Ok, I am not one known to do fiskings...  I find the habit somewhat annoying, and more often than not, atrocious overkill.  However, there are definitely situations that warrant that kind of attention.  An article in yesterday's Washington Post I stumbled across by way of War on Guns is definitely one of those situations.  What we appear to have is yet another instance of someone who knows a little about what he is talking about (after all, he is a professor of law, for what little that may be worth), and thinks, by dint of that knowledge and title, he is capable of speaking for everyone else.  Thankfully for us, and unfortunately for him, this is not the case, as I will be illustrating shortly. 

As everyone is probably aware at this point, the District of Columbia had its handgun ban struck down by the Court of Appeals, on the basis that it conflicts with the Second Amendment.  This is undoubtedly rather substantial news, and my not writing on it has been somewhat negligent on my part, though I have been somewhat busy, and have not been able to put my thoughts in order concerning it.  Definitely a good thing, yes, but what beyond that?  Thankfully, this logically falacious piece of writing on the part of Mr. Erwin Chemerinsky provided me the impetus and topic.  As such, let us take a look at this article in question. 

In striking down the District of Columbia's handgun ban last week, a federal appeals court raised the crucial constitutional question: What should be the degree of judicial deference to government regulation of firearms?

... Well, at least the first sentence.  Unfortunately, he misses the mark even with that opening thought.  THe question the court raised was, in fact, not the one he thought, but rather this:  Should the judicial system, the people, and the country as a whole, tolerate governmental regulations that violate the Constitution?  Needless to say, the Court of Appeals answered this question for him - "No."  Moving on. 

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit interpreted the Second Amendment as bestowing on individuals a right to have guns.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, on all counts.  First, the very wording of the Constitution and the Second Amendment in specific rules out this interpretation before it is even considered.  In fact, it specifically states that the people of America already have the right to bear arms, inherently part of their very existence, and that the American government can do nothing to infringe upon that right.  Second, if Mr. Chemerinsky had actually bothered to read the decision in question, he would realize just how laughably idiotic the above sentence is.  I present you with a quote from page 20 and 21 of the decision: 

The wording of the operative clause also indicates that the right to keep and bear arms was not created by government, but rather preserved by it. See Thomas B. McAffee & Michael J. Quinlan, Bringing Forward the Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Do Text, History, or Precedent Stand in the Way?, 75 N.C. L. REV. 781, 890 (1997). Hence, the Amendment acknowledges “the right . . . to keep and bear Arms,” a right that pre-existed the Constitution like “the freedom of speech.” Because the right to arms existed prior to the formation of the new government, see Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 280 (1897) (describing the origin of the Bill of Rights in English law), the Second Amendment only guarantees that the right “shall not be infringed.”

(Emphasis added by author.)  What about that is so remarkably hard to understand?  And why can a law professor from a reasonably good college not realize what a fool he made of himself?  But wait, there is more. 

But even if this reasoning is accepted, and it is very much disputed, the Court of Appeals still should have upheld the law as being a reasonable way of achieving the government's legitimate goal of decreasing gun violence.

"Disputed" my hairy, skinny, white ass.  The Constitution is pretty bloody clear on the topic, and the Court of Appeals was doubly so.  But, discounting that comment, what flawed, hole-riddled logic would cause Erwin Chemerinsky to indicate that the Court of Appeals should have upheld a law that was so obviously and atrociously un-Constitutional?  Is not the Constitution the basis for every law and legal proceeding in this entire country?  And is not a law that is inherently un-Constitutional just begging to be struck down by a court with sufficient nerve to do so (kind of like the D.C Court of Appeals)?  Yeah, I kind of thought so too. 

As for the last part...  Let it be known that I am all about decreasing gun violence - this is why I firmly believe that any crime committed with the assistance of a firearm should carry a mandatory life sentence, without chance of parole - if not worse.  However, this does not mean I believe in punishing law-abiding citizens by banning them from owning a morally-neutral tool.  It is the person who does the killing... not the tool.  Regardless, it is relatively apparent that Mr. Chemerinsky feels that gun bans are a "reasonable" means of decreasing gun crime.  And, on the surface, it makes a certain degree of sense - to someone who does not think past the first level of any thought process.  Sure, banning guns would slow/stop gun crime - if everyone followed the laws.  But, the very existance of crime indicates that not everyone does, and since criminals have already shown a marked disregard for the law - what is one more for them to break?  However, instead of relying on opinion and consideration, let us examine the hard facts of the situation. 

Washington D.C.'s gun ban went into effect in 1976, banning private ownership of handguns.  In the 30 years after that ban, the murder rate has only once dropped below the levels it was at before the ban...  In fact, immediately after the ban, the murder rate increased.  (Source...  and remember, examine the rates (murders per x hundred of people), not the raw numbers.)  Furthermore, as another example of the failed logic of this kind of shallow reasoning, allow us to examine the current situation in Britain, wherein they have effectively banned all firearms, unless you have the time and money to go through a massive certification program to own long guns, either for hunting or collecting.  This was, as with all firearm legislation, put into place to decrease gun crime... when, in fact, it had the diametrically opposite result.  That is right - after a basically blanket ban on firearms, and specifically handguns, firearm crime went up.  Well, to put it simply, no kidding.  If you outlaw firearms, only outlaws will have firearms. 

So... yeah...  banning guns is a "reasonable" way of decreasing gun crime?  Only if you ignore history, and repeat it ad nauseum. 

Alright...  So that is the first paragraph of Mr. Chemerinsky's column.  And, honestly, I think I have adequately demonstrated his lacking rationale and reasoning, and see no reason to continue fisking his happy little arse to oblivion - it would be like shooting fish in a barrel, at this point.  Very large fish, and a very small barrel.  I have absolutely no tolerance for people who willfully mislead others, nor those who intentionally ignore the facts of a situation solely to improve their arguing point, and it distresses me to no end that someone obviously skilled at doing both would end up being a professor at a major American college.  The thought of this man shaping the minds and futures of our children gives me stand-up-hairs all over the back of my neck. 

In closing, you will have to forgive my brief (well, not that brief) indulgence into the realm of fisking...  This situation definitely warranted it, and my temper got the better of me - only being discriminatory against stupidity occasionally does have its shortcomings ;). 

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, Maggie's Notebook, basil's blog, Stuck On Stupid, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie Is Wired, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, Overtaken by Events, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.