The unanimous three-judge panel ruled today that a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, which recognized an individual right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, didn’t apply to states and municipalities.
“The Supreme Court has rebuffed requests to apply the second amendment to the states,” U.S. Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote, upholding lower court decisions last year to throw out suits against Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Illinois."
...
Chicago’s law took effect in 1982, Hoyle said. While it allows ownership of long guns such as rifles, they must be registered annually with the city’s police department. Concealed weapons, semi-automatic and automatic weapons are not permitted."
This city ordinance is nothing new, running for the past 27 years in the city. In fact, it astonished me and my brother how gun touchy this area was 2 years ago on our vacation, as we were required to be 18 or with a parent to handle a toy pop gun at the Lincoln Library in Springfield. Come down to Texas, and there is hardly a child in sight who is not running around with a toy gun of some kind in the neighborhood Cabela's.
Putting aside the constitutional implications, here is the practical ramifications of this regulation, demonstrable in the violent crime rate of Chicago when compared to the rest of the nation.
(Click to embiggen. Many hat tips and thanks to NeighborhoodScout for collating the data and presenting it in such a fashion. )Let me break this down in a three simple markers:
Likelihood of an Assault victim per 1,000 persons:
Chicago: 6.47 Nation: 2.91
Cities in US safer then Chicago:
91%
The old cliche rings true again. But lets put aside the practical ramifications of such government control, because this is clearly not an issue about the people.
This is an issue swirling around the freedom of man to defend himself, and the power of a government to take that right from him. It's not hard to understand upon which side of this issue the city is standing.
Posts
6 comments:
I am surprised you didn't see this as a triumph in the cause of state's rights. Just kidding. It is alarming the way they are treating it and the implication that someone defending their home could get charged with weapons possession for a hand gun. I don't think the law has much to do with the crime rate though. I get your principle but this is a really bizarre situation. There is little practical application at the moment. Gun stores are common and hand guns are easy to come by. Very strange the way this law exists. Chicago will be tops in crime for a long while running, it's the way of the city.
I live in the People's Republic of Illinois, where most of our public officials get indicted, so I feel the pain keenly.
I hope this first gets appealed en banc instead of the three judge panel, and then to the Supreme Court again. Most rights under the U.S. Bill of Rights have been ruled to apply to the states also, and with the current makeup of the court, I have no doubt that this will be the case again. At least until Obama manages to get enough Sotomayors on the court.
In a weird sort of way, the title of this post and subject matter reminded me of this.
FAICA, you cannot legally own a handgun in Chicago city limits without being police or military. I think it'd be contributory to a crime rate.
That, and the corrupt power system that handed down this sort of law.
Sola, always with the song. ;)
I'm also as sure as you are we will see this in court yet again.
Palm Boy you are correct it has increased the incidence of crime. Particularly the crime of owning a weapon. But I agree with you that there is little to be gained by putting otherwise honest citizens in opposition to the law.
I am beginning to think it's time for mass flouting of laws such as this. I normally don't recommend things like that, but it's getting to the point where the progressives don't care what the Constitution says or really means. They need to get slapped down, and hard.
Post a Comment