D.C. City Council's False "Findings" of Facts on Firearms:
D.C. City Councilman Harry Thomas has introduced a resolution titled "Sense of the Council of Future Handgun Resolution of 2008." The resolution makes the following findings:
(1) Accidental deaths by firearms rank in the top 10 of accidental deaths in our country.These finding are clearly false. According to the 2005 data (National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 56, Number 10, April 24, 2008, Table 18), the total number of accidental firearms deaths, for all ages combined, was 789--about half the figure that Thomas claims. Firearms are not in the top 10 causes of accidental death, but are outranked by the following specified categories: Drowning, Fall, Fire/flame, Motor vehicle traffic, Pedestrian (not including from motor vehicles), Other land transport, Other transport, Natural/envivronmental, Poisoning, Struck by or against, Suffocation.
(2) Approximately 1,500 deaths per year result from the accidental use of a fire-arm. Of the 1500, 75% are young males between the age of 14 and 25, who unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else.
According to the "findings," there are about 1,125 accidental firearms deaths annually, involving males aged 14 to 25. Using the excellent on-line query tool from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, you can find the 2005 total number of fatal gun accidents for males aged 14-25 was 219.
The Thomas "finding" claimed that males aged 14-25 were the victims OR the perpetrators of 3/4 of total fatal gun accidents. I have no idea where Thomas gets this figure from. For the figure to be correct, that males 14-25, who are the victims of about one-quarter of all fatal gun accidents, would also have to be the non-victim perpetrators of about nearly 2/3 of accidents involving all other groups. (2/3 x 3/4 [fraction of accident victims who are not males 14-25] = 1/2. We add the 1/2 to the 1/4 of accidents in which males 14-25 are the victim, to get males aged 14-25 as perpetrators or victims in 3/4 of total accidents.) This seems implausible, although not formally impossible.
The incorrect "findings" about accidents are then followed by two more findings, which are really policy statements apparently based on the findings:
(3)There must be strict standards to regulate the sale of handguns in the District of Columbia, including stringent waiting periods for the purchase of hand guns, as well as the implementation of comprehensive training and education programs on the dangers of handguns through the DC Department of Parks and Recreation partnering with other agencies.The finds are then followed the statement:
(4) There must be rigorous restrictions where gun stores can be located, a possible ban on private sales of handguns, and require gun shop operators to enter into voluntary agreements with community residents through their Advisory Neighborhood Commissions before such establishments can be issued a Certificate of Occupancy.
Sec. 3. It is the sense of the Council that strict and rigorous handgun regulations must be in place to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of District of Columbia residents.
Back in 1976, when the District's City Council enacted the handgun ban, it made the finding that "Most murders are committed by previously law-abiding citizens." This too is indisputably false, as detailed in the Heller amicus brief I wrote with Chuck Michel. (Pages 24-29.) The current City Council would have a better chance of passing gun laws which do not violate the Constitution if the Council were rigorous in its own factual investigations of the purported needs for extremely restrictive laws.
The city has, thus far, pretty much given only lip service to Heller-- including still requiring guns to be dissassembled and locked unless the danger is "immdiate" (i.e. when the burglar is in a person's house).
By the way, based on Mr. Kopel's data and my own experience of walking through the various streets in DC, let us ban cars in DC!
The Council's only error was its failure to recite that it had discovered a national consensus on the issue.
I can see non-legal persuasive value in proving a legislative finding is false. If the legislature's reason for passing the statute doesn't pass the giggle test, then at least the court might be laughing at the legislators when they are deciding whether to defer to them.
But to what legal extent is indisputable proof that a legislative finding is false actually useful in any court challenge to a law?
Heck, maybe one should HELP D.C. come up with "factual" justifications for their new anti-gun ordinances. Here are some initial suggestions:
(1) firearms are one of the three leading causes of death for children between the ages of 21 and 99 who happen to have been shot in the head within the preceding 30 days;
(2) firearms are heavy, and carrying them in your automobile reduces your gas mileage;
(3) there is a strong positive correlation between the presence of firearms and the commencement of all reported wars within the last 500 years;
(4) the manufacture of firearms requires the mining and refining of ferrous metals, and therefore is a contributor to global warming;
(5) the NRA's Eddie Eagle program subjects small children to large, costumed bird characters, and therefore runs an unacceptable risk of instilling in our youth an irrational fear of formerly-endangered avian species; and
(6) fixed cartridge ammunition, by artificially raising the price of brass through the operation of supply and demand, leads to unnecessary expense and consumer hardship in the ornamental brass monkey market.
Give the morons more rope to hang themselves!!!
It might be more accurate to state that most murders are committed by persons who previously have been arraigned for or convicted of crimes. ;-)
Why should I adhere to the laws D.C. makes when they don't adhere to Supreme Court decisions?
The fact is that the entirety of the D.C. governmental officials involved in these nonsense regulations and their specious justifications should be arrested just like any other petty criminal who ignores the law. But, I guess, as all my less adamant friends say, "that boat has left the harbor," and we should just be glad with the scraps of a privilege that government has left us of what was once a right.
Wake Up people! We are arguing as to the number of etherial winged creatures can dance on a pin. We are being incrimentally robbed of our rights.
Rather there should be universal training in their use. Then those who do possess them, or come upon them in the course fo their daily lives, will understand how to use them and behave around them.
(Without basis I say) At least some of the accidents referred to, must arise from the lack of knowlege about how the things work and should be treated.
