After the United States Supreme Court struck down Chicago's handgun ban, public reaction was swift. In the July 3 Voice of the People (letters to the editor) column of the Chicago Tribune, a liberal Chicagoan opines, "[The Second Amendment] was a good law when our nation was formed, but society has changed in such a way that the keeping of arms now poses more danger to the average American than it does to democracy."
Really.
Thank you, professor, for making this proclamation for all of us. I think the Second Amendment keeps American safe, but who am I to argue?
He goes on.
"I believe in 2010, a national poll would support the revocation of the Second Amendment."
Hmm. Makes one wonder, doesn't he?
No need to worry, Mr. H. Rasmussen just took a national poll. Guess what? Not so many people agree with you!
This is yet another example of the presumptuous, elitist left-wing mindset. This guy lives in a nice lakefront neighborhood in Chicago. He can afford ADT home security. He wants the people hardest hit by gang violence and home invasions to remain defenseless in their homes.
Back to the Rasmussen poll. Eighty percent of gun owners support the right of Americans to keep guns in the home. That sounds a little low, but otherwise it's not surprising. Of Americans who do not own guns, 55 percent support the right of others to pack heat. So this poll contradicts this gun ban advocate's theory that America shares his views.
From Glen Ellyn, a nice, safe suburb deep in DuPage County, about 25 miles from Chicago: "The NRA and its Republican comrades can rest comfortably now that the conservatively packed Supreme Court has made it much easier for the purveyors of gun violence to make our society the armed camp they have long sought."
Great letter. Once again, another left-wing elitist believes it's the Supreme Court, the GOP and the NRA against all of America. The reality is that one-third of American homeowners celebrate their Second Amendment right by keeping guns in their homes. Does that constitute an armed camp? Too bad. That's America.
As a side note, Mayor Richard M. Daley raised the specter of the Wild West when he thought about losing this case in front of the Supreme Court. Statistically, Chicago is much more violent than the Wild West, with its handgun ban in place, even after adjusting for population.
The next letter is different because the author lives near Lawrence and Western Avenues in Chicago, which is a bit gritty and not so nice. Here is his second paragraph:
"If 30 shootings and three deaths occurred the weekend before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Chicago's handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, imagine the numbers after access to handguns is unlimited."
I am imagining. And I imagine the homicide rate will drop.
Many homicides in Chicago are gang-related. These teenagers and young men--murderers and victims--already have guns. The end of the gun ban will have no effect on gang-related crime. It will, however, reduce robbery and home invasions, with a commensurate drop in murder in the course of a felony.
These three left-wing elitists have this surreal concept that law-abiding citizens, once armed, will run amok shooting each other. This idea just isn't supported by the facts. In 48 states, citizens can pack heat inside and outside the home. Yet Chicago, that gun-free city where concealed carry remains illegal, has a crime rate and murder rate among the highest in the country.
Showing posts with label Second Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Second Amendment. Show all posts
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
SCOTUS shoots down Chicago
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in MacDonald vs. Chicago, a landmark case in which the defendant argued for the ability to deprive its citizens of their Second Amendment right to defend themselves with handguns. The Supreme Court affirmed that Chicago is indeed part of the United States, and regardless of the wishes of its mayor, its citizens are entitled to exercise their constitutional right to defend themselves.
Not so fast, said the City Council. After first considering a limit of one handgun per person (illegal), the aldermen settled on one handgun per person per month. I'm glad I'm not limited to one blog post per month; or one members' meeting of The V Show Fan Club per month. Those limits would infringe on my First Amendment rights. The City Council's law infringes on Chicagoans' Second Amendment rights. Is there a constitutional difference? We'll soon find out. One alderman--Robert Fioretti (2nd), as I recall--warned gun advocates about taking the City to court. Of course, Alderman. The little people wouldn't dare assert their constitutional rights. The law enacts a $100 gun possession license valid for three years. Since this is more than the cost of processing, the license fee is illegal: the city cannot charge its citizens to invoke their Second Amendment rights. The law bans more than one gun in the home being operational; the others must be disassembled. Who is going to enforce that? Stormtroopers? (G-d forbid.) My sense is people who own more than one consider their firearms like fire extinguishers; they want one at the ready on each floor in case of intruders. I don't see how this part of the law is at all helpful in quelling crime; it seems only helpful in weakening law-abiding homeowners. The law also bans gun possession in garages, porches and outside staircases. So criminals know they're safe in those parts of a residence, where the Second Amendment doesn't apply. The law bans gun sales in the city--certainly unconstitutional. The city cannot ban from sale an item the U.S. Supreme Court insists is legal.
