Chicago’s Daley Looks for New Gun Bans
Even as the Supreme Court hears the case of McDonald v. Chicago, the anti-gun zealot mayor is working over time in an effort to create a prohibition of guns. The Chicago Sun Times reported:
“Daley backed changes to state law that would require background checks for those buying a gun in a private sale, ban assault weapons, require that gun dealers be licensed and limit the number of handgun purchases to one per person per month. Those were all ideas that failed in previous legislative sessions.”
We’d like to ask Daley, or anyone in favor of limits, why they think this would work? Criminals clearly aren’t following the complete ban on handguns in Chicago, so if the Supreme Court overturns the ban, why would criminals suddenly listen to a new law on the limits of guns one can buy? This only hurts the law-abiding citizens.
On a positive note, the paper adds:
“The mayor also is asking the General Assembly to make it a Class 1 felony to knowingly sell a gun to a known gang member.”
Now that is a gun law that actually makes sense. So why should good men like Mr. McDonald have to be treated almost as bad as the gang members?
CSM Says Gun Rights Not the Same as Free Speech
The Christian Science Monitor is a typical liberal leaning example of the mainstream media that pulls no punches when it comes to bias against firearms. Case in point, in an editorial published this week, the outlet offers:
“The Supreme Court hears arguments Tuesday that could result in striking down a handgun ban in Chicago and other places. But beyond that, the court must clarify how fundamental gun rights are. They shouldn’t be viewed as equal to free-speech rights.”
We ask the CSM and the author, why shouldn’t gun rights be viewed as equal to free-speech rights? The editorial offers this argument:
“Firearms must be treated differently from free speech. Slinging guns is not the same as slinging slurs. Guns can kill a person, while any child can quote that ’sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me’ (except for yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater, for which there is a restriction).”
The irony of all this is that the CSM is offering this editorial in response to McDonald v. Chicago, where a 70-something man in Chicago simply wants a gun to protect his home and his wife. So no slinging guns is not the same, but when the criminals aren’t following the law, why should law-abiding citizens be put at risk? Words can never hurt you, but criminals with far more than unkind words can ruin your life, and men such as Mr. McDonald should be able to have something to back up their strong words.
SFGate Says Laws Not Working – Really?
Writer Chip Johnson of The San Francisco Chronicle notes in his column how illegal guns are a serious problem in Oakland California:
“Since the start of the year, Oakland police have confiscated more than 200 illegal guns during routine traffic stops and planned police arrests.”
The problem is that Johnson seems to believe, as does it seems the Oakland police chief, that these “illegal” guns are all coming from gun shows through the “infamous gun show loophole.” He writes:
“Police Chief Anthony Batts said his officers will focus on tracing guns back to the point of origin and working with federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives authorities to identify and prosecute the people illegally transporting them from gun shows outside the state. Interstate transport of such weapons is a federal crime.”
We agree with Johnson that illegal guns are a problem, and he notes in closing that removing violence from the gang culture’s heart is key to winning the battle. We must disagree with the tactic of going after gun shows to solve the problem however. Johnson, nor Batts, even note that Homeland Security lost guns, that police officers lost guns or that police officers sold off confiscated guns. We’ve reported on all of those, but once again the media looks only at gun shows.
Who Guards the Guards: Homeland Security Loses Guns
USA Today posted a story that makes us truly ask again, who guards the guards. In fact, the people who at the frontlines of the war on terror maybe helping criminals instead as the paper reports:
“The nation’s Homeland Security officers lost nearly 200 guns in bowling alleys, public restrooms, unlocked cars and other unsecure areas, with some ending up in the hands of felons. The problem, outlined in a new federal report, has prompted disciplinary actions and extra training.”
The article further notes that more than a dozen guns, including pistols, shotguns and “military rifles” ended up in the hands of gang members! This is a concern both for the security of our borders, but also because it is putting guns on the street. Anti-gun zealots should also take note that NONE of these guns were ever actually legally owned by private citizens, and didn’t need straw purchases or gun show loopholes to get in the hands of some very bad people.
Philly Inquirer Editorial Calls for Gun Control
Any editorial that offers the opinion: “Another good sign is the 159 cities and towns that have joined the state’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns group,” isn’t going to be one we agree with at all!
This isn’t a good sign, this is a horrible sign for law-abiding gun owners nation-wide, and while The Philadelphia Inquirer in an editorial this past weekend attempted to draw attention to illegal guns, this notion of “getting guns off the street” through legislation is in our opinion completely misguided. It is criminals, those who don’t legally own guns who are responsible for the bulk of crime. Does anyone at the Inquirer really think more laws will get the criminals to fall in line?
