D.C.’s Crime Problem Is Virginia’s Crime Problem

Christy Bautista
Christy Bautista

by James A. Bacon

Washington, D.C. has a crime problem, and due to its proximity to Virginia, that means Virginia has a crime problem, Attorney General Jason Miyares wrote a week ago in a letter to Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser.

Miyares attributed D.C.’s crime wave to lax-on-crime policies. “Your unwillingness to enforce your laws and hold violent offenders responsible puts your residents and mine at risk,” he said.

The letter prompted immediate pushback from those who maintain that either (a) Washington’s crime problem really isn’t so bad; or (b) it’s really Virginia’s fault for allowing so many guns to get into the hands of bad guys in D.C. “This is not just a D.C. problem. It’s a gun problem,” retorted Washington Post columnist Petula Dvorak. “More Americans died from gunfire — homicides and suicides — than in any other year on record.” Virginia’s lax gun laws, she said, leave D.C. in the “crossfire.”

At the risk of agitating both sides of the gun debate, perhaps it’s possible that both Miyares and Dvorak are right. Maybe, just maybe, Virginia’s gun laws do (or did in the past) make it too easy for D.C. criminals to get guns. And just maybe D.C. law-enforcement policies do make it too easy for violent criminals to get out of jail. While we’re spreading around the blame, maybe we should acknowledge that there is something dysfunctional about an American culture and society that produces so many violent criminals in the first place (although we’re never likely to agree why).

Here’s the case Miyares laid out in his letter:

Over the weekend Christy Bautista, an innocent young woman from Virginia, was murdered in the supposed safety of her hotel room less than an hour after checking in to attend a concert in your city. A Capitol Hill staffer was brutally attacked in broad daylight. Over the summer, a young Arlington woman was harassed on the metro, and countless Virginians have been murdered in D.C. over the last three years, including Aaron Bourne, Kenithy Manns, Christian Gabriel Monje, and Ahmad Clark.

Yet D.C. Council Chairman [Phil] Mendelson recently denied that D.C. had a crime crisis. According to the Metropolitan Police Department, D.C. has seen two consecutive years of over 200 homicides, a distinction the city hasn’t reached in nearly two decades. In addition, carjackings have been steadily rising for the last five years. Homicides in Washington, D.C. have increased by 31% since this time last year, sexual assault increased by 84%, and motor vehicle theft has increased by 107%. In general crime in 2023 has risen by 23%….

Washington, D.C., is dealing with a crime explosion. … There is no deterrent for illegal behavior in Washington, D.C., as these repeat offenders know they will either not be charged or let back on the streets in no time. That’s why we lost Christy Bautista. D.C.’s lenient policies and perspective are responsible for her murderer’s release when he should have been in custody.

(Miyares could have added that D.C. criminality leaks into Virginia communities. Bad guys hop on the Metro — often fare jumping — rob and steal, and then zoom back across state lines.)

D.C. and Virginia need to work together to address the rising tide of crime, Miyares said. “That means acknowledging it is a problem and committing to finding a solution rather than sweeping it under the rug.”

In putting the blame back on Virginia, Dvorak cites Virginia’s role as a supplier of illegal guns to D.C. “For decades Virginia has been a top supplier of guns in stickups, drivebys, maimings, and massacres across the nation, and especially up the Eastern Seaboard,” she writes. Thirty years ago Virginia held the No. 1 spot as America’s arms dealer.

She acknowledges that Virginia’s one-gun-a-month law has throttled the gun supply somewhat. But she cites ATF data to show that illegal guns originating in Virginia still are a key driver of gun crime in the District. In 2021, 619 of the guns seized in D.C. were traced back to Virginia, far outpacing the 164 that came from Maryland. (No word on when those guns made it into D.C. — before or after Virginia clamped down on gun sales.)

Complicating Dvorak’s narrative is that fact that Bautista, a James Madison University graduate and resident of Harrisonburg, was stabbed to death — not shot. The man charged in her killing, in what police say was a random attack, was homeless and mentally ill.

Miyares proclaimed an interest in “finding a solution” to the crime wave. That won’t be easy given the fact that his and Bowser’s worldviews are diametrically opposed.

But… just spitballing here… perhaps there is a grand deal to be struck. What if Virginia committed to cracking down on illegal gun trafficking into D.C. if Washington committed to keeping violent criminals behind bars and preventing mentally ill homeless people from roaming the streets? Can we as a society walk and chew gum at the same time?


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

83 responses to “D.C.’s Crime Problem Is Virginia’s Crime Problem”

  1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Wow! You and the Washington Post editorial board are in agreement on something. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/07/christy-bautista-murder-criminal-justice/

  2. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Well, I’m glad to see Jim Bacon commenting on Washington, DC. The Plantation Elite’s view that the world ends at Virginia’s borders needs re-examination. 37% of Virginia’s population lives in Northern Virginia … a suburb of Washington, DC.

