In the March 11 Washington Post, staff writers Elissa Silverman and Allison Klein took a look at the men and women behind a legal challenge to the Washington, D.C., handgun ban. But in doing so, it seems they buried the lede.
Information on one plaintiff came near the end of Silverman and Klein's 25-paragraph story:
Dick Heller, 65, said he became involved in the firearms debate in 1997 after he read a news story about a burglary in the District in which the homeowner shot the intruder -- and the homeowner was charged with a crime.
"That's what made us really livid," said Heller, who lives with his wife in Capitol Hill. "After that, I knew we had to be proactive."
That's the heart and soul of the case right there. The ban criminalizes law-abiding citizens who have a natural right to protect themselves, yet find that right severely undercut by District law which takes away a significant means of self defense: private ownership of a firearm.
But how crucial is Heller to the case? Without him, the case might well have been thrown out already:
Heller's decision to join the lawsuit proved fortuitous for the pro-gun contingent. The appeals court ruled that he was the only plaintiff with legal standing because he attempted to register a handgun in the District and was turned away.
When the suit was filed in 2003, Heller worked as a special police officer providing security at a federal court building near Union Station. He said he found it insulting that he could not bring his gun home.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Liberals- The majority of ,
March 11, 2007 - 18:56 ET by BlazerLiberals- The majority of ,who own firearms illegally to prey on society.
Conservatives- The majority of, who own firearms legally, to protect themselves from Liberals.
Hmmmmm?
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
Shows how out-of-touch the
March 11, 2007 - 18:57 ET by sarcasmoShows how out-of-touch the appeals court is...Of course, I'm sure Washington, DC bent over backwards to make it really-easy for ordinary DC residents to even-ask for what this special-kind-of-cop luckily-asked-for (HA!). To be serious for a moment, "standing" can sometimes be a test of just how clueless judges -- especially appellate judges, who by-definition have been a judge for a long time -- can be about the realities of life for us non-judges...
JMR
Haven't you heard?According
March 11, 2007 - 19:30 ET by Jack BauerHaven't you heard?
According to the minority Judge, as D.C. isn't a State, the constitution doesn't apply. Who knew?
Jack:So should the liberal
March 11, 2007 - 19:39 ET by Ken ShepherdJack:
So should the liberal residents of DC have this as an ultimatum:
1) Keep your gun ban and stay a federal district
2) Become a full-fledged state but lose your ability to ban guns.
I'd love to hear someone ask that hypothetical of Mayor Adrian Fenty (D-DC).
I see your point in criticizi
March 11, 2007 - 19:00 ET by Tony SI see your point in criticizing the placement of this story's lede. But let's give them credit to the Post for at least giving a voice to the plantiffs in this case. Typically, they would only focus on the protesters yakking about how "dangerous" lack of gun laws are. Remember their sycophantic Million Mom March coverage?
Here, the Post seemed to go out of their way to break the stereotype of a gun owner being some white guy with a pickup truck (not my stereotype; blame the liberals). This story showed why both law-abiding women and gay men found it necessary to have guns. I'm actually surprised an editor let this story run -- this sort of thing really undercuts the assertions of most anti-gun types who like to fantasize gun owners are all Tim McVeighs in training.
Yeah, I think on balance th
March 11, 2007 - 19:18 ET by Ken ShepherdYeah, I think on balance the article wasn't that bad in that sense. It certainly didn't demonize or discredit the complaints of the people filing the suit.
Yet at the same time, the Post won't go out of its way to portray these folks as fighting for a fundamental right and gaining ground in the courts. After all, this is only one of the benchmark civil liberties we have under the Constitution.
But you will find the Post and other MSM outlets portraying gun control advocates as interested in public safety.
On a related note, the Post's editorial page swiftly jumped in to condemn the ruling in the Saturday paper.
I wonder if they'd be open
March 11, 2007 - 19:41 ET by sarcasmoI wonder if they'd be open to a friendly wager regarding what DC's crime-stats are likely to do once any citizen might also be a gun-owner & criminals begin to look elsewhere for victims? (Oh, yeah, Washington, DC just recently "protected" me from being able to freely-gamble online with my own money, so I guess we'll never know, but it's obvious from FL-experience what crime-stats are gonna do anyway, so they'd be unlikely to take my bet even if it were again legal. Sigh...)
JMR
Didn't you hear the Mayor a
March 11, 2007 - 19:46 ET by lnthompDidn't you hear the Mayor after the decision, it's only because of DC's gun ban that gun crimes are so low in DC. Pardon me while I laugh hysterically.
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Hillsboro, Oregon
I have enough money to last me the rest of my life. Unless I buy something.
Really? When last I heard,
March 12, 2007 - 02:53 ET by sarcasmoReally? When last I heard, Marion Barry wanted to suspend enforcement of the odious law about a month ago. Are we not-talking-about the same guy??
JMR
Strangely, Marion Barry is
March 12, 2007 - 12:17 ET by lnthompStrangely, Marion Barry is no longer Mayor-for-Life of DC. The mayor that pit is currently Adrian M. Fenty, and here you can read the mayor's office official press release in response to the court decision. I wish I had a link to the actual press conference quote, in which he did state that the gun ban had reduced gun crime in DC, but I can't find that right now. The quote in the press release is equally stupid, however.
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Hillsboro, Oregon
I have enough money to last me the rest of my life. Unless I buy something.
