Dangerous Ruling for the Bad Guys

Recently a U.S. Court of Appeals overturned portions of a 1976 law that bans Washington D.C. city residents from possessing handguns in their homes. It also removed the requirement that long barreled firearms be stored with trigger locks or in a disassembled state. According to the judges, the Second Amendment protections

"are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

This fantastic news for several reasons:

• Residents of crime ridden Washington D.C. can now more easily own the means to defend themselves, and can store these vital safety tools in a more accessible manner
  
  
• If D.C. residents start using guns to defend themselves in their homes, we should see the usual drop in violent crime and home invasions that accompany gun friendly cities, and these improved crime statistics will make excellent fodder for pro-gun and pro-liberty activists.
  
  
• If anyone appeals this ruling at the U.S. Supreme court, there's a fair chance that we could reestablish a federal mandate that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, which would in turn help people throughout the nation roll back the various gun bans they have been oppressed by.

Not surprisingly, a Washington Post editorialist did not share my enthusiasm for this turn of events. Here's the opening sentence of their opinion piece (emphasis added by me):

a federal appeals court turned its back on nearly 70 years of Supreme Court precedent to give a new and dangerous meaning to the Second Amendment. If allowed to stand, this radical ruling will inevitably mean more people killed and wounded as keeping guns out of the city becomes harder. Moreover, if the legal principles used in the decision are applied nationally, every gun control law on the books would be imperiled.

It's really a shame how so many members of the media misinterpret the right to bear arms. The only danger in this ruling is to the criminals who used to be able to invade private homes at will without fear of being shot by homeowners. The criminals are the "more people [who will be] killed and wounded", and that's good news for the rest of us. The right to self defense is far more important than the government's right to govern, and every time a ban is lifted to empower self defense the media should celebrate rather than bellyache. When guns are banned violent crime goes up, as seen in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Washington D.C. and New York. As gun bans are lifted and things like concealed carry are allowed, violent crime goes down, as seen in numerous states and cities.

I'm beginning to wonder if the reason media people favor gun control is because gun bans lead to juicy violent crime stories and eye-grabbing headlines that help to sell more copy and attract more viewers. If the world actually became safer, these people might have to actually look for something newsworthy rather than continue to inundate us with depressing crime stories.

TFS Magnum, The Freeholder, Musings of a Geek With a .45, QandO, Michelle Malkin, Stop the ACLU, Hot Air, and The Volokh Conspiracy have also covered this story.