Bloomberg Story Gives More Details on Chicago Plaintiffs
As we’ve been reporting, this is still just the beginning of law suits that will likely occur following last week’s Supreme Court ruling. Bloomberg news noted at a Chicago Mercantile Exchange trader is one of four plaintiffs who are suing the city over new gun restrictions. The piece was mostly unbiased and straight news, but it is worth noting the city of Chicago’s official response, which came from Jennifer Hoyle, spokeswoman for the city’s law department:
“We believe that Chicago’s ordinance is a reasonable attempt to balance the right of individuals to possess handguns in the home for self-defense with the substantial risks to public safety that are associated with the proliferation of firearms.”
The issue is still why law-abiding citizens should be made to suffer, or have their rights limited on the number of handguns that they are allowed to possess, especially when it is so clear by the crime wave sweeping the Windy City that criminals simply ignore the law anyway. We’ll be watching this case very closely.
Vanguard Editorial Misunderstands SCOTUS Ruling
Did Mr. Otis McDonald challenge the Chicago ban on handguns because he wanted to carry around a gun? No, he challenged the ban because his home had been invaded previously and he wanted to defend his wife as well as himself in the future. But this point is clearly missed by Natalia Groznia and the staff of The Portland Vanguard. In an editorial that offers the viewpoint that “relaxed gun laws may put people at risk,” Groznia offers this take:
“Why do you need to carry around a pistol? It seems like the only reason people do this in some cities is for one purpose: Because they can.”
As with other anti-gun editorials this one conveniently fails to mention the reason for Otis V. Chicago completely. It goes even further with the final kicker:
“The Supreme Court is wrong for passing a law allowing people to bear arms because it only makes living in the U.S. more dangerous than it already is.”
Again, this isn’t the case for Mr. Otis McDonald. Now he can own a gun and feel a little safer. The streets of Chicago would not have been any safer had the law been upheld. Criminals would still illegally have guns, and Mr. McDonald would just be unarmed.
Los Angeles Times: Doctors Don’t Like Guns
In another example of just a slightly biased report, The Los Angeles Times offers yet another take on the SCOTUS ruling, but this time they offer insight from the New England Journal of Medicine. The article offers this information when looking at McDonald vs. Chicago, and specifically addresses the elderly Otis McDonald.
“‘(A gun) may just increase the risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental injury and death of those who live in or, like his (McDonald’s) grandchildren, visit his home,’ writes Dr. Julie Cantor, whose scholarship focuses on the intersection of health, law and ethics.”
Well, that’s an interesting take from Dr. Cantor. But neither she, nor the paper, bother to note that Mr. McDonald wanted the gun to protect his home, his wife and himself after repeated break ins. It is just irresponsible that only the potential negatives are mentioned without even a mention that this goes way beyond simple “self-defense.”
Of course that’s not enough for Cantor, who is further quoted:
“To the extent that McDonald means more handguns, physicians have reason to be concerned, she writes. One of her suggestions: Physicians should remain vigilant and address gun issues, such as access and storage, with patients, especially those who may be suicidal, have survived domestic violence or live with children.”
Wait, should doctors be the least bit involved with any gun issue? Unless the doctor is trained in knowledge of guns this is also extremely dangerous! We wouldn’t expect a doctor to give out tax advice or offer information on an auto tune-up. So why should doctors have any say in gun issues? To we need this type of meddling from doctors? And don’t doctors have enough to worry about already?
Chicago’s Daley Calls for Strict Registration and Training
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley looks to make it, or rather keep it, difficult to legally obtain a handgun in the Windy City. While the long standing handgun ban has been overturned in the recent SCOTUS ruling, Daley seems to be on the offensive offering that the process of obtaining a gun should be as difficult as possible.
The Chicago Sun Times offered some thoughts in a news item, noting that Daley is hiding behind “first-responders” and could model new laws after those in place in Washington, D.C. The nation’s capital’s laws were noted in the paper:
“Washington requires gun owners to get five hours of safety training, register their firearms every three years and face criminal background checks every six years. Gun owners there are further required to submit fingerprints and allow police to perform ballistic tests. They must keep revolvers unloaded and either disassembled or secured with trigger locks unless they have reason to fear a home intruder.”