Luckily the Second Amendment is granted greater than "rational basis" deference, but there are a lot of other stupid laws out there that cannot be challenged even though they were passed on a tissue of lies.
But I would say to conservatives, now you know how us liberals feel when Congress makes up findings about partial birth abortions and the Supreme Court accepts them.
The best and most direct way of punishing a public offical for not upholding the Constitution he has sworn to defend is to defeat him in the next election. This is unlikely in DC, where we can certainly question the voter's intelligence (Mayor Barry, anyone?).
I don't know if Congress has allowed a recall or impeachment procedure of DC city officals. If so, that is another avenue to get Thomas out of office, but again, it is unlikely.
Sort of actual treason (fighting against the U.S. or giveing "aid and comfort"), I do not believe a person can be criminally charged for violating the Constitution. If I am wrong and they can, please let me know (and give case citations, please). Otherwise, maybe the SCOTUS can get him and the DC city council for contempt of court for continuing to ignore its ruling.
Well, you can be charged for depriving someone else of their constitutional rights (under color of law). 18 USC Sec. Sec. 242
I doubt it would apply to sponsoring a law, though.
--Philistine
Please. Liberals started the whole "making up facts" garbage. And, your example is terrible. Most Americans, including most Democrats, oppose partial-birth abortion.
This clearly has to do with alien-staus, skin color, or racial classification.
Firearms 101, required high school course along with driver's ed.
I like it! I can hear the howls, though...
Or maybe instead of the occasional archery class in high school gym, how about a firearm unit instead?
Exactly! The Congress has to get involved by taking away D.C.'s authority to make gun regulations. If not, then the D.C. Council will have successfully overruled Heller.
If D.C. is allowed to defy Heller, then police can defy Miranda and States can defy Roe v. Wade. This can lead to a very ugly slippery slope.
Why can not the citizen disregard unconstituional mandates, too. (Other than being jailed until the appeal)
No the staute criminalizes two different things (1) deprivation of Constitutional (or federal statutory) rights under color of law; and (2)under color of law, submitting a person to different punishments because of race/color/alienage.
Typically Orwellian behavior on the part of the American left.
Thanks for your input. But doesn't 18 USC 242 apply to the enforcement end (usually a police officer) rather than simply writing an unconstitutional piece of legislation? Or is it that it is rarely enforced against legislators (city, state, federal)?
I ask because there are many unconstitutional laws out there, but the usual remedy is simply to strike down the offending law and restore the person’s rights. Are there any cases or situations where a politician was imprisoned or fined for violating a person’s rights via legislation?
I will have to reexamine 18 USC 242, though, thanks.
Minor point, but how does a "stringent waiting period" differ from a plain old "waiting period"?
I love how the thread immediately turned into a mud-slinding about which group engages the most egregiously in non-fact finding and actually included someone (almost) saying "Ya'll started it!".
From Excuse Me While I Get My Gun
There's a whole industry out there devoted to systematically, and I rather suspect consciously, getting the facts wrong. If you're anti-gun, you will ignore the people who actually have the correct data, dismissing them as biased, and rely on that industry.
Because if you were objective enough to care whether your sources were right, you'd probably not be so anti-gun.
How are federal court orders enforced when the targeted officer or entity refuses to abide by the order?
There are federal Marshals, which one might assume could do so. But they are part of the executive branch.
I recall reading many years ago Judge Sirica's "To Set The Record Straight." In it, he described the difficulty of crafting an order that would be obeyed (by an unwilling executive) when the court had no one it could send to get whatever it was his court ruled was required to be produced. As I recall, he was concerned that issuing an order he had no power to enforce would weaken the authority of the court.
I do not recall how he handled the problem.
Wasn't this an issue the CJ in Marbury v. Madison had to consider, but dodged?
If my recollections and questions are not even wrong, please disregard.
Best to all for this interesting blog and community.
gnholb
The most basic enforcement method here is that the law will simply be unenforceable. It is a little more difficult in other areas of the law, but here we're talking about people being arrested and fined or imprisoned for violating the law. Only courts convict people of crimes and fine or imprison them. The police might arrest people and the prosecutor might charge them, but the court will have to release them if the law is unconstitutional. If the lower courts apply the unconstitutional law, their decisions can be appealed to a higher court who will order them to obey the Supreme Court's order.
You are changing the subject. I was talking about the "factual findings" in the partial birth abortion bill, i.e., the claims that Congress made about the medical necessity vel non of intact dialations and extractions, which were then accepted by the Supreme Court despite the fact that it was clear that the medical community consensus was the findings were BS.
That has nothing to do with the political popularity of partial birth abortion, and everything to do with inserting false "factual findings" into bills, just like Kopel has caught the DC people doing.
Did they really say that? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Although depending on the outcome of the election in November, the new U.S. Attorney General might have a very different set of priorities when it comes to the type of cases the D.D.C. USAO should be filing...
The biggest current problem is with the District's scheme (and I use the word "scheme" in the most pejorative sense possible) to use zoning and other civil ordinances to impair Second Amendment rights, such as throwing up insurmountable barriers for firearms dealers. Those are enforced by the D.C. Attorney General, and acting AG Nickles is helping lead the anti-Heller rejectionist effort. Don't expect to see any would-be dealers getting local business permits any time soon.
Huh! Apparently it is quite legal to deprive citizens of their Constitutional rights, as long as one does not discriminate in doing so.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.