Good News on the Civil Rights Front:
Found on Instapundit.com
THE BATTLE OVER GUN-CONTROL HAS ENTERED THE ROLLBACK PHASE:
The D.C. Personal Protection Act, introduced Tuesday by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), would repeal the District's ban on handguns, end strict registration requirements for ammunition and other firearms, and lift prohibitions on the possession or carrying of weapons at homes and workplaces. . . .
"It is time to restore the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and to defend their families against murderous predators," said Hatch, whose bill has 18 co-sponsors. "Try to imagine the horror that [a] victim felt when he faced a gun-toting criminal and could not legally reach for a firearm to protect himself."
According to U.S. Justice Department statistics, the District's per-capita murder rate hovered between third- and seventh-highest from 1994 to 2001 among cities with more than 100,000 residents. Calling the District the "murder capital of the United States," Hatch said the gun prohibition is "as ineffective and deplorable as it is unconstitutional."
The District of Columbia is a case-study in the ineffectiveness of gun-control. Heck, it's a case study in the ineffectiveness of a lot of outdated government policies.
But here's the most revealing quote:
Matt Nosanchuk, litigation director for the Violence Policy Center, a gun-control advocacy group, said there is no evidence that greater access to guns reduces crime.
Remember how anti-gun folks used to say that reducing gun controls would lead to "blood in the streets?" Now the best they can claim is that it probably won't reduce crime.
Take 'em at their word. If liberalizing gun laws won't make crime better, but won't make it worse either, then what's the justification for keeping the laws on the books? That some people find gun ownership offensive?
Some people find gay sex offensive, too. Big deal. You don't outlaw things and deny people civil rights on the basis of offensiveness.