In an order denying a motion to lift the stay of mandate in the DC Gun Case, the DC Circuit Court uncovers a paradox in the arguments made by the District of Columbia.
It seems that DC’s claim that the handgun ban is constitutional by virtue of rifles and shotguns being legally owned in DC, fails the test of being actually available for self-defense given the fact that such legally-owned weapons must be stored locked or dissembled. In addition, the Circuit Court notes that rifles and shotguns may not be suitable for home defense due to the danger of bystanders being injured and that such weapons may be difficult or impossible for smaller persons to handle. Hand guns, however, are ideal in close quarters and easily handled by smaller persons.
Hopefully, the enlightenment provided by the DC Court will give guidance to SCOTUS when the matter is brought before them. Logically, the choice for home defense is a loaded hand gun.
Excerpts from DC Gun Case Blog and notes from the DC Circuit Court can be seen below the fold.
From the DC Gun Case Blog:
The D.C. Circuit has denied our motion to lift the stay of its mandate. But in doing so, the court made some interesting observations about the self-defense exception that D.C. now claims exists in the spirit, though not the text, of D.C. Code § 7-2507.02, which requires even lawfully owned firearms to be unloaded and either disassembled or trigger-locked at all times. Of particular interest are the court’s observations about the dangers posed by a rifle’s range and the pellet spread of a shotgun, as well as the difficulty of “handling such long weapons in enclosed spaces — particularly by smaller individuals.†Those points obviously go to the reasonableness of allowing people to defend themselves with, say, a high-velocity hunting rifle that can put a round through an entire apartment building, but forbidding them from using a pistol that is actually designed for use in close quarters and presents much less risk to innocent bystanders.
From the notes in the Circuit Court’s order:
The District of Columbia Council never contemplated the specific use of a rifle or shotgun [since a disassembly or trigger lock requirement might render a shotgun or rifle virtually useless to face an unexpected threat]. Had the Council contemplated such, it would, perforce, have had to consider the danger posed by a rifle’s range and a shotgun’s pellet spread, as well as the difficulty one would have handling such long weapons in enclosed spaces – particularly by smaller individuals. Appellees’ brief at 17 did suggest that any gun (including a pre-1976 legal handgun) might be used in self defense in a “true emergency,†otherwise described as “genuine imminent danger.†But the Code does not allow for such, nor did the District ever specify how one would define the circumstances under which one could assemble or unlock a rifle or shotgun to face a “true emergency†(professionals might well be amused at such a hypothetical). The truth is that neither the Code nor the District, in this litigation, ever suggested that a rifle or shotgun, as opposed to a handgun, could be legally employed in self defense.
All emphasis above added.