    What happens in DC definitely affects a lot of Virginians.

    Unfortunately, Washington, DC is a mis-managed mess. From Hizzhonor’s proclamation in 1990 that, “Bitch set me up” to the city council’s latest attempt to further defang prosecutions in the District, Washington is like a permanent, petulant adolescent who can’t be completely trusted to manage its own affairs without ongoing oversight.

    Of course, DC and the Post blame Virginia guns for DC’s murder problem. Odd that Alexandria, Arlington and inner-Fairfax County, which have about the same population as DC, don’t have the same murder problem as the city across the Potomac. I guess illegal Virginia guns don’t cause the same level of problems in Virginia as they do in DC. More pretzel logic from the left.

    1. James Kiser Avatar
      James Kiser

      VA guns are racist LOL

    2. Lefty665 Avatar

      I believe that was part of Hizzhonor’s quest to get crack off the streets of D.C. one gram at a time.

  3. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    D.C. councilmembers approved a bill that would lower sentences for users of guns in crimes and including the crime of illegal gun possession. Fortunately, the Mayor, Congress and Biden had sense enough to override the bill and prevent it from becoming law.

    With proper documents, the police can search a parolee’s or probationer’s vehicle and home for weapons. What would happen if this were a regular practice, followed by subsequent automatic prosecution of anyone having a firearm illegally?

    As for Ms. Dvorak, she works for the Post. Perhaps, she should investigate and report on any use of arm bodyguards by Mr. Bezos.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      As you probably realize, the new sentences proposed in the D.C. criminal code revision were reflective of sentences actually being given by judges in the District. Therefore, the new code requirements would not have resulted in reduction of actual sentences. All the politics were based on perception, which, unfortunately is the rule in politics.

      1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        And that too is the problem. While I support giving first-time offenders a second chance, unless they have engaged in a violent crime, giving lenient sentences to multi-time offenders and violent offenders does not protect the public or provide adequate punishment. The D.C. prosecutors and judges were and are part of the problem.

        If possession of illegal firearms is a big problem, those who possess and transfer them need to serve longer sentences and not plea bargain down. That was the problem with the Michigan State University shooter.

        D.C.’s lax criminal justice system is a big reason why crime is a big problem in D.C. D.C. wants to crack down on people who obey the law while looking the other way for career criminals.

        Also, how about Dvorak reporting on the fact that most crimes in and around Tysons are committed by non-Virginians?

      2. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        So, lowering the statutory sentences wouldn’t have changed anything. In other words, the bill was based on perception. So, why bother?

        You also focus on the average sentences handed out. What about the outliers? Lowering the statutory sentences “caps” the amount of time a judge could use, no?

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          I haven’t examined the DC proposal in sufficient detail to know whether the new maximums were based on averages or on a range. In Virginia’s voluntary sentencing guidelines, the guidelines are based on a range calculated around the median of actual sentences.

          My major point is that the issue is not as simplistic as it has been reported in the press and expounded on by politicians.

  4. Lefty665 Avatar

    I have long been skeptical of many gun laws, and was doubtful that Virginia’s original “one gun a month” handgun law would have much effect. Several years later I was very pleasantly surprised when crime gun statistics showed that Virginia had gone from near the top of the list of state sources for interstate crime guns to near the bottom. I was disappointed when that law was rescinded but pleased when it was reinstated several years ago. It would be interesting to see how the sources for D.C.s crime guns have varied in relation to Virginia’s handgun purchase limitations.

    D.C. has not embraced mandatory sentences for gun use by those committing crimes as programs like “Project Exile” prescribed. The D.C. City Council rewrite of sentencing law downward was a step in the wrong direction. The City, neighboring Virginia and Maryland are fortunate that Congress over rode it. Those proposed changes, over the Mayor’s veto, were as strong an argument against both statehood and the likelihood of D.C. gaining control of crime as I have ever seen.

    D.C.s statistics, like Richmond’s, Baltimore’s and many other cities show that violent crime is committed by a small number of people. If cities get that group off the streets by arresting, prosecuting and jailing them for crimes they commit cities can become far less dangerous places. Catch and release, unsurprisingly, has the opposite effect.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      I’m glad to here that the one gun a month law has been a success in regards to curbing interstate gun crimes. It’s inconvenient to the hobbyist, but can also keep more money in their wallet ha.

      I think the vast majority of issues arise from what you pointed out in your last paragraph. The don’t enforce current firearms law sentences when it comes down to it.

    2. I do not have a problem with a one-handgun-a month law, as long as it includes a process for a law abiding citizen to do things such as purchase a pair of cowboy-action revolvers with consecutive serial numbers, or buy a matched pair of dueling pistols on the secondary market.