While this might seem reasonable, consider that the point of the case was so that people could have guns to defend their homes. What good is a disassembled firearm when you have an armed intruder in your home? And the suggestion of “unless they have reason to fear,” is vague at best. The rest of these restrictions are also a bit extreme. What exactly is done in five hours of safety training? And more importantly, the costs of these measures isn’t mentioned.
Couldn’t it be argued that these are just additional taxes on the poor and middle class? Rich people might not need to buy a gun for protection for example. But the paper further notes it could be even more expensive for those who want a gun:
“Those provisions apparently don’t go far enough for Daley, who hinted strongly at an insurance component to protect public safety workers and taxpayers.”
Here too Daley is off the mark. While we admit that first responders should be protected, is there really an added danger for them if an individual owns a gun? Couldn’t it be argued that first responders might not need to respond if criminals suddenly have to worry about breaking into homes where the owner might be armed? It wouldn’t be open season on every elderly person’s home any longer.
One Gun is Enough in Chicago Says City Lawyer
The Chicago Sun Times offered an interesting one-sided story that offered the city’s take on the recent SCOTUS ruling in McDonald vs. the City of Chicago. The city’s top lawyer, Corporation Counsel Mara Georges was quoted as saying:
“One handgun is sufficient for self-defense. We believe that a limitation on the number of handguns to one-per-person-per-residence would be consistent with Supreme Court.”
This is no joke. Apparently Mayor Richard Daley and his anti-gun cohorts are going to find any gun-ban loophole, any way around the ruling to enforce their would-be police state. We’ll be sure to follow these developments very closely.
Meet the Man Behind McDonald v Chicago
The City of Chicago has some of the country’s most draconian gun laws. Law abiding citizens can’t keep a hand gun in their own home. When 76 year old Otis McDonald heard from other gun rights activists that the Supreme Court held in the Heller Case that Washington, D.C. couldn’t outlaw handgun ownership, he filed a lawsuit against Chicago. Read more
Guns and the Law Part II
In part I of Guns and the Law we examined the similarities and differences between firearms ownership on federal territory and state territory and how the Bills of Rights have been applied to the states piecemeal over time. The Court seems to have settled in DC v Heller that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals and state militia. But The Court waited until McDonald v. Chicago to decide if and how the 2nd Amendment applies to the states and the individuals who live therein. Read more
San Francisco Chronicle Brings Up Worst Example
In an editorial in The San Francisco Chroncile offering why the Supreme Court should not overturn local jurisdiction bans on guns, the writer brings up the worst example:
“In 2006, Harvey Jackson pleaded guilty to illegal drug distribution and firearm possession after he was caught selling cocaine out of his home. Two years later, when the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects a right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense, however, Jackson challenged his conviction, arguing that the amendment guaranteed his right to keep a gun to protect himself while conducting his home drug enterprise.”
Frankly this is downright shameful on the part of writer Juliet A. Leftwich as well as the paper. While she is legal director of Legal Community Against Violence, her cherry picking Jackson as an example is just a clear-cut bias and a disgrace to Mr. Otis McDonald, the retired man who seeks to be allowed to legally own a gun to protect his home and his wife.
Leftwich’s comments are biased against law-abiding citizens to the point that it borders on bigotry against anyone in the inner city. Her statement puts Mr. McDonald in the same category as Jackson.
Huff and Puff’s Sour Grapes
Writing for the Huffington Post, Josh Sugarmann (head of the anti-firearms Violence Policy Center), got all huffed and puffed by the fact that: “Tomorrow ‘Sport Shooting Ambassador Award’ winner Antonin Scalia will hear oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago. What’s the problem Josh? Don’t like it when a judge happens to like guns? That seems to be the point in his anti-gun zealot editorial:
“So while we in the United States accept that a Supreme Court Justice who’s an ‘Ambassador’ for the gun industry can ethically rule on cases that impact the very industry he represents, maybe in Old Europe, where the WFSA is located, they can still feel the sting of a little thing called shame.”
Maybe some of us in the United States feel proud to have a judge that cares about the Second Amendment.
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.
