state of mind because they have to qualify for a permit.

"We're law-abiding citizens; we have to be in order to get approved," he said.

Jenny Romanin, a sophomore agricultural business major and shotgun sports team president, agrees with Ryan.

"The people that do everything by the book …you go through a course that's taught by the government," she said. "They teach you safety. It's not like, 'Oh I have a gun, I have road rage, I can go shoot some guy because he cut me off'… the intentions aren't to go out and hurt anybody or kill anybody.

Safety's not political - Christian Heyne, a senior political science major at California State University, Chico, and the President of the recently sanctioned Chico State chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, feels that the main issue at hand is the continuing rate of gun-related death and violence in the United States.

"One hundred thousand people die from gun violence every year, and that's domestically, and those numbers are too crazy," Heyne said. "As far as I'm concerned, that's way too high. It isn't a Republican issue, it isn't a Democrat issue, it's an issue where our family members are dying because the access to guns is too easy in America."

Regardless of political affiliation, Heyne says that both sides can avoid the irrelevant and interfering nature of political beliefs that push aside the real issue of security.

"So much of this gets lost in party politics, especially on the side of gun control," Heyne said. "People think that we're trying to infringe upon their second mendment rights and that's not what we're really trying to work toward."

By: Andrew Dose, The Nebraska Gateway