Clinging to Guns in Chicago
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
"...they get bitter and cling to their guns,....."
Barack Obama, April 12, 2008
Among those clinging to their guns are David and Colleen Lawson, Otis McDonald and Adam Orlov, who are challenging the constitutionality of a total hand-gun ban enacted by the City of Chicago. The case was argued before the US Supreme Court on March 2.
On June 26, 2008, the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in District of Columbia vs Heller et al. (1) that the Second Amendment cited above protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the law of the District of Columbia that prohibited handguns and placed onerous restrictions on other firearms was unconstitutional. In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens cited the initial clause of the Amendment to contend that it applied only to militias, not individuals. ( The US District Court for the District of Columbia had taken the same position, but was reversed 2-1 by the Circuit Court of Appeals. )
James Feldman, attorney for Chicago argued that states and cities should have the power to regulate guns, even if the federally-controlled District of Columbia should not. Attorneys for the plaintiffs contended that the right to bear arms conferred by the Second Amendment was incorporated into the limitations on state action of the Fourteenth Amendment, but questions from the justices indicated that the Court is not buying this viewpoint. I predict that the Court will affirm Heller, and hold that it applies to states and cities, so the Chicago gun-ban is also unconstitutional.
It is understandable that Chicago, long beset by serious gun-violence (2), would enact the ultimate gun-control ordinance. But is it a good law?
The plaintiffs in the Chicago case claim they want to be able to defend their homes with handguns against criminals. Although people should certainly call the police when criminals are barging into their homes, it will take officers time to get there. In those crucial minutes the criminals, who presumably are armed in defiance of local ordinances, can harm or even kill the residents of the home. A loaded gun in the hands of a potential victim, even if not actually fired, may be the best means of protecting their lives until police arrive, so I hope that the Court affirms their right to have and use one!
I believe in reasonable gun control: registration of firearms (together with ballistics data), licensing of owners and prohibition of private ownership of automatic weapons. Law-abiding people should have no problem with any of these restrictions. I also oppose the carrying of firearms in public places (except by police or licensed security guards) because an altercation between strangers could easily escalate into a shoot-out. But I agree with the plaintiffs that the City of Chicago has gone too far in banning handguns from private homes and stores; the law is "over-broad." If the Second Amendment does not protect your right to use a gun to defend your home, it does not protect you at all.
A gun is useless as a defense against criminals unless it is kept loaded and instantly accessible. But if it is so, then that gun is also a danger to members of the household and innocent visitors, particularly if there are children in the home. Although I live in a neighborhood with considerable crime, and have been the victim of a violent crime myself (3), I have never owned a gun and have no intention of ever acquiring one.
But the situation of every person and family is different, so I defend the right of other people to make the opposite choice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Oyez Website.
(2) For example, the murder of seven men at the SMC Cartage Co. garage in Chicago on Feb. 14, 1929, (known as the St. Valentine's Day Massacre) shocked the world and turned the public against the bootlegger gangs. Today, a shooting incident in which only 7 people were killed would be at most a minor story on the national news, and quickly forgotten.
(3) I was attacked and beaten near my home on the night of September 9, 2008. If I had been carrying a gun that night, I probably would have fired it. Since the assailants were unarmed, I might still be in jail.
2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
"...they get bitter and cling to their guns,....."
Barack Obama, April 12, 2008
Among those clinging to their guns are David and Colleen Lawson, Otis McDonald and Adam Orlov, who are challenging the constitutionality of a total hand-gun ban enacted by the City of Chicago. The case was argued before the US Supreme Court on March 2.
On June 26, 2008, the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in District of Columbia vs Heller et al. (1) that the Second Amendment cited above protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the law of the District of Columbia that prohibited handguns and placed onerous restrictions on other firearms was unconstitutional. In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens cited the initial clause of the Amendment to contend that it applied only to militias, not individuals. ( The US District Court for the District of Columbia had taken the same position, but was reversed 2-1 by the Circuit Court of Appeals. )
James Feldman, attorney for Chicago argued that states and cities should have the power to regulate guns, even if the federally-controlled District of Columbia should not. Attorneys for the plaintiffs contended that the right to bear arms conferred by the Second Amendment was incorporated into the limitations on state action of the Fourteenth Amendment, but questions from the justices indicated that the Court is not buying this viewpoint. I predict that the Court will affirm Heller, and hold that it applies to states and cities, so the Chicago gun-ban is also unconstitutional.
It is understandable that Chicago, long beset by serious gun-violence (2), would enact the ultimate gun-control ordinance. But is it a good law?
The plaintiffs in the Chicago case claim they want to be able to defend their homes with handguns against criminals. Although people should certainly call the police when criminals are barging into their homes, it will take officers time to get there. In those crucial minutes the criminals, who presumably are armed in defiance of local ordinances, can harm or even kill the residents of the home. A loaded gun in the hands of a potential victim, even if not actually fired, may be the best means of protecting their lives until police arrive, so I hope that the Court affirms their right to have and use one!
I believe in reasonable gun control: registration of firearms (together with ballistics data), licensing of owners and prohibition of private ownership of automatic weapons. Law-abiding people should have no problem with any of these restrictions. I also oppose the carrying of firearms in public places (except by police or licensed security guards) because an altercation between strangers could easily escalate into a shoot-out. But I agree with the plaintiffs that the City of Chicago has gone too far in banning handguns from private homes and stores; the law is "over-broad." If the Second Amendment does not protect your right to use a gun to defend your home, it does not protect you at all.
A gun is useless as a defense against criminals unless it is kept loaded and instantly accessible. But if it is so, then that gun is also a danger to members of the household and innocent visitors, particularly if there are children in the home. Although I live in a neighborhood with considerable crime, and have been the victim of a violent crime myself (3), I have never owned a gun and have no intention of ever acquiring one.
But the situation of every person and family is different, so I defend the right of other people to make the opposite choice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Oyez Website.
(2) For example, the murder of seven men at the SMC Cartage Co. garage in Chicago on Feb. 14, 1929, (known as the St. Valentine's Day Massacre) shocked the world and turned the public against the bootlegger gangs. Today, a shooting incident in which only 7 people were killed would be at most a minor story on the national news, and quickly forgotten.
(3) I was attacked and beaten near my home on the night of September 9, 2008. If I had been carrying a gun that night, I probably would have fired it. Since the assailants were unarmed, I might still be in jail.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 8:53 AM
2 Comments:
Excellent post but you forgot perhaps the best or most significant reason to be allowed to own a gun and also more fitting with the Constitition and more fitting with Mr Glazer's religion; and that is to protect oneself against a tyrannical government.
The reason for gun ownership listed in the Bill of Rights was clearly to arm the citizens against a tyrannical government and not against crime. The second amenndment lists the necessity to secure "a free state", not a safe home. It also refers to a "militia" which is more associated with a revolutionary than a crime fighting organization.
Regarding religion, Mr Glazer surely knows that the first thing a tyrannical government does, e.g., Nazis, is to disarm the citizens. Jews were easy targets in Germany because they were disarmed.
I also do not own a gun and never have but knowing history and being Jewish myself I would fight to keep the right to own one.
The Second Amendment is really this only thing we have to secure our personal freedom and the freedom of our state.
I did not cite this reason for gun ownership because to me the prospect of defending oneself from a tyrannical government with a handgun is pure fantasy.
Post a Comment
<< Home