      The exemption for concealed handgun permit holders in the original law was not detrimental to its effectiveness in reducing trafficking of handguns. There was no legitimate reason not to include such an exemption when the one-gun-a-month law was reinstated a couple of years ago by the democrat-controlled GA and democrat governor.

      The fact that it was not is just one example of the “progressive” left’s unwillingness to compromise on gun control. They demand compromise from me, but offer none to me.
      From my perspective, it stands as further evidence that the real goal of these people is not to reduce crime, but to disarm the law-abiding citizens of this state and this country.

  5. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    In NOVA, we definitely seem to have a lot of spillover crime from both Maryland and DC.

    But what I am remembering (correctly or incorrectly) was the Wash DC had some strict gun laws that were effective, until NRA took DC to court to have DC’s strict gun laws taken away.

    1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead

      A little over 50,000 FBI NICS Firearm Checks in Virginia for March 2023. March for some reason is one of the busy months for this check. Nearly a half a million in the Land of Lincoln. Only 20 checks in the Mariana Islands.
      https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year_by_state.pdf/view

    2. Lefty665 Avatar

      You are correct that D.C. gun laws were (excessively) strict, but your memory is incorrect, they were neither effective nor were they overturned by the NRA. The only people they disarmed were law abiding residents and occasional tourists who got severely busted. The case was initiated and pursued by a D.C. resident, Dick Heller.

      D.C.s gun laws were widely recognized as unconstitutional by most even moderately informed observers for at least 40 years. The only real question was how long it would take for someone with enough resources and time to get mad enough about them to pursue it to the Supreme Court. That happened with Heller in 2008.

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        My error. The Bill of Rights containing the 2A was adopted in 1791, making the span of time it was accepted as applicable to militias not individuals 217 years.

        1. Lefty665 Avatar

          Oh, you are too kind! Thanks for treating us to another Jim McCarthy silly walk so quickly. We are indebted. Hehehe, it only hurts when I laugh.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Clearly with reasoning like that, NY law schools surely aren’t what they are cracked up to be.

          2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            It is not a “silly walk” set out by McCarthy. A strong case was made by distinguished historians for just this interpretation. See:

            https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_historians.pdf

          3. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            He does not and his argument was on jurisprudence, not history and your citation doesn’t prove anything.

            There have been competitive legal theories regarding the 2nd amendment for over 200 years. Heller stated once and for all, it was based on the individual right.

            Your understanding of the argument is categorically wrong.

            This is also the second time you’ve posted that link, it again doesn’t make you statement true. Clearly it didn’t sway the court in Heller.

          4. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Jurisprudence is the study and science of law, its philosophy. It, by definition, involves historical material. The 5-4 Court in Heller decided not to accord with prior jurisprudence.

          5. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “James McCarthy 3 minutes ago
            Jurisprudence is the study and science of law, its philosophy. It, by definition, involves historical material. The 5-4 Court in Heller decided not to accord with prior jurisprudence.”

            False, but thanks for trying.

            Jurisprudence

            “1
            : the science or philosophy of law
            they have no theories of jurisprudence but … decide each case on its facts
            —R. H. Bork
            2
            a
            : a system or body of law
            Roman jurisprudence
            labor jurisprudence
            b
            : the course of court decisions as distinguished from legislation and doctrine
            a tendency that has become apparent in the jurisprudence of the American courts
            —Bernard Schwartz
            3
            : a department of law”

            Seeing as there was a singular case that used the theory your espousing in 1939 (US v Miller), it’s not your claimed 217 years or otherwise.

          6. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Thanx for verifying the substance of my comment with “the course of court decisions as distinguished from legislation and doctrine…a tendency that has become apparent in the jurisprudence of the American courts.” Clearly, with reasoning like that the light is shining upon you.

            If the individual right to bear arms existed from 1791 forward, what took so long until 2008 to assert that principle?

          7. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            I verified a singular point you made, that’s it’s about doctrine. The problem with your statement is that you take historical cases and confuse them with the historians quibbling over terms (which is what DHS cited).

            “If the individual right to bear arms existed from 1791 forward, what took so long until 2008 to assert that principle?”

            Again, the first time the theory you’re hanging your hat on was argued was in 1939, not 1791. The Federalist papers were clear in their intentions regarding firearm ownership.

          8. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            Dick, the brief did not mention the Assize of Arms (1181), which required all freemen, except for Jews who were not permitted to have arms, to have arms suitable for their station in life and to serve in the militia when called by the king. There were no armories then. Freemen kept their arms at home and used them in their daily life as needed. Moreover, the fact that the law prohibited Jews from owning or bearing arms, clearly indicates that non-Jewish freemen had the right to own and bear arms. If there was no right to bear arms for non-Jewish freemen, there was no need to exclude Jewish freedmen from exercising that right.