Burying the lede
March 11, 2007 - 19:05 ET by dagdaI know this is going to be nitpicky, but it appears that since the lede is the opening paragraph of the article it would be impossible to bury it. You might be able to "bury" what should have been the lede, but not the lede itself.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
bellweather
March 11, 2007 - 19:30 ET by Pragmatic-ManEver wonder what the bellweather moment will be for conservative America? What will be the camel-back-breaking straw that brings forth the wrathful protest from the quiet neo-con underpinnings of this nation? Abortion was not sufficient, and we have been rather unboisterous regarding the war on terror. Supreme Court imminent domain opinions was insufficient. Will it be the second amendment? Maybe? When do we finally stretch out our backbone?
Pragmatism always prevails... even Winston was once a lib.
The problem here is that mo
March 11, 2007 - 19:35 ET by lnthompThe problem here is that most conservatives have full-time jobs, and it's not convenient to take off from work to stand around holding signs, screaming and spitting on people.
And why are all conservatives now "neo-cons"?
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Hillsboro, Oregon
I have enough money to last me the rest of my life. Unless I buy something.
Does anyone else find it fu
March 11, 2007 - 20:10 ET by HopefullyDrJoshDoes anyone else find it funny that the left thinks legalizing drugs will stop all the crime, yet legalizing guns only leads to more crime?
I do.For one, the right to
March 12, 2007 - 00:16 ET by bulletproofI do.
For one, the right to bear arms is constitutional. The
right to get high is delusional. What hypocrisy! For me it always boils
down to hedonism/narcissism vs. what's good for everyone. I just have a
tough time believing so many adults conduct themselves as children with
no self control.
(And DC has, for a great many years, been an embarrasment to our nation!)
1. It's not just "the
March 12, 2007 - 02:49 ET by sarcasmo1. It's not just "the left" that say relegalizing (hey, for once let's get history right) drugs would reduce (nobody you can find has ever said "stop all," and I suspect you know it!) crime. Prohibition doesn't work except to create even-bigger big government -- we've proved it with alcohol even though various people refuse to learn from history. And why do some people on the political right, like you, believe that big government owns people's bodies?? Does the Ninth (or 10th, for that matter) amendment mean nothing to you? I'm of the (minority, these days) opinon that I own my own body.
2. See my proposed bet above. Something tells me you're not too-well prepared to debate me on either of these subjects, but I'm plenty used to that with the tax & spend drugwar.
JMR
Even as someone who hates dru
March 12, 2007 - 03:30 ET by Tony SEven as someone who hates drugs and alcohol (including prescription drugs), I agree with you, Sarcasmo. I think if more people on the right took your POV there would be a bigger tent for people to move to the right.
Also, since this is Newsbusters, does anyone have a link to the story about how the whole "meth-amphetamine crisis" was a media myth? Now because of irresponsible reporting and politicians, people now have to sign up to get Claratin because they are presumed guilty of being "meth heads" before purchase. This is smaller gov't? Conservative need to move beyond the Reagan mindset on drugs. The war on drugs never worked.
Thanks for your kind words.
March 12, 2007 - 03:51 ET by sarcasmoThanks for your kind words. One sad fact about the meth thing is that I can't get plain old Sudafed. They changed the formula from synthetic ephedrine to some sort of chemical-crap that doesn't work AT ALL against the sniffles to allegedly-solve the problem of addicts making the stuff, but of course the problem isn't even close to being solved. Instead, I suspect it's likely that I could more-easily get meth, which I don't-want, than I could get the OLD "meth" KIND OF Sudafed, which I very-much do-want. It's very-annoying when I get sick these days...I only wish I'd been warned so I could have stocked-up like Kennedy did with Cuban cigars, but the change caught me totally by surprise -- sadly just as I'd run out of my stash of the good stuff, too. :(
JMR
Banning guns
March 12, 2007 - 06:12 ET by fosstenSame thing will happen when they ban guns. Likely they'll give us a 30-day amnesty period to get rid of our weapons, and the Unintended Consequences of that will be that everyone'll buy up all the existing rifles and ammo in the country, thus making us even more well-armed than before.
Anyone who owns a gun needs to read the book I've linked above. It's a life-changing experience.
Amen on UC. It's not just a
March 12, 2007 - 06:22 ET by sarcasmoAmen on UC. It's not just an excellent (albeit a bit violent) novel, either. The novel is wrapped-around an EXCELLENT American-history lesson, which focuses on the politically-incorrect parts of American history government schools haven't taught (due to pro-big-government bias). I wish they'd make it into a movie, but needless to say the book's not-too-popular in Hollyweird. (If you're a book-collector, I know where to find a few signed first editions in perfect condition, but they're not-cheap!) For a free sample of John Ross, see Ross in Range. His essays there on how females think have absolutely-helped my love-life (while at the same time upsetting lots of feminists) and I'm proud to say I've shaken his hand.
JMR
War on Drugs
March 12, 2007 - 08:43 ET by pbanks7Something Sarcasmo and I can agree on. The Prohibition is not working. But can't you still get real ephedrine from the pharmacist without an Rx? I can.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
Hmm. Haven't tried that, bu
March 12, 2007 - 09:23 ET by sarcasmoHmm. Haven't tried that, but it sounds like a good idea. No doubt it'll require putting my name on yet-another list, but as a citizen-unit I'm slowly getting used to that. What I really-want is Sudafed-brand Sudafed, the little red ones Astronauts took to space, and needless to say I'll do a much better job of hoarding my next stash next time I get some. My other idea was to try to nab some next time I'm in Costa Rica and/or Panama, but then I get to try and smuggle it back past US Customs... I was gonna do it last time, but Costa Rica can be a very distracting country, and getting some Sudafed wasn't exactly at the top of my list! ;)
JMR