Baltimore Mayor Calls for Tougher Gun Laws, Interesting Fact Noted
While we support law enforcement (even if we call out their fobbles from time to time), we realize that crime in our nation’s cities remains a problem. But we found an interesting fact in a story in The Baltimore Sun, which noted how the city’s incoming mayor, Stephanie C. Rawlings-Blake, is calling for tougher gun laws. The laws in this case we actually agree with, where use of a gun is added to a criminal’s charges when arrested (i.e. “use of handgun in commission of a crime”), but it is this passage that we found interesting:
“Police Commissioner Frederick H. Bealefeld III tried to steer the focus back to the legislation, saying that 26 percent of the guns seized in Baltimore last year were long guns.”
This is notable because many cities make it so much harder to own handguns. In New York for example, you need a different permit for long guns (rifles and shotguns) as you do for handguns. Two different offices handle these permits, and these aren’t even located in the same borough of New York City let alone the same building.
Now we worry that the anti-gun zealots will use this as ammo to say, “all guns are bad,” but we’ll flip the argument and say, “see if criminals can’t get handguns they’ll use rifles,” and to make our point, “if they can’t use rifles, they’ll use bats, axes or sticks with a nail.” Criminals, in other words will use anything they can as a weapon.
Bronx Gun Buyback a Success?
Numerous New York City media outlets are reporting about the “successful” gun buyback in the Bronx, which netted nearly 1,200 firearms… and cost city taxpayers some $184,000 in the process! Of course the NYPD put a good spin on it, according to The New York Daily News, which noted that the police claim to have gotten more than 5,000 “guns off the streets” in recent years:
“We’ll never know, but that’s potentially more than 5,000 lives saved,” Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said during a press conference at Police Headquarters.
Yes, Police Commissioner Kelly, we’ll never know. We’ll never know if one of these guns was even handed in by a criminal. We’ll never know how many criminals now look to steal guns to sell them for $200, with no questions asked. We’ll never know how many people sold guns that were worthless (or at least worth less than $200) to get a quick score from taxpayers. We’ll never know how many valuable firearms were handed in for a mere $200 as well. We’ll never know.
Who Guards the Guards in South African?
South Africa has seen significant change in recent decades. While the nation’s racial equality has proven to allow more opportunities for all residents of the land at the tip of Africa, it has also sadly become a land that rivals the American Wild West or the Prohibition Era of gangsters. Crime is (in a word) everywhere. And despite gun bans, criminals easily get the goods. The Telegraph UK reports:
”A parliamentary committee heard that 2,944 police weapons were lost or stolen between January and September last year – more than in the whole of 2008, which was itself an increase on 2007″
And with missing guns, what does the police department do? Orders more guns:
“Dianne Kohler Barnard, the opposition Democratic Alliance shadow police minister, said that the state weapons manufacturer Armscor had recently ordered 4,000 replacement 9mm handguns made by the Italian manufacturer Beretta.”
This is yet another example that shoud serve as warnings to anyone who thinks buybacks and tougher laws will really keep guns out of criminal’s hands.
Biased News Story Tells One Side of the Story
The Mansfield News Journal offered a very one-sided take on gun shows in a story this week titled “Advocacy group wants check on gun show sales.” While several visitors to a local gun show, as well as those from the group ProgressOhio, were pressed on the issue of the so-called “gun show loophole,” the paper only offered this counterpoint:
“Those who oppose closing the loophole say requiring private sellers to conduct background checks would be costly and time-consuming, and they argue background checks on gun sales have not been proven to reduce crime.”
While this is fairly factual in its statement, and background checks have not been proven to reduce crime, why couldn’t the reporter – who apparently did attend the gun show – actually take the time to do the job and actually interview someone?
Associated Press Offers Anti-Biased Spin on Assault Weapons Ban Issue
The Associated Press via The Seattle Times have run an article that shows typical media bias on the issue of gun control. While recent high profile crimes are mentioned in the introduction, no mention is made that over all crime is actually down while firearms sales have been up:
“After 2009 ended in a hail of high-profile gun violence, Washington state’s gun-control advocates are frustrated by an apparent lack of political support for an assault weapons ban, warning that the state will likely face more deadly shootings without it.
“The bill comes just weeks after a spate of deadly police shootings, and proponents of the ban say those killings should force politicians to confront gun violence.”
Is it really fair to high-light recent shootings of police officers, especially when this tragedy did not actually involve a so-called assault weapon.