            Further scholarship indicates that Henry II’s Assize of Arms was a rejuvenation of the old Angl0-Saxon fyrd, which was a local militia subject to call-up and where the men were required to furnish their own arms. Again, these arms were kept at home and used in daily life.

            All of this was part of English common law at the time of Colonial America and American independence. As such, it became American law.

            Our notion of the jury and rights to a jury trial in certain instances was also part of English common law and became American law. How does one toss common law as it relates to rights to bear arms while keeping the common law as it pertains to the right to a jury trial?

            As Justice John Paul Stevens said, if we don’t like the 2nd Amendment, repeal it. That’s a much better approach than listening to intellectually dishonest academics.

          9. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            The 1181 Assize, as you state, “required” freemen to possess arms in contemplation of a call up. That requirement is not the equivalent of an innate right to bear arms. Many provisions of this nation’s legal concepts have substantively modified those of English common law especially in our Constitution joining law and equity. As Judge Frank Easterbrook admonished Justice Scalia, the increase in US population and consequent urban density along with a substantial military and police forces present an entirely different context for jurists.

            Legal reasoning with historical info, contrary to Heller, remains viable.

          10. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            Jim, do you think that someone from the King’s court rounded up the weapons pending a call-up for the militia or that no freeman every used his weapons to dispatch someone trying to steal a cow? And how do you address the bar against English Jews from owning weapons?

            There have been modifications of the law. Courts have sustained special regulations for owning a flamethrower or a 50 caliber machine gun. But there is a basic right to own and bear arms. One could also use urban density to justify a total closure of the U.S. border or limiting a mother or family to no more than two children. If Easterbrook can create exceptions, so too can anyone else.

            English common law provides for a personal right to own and bear arms. The Second Amendment simply recognizes that right. Congress and the states can modify or repeal that Amendment. I’ll think the anti-firearm crowd is serious when they support legislation that makes hiring an armed bodyguard a felony.

          11. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            A standing, ready for conflict armed forces exists today as replacement for every freeman with arms. I’ll leave justification of the bar against Jews bearing arms to your insight. Urban density, a standing military, and law enforcement are contemporary realities that did not exist in 1181 or historically under English common law.

            For 217 years until Heller, the law was not challenged to enunciate an individual right to bear arms. Arguendo that the DC gun control laws were overly restrictive, judicial restraint argued for lesser sweep than declaring the 2A embodied an individual right to exist. Simply to have struck down the DC statutes would have been consistent with the Dobbs decision to return the matter for local determination. That in brief is the caution – not exceptions – Judge Easterbrook wrote in the forward to one of Scalia’s books.

            Your views on the topic are as honestly presented as are those who disagree.

          12. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “For 217 years until Heller, the law was not challenged to enunciate an individual right to bear arms.”

            Again, this statement is a figment of your imagination. The 2nd Amendment was not viewed as a Collective Right until 1939.

            You’ve been provided an innumerable number of citations to this fact, yet you ignore them. Whatever the reason for that, it escapes me.

            Your citation of Dobbs is pointless, it’s an apples to oranges comparison. One is a defined right in the Constitution, the other lacking such is a State right as per the 10th Amendment.

          13. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            Jim, those cases were wrongly decided. That could be because the advocates failed to present appropriate references to English law. A court only decides what is presented to it.

            You are, indeed, correct that there was no comparable urban density in 12th Century England or a standing army or police forces comparable to ours. But the English freeman had arms, kept them at home and likely took them most places he went (unless he was Jewish). There is nothing in history that suggests weapons had to be stored unless and until the King called up the militia.

            It’s also inconceivable that an English freeman, an English colonist or American citizen, absent a choice, have ne or more weapons within ready access and use it to protect hearth and home.

            Likewise, John L. Burns, the venerable War of 1812 veteran, grabbed his flintlock musket, without a call to join a militia, on July 1, 1863 and went after the Confederate army. He later saw a wounded federal soldier and took his Enfield musket and ammunition.

            And there is Nunn v. Georgia, 1 Ga. 249 (1846) where the state supreme court declared a state law banning Bowie knives and pistols to be unconstitutional as violating the Second Amendment. The case cited earlier cases from Kentucky and Alabama.

            Amend or repeal the Second Amendment.

            Great discussion.

          14. That is only a strong case for someone who is already leaning in that direction.

            The “collective” rights argument regarding the Bill of Rights holds no water unless you also want to apply it to the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. amendments. The founders meant the 2nd Amendment to be an individual right, and anyone who takes our other individual rights seriously knows that. Clever manipulation of language by lawyers does not change the intent of our Bill of Rights.

        2. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          That’s again false, your legal opinion is not just flawed but down right wrong.

