Chicago Didn’t Enforce Gun Laws Reports New York Times

Irony in the Windy City indeed. We’ve been continuing to report that Chicago had had for years one of the strictest gun laws on the books in the country and yet has seen a wave of gun violence. Mayor Richard Daley, among others, pointed the blame at guns.

The Supreme Court overturned the city’s gun ban earlier this year, a move that Daley has been trying to find a way of fighting at all costs. But in another example of true irony, it is being reported by The New York Times that the gun ban in Chicago wasn’t all that well enforced. Read more

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.

Boston Globe Editorial Plays Loose With Facts

There is no denying that James Alan Fox is passionate about the issue of gun control. We respect his opinions even we don’t agree with them, but in an editorial for The Boston Globe he flat out confuses us by playing a bit loose with the facts. He writes:

“The Chicago ban had in fact significantly reduced the scourge of gun killings in the Windy City.”

First, we’d like to know what he is basing this statement on? We ask because Chicago has seen a surge in gun violence in the past few years. Clearly criminals are getting guns, regardless of the ban. We would counter that gun sales nationwide have been on the rise, but gun crime has been down accordingly.

We also have to question Fox who at one point suggests there are ways to keep guns from criminals, while still allowing for private ownership to “legitimate gun owners,” but then says he doesn’t believe in middle-ground between two side. Fox actually maintains that he would like to “disarm America completely.”

He does content, “there will never be a gun-free America, at least not in my lifetime.” We hope this is never the case. In part because such an America would be a police state.

Chicago Calls Out the Big Guns?

There have been suggestions that Chicago might need to call out the National Guard to solve the problem of violence plaguing parts of the Windy City. But more worrisome is the possibility that the city could create a gun prohibition instead. Chicago Public Radio noted:

“Reps. John Fritchey and La Shawn Ford, both Democrats of Chicago, are calling for National Guard troops to help get guns and criminals off the street. But city Police Superintendant Jody Weis says he’d rather see tougher laws against guns and see more community members identifying the shooters.”

Note that both opinions note that guns should be considered the problem first and not the criminals! How will tougher laws against guns solve the problem if the police can’t stop the crime? For one thing we think this would completely disarm the local populace, and take away their right to defend themselves.