Sunday, March 7, 2010

SCOTUS and The Chicago Hand Gun Ban

It's in your nature to destroy yourselves. ~ Arnold, T2
SCOTUS heard the arguments in Macdonald v. Chicago on 03/02/10. Constitutional law expert Sheldon Nahmod, Professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, joined WBEX Chicago Public Radio to discuss the case. His opinion was that the Ban itself would be lifted (after several months deliberations) but certain provisions against carrying concealed or in sensitive places and other legal minutiae would be allowed to remain in place.

I want honest law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves. Gang Bangers and Criminals are armed. A gun is the second best weapon for personal defense and has been for years. When a criminal breaks down your door or throws you on the pavement and puts a blade to your throat you put two in his chest. But, the idea that an armed society is a polite society is pure poppycock. People aren't rational and even when they aren't criminals, don't exhibit insanity or have clear background checks they have snapped and gone on murderous shooting rampages. And while Guns are tools their inherent nature makes them more dangerous than a claw hammer or ban saw or box cutter.

I have to deal with violations of the Illinois Unlawful Use of Weapons (720 ILCS 5/24‑1) occasionally. However, other calls for service are more frequent like Domestic Disputes, which every officer knows are fraught with danger due to the charged emotions involved.

The problem that arises is with the advent of SCOTUS failing under the control of Right Wing Extremist Terrorists who care more for money than Americans lives I don't see how any State or Municipal Law restricting gun ownership can survive.

Now, Gun Sucking Nuts have told me I am wrong that "natural" law can constitutionally restrict gun ownership but such natural law opinions require an interpretation of the Constitution don't they? And isn't that where the entire 2nd Amendment debate is bogged down and troublesome? What do the actual words of the 2nd Amendment mean? 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. This is the least understood and most debated amendment in America.

But, what's very easily understood is with the rise of bigoted Right Wing Anti-Government Extremists, the Oath Keepers or Republican Mike Huckabee or Conservatives like Lars Larson hatred for the Police and the desire to see Cops gunned down by criminals have increased.

And now thanks to the SCOTUS I'll have to worry a Drunken H2 driver who runs over 6 other vehicles but views my arresting him as a violation of his 4 Amendment Rights' or the Gay Bar loitering drunk driving Homosexual Republican will come out blazing because as a typical Conservative Terrorist he feels the need to defend himself against Cops who are just Obama Thugs anyway...

7 comments:

Silverfiddle said...

Gene:
I share every one of the concerns you express here. Anyone wishing ill on a cop is an idiot.

I have sympathy for Randy Weaver, but the man did wrong when confronted by law enforcement.

When cops show up you shut your mouth and do as you're told. They have a very hard job and must make on-scene judgments that are easy to criticize after the fact. Add in dangerous people and idiots who won't shut their mouths and the situation is even worse.

Just because an infinitesimal percentage of human beings are prone to "snap" is not justification for taking everybody's guns away.

I think the lack of accidental discharges and other gun-related incidents by concealed carriers is noteworthy. I was in the military for a long time and I saw some incidents due to carelessness or inattentiveness.

Even natural law recognizes someone can lose their rights by endangering others, especially when we live in a republic governed by an agreed upon constitution. Hardcore libertarians would probably disagree with me on this.

The Supreme court settled the meaning of the 2nd Amendment in the DC case, so your point on that is moot. It means we each have an individual right, at least at the federal level.

Your 2nd to last paragraph is a bad example. Larson didn't say anything negative, a caller did, and Huckabee let that man loose out of a stupid and misplaced sense of Christian Charity.

G Gordon Liddy is actually the best example when he advised people to aim for CBM when the authorities come to the door, or something to that effect.

As to the last paragraph, I'll just have to trust you. It ain't that way where I live...

Grung_e_Gene said...

SF, come on everyone hates the Cops because we only show up when something bad has happened or when someone has done something wrong.

I like guns... No, the proper word is respect. But, there is something terribly wrong in the debate today. And I don't know what it is. Firearms are inherently more dangerous than other 'tools'. and I get very skittish when I see them being bandied about at political rallies. Those Tea Baggers who brought them remind me of punk ass pieces of shit Gang Bangers who wave guns around to intimidate and bully people. This was the genesis of the Punk Ass Bitch moniker for some Conservatives which I adopted much to your amusement. Those Tea Baggers who brought guns to those summer rallies remind me of common gang punks, bullies and pussies.

And the Huckabee reference was slight hyperbole although I know with an absolute certainty Hannity and O'Reilly would mercilessly grill any Democrat politician responsible for releasing a man who then goes on to commit more felonies and the murder of 4 cops.

And as for Larson I specifically wrote "Conservatives like Larson" since Larson agreed with his caller.

Silverfiddle said...

You're a cop??? A disaffected cop??? I'm glad I don't live in your jurisdiction...

OK, I'll have to grudgingly agree with you about people parading around with guns. It's a flagrant display meant to provoke.

I don't believe it was dangerous as the handwringers on the left bleated, but it does make you wonder about them.

TAO said...

I live in a town of 63,000 and we recently suffered our first police officer to gun violence....

Responding to a domestic abuse call.

In my younger days I worked in convenience stores, third shift mostly and in the worst neighborhoods...

I was robbed twice by gunpoint. They came in with their guns in hand and I have no idea how I could have defended myself with a gun that most likely would have been under the counter. I always told my fellow employees that if robbed and you have no money in the till then tell the thief to take cartons of cigarettes and sell them.

I think states and local communities should have the right to control weapons. I know you hear all the time about how if we ban guns then only criminals will have them.

But I always wanted to know where criminals got their guns? I would assume that they either buy them or steal them from others...

So, if you tighten the restrictions and regulate the storage of weapons you could maybe limit the amount of guns criminals have access to.

But then again I always tell people that I put a sign on my bedroom door that reads: Dear Thief if you promise not to bother me I promise not to bother you...

Silverfiddle said...

Drugs are completely illegal and we're swimming in them. I don't see a gun ban working any better.

Also, consider that cities that have banned guns suffer some of the worst gun violence.

Personally, I think it's time go go Eliot Ness on criminals' asses. When criminals have more rights than cops, things have gone terribly wrong.

Grung_e_Gene said...

TAO, guns are the number 3 item most likely stolen in Res Burgs, behind cash and jewelry. But, they are always taken by a professional burglar.

Silverfiddle,

As long as it's the right criminals? Or The Right's criminals?

Silverfiddle said...

haha. A criminal is a criminal, except when the crimes exist only in the fevered imagings of wackadoo lefties.