          1. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            It’s not a legal opinion merely a recitation of Constitutional historians and scholars. Can’t be “down right wrong” citing those sources. All would benefit from your citations from your legal scholars noted in your comment to DHS.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “James McCarthy 12 minutes ago
            It’s not a legal opinion merely a recitation of Constitutional historians and scholars. Can’t be “down right wrong” citing those sources. All would benefit from your citations from your legal scholars noted in your comment to DHS.”

            It’s the opinion of historians that you two agree with, it doesn’t make it correct.

            I’ve provided citations, if only you took the time to read them. Or heck even read anything for that matter, as your statements would indicate otherwise.

            Oh and the SCOTUS ruled 5-4, so umm ya lost.

          3. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            No, it’s evidence that prior to Heller it was generally the interpretation of the 2A that it applies to militias not individuals.

          4. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “James McCarthy 23 minutes ago
            No, it’s evidence that prior to Heller it was generally the interpretation of the 2A that it applies to militias not individuals.”

            No, no it’s not. It’s an appeal to authority, you merely chose an authority whom agree with your interruption.

            You’re arguing Collective rights theory, it is not the only one and it didn’t win the day. Again, it was also not adopted until 1939.

            https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment#:~:text=A%20collective%20rights%20theory%20of,without%20implicating%20a%20constitutional%20right.

            Heller was reaffirmed in 2010 in McDonald v City of Chicago, again in 2016 and 2022.

        3. More incorrect information from the left. Repeating lies does not make them true.

    3. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      It was the Cato Institute that supported Mr. Heller in his campaign against DC gun laws in the 2008, 5-4 decision by Justice Scalia. The 2A, he opined, created or protected an individual right to bear arms by distinguishing the comma in the Amendment following the militia clause. The decision overturned some 200 years of accepted jurisprudence that such right of the “people” referred to militias.

      1. Lefty665 Avatar

        Hahaha, another superb Jim McCarthy silly walk, 200 years, etc… Congrats on making it up once again. You’re so good at that.

      2. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        “The 2A, he opined, created or protected an individual right to bear arms by distinguishing the comma in the Amendment following the militia clause. The decision overturned some 200 years of accepted jurisprudence that such right of the “people” referred to militias.”

        That’s factually incorrect, a miliita member at the time of the document, referred to every abled body male between the ages of 17-45. Heller did no such thing, your legal reasoning as per usual is wrong.

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          A group of distinguished historians of this era has contended just the opposite. see:

          https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_historians.pdf

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            So you’ve got your legal scholars and I have mine. Here is the problem, your’s don’t matter. It’s been ruled on, it’s moot.

            https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiK7oams6X-AhU5F1kFHZTwBm8QFnoECAwQBg&usg=AOvVaw2p8YP4AgVcmYG1d1RRJVr5

            https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-ii/interpretations/99

            Also, your opinion on firearms is abject worthless. You made several fallacious statements previously regarding naming of the firearm, where corrected and refused to acknowledge that.

          2. So in the second amendment, the “right of the people” refers to a collective right, but in the 4th amendment, the exact same phrase refers to individual rights?

            No offense to you and your distinguished historians, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

          3. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            “Collective” rights may be imputed to individuals as well and modified by law. In 4A, the right of the people is “to be secure in their persons” subject to reasonable search and seizure. As noted elsewhere in commentary, the 1181 statute requiring freemen to own weapons was not a right but a command so that the state would have a ready militia. That proposition seems to be substantively similar to the 2A’s “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…”. The 9 and 10As offered subsequent lawmakers and jurists flexibility to define more precisely collective and individual rights. The debate in these commentaries focuses on that interpretation.

        2. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          And, of course, women are not regarded as individuals in 1796 for purposes of legal reasoning to have a right to bear arms versus “every abled body male.” Odd that Justice Scalia overlooked that powerful fact.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “James McCarthy 3 minutes ago
            And, of course, women are not regarded as individuals in 1796 for purposes of legal reasoning to have a right to bear arms versus “every ambled body male.” Odd that Justice Scalia overlooked that powerful fact.”

            You forgot the [sic] on my typo, but alas it has zero impact on my statement. As for the rest of your statement, it is jus another one of your standard Red Herrings, thanks. PS: The error in the Constitution regarding women’s suffrage was cured by the 19th Amendment, you know the process by which you change the Constitution.

            Also, in addition to your previous statement. Considering prior to 1934 there were no regulations on firearms or their ownership, it doesn’t bode well for your statement. As a matter of fact the first case heard by the SCOTUS regarding firearms where your theory was presented was in 1939. So I don’t know about you, but in my math that’s 84 years. Here is a quick timeline of firearms legislation:

            1) 1934 NFA
            2) Gun Control Act of 1968
            3) FOPA 1986
            4) 1994 AWB (this was created based purely upon cosmetic items and did nothing to curb violence).

            https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act#:~:text=In%201986%2C%20this%20Act%20amended,or%20possession%20of%20machine%20guns.

