So the justices also may be willing to permit rules requiring handgun owners to undergo safety training, pass background checks, register their weapons and secure them from children. What the court probably won't tolerate is restrictions whose obvious purpose is to make it so hard for citizens to acquire guns legally that they give up.
We believe the high court should allow state and municipalities maximum discretion on firearms law. We strongly disagreed with the court's 2008 ruling.
But Chicago has a duty to respect the Constitution as it is interpreted by the Supreme Court, just as Chicago has the right and responsibility to protect its citizens against the abuse and misuse of guns.
City Hall had better get to work figuring out how to do both.
What's your opinion? Is it possible to do both? Do you think the Supreme Court will make that easier?
It would be easy if you felt like some that "zero restrictions" is the way to go. But for reasonable people who want to have reasonable restrictions, it's not so simple.
Please leave a comment.
I'm beginning to believe the McDonald case will ultimately prove to be nothing more than an elaborate piece of window dressing; Fodder for the talking heads and armchair analysts and not much else.
ReplyDeleteWith the recent spate of defensive shootings and the estimate that at least 100,000 Chicagoans own unregistered handguns, it appears that people of Chicago seem determined to exercise their rights, contrary to the law.
It's the perfect illustration of how our society is self-regulating. When a law becomes too oppressive, it will be met with massive non-compliance, resulting in a de facto repeal of the law.
The Chicago gun ban will become a quaint anachronism like our still standing adultery and sodomy laws.
"ban"? "prohibition"?
ReplyDeleteUh-oh. Calling JadeGold!
Someone needs to set the Chicago Tribune straight!
"What the court probably won't tolerate is restrictions whose obvious purpose is to make it so hard for citizens to acquire guns legally that they give up."
ReplyDeleteWell put. It's good that both the Trib & mikeb admit it as a goal, though. So many gun control advocates (even JadeGold, sometimes) still try to deny it, saying it's only about some gunowner inconvenience to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Many gunowners know better.
And that's the problem. There are many gun laws that I might support, except that I know the end goal is really "to make it so hard for citizens to acquire guns legally that they give up."
I see that a Chicago pawn shop owner improved the universe Tuesday, by removing a predatory thug from among the living, and that the police haven't ruled out charging him for the "crime" of defending himself with an "illegal" handgun, and that the Chicago Tribune thinks self-defenders should go to jail. Apparently, the Trib is unaware that state law protects such people from persecution (and yes--"persecution" is the word I intended), despite disgraced former Governor Blagojevich's and then Illinois State Senator Obama's best efforts.
ReplyDeleteFishyJay--I have to commend Mayor Daley (and you can probably imagine how difficult that is for me) for his honesty in this quote:
ReplyDelete"He has appeared before the City Council, in Springfield and even in Washington, D.C., dealing with gun prevention," the mayor said.
Not "'gun violence' prevention," or even "'illegal gun' prevention," but "gun prevention."
Kurt, Thanks for the links.
ReplyDeleteFishyJay, You say I admit to the fact that a goal of the gun control movement is to make it harder to get guns.
Well, I guess that's true. I might elaborate on it a bit, though.
I'm thinking in really lax-gun-law states, you've got many people with guns who wouldn't bother to get them if they lived in New Jersey, for example. Among those are the frivolous gun owners, the ones who aren't that committed one way or the other, but since it's so easy, they do it. I'm thinking among that group you've got a lot of 10%ers. You've got many who never practice or train with their weapons. You've got many who for various reasons shouldn't be armed.
On the other hand, the committed gun advocate or the guy who really needs home protection will jump through the hoops and do what it takes. The result being, under a system where gun laws are very strict and enforced, you'll have a higher quality of gun owner. You'll have less accidents, You'll have fewer questionable transfers to questionable people. In sum, everybody wins. That's my idea.
mikeb,
ReplyDeleteI can actually see the possibiity of "jumping thru hoops" having a tiny bit of the positive effect that you suppose.
However, I also see ZERO chance of gun control advocates being willing to stop at a reasonable point (see the article about Britain I sent you).
FishyJay, You may be right, but I'm not convinced that the majority of cun control folks are a rabid and fanatical as you seem to think. I think most would be happy with reasonable restrictions and a decent improvement in gun violence and not demand ever-stronger laws. The image of the gun control advocate who is insatiable and will never be satisfied until every last gun is banished and who is sneakily conspiring with others to do this incrementally, is not the norm any more than guys like Mike V. and Kurt are to the gun rights movement. There are extremists on both sides.
ReplyDeleteMikeb, gun control is a business. And the goal of any business is to stay in business.
ReplyDeleteThere is not a single gun control group in business that will willingly put themselves out of business by saying, "Okay, that's restrictions. We'll go away now."
Their raison d'etre is to come up with ever increasing restrictions.
Sorry mikeb, but I believe that what the Chicago Tribumne calls "restrictions whose obvious purpose is to make it so hard for citizens to acquire guns legally that they give up" represents the mainstream of gun control rather than the extreme, and such a philosophy can never end at a happy medium.
ReplyDeleteMikeB: “I think most would be happy with reasonable restrictions and a decent improvement in gun violence and not demand ever-stronger laws.”
ReplyDeleteGun control hasn’t gone away in Australia and the UK. Or are those not “reasonable enough” restrictions for the majority of gun controllers? Let me ask you MikeB, do you think Australia and UK have enough gun control?
I don't know, but even in Australia and the U.K., aren't there some gun control voices that are expressing overall satisfaction? I would think so. You guys sound a bit paranoid as if the word of gun control is against you. I don't think it's as polarized as you think.
ReplyDelete