The Chicago Tribune published an article in anticipation of the Supreme Court ruling which is expected shortly. It contains some interesting history of the gun debate in the village of Oak Park.
The gun ban question has lingered over the village and Chicago for more than a quarter of a century. But in the case of Oak Park, the debate is rooted in the death of Piszczor and the life of Bennett, the rallying forces in the mid-1980s for either those who supported gun control or those who did not.Is there anything wrong with people in a certain municipality deciding they want no guns? Can anyone explain that to me without resorting to ridiculous comparisons?The murder of Piszczor, a prominent Oak Park attorney who was gunned down in a Chicago courtroom in 1983 along with Judge Henry Gentile during a divorce case, was the impetus for the handgun-control movement that led the village in 1984 to pass its ordinance banning handguns. A year later, residents voted to support the ban with a 54 percent majority, despite an aggressive effort by the National Rifle Association to get voters to repeal it.
On the other side, Bennett, then the owner of a gas station at Austin Boulevard and Harrison Street who insisted on carrying a handgun to protect himself, was the public face of the pro-gun movement, powered and financed by the NRA, that kept the village in court for years.
For many residents, Piszczor's murder was viewed in the 1980s as a senseless act of violence that could have been avoided if handguns were not readily available.
What could be simpler or clearer than that? Please leave a comment.
> Is there anything wrong with people in a certain municipality deciding they want no guns?
ReplyDeleteIt's wrong if they base the decision on sensationalism, fear, and ignorance.
Is there anything wrong with a people in a certain community deciding they want polygamy? Arranged marriages at 12? Mass suicide?
"It's wrong if they base the decision on sensationalism, fear, and ignorance."
ReplyDeleteYeah, 'cuz having a lawyer AND a judge murdered in a courtroom is so, like, trivial, dude.
> Is there anything wrong with people in a certain municipality deciding they want no guns?
ReplyDeleteOf course not. Anyone has the right to decide that he or she wants no guns. But there's something very wrong with 54% of a community using government force to take guns away from the rest of the community. You can't (or at least shouldn't be able to) vote to deprive other people of their property, their means of self-defense, and their Constitutionally protected rights.
Funny how the "Will of the people" argument is moot when it's NOT pro-gun.
ReplyDelete"Is there anything wrong with people in a certain municipality deciding they want no guns?"
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing wrong with it other than the fact it's not going to work.
The people who want to own guns will own them regardless of what the law says.
democommie came up with an interesting angle on it. "The will of the people" is often bantered about by the pro-gun crowd, but when we talk about gun control it's immediately compared to mass suicide and arranged marriages at 12 and lynching blacks.
ReplyDeleteIs that a double standard, or what?
Don't forget the will of the people and Rome burning.
ReplyDeleteOr how about the courts reversing populist votes on gay marriage? Populist votes against affirmative action?