How D.C. tried to protect itself from the Navy Yard shootings

 

McClatchy-Tribune News Service

The horrible irony of the Navy Yard shootings is that they took place in a city that has led the nation in gun-control legislation.

For more than three decades, beginning in 1976, Washington had the strictest gun laws in the country. Basically, unless you were a law-enforcement officer, it was impossible to get a permit to own — let alone carry — a gun.

But the city could not exist as an island of rational gun control in a sea of virtually unlimited gun access. Its southern neighbor, Virginia, has few obstacles to purchasing guns either at a gun shop, where a background check takes about three minutes, or from an individual, in which case no background check is required.

Rather than support the preference of the local community for gun restrictions, conservatives in Congress and the NRA tried to get rid of the law. Because unlike any other jurisdiction in the nation, the District of Columbia’s laws must be approved by Congress and the White House. Although a number of bills to end D.C.’s gun limitations were passed in the House of Representatives by a Republican majority, none ever became law.

Then along came Dick Heller, a security guard at the Federal Judicial Center. In 2003, Heller filed a lawsuit against the city to be allowed to register his gun, a task that was illegal in D.C. at the time. The case eventually went to the Supreme Court, and on June 26, 2008, the conservative bloc ruled in a 5-4 decision that Heller and other individuals, as opposed to just state militias, had the right to “keep and bear” arms at home.

D.C. city leaders set out to construct the most restrictive gun law allowable in the context of the ruling by the court. It requires mandatory training in gun safety, a background check, fingerprinting, a written test, a ballistics testing, a10-day waiting period and a prohibition against concealed and open gun carrying. Initially, D.C.’s liberated gun owners were restricted from owning semi-automatics, but the city caved on that issue.

While it is likely that the city still has the most restrictive gun law in the nation, the bottom line is that individuals can now legally arm themselves.

Whether the Navy Yard shooter obtained his guns legally or not, a discussion about the role of gun violence in the United States will likely once again grip our popular politics. And, once again, the gun lobby will just as likely sweep away any common-sense approach to gun ownership while calling for more guns.

President Obama’s campaign for even modest and popular gun-law reform following the Sandy Hook massacre produced little more than shows of empathy as the NRA flexed its lobby muscle and members of Congress from both parties bowed and hid.

After the slaughters of college students, elementary children, theater goers, military members and even the debilitating shooting of one of its own, it is clear that Congress as it is currently occupied will not muster the courage to pass legislation that protects the nation because it refuses to challenge gun manufacturers and their lobbies.

This has got to end.

Clarence Lusane is a professor of comparative and regional studies program at the School of International Service at American University. He wrote this for Progressive Media Project.

© 2013, Clarence Lusane

Read more From Our Inbox stories from the Miami Herald

  • A deadly decade for environmentalists

    According to a report released this week by the London-based NGO Global Witness, at least 908 environmental activists have been killed over the last decade. That number is comparable to the 913 journalists killed in the course of their work in the same period and is likely on the low side — reporting is inconsistent in many countries and full data for 2013 hasn’t yet been collected. 2012 was deadliest year ever for environmentalists with 147 killed.

  • A battle ahead on ‘personhood’

    Some of the most hard-fought Senate races this fall are likely to feature big fights over “personhood.”

  • The Cuba embargo is such a bad idea

    On a drive across Cuba a few weeks ago, my family and I decided to make a quick detour to the Bay of Pigs. It was hot, and the beach at Playa Giron — where 53 years ago a tragicomic CIA-sponsored invasion force stormed ashore — seemed like a good place for lunch. Plus, who could pass up the opportunity to swim in the Bay of Pigs? I would swim in the Gulf of Tonkin for the same reason.

Miami Herald

Join the
Discussion

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category