          2. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            You did not include US v Cruikshank (1875) or Presser v Illinois (1886). Nor the works of legal historians and scholars who opined about the individual right to bear arms between 1796 and 2008.

          3. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            You should go back and read Cruikshank, because clearly you have not. As for presser, it has nothing to do with firearm ownership. Neither were regarding any federal law regulating firearms. Also, contrary to what you’re attempt to argue, both of those decisions held the Second Amendment is a limitation upon the Federal Government, not the other way around.

            “Nor the works of legal historians and scholars who opined about the individual right to bear arms between 1796 and 2008.”

            That’s an appeal to authority, merely because you agree with them, doesn’t make them correct.

          4. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            You obsess about being correct. The discussion has focused upon 2A jurisprudence from 1791 to 2008 – not solely decisional events. The SCOTUS blog cite contains a lengthy iteration of the issues over time. You asserted you have your scholars. Heller has been the controlling decision for only 18 years. As you seem to know, circumstances and courts change continually. Surely, Justice Scalia considered women as bearers of arms in 1791 and 2008 to conclude an individual right existed.

          5. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            The jurisprudence that exists between 1791 and 1939 doesn’t validate your argument. Again, not until 1939 was there a Federal Law regulating firearms rooted in collective theory.

            That blog was an amicus brief used in Heller. It failed to sway and just because it exists and states what you believe doesn’t make its opinion true. Hence your appeal to authority.

            Heller has been reaffirmed 4 times since it’s decision, the case you’re basing your argument on failed ok it’s first challenge.

            More red herrings piled with non-sequiter.

          6. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            The failure of the amicus to persuade one of the 5 does not equate with correctness. As repeated, the conflicting issue concerned whether the right to bear arms was individual. Also, the amicus contained substantial historical and jurisprudential material from scholars and records which you reject or dismiss. That body of work does not disappear with Heller.

          7. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “James McCarthy 10 hours ago
            The failure of the amicus to persuade one of the 5 does not equate with correctness. As repeated, the conflicting issue concerned whether the right to bear arms was individual. Also, the amicus contained substantial historical and jurisprudential material from scholars and records which you reject or dismiss. That body of work does not disappear with Heller.”

            Ironically, you’d hold a different belief if the amicus brief failed to persuade based an opinion opposite of yours.

            The amicus brief, failed to persuade the Justices beyond ideological lines. Therefore it, it can be concluded it was wrong.

            ‘Also, the amicus contained substantial historical and jurisprudential material from scholars and records which you reject or dismiss.”

            No it did not, it contained opinions, which were found to not be rooted in fact as illustrated by the manner in which the case was decided.

            You’re attempt to argue that “Collective Right Theory” has applied to the 2nd Amendment since 1791, is not only wrong is it flawed from the outset. Its application was not present until the 20th century, more specifically 1939 in US v Miller.

            https://dsc.duq.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3285&context=dlr

            I can provide you with more than a dozen Law Review Articles that discuss this topic and point out you’re incorrect, if you’d like.

            https://www.justia.com/constitutional-law/gun-rights-under-the-constitution/

            https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=clevstlrev

          8. You obsess about being correct.

            And you don’t?

            Ha!

          9. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            PS: no allegation was made that Cruikshank and Presser involved ownership of arms, only that SCOTUS acknowledged the 2A applied to the Federal govt and that states could adopt legislation regarding bearing arms and regulation of militias. This decisional view existed prior to and until Heller.

          10. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “James McCarthy 9 hours ago
            PS: no allegation was made that Cruikshank and Presser involved ownership of arms, only that SCOTUS acknowledged the 2A applied to the Federal govt and that states could adopt legislation regarding bearing arms and regulation of militias. This decisional view existed prior to and until Heller.”

            Clearly you didn’t read or perhaps you didn’t understand what Presser or Cruikshank stated in their decisions. Find the summaries below and their reference to the 2nd Amendment:

            Presser: “The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the states. But in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government as well as in view of its general powers, the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security.”

            https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/116/252/#:~:text=Illinois%2C%20116%20U.S.%20252%20(1886)&text=There%20is%20no%20Second%20Amendment,groups%2C%20drilling%2C%20and%20parading.

            Cruikshank: “6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.”

            https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/

            It also does not validate your claim that “Collective Right Theory” has existed since 1791, because it has not in regards to the 2nd Amendment. Its first iteration was 1939 and then following in the 60’s. Outside of that, Collective Right Theory has not been applied to the 2nd Amendment.

            Which invalidates your initial statement, as I previously pointed out.

