I appreciate Emily’s Miller’s determination to secure a legal firearm in post-Heller decision Washington, D.C. If anyone should be thrilled about Ms. Miller’s ballistic blogging at washingtontimes.com it should be us. But reading Emily’s saga has been about as exciting as watching dry paint dry some more. Alternatively, you could say it’s been as dull as the bureaucracy that Ms. Miller surmounted to finally pick-up her pistol. Not to mention the self-congratulatory bits . . .
“When I first started the “Emily Gets Her Gun” series, I thought I would be waiting in long lines and filling out lots of paperwork. I never could have imagined that the D.C. gun laws made it so unearthly difficult to get a legal handgun. However, I also never could have believed that this newspaper series would encourage change in Washington’s gun laws.”
Yes, well, Emily may have shamed the bureaucracy into become marginally more efficient, but the number of hoops, the prohibitive expense and the mind-numbing monotony of the District’s legal firearms acquisition process remains the same. Just like Chicago, D.C. has created a de facto ban on the exercise of a Constitutional right.
Not to put too fine a point on it, Emily may have her gun, but the people who really need one don’t have theirs. Nothing much has changed when a college-educated white middle-class inside-the-Beltway journo can get a gun—and an African American mother trying to raise her kids next to crack house has about as much chance of obtaining a legal firearm in the District of Columbia as Huey Newton. Who is dead, by the way.
I know that every American has the same right to keep and bear arms. But this “all about me” newspaper series defends rather than extends that right. It is what it is, but I’m wistful about what it could have been.
Now can we have a series about buying an illegal gun in the nation’s capital? What’s that like?