It's no great surprise that this year's presidential election is getting so much attention. It's been a long time since the field has been as open as it is this year. The incumbent has termed out, his VP isn't running, and the incumbent only recently endorsed the presumptive candidate of his party. The two have had strong political differences, so no matter who wins, it will be a new ball game.
The Democrats' two front-runners were a woman and a black man, and that was going to make history either way. Their presumptive candidate was virtually unknown nationally until the campaigning started, and many people thought someone without more notoriety and experience didn't have a chance. That was also true of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton in their day, and they managed to get elected.
If you're looking for an endorsement here, you won't find it. LawOfficer.com isn't taking a position. My experience is that cops tend to be conservatives, and conservatives tend toward the Republican party. If your mind is made up already, then you don't need to read further.
But I suggest you review the responses each candidate made to a questionnaire given them by the Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP). They have not yet endorsed a candidate, and they urge their members to read the responses and make up their own minds, as few people will find themselves in 100% agreement with any candidate's stand on the issues. This questionnaire focuses on the issues relevant to law enforcement officers, and you probably won't find such specific information elsewhere. A link to the FOP's web page on this topic is at the bottom of this column.
District of Columbia et. al. v. Heller
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in D.C v. Heller. Dick Heller is an armed security officer, or a "special police officer" under D.C. law. He wanted to take his sidearm home with him when he left work, but D.C. law prohibits private possession of any handgun in the District unless you are a regular law enforcement officer. After he was refused a permit to possess his sidearm when off duty, he filed a lawsuit against the District.
The Supremes hasn't had a lot to say on the Second Amendment, leaving open to interpretation those clauses about "the people" and "A well regulated Militia":
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This "more taste–less filling" debate has been ongoing for much longer than I have been alive. One side interprets the intention of the Framers to allow the states to form their own armed forces, the modern equivalent of the National Guard. The precise effect varies a lot, but most prefer that the firearms used by these "militias" be stored in armories when their members are not actually fighting someone, and that individuals not own or possess them. The other side tends to ignore the part before "the right of the people" and advocates that everyone ought to be able to own all the guns they want, and use them for any lawful purpose. These are gross generalizations, as there are all sorts of positions between these two extremes.
The D.C. law is the most restrictive in the country. No other city or local government has an outright ban on privately-owned handguns, although some require all guns to be licensed and registered. This Draconian law has been chillingly ironic, given that the District has one of the highest rates of violent crime in the country. The 2005 violent crime index for the seven largest cities in neighboring Virginia (where people can buy and lawfully carry firearms with the proper permits) was 231. That's 231 violent crimes for every 100,000 people. In gun-free D.C. during the same period, it was 1402. I'm guessing that not everyone in D.C. is abiding by that law.
Washington, D.C. is a wonderful place to visit and sightsee. Most of the attractions are owned by the federal government or private charitable organizations and are free to visit. You can view the original Constitution and Declaration of Independence at the National Archives, witness the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknowns, see priceless collections of art, history, and science exhibits at the Smithsonian Institution, and be humbled at the sacrifices of Americans who went before you at the World War II, Korean, and Vietnam war memorials, and of course the National Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial. The Metro transit system is inexpensive, fast, clean, and safe, and it takes you almost to the door of most of the places you want to go. You will also notice that, except for quite a few homeless people who vary in scariness and aggression, the streets are clean and one feels secure walking on them.
That's downtown, where most of the federal buildings, museums, offices, and other businesses are. Travel a few blocks outside of the central district and you will encounter some of the most wretched neighborhoods in America. Homes boarded up and/or falling down, open air drug sales, massive poverty, and mostly conditions that will make you glad you have a gun, or wish you had one.
This appalling situation continues in our nation's capital because the D.C. government operates under the supervision and beholding to their richest and largest property owner, the federal government. D.C. residents can't write to their congressman–they don't have one. Most funding has to come from Congress, and no congressman has his permanent residence in the District.
They also aren't too worried about the crime problem. Members of Congress can purchase a vehicle for use in and around D.C. at public expense, and most of them also have a staff member who is their driver. Most of the drivers are retired cops with carry privileges, so they essentially have their own armed bodyguards. At work, they have the U.S. Capitol Police, a force of about 1600 officers to protect 535 members of Congress and their staffs. How would you like to have an officer-to-citizen ratio like that in your city?
The United States Supreme Court also has their own police department, as does most every federal outfit in D.C. There is even an FBI Police Department, the only situation I know of where a law enforcement agency has its own separate law enforcement agency.
This isn't an analysis of the Heller case, because there are already lots of those by people much more qualified than me to make them. My point is that the people who made the decisions in Heller and the people who will change the laws to conform with it are mostly unaffected by it. They aren't worried about their personal safety. And I don't know how Heller is going to affect me, you, or anyone else except Dick Heller, who presumably will be able to take his gun home with him when he leaves work (once D.C. changes the law). In this time when the ability to communicate with one another and speak one's mind is so accessible, though, I believe we would have better laws if the people making them were less insulated from their effects.