          11. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            What was in the briefs in those cases? What level of historical research into English legal and constitutional history was presented?

          12. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Nothing that had any relevance to what was being discussed, they were red herrings. As far as I could tell from the briefs I read, they did not reference English common law. You’d surmise that by JM’s silence on your question.

      3. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
        energyNOW_Fan

        Cato? I tend to like Cato but question that one.

        1. Lefty665 Avatar

          It is revisionist history. D.C.s gun problems, both past and present, are illegal guns. Many are stolen, most of the rest come out of the illegal interstate gun trade. Very few of the crime guns in D.C., if any, were legally purchased by the criminal. D.C.s strict gun laws have only ever disarmed law abiding people.

          D.C. got control of its crime problem just as the rest of the country did, the pig in the python population bulge aged out of prime crime years, and they put more of them in jail. Remember Hillary and Joe and jailing “predators” in the ’90s. That’s where the “peace era” came from. D.C. gun laws did not change significantly from the ’70s until Heller in 2008.

          D.C., like many other cities today is “regressing back to the old D.C.” thanks to not jailing a relatively small number of violent criminals, many of them young. Catch and release breeds recidivism. Teach kids there are few consequences for bad behavior and we get more bad behavior.

      4. The 4th amendment contains the exact same language in that regard as the 2nd – “the right of the people”.

        Are you arguing that the 4th amendment does not protect individual rights?

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Nope. Only that state and Fed have authority to adopt firearms control legislation including bans on certain weapons.

          1. Please explain how, logically, the 2nd amendment can refer to a collective right but the 4th refer to individual right(s), when they both use the phrase “the right of the people” when describing the actions not to be taken by the government.

      5. The decision did not overturn 200 years of
        accepted jurisprudence that such right of the “people” referred to militias.In fact, the courts had always held that the militia clause was preamble and that the people referred to the same people as in the rest of the document.

        Interpreted as you say, the 2A reads: The army has the right to own guns.

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Perhaps “overturned” is incorrect. Reversed 217 years of presumption about the 2A, militias, and individuals.

          1. How can a court decision in 2008 have reversed 217 years of your personal presumptions? You are nowhere near that old.

          2. A rose by anyother name is still revisioinsit history.

    4. I am going to assume you are being sarcastic.

  6. WhatMeWorryVA Avatar
    WhatMeWorryVA

    How about adding on 20 years MANDATORY for any gun crime?

    1. Revise that to “How about adding on 20 years MANDATORY for using a firearm in commission of a violent felony” and I’m in.

      In my opinion, no misdemeanor or non-violent felony should cost someone 20 years of their life (at least not for a first conviction).

  7. James Kiser Avatar
    James Kiser

    Democrats in DC have been making raids into VA for years especially in the 80’s as Arlington added malls and the metro went right into some of these areas.

  8. James Kiser Avatar
    James Kiser

    One other point about the DC AG is that he ruses to prosecute any gun crime such as illegal possession or possession by a convicted felon.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      What is the evidence for this claim that DC refuses to prosecute ANY gun crime?

      1. It’s not exactly a secret that Democrats currently have a major push toward “criminal justice reform.” They say we have too many people in prison, particularly minorities. The solution is to send fewer there, and parole or pardon the ones currently in jail.

        Where’s the evidence that allowing concealed carry has contributed to the problem? There is none.

        Texas is the only state that actively tracks concealed carry holders, and their record for criminality is far far less than the population at large.

        https://www.dps.texas.gov/sites/default/files/documents/rsd/ltc/reports/convictionratesreport2022.pdf

        1. Texas is the only state that actively tracks concealed carry holders, and their record for criminality is far far less than the population at large.

          And police officers as a group.

  9. Virginia Gentleman Avatar
    Virginia Gentleman

    Did the VA AG really think a letter as written would help to advance a resolution? It is obvious that scoring political points is way more important to him that fixing the problem. Perhaps a letter similar to JAB’s post on this subject could be a lesson for the AG. What if the letter from the AG suggested that both sides could do something to reduce crime? I would guess that approach would have had a much higher potential to yield some positive actions. Until we start talking to each other instead of yelling at each other – nothing is going to get done.

  10. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    But what I would say, and this is my perception, possibly revisionist history:

    DC had a huge crime issue going back to Marion Barry 30-40 yrs ago years. DC somehow got that crime issue under control, with strict gun laws as one element of the fix. That “peace era” would extend up thru the 2008 Heller case. Now looks like DC is regressing back to the old DC.

    1. Lefty665 Avatar

      D.C.s strict gun laws predate Marion Barry. Until Heller they had not changed materially for a long time.

      It is revisionist history. D.C.s gun problems, both past and present, are illegal guns. Many are stolen, most come out of the illegal interstate gun trade. Very few of the crime guns in D.C., if any, were legally purchased by the criminal. D.C.s strict gun laws have only ever disarmed law abiding people.

