WASHINGTON, February 27, 2015 — On Tuesday, Fox 5’s Emily Miller ran a story about the culmination of her long and arduous trek to receive a Washington, DC conceal carry permit. Her success itself would be news, but more striking is the number of applicants who have been granted conceal carry permits in the capital city since they were forced to change their laws in the wake of several landmark court cases.
That number is 16. Sixteen out of 76 applications have been approved, in a city renowned for its dangerous streets. Thirty-one have been denied outright.
Washington began issuing permits late last year on a “may-issue” basis, that is, “you have a better chance of finding an honest man in Congress than getting a carry permit.” The application process requires citizens to supply specific reasons, backed by evidence, to justify the granting of a permit.
That is gross hypocrisy. Not because of rhetoric, not because you need a gun to protect yourself from government tyranny, nor for any of the other reasons that gun-control zealots love to trot out as examples of gun-owner paranoia. It is hypocrisy because of a 35-year-old court ruling.
Warren v. District of Columbia.
With that opinion, handed down by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the court ruled that the police do not have a specific duty to protect any one individual; their responsibility is to protect “the public at large.”
In other words, you are on your own.
Thirty-four years later, the DC Council passed conceal carry legislation which requires applicants to prove that they need to carry a concealed weapon. The irony, and the hypocrisy, are glaring.
This situation, created by the fear that so many gun control advocates have of a law abiding, well-armed populace, is made even more ridiculous by the cries of those who argue that it is unnecessary for ordinary citizens to own guns. The police have guns. The DC Council has not only restricted the rights of individuals to carry guns in their self-defense, but they have washed their hands of any responsibility when it comes to protecting those they have disarmed in the name of public safety.
Read Also: Rapid Fire: Second Amendment news
A government which operates under the tenet that it is not bound by law to protect the individual cannot, and should not, then force those individuals to prove that they need such protection. It is wrong for the District of Columbia, already a dangerous place, to rule that individuals are not necessarily protected by the police, and then place unnecessary obstacles in their way when they seek to provide for themselves extra protection. It is wrong, and it is perhaps one of the most blatant hypocrisies played out by the District of Columbia.
Read, follow, share @bckprchpolitics on Twitter, Back Porch Politics on Facebook, and Conor Higgins on Google+.