Though they represent different law enforcement agencies, these officers all have one thing in common, they all carry guns. So why is it that residents of Washington, D.C. are forbidden from protecting their families in this same fashion? The D.C. police, though hardworking, do not have the resources to set up a perimeter around neighborhoods the way they do for us. In reality, D.C. police usually respond after a crime has been committed. Yet D.C. residents are forbidden by law from defending themselves. As many residents of Indiana and Virginia and Texas and Florida and Vermont know, a firearm is an effective deterrent against crime. Even the threat of a firearm can frighten off a criminal.
John Hostettler: “Though they represent different law enforcement agencies, these officers all have one thing in common, they all carry…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing self-defense laws and gun rights for residents of Washington, D.C.
Share
More from John Hostettler
We are writing to express the support and thanks of 9/11 Families for a Secure America for the provisions in title 3 of H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. These provisions would go a long way toward closing the loopholes…
He was not in France during the ratification by the States of the Bill of Rights, but he was in France during the approval by the Congress of the Bill of Rights, which took place 2 years prior.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer simply opens up the bill and the provisions of the bill to all the pilots that desire to take part in this program, that volunteer to take part in this program, and does not discriminate…
We are letting them go to court. That is exactly right, we are going to let them go to court. A blatant violation is determined by a court of law and not by ACLU attorneys behind closed doors.