"I can't imagine why anyone would oppose these reasonable regulations," squealed Ald. Joe Moore (49th). Because they're illegal, Alderman. Because they restrict your peasants' constitutional rights. Because they want the same right your long-serving colleagues kept for themselves 28 years ago while banning it for their constituents.
On an issue seemingly controversial in the city, in which two residents successfully defended themselves with handguns they owned, and in which the Chicago Tribune estimates there are 100,000 handguns, this ordinance passed 45-0. I wonder if the aldermen excluded themselves from these restrictions like they did from the original 1982 handgun ban.
Quick question: how does one bring home his just-purchased gun from a gun store outside the city? If it is concealed in one's vehicle and one is stopped by police, who conduct a "probable cause" search, then the concealed weapon violates the state's ban on concealed weapons. If it is in plain sight, and the police see it from their vantage point outside the vehicle, then it violates the city's law against possession away from home. And how does one transport the weapon to the city's mandated target practice sessions? I would love to see the trial for the possession charge.
This is just another example of Chicago's City Council doing the bidding of Hizzonerdamare Richard M. Daley with no debate or public input. If the Tribune's estimate is true, perhaps 10 percent of homeowners protect themselves with handguns. Shouldn't they have a say in how their Second Amendment rights are being trampled upon?
Not so fast, said the City Council. After first considering a limit of one handgun per person (illegal), the aldermen settled on one handgun per person per month. I'm glad I'm not limited to one blog post per month; or one members' meeting of The V Show Fan Club per month. Those limits would infringe on my First Amendment rights. The City Council's law infringes on Chicagoans' Second Amendment rights. Is there a constitutional difference? We'll soon find out. One alderman--Robert Fioretti (2nd), as I recall--warned gun advocates about taking the City to court. Of course, Alderman. The little people wouldn't dare assert their constitutional rights. The law enacts a $100 gun possession license valid for three years. Since this is more than the cost of processing, the license fee is illegal: the city cannot charge its citizens to invoke their Second Amendment rights. The law bans more than one gun in the home being operational; the others must be disassembled. Who is going to enforce that? Stormtroopers? (G-d forbid.) My sense is people who own more than one consider their firearms like fire extinguishers; they want one at the ready on each floor in case of intruders. I don't see how this part of the law is at all helpful in quelling crime; it seems only helpful in weakening law-abiding homeowners. The law also bans gun possession in garages, porches and outside staircases. So criminals know they're safe in those parts of a residence, where the Second Amendment doesn't apply. The law bans gun sales in the city--certainly unconstitutional. The city cannot ban from sale an item the U.S. Supreme Court insists is legal.
"I can't imagine why anyone would oppose these reasonable regulations," squealed Ald. Joe Moore (49th). Because they're illegal, Alderman. Because they restrict your peasants' constitutional rights. Because they want the same right your long-serving colleagues kept for themselves 28 years ago while banning it for their constituents.
On an issue seemingly controversial in the city, in which two residents successfully defended themselves with handguns they owned, and in which the Chicago Tribune estimates there are 100,000 handguns, this ordinance passed 45-0. I wonder if the aldermen excluded themselves from these restrictions like they did from the original 1982 handgun ban.
Quick question: how does one bring home his just-purchased gun from a gun store outside the city? If it is concealed in one's vehicle and one is stopped by police, who conduct a "probable cause" search, then the concealed weapon violates the state's ban on concealed weapons. If it is in plain sight, and the police see it from their vantage point outside the vehicle, then it violates the city's law against possession away from home. And how does one transport the weapon to the city's mandated target practice sessions? I would love to see the trial for the possession charge.
This is just another example of Chicago's City Council doing the bidding of Hizzonerdamare Richard M. Daley with no debate or public input. If the Tribune's estimate is true, perhaps 10 percent of homeowners protect themselves with handguns. Shouldn't they have a say in how their Second Amendment rights are being trampled upon?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