      D.C. got control of its crime problem just as the rest of the country did, the pig in the python population bulge aged out of prime crime years, and they put more of them in jail. Remember Hillary and Joe on jailing “predators” in the ’90s? The “peace era” came from those two things. D.C. gun laws did not change significantly from at least the ’70s until Heller in 2008. D.C.s crime rates varied widely over those years, but D.C.s gun laws did not.

      D.C., like many other cities today is “regressing back to the old D.C.” thanks to not jailing a relatively small number of violent criminals, many of them young. Catch and release breeds recidivism. Teach kids there are few consequences for bad behavior and we get more bad behavior.

      1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
        energyNOW_Fan

        Thank you Lefty for the insights.

        One obvious issue is young Age 13+ is now involved with guns and stealing cars etc

        1. Lefty665 Avatar

          I’ve tried to be informative without being disagreeable. Thanks for letting me know I’ve had some success at that.

          Yeah, It breaks my heart how young some kids are going horribly wrong. As a country we’ve got to figure out how to do better for all of us.

          FWIW, I grew up in NoVa in the ’60s and we had several family friends in D.C. A couple of them were lawyers whose practices included the Supreme Court. They were very much a part of the the D.C./Federal legal establishment. It was their take on the ultimate unconstitutionality of D.C.s gun laws that I referenced earlier. Another friend was a VP at the Wash Post. While she generally agreed with the paper’s anti gun stance she also understood that D.C.s extreme gun laws were unconstitutional.

          From personal experience both she and the lawyers thought Scalia a bright lawyer but an arrogant, overbearing ahole. None of them lived to see Heller. I have sometimes wondered what their reactions would have been when Scalia righted that wrong and then used D.C.s extreme law as the tool to indelibly affirm the 2nd Amendment as an individual right and the law of the land in Heller. I expect they would have had a good laugh and found it right in character.

  11. Over a decade ago, Washingtonian Magazine did a deep dive into the crimes with guns problem in DC. (It may still be available in their archives.) Then as now, the problem of DC’s lackluster enforcement was a prime contributor, and Mendelson was a key cause of the problem. IIRC, cops on joint taskforces (DC,MD,VA) would try to get the cases tried in VA because the crooks would be taken of the streets if convicted in VA. Mendelson opposed every reform.

    If restricting access to guns reduces crime, DC would be the safest of the 3 jurisdictions (DC,VA,MD). FBI stats going back decades, show the reverse to be true. As a state, VA’s homicide rate runs at the national average (generally about 5 / 100k population). MD runs about 1.6 x the national average and DC 3 x the average. Fairfax County’s rate last year was ~1.3 / 100k. During the Obama years, the number of guns increased dramatically, and crime rates fell. How does that happen if the number of guns is the problem?

    It’s informative, is looking at data by zip code. In DC, most of the murders are located in a small area bordering PG county. In MD, the corresponding area of PG county and certain parts of Baltimore stand out as hot spots. Chicago, etc have similar areas. Guns are inanimate objects. The human factor decides how a gun is used. Focusing on guns leads to the false belief that controlling the tool will eliminate the evil. Of course, diving deep could lead to an examination of cultures other than the ‘gun culture’, and we can’t have that.

    Merging suicide and homicide rates is not justified. Killing yourself is very different from killing or harming another. The causes and prevention are very different. Japan has virtually no private firearm ownership, but has one of the highest suicide rates. Since suicide rates are 3-4 times the homicide rate in most countries, the only purpose for adding them seems be to inflate the gun death numbers for more shock value.

    Then there’s the facts that 2.5 million times a year that a gun is used to prevent a crime, usually without a shot being fired, that 99+% of gun owners never commit any crime, that 26 states allow concealed carry without any license or backgound checks, and about 15% of the adult population of VA has a concealed handgun permit (remember it has the lowest homicide rate in the group). It’s hard to have an honest discussion without including those facts (but I predict that some will want to).

  12. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    If one doesn’t use the original intent of a section of the Constitution, an amendment thereto or a statute, but allows subsequent courts to come up with their own meanings, then any court should have the ability to change the prior court’s meaning. Otherwise, the legal system becomes totally arbitrary and does so without the basis of history. We effectively kill the common law system in favor of a civil law system without the consent of the people as expressed through their elected officials.

    This is not to say the Supreme Court cannot concluded that a prior case was wrongly decided but it needs to do so without changing the meaning of the Constitution, an amendment or a statute.

    1. I have often wondered if replacing the common law system with a civil law one isn’t part of the unstated plan. A bottom up legal system (common law) empowers the people. Civil law (top down) empowers the gov’t.

      Thanks for saying it. I don’t see it said often enough.

Leave a Reply