factbat.com

It is rather astonishing that those who advocate strict gun control, or outright prohibition, reference things such as crime and gang violence as the sole reasoning supporting, or just influencing, their position. And while any logical person with an ounce of intuition generally considers these gun-grabbers to be merely misguided or inept, it is difficult at times to help but wonder if they do not have some ulterior motive; or quite possibly a nefarious alternate agenda.

What person in their right mind could ever come to the conclusion that prohibiting legal gun ownership would reduce the number of guns procured and used by criminals? For Pete’s sake, they are criminals, and certainly have no intention of abiding by such a mandate.

No, the only thing a gun ban accomplishes is to remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens. Essentially because they are the only ones who will voluntarily comply with the ordinance.

Furthermore, a gun ban will create a lucrative market for the procurement and sale of stolen or undocumented weapons, and will increase rates of crime simply by forcing criminals to steal these guns.

This type of legislation also spreads crime to other counties and states where there may be more guns available to purchase or steal. Then creating a new black market for trafficking them into the prohibited areas.

In 1982 Chicago imposed a strict ordinance banning guns in the home in an effort to combat rampant gangs and firearm violence that plagued the city.

However, as a resident of the north side of Chi Town for several years, I have witnessed plenty of gun play, and have even seen black people pull out a gun on a populated residential street in broad daylight and fire the weapon into the air for nothing more than kicks.

But it was common knowledge that there was little chance one would be arrested for it, or even instigate a phone call to authorities by a concerned neighbor. People know that it is the gang-bangers and crack dealers who have all of the guns, so they are likely too afraid to speak out for fear of reprisal for making a complaint.

Well, it appears that some Chicago residents have had enough. Otis McDonald, a 76 year old man who lives in a crime-saturated area of the city, is asking the Supreme Court to overturn his city’s strict ban on handguns in the home.

“In my home, this is the only time I worry.” say’s McDonald. “There’s more guns coming into this city than police can take away from them. So if I’ve got a gun, and others have guns in their homes to protect themselves, then that’s something the police would have to worry about less.”

Chicago’s nearly 30 year ban on possession of handguns and automatic weapons within city limits is one of the most stringent in the nation.

McDonald’s chances of getting results from the Supreme Court does bode well since its ruling a year and a half ago which declared for the first time that the constitution protects an individual’s right to own a gun in his or her home.

One sticking point however, is the fact that the federal government has no authority to dictate to states, and in the current bureaucratic atmosphere which often finds legislators arguing that the various states have the right to enact laws which are confined to their specific area, McDonald may have to push for compliance with the U.S. Constitution.

The 16^th amendment to the U.S. Constitution say’s that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

McDonald is asking the Supreme Court to have the Heller ruling -- which struck down the D.C. gun ban -- applied in cities and states across the country.

Concerning the gun ban which prohibits McDonald from owning a gun in his own home, he say’s “It makes me feel like the city cares more about the thugs than they do me, and I am the one paying taxes,”

Lawyers for the City of Chicago point out that 402 of the 412 firearms homicides occurred with the use of handguns.

Chicago Corporation Counsel, Mara S. Georges, wrote “handguns are used to kill in the United States more than all other weapons, firearms and otherwise, combined.” She argued that the Court should leave it up to the states and cities to regulate handguns.

However, the only reason handguns are used to kill more than all other weapons is because they are the most convenient. If there were no handguns then something else would top the list, because people do not kill other people simply out of convenience. There is always a motive, and if the motive is strong enough, then it matters not what weapon is available. Plenty of murderers have used their bare hands to kill.

Georges also writes “The genius of our federal system ordinarily leaves this type of social problem to be worked out by the state and local governments, without a nationally imposed solution excluding one choice or another.”

But there is most certainly a nationally imposed solution, and it is called the U.S. Constitution.

Unfortunately, the federal government see’s fit to restrict gun ownership with blanket mandates that tend to codify people into specific categories such as felons, or the mentally ill. However, these restrictions should only be applied to specific individuals since one can be convicted of a felony which bears no relevance to the issue, or proves they would be any more likely to use a gun to commit a criminal act.

Furthermore, just because somebody may warrant a distinction as mentally ill, does not predispose them to violent or rash behavior. There are various mental conditions that merely cause people to avoid others, exhibit compulsive behavior, succumb to phobias, etc just like most anyone can be afflicted with in today’s society. This is no reason to claim they then have no right to protect themselves as any other citizen would.

Once again the Supreme Court, and justice Antonin Scalia, get it wrong when claiming that the Court’s ruling on Heller “should not be taken to cast doubt on long standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Disregarding the rule of law will never be a reasonable strategy for deterring criminal behavior, nor excused by an inability, or refusal, to properly engage the social equations which result in homicide.