235,000,000 of America's Firearms Killed No One Yesterday
Anticipating that its gun control law will be struck down on remand after last weeks decision in McDonald v. Chicago (that Second Amendment case), the City of Chicago has unanimously passed what it says is the strictest handgun ordinance in the country. For its part, the NRA is up in arms.
Chicago's concern -- rightly -- is with the city's incredible gun violence rate. But the ordinance it has passed is absolutely insane. Take a look at the new law's more prominent features:
Rather than reducing gun violence, the ordinance is going to sting lawful firearm owners who trip over the web of requirements, or who cannot afford to pay the confusing array of fees. The ordinance will make lawful people resent the city government and it will make the city officials resent the Supreme Court, all while doing next to nothing to actually address illegal gun violence. Eventually, of course, this new law will be struck down -- but not before a whole bunch of people (public and private) invest a tremendous amount of time, energy, and money, that would be better spent elsewhere.
In short, when I look at Chicago's behavior here I see stubborn, martyr-esque refusal to acknowledge a constitutional right. It suggests dogma in the face of the facts, and denial in the face of the law. It is not all that different from historical attempts to undercut the Court on school integration, or voting, or abortion. If Chicago really wants to do right here, I am certain that there are more effective ways of addressing public safety than picking fights with the NRA. Especially when the Supreme Court of the United States has made clear that in this one, it's on the NRA's side.
Chicago's concern -- rightly -- is with the city's incredible gun violence rate. But the ordinance it has passed is absolutely insane. Take a look at the new law's more prominent features:
- Prohibits residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.
- Prohibits people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence, or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
- Requires prospective gun owners to be fingerprinted, pay a $100 fee every three years, pay for a four-hour class and, and pay for training at a gun range; all while *prohibiting* any of those classes from taking place within city limits.
- Prohibits people from leaving their home with a handgun in operational order.
- Requires residents residents convicted of a gun offense, including any of the above, to register with the police department, much like sex offenders.
- Punishes violations with a fine of up to $5,000 and 90 days for a first offense, and a fine of up to $10,000 and six months for subsequent convictions.
Rather than reducing gun violence, the ordinance is going to sting lawful firearm owners who trip over the web of requirements, or who cannot afford to pay the confusing array of fees. The ordinance will make lawful people resent the city government and it will make the city officials resent the Supreme Court, all while doing next to nothing to actually address illegal gun violence. Eventually, of course, this new law will be struck down -- but not before a whole bunch of people (public and private) invest a tremendous amount of time, energy, and money, that would be better spent elsewhere.
In short, when I look at Chicago's behavior here I see stubborn, martyr-esque refusal to acknowledge a constitutional right. It suggests dogma in the face of the facts, and denial in the face of the law. It is not all that different from historical attempts to undercut the Court on school integration, or voting, or abortion. If Chicago really wants to do right here, I am certain that there are more effective ways of addressing public safety than picking fights with the NRA. Especially when the Supreme Court of the United States has made clear that in this one, it's on the NRA's side.
posted by Patrick Bageant at 12:08 PM
22 Comments:
Yeah, this is completely idiotic. I don't think it should be unconstitutional (but it definitely is), but it is astonishingly wrongheaded.
The poster's comments about the likely effects (sting lawful gun owners; do nothing to violent criminals) seems right on. But what to do, instead?
If an ordinance like this just keeps just 1 gun out of circulation that would be used in a killing later, its good by me.
Patrick thinks this law is ludicrous because it may annoy some legal firearm owners, and is shocked by the attempt of a city to deal with a HUGE problem, one that I bet HE never had to deal with.
If you've grown up in a lower class urban area you know that fewer guns, the better, no matter what. Get off your high horse.
Brilliant.
Let's also ban matches, because they cause arson.
If you'd ever been a firefighter you would agree with me, but because you haven't you must be on a high horse.
Chicago DOES have a massive problem, and I completely understand the pressing, urgent need to address it. But the fact that it has the problem, despite a 28-year outright ban, PROVES that these types of measures aren't the answer. Rather than puffing and posturing and picking an un-winnable fight with the Supreme Court, Chicago ought to be reevaluating its approach.
The fact that Chicago still has a massive problem with gun violence after a 28 year ban does not show that the ban was useless or wrongheaded, it seems to me, so long as theban mitigated what would otherwise have been an even bigger problem gun violence.
Maybe, but to make that argument you have to claim that, but for the ban, Chicago would be by far and away the most dangerous city in the United States. You have to make that claim because Chicago (America's murder capital in 2008) is by any fair measure currently about as dangerous as other cities that do *not* have a ban.
More likely (to me) is that the ban isn't particularly effective at keeping firearms out of criminal hands. And if it's not particularly effective, the city ought to be revising its strategy, not defending a failed (and now illegal) policy.
