Now, c'mon. Are they trying to say there is such a thing as a law-abiding citizen who wears baggy pants and cornrows? Is there something wrong with identifying the "gangsta stereotype" and declaring them prohibited persons?Law-abiding African Americans and Hispanics would take it on the chin under a bill now moving through the Illinois General Assembly. Sponsored by Rep. Harry Osterman (D-14), HB6123 would prohibit any person or entity from selling a firearm to a so-called "street gang member." This prohibition applies even if the individual has passed a Brady Law FBI background check. Making a prohibited sale would result in Class 1 felony charges and possible jail time for the seller. Although the ISRA supports genuine efforts to curb criminal violence, the organization is strongly opposed to HB6123 as the bill's provisions are arbitrary and pose an unreasonable intrusion on the rights of law-abiding Illinois citizens.
"HB6123 promotes racial profiling at its worst," commented ISRA Executive Director, Richard Pearson. "Popular culture has branded urban minorities with the 'gangsta' stereotype that is pervasive well beyond the confines of actual criminal enterprises. Today's fashion, music, slang and lifestyle are all heavily influenced by the urban experience. Given that the provisions of HB6123 establish no test for determining 'street gang' membership, and given the harsh penalties for violating the proposed law, it is understandable that retailers would shy away from selling firearms to persons whose speech, dress, mannerisms, or taste in music reflect the urban lifestyle."
Those were jokes. Those were examples of the sometimes elusive Mikeb humor.
The only thing good about a law like this is it finally gives me an opportunity to point out a gun control law that I don't support.
What's your opinion? Is this an example of the racism inherent in the gun control movement? That's interestingly ironic since we often point the racist stick at the pro-gun folks.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
What do you know? A racist gun control law. From Illinois nonetheless. Not a single surprise here. After all, gun control is racist at it's roots.
ReplyDeleteThings always come full circle. The first gun control laws were racist and here is one more.
ReplyDeleteDo you also oppose gun control laws that seek to eliminate cheap guns? And what about laws that seek to impose significantly higher taxes on gun and ammo sales?
ReplyDeleteIn fairness, I won't pretend to know the motivation behind this bill. I think it quite plausible that rather than inherent racism, this is no more than what the author of the bill sees as low-hanging fruit--just some kind of "gun control" bill that he can pass.
ReplyDeleteHe might be hoping to capitalize on the theme that opponents of the bill want to "arm gangbangers."
Whatever the motivation, the actual effect will almost certainly be to make it harder for African-Americans and Hispanics to buy guns. Be it gun shop owners genuinely nervous about being prosecuted under such ridiculous legislation; or racist gun shop owners more motivated by their racism than by their desire to make another sale, using the law as an excuse, "gun shopping while dark-skinned" will become more difficult. That's wrong.
AztecRed says:
Not a single surprise here.
I don't often disagree with you, Aztec, but Mikeb's disdain for this bill--a "gun control" bill, however ridiculous--is indeed a pleasant surprise to me.
MikeB, so in your infamous 10% theory, what are you proposing? You are saying that 10% of law abiding gun owners shouldn’t be allowed to own guns, but how would you enforce that without legislation like this one? It would have to be a judgment call, right? Or is the idea that if you take away 100 guns from everyone, 10 of them will de deserved and the ends justify the means?
ReplyDelete-TS
If anything, this gives us a preview of Chicago, post McDonald. They apparently want to play the same obstructionist game as DC. They'll say sure, you can own a handgun. And them they'll make it nearly impossible for anyone who lives there to buy one.
ReplyDeleteConsidering that Chicago has one of largest populations of young black men in the country, until "street gang member" can be objectively identified, this law has the potential to be used to deny the purchase of a handgun to a majority of Chicago's population.
"That's interestingly ironic since we often point the racist stick at the pro-gun folks."
It's only ironic to you because you suckle at the soured teat of the gun control movement. History has be consistent in showing that the pro-gun folks as a whole have been far less racist than the gun control movement.
RuffRidr asked, "And what about laws that seek to impose significantly higher taxes on gun and ammo sales?"
ReplyDeleteAre you inferring that I have no concern for the poor ghetto folks who would be prejudiced against by such high costs? Is that like, even though I said I don't support the racial profiling law, I still find ways to keep those poor people disarmed?
Well, I don't know really. I don't think those super cheap handguns they came out with in California a few decades ago were safe and reliable enough for general consumption. There has to be some bottom level of acceptable quality, which will cost something. Unfortunately this will make the product unaffordable to some lower income people. Nothing can be done about that, it's basic economics. Those people cannot afford skiing vacations either.
Furthermore, I'd like to see that bottom level of acceptable quality raised a notch or two along with some additional taxes and licensing/registration fees. The lower income people who cannot get involved will increase in number. Yes, I am for all that.
The net result will be good. Not that these higher costs would be implemented to specifically exclude poor people, but by doing so, the overall results would be good for the simple reason that these are the people least able to store their weapons properly, they often live in vulnerable homes in high crime neighborhoods, they normally wouldn't be able to afford expensive firearms training regular practice sessions at the range. The fewer guns there, the better
Higher costs would also make many middle income people think twice about buying guns that most of them don't need in the first place.
Are you inferring that I have no concern for the poor ghetto folks who would be prejudiced against by such high costs?
ReplyDeleteMikeb, I wasn't trying to infer anything in regards to you specifically. I am pointing out other proposed gun control laws that have racist undertones. Specifically the higher taxes on guns, which was often brought up in the 60's as a way of keeping guns away from minorities.
I also don't think that anyone who supports these is necessarily a racist. But I am very suspect of the legislators that propose them.
License and registration fees? Like a poll tax?
ReplyDeleteMikeB said: “I don't think those super cheap handguns they came out with in California a few decades ago were safe and reliable enough for general consumption. There has to be some bottom level of acceptable quality, which will cost something. Unfortunately this will make the product unaffordable to some lower income people. Nothing can be done about that, it's basic economics”
ReplyDeleteCheap POS cars are also less safe than a Volvo and Mercedes… damn there I go again with the car analogy. It is just so obvious is all.
CA’s drop test law was claimed to go after unsafe guns, but plenty of “ring of fire” guns pass it with no correlation to cost. The point of it was as a back door gun ban so that all manufactures who do not submit their guns for testing can be banned. It likewise bans the sale of all discontinued models which really pisses of collectors.
MikeB said: “…they often live in vulnerable homes in high crime neighborhoods…”
So... the people who need home protection the most.
-TS
TS asked, "You are saying that 10% of law abiding gun owners shouldn’t be allowed to own guns, but how would you enforce that without legislation like this one?"
ReplyDeleteI'm not really talking about "enforcing" anything in that 10% post. I'm responding to the pro-gun attempts to describe yourselves as so safe and responsible, as if ALL of you were. The problem is although I have no problem accepting the suggestion that most of you are OK, the problem characters ruin it for the rest of you.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteI'm responding to the pro-gun attempts to describe yourselves as so safe and responsible, as if ALL of you were.
All of me--100% of me--IS safe and responsible with firearms.
As for everyone else--file that under "Somebody Else's Problem."
"Those people cannot afford skiing vacations either."
ReplyDeleteThe difference is the government doesn't artificially inflate the price of skiing.