EDITORIAL: Self protection

The U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller struck down Washington, D.C.’s gun ban in 2008 as an affront to the Second Amendment. Since, then, city officials have taken numerous steps to discourage residents from exercising their rights.

Now another gun case from the capital may again be headed for the high court.

The issue involves D.C.’s concealed carry law. Residents who seek to have a weapon outside the home must show a “good reason to fear injury” or another “proper reason” such as a personal threat or job that might require carrying large amounts of cash, The Associated Press reports. D.C. police have issued just 89 permits out of 464 applications.

In other words, the gun rights of D.C. residents exist at the whim of law-enforcement bureaucrats.

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard arguments in a challenge to the law, which also drew briefs from 16 states, including Nevada, in opposition. The wire service noted that two of the judges expressed doubt about the constitutionality of the requirement.

One judge noted that a woman seeking to protect herself in a dangerous neighborhood is flat out of luck and would be better off running or learning martial arts. He called an argument from an attorney representing the city “absurd.” The second judge pointed out that the “distinction between an outright ban on carrying a gun and the city’s ‘good reason’ requirement was subtle,” the wire service reported.

The Heller case included lots of talk about “reasonable regulations” governing gun ownership. But it’s hardly “reasonable” to make the concealed carry process so restrictive as to prevent responsible, law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves outside their homes. The D.C. Circuit should toss the district law.