But doesn't the ban provide a tool for law enforcement to get those who may use firearms during crimes off the streets?
It seems odd to say that, despite the fact that the ban has not measurably impacted handgun violence in Chicago, we should nevertheless continue to restrict the liberty of U.S. citizens. I am fine with restricting what people can do if it actually helps people. However, it seems there should be a showing of benefit before the restriction is imposed.
Pat's Logic:
If a city has a law against crime X, and crime X occurs anyways, this is prima facie evidence that the law doesnt work.
In a simple world, maybe so, but it this isn't so simple an issue as Pat would like it to be. For Example:
- What if, of the gun deaths since the previous law was passed, most or all of them came from LEGAL guns, which wouldn't have been confiscated under the law anyways?
- What if a majority of the guns are traced out of state, and thus hinting that Chicago's law suffers due to the lack of similar laws in other communities? Surely this wouldnt be a reason to strike it down. It'd be like blaming the US's drug laws on the fact that Mexico doesn't have any.
And these are just two factors off the top of my dome as I'm sitting here.
To come to such a grand conclusion as Pat has, without further insight, is laughable. Unless his post was meant in humor. If so, bravo.
Pat, I assume you light your BBBQ* and cigarettes with a match.
*"Welcome to Homer's BBBQ. The Extra B is for BYOBB"
"What's that extra B for?"
"Oh that's just a typo."
Replace "match" with "gun" and the above comment may start to make sense. But "I promise nothing."*
*Apu: "Slap on your bullet-proof vest, Sanji, it's time for another bank run."
Sanji: "Alright, but if I don't make it, promise you won't sleep with my wife."
Apu: "I promise nothing."
Problems with people who say "If this just stopped 1 gun, 1 shooting, 1 death, etc." then it was wroth it:
You could say the same thing about speech restrictions. I am sure there are plenty of speech restrictions that could stop more than 1 injury or death. Say, like a speech restriction that no one is allowed to talk outside. Imagine the reduction in street fights.
That doesn't mean that such a law is good, wise, constitutional, etc. Any sensible look at such a law would look at the balance of costs versus benefits. If you aren't even trying to do that, then you are being intellectually dishonest.
For example, a law against speaking outside might kill more people than it saves. Good luck having a heart attack in the street if no one can call the paramedics from outside on a cellphone. Good luck if you are hit by a car since you can't scream out in agony.
Similarly, a law against handguns bands people from using handguns to defend themselves, and significantly reduces the deterrent effect against criminals. I think it's pretty intellectually dishonest to say that no lives could be saved or injuries could be prevented through lawful self-defense using handguns.
Whether the harms outweigh the benefits is a policy matter. However, the framers of the constitution specifically reserved certain policy matters from decision by the legislature. The legality of small arms for self-defense is one of those.
So, in summary, deal with it.
10:00's comment is almost as confusing as Armen's.
Don't both of 10:00's observations support my position? They both suggest that, like the war on drugs, the current law isn't working.* To me, that suggests Chicago should rethink its approach to the problem and not blindly adhere to a failed policy. If anything is simplistic, it is the approach 10:00 suggests: "if what we have isn't working, well, we must just need more of it." Have you actually and honestly considered the possibility that it's the medicine that's wrong, and not the dosage?
1:07, backed by the Supremacy Clause, has the win. It's sort of vain to be having a local policy discussion about the merits of what the Court has called a fundamental right. As it turns out, incorporation cuts both ways.
*I don't know where you got the idea that Mexico "doesn't have any" drug laws, but I'd be sure and check those facts before making plans to party in Cancun.
Weird. I don't know why these are coming through as anonymous, but 1:35 is me. Patrick.
You know what would reduce the murder rate in major cities more quickly, easily, and effectively than a ban on handguns? Taking a more sensible approach to the drug "war." I would start by legalizing everything outright. See how many murders there are per year when the people competing to sell crack are not rival gangs but grocery store owners. You'll see some price wars, sure, but those tend to be non-lethal.
Another way to reduce murder: execute all people convicted of murder. Quickly.
From comment 2: "Patrick thinks this law is ludicrous because it may annoy some legal firearm owners, and is shocked by the attempt of a city to deal with a HUGE problem, one that I bet HE never had to deal with.
If you've grown up in a lower class urban area you know that fewer guns, the better, no matter what. Get off your high horse."
Ad hominem, really?
I guess that means only rich people can have educated opinions on economics, only farmers on agriculture policy, only doctors on health policy, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, only taxpayers on tax policy (wouldn't that be nice!).
4,000 years after Plato and we still can't use reason to make our arguments?
2,358 years after Plato. I guess getting it 60% right is a P/H on Boalt's scale.
8:31 here. @Armen: 58.9% right, so no.
Yeah but the curve dips after your first year. So, maybe. Depending on the dreaded "class participation" tie breaker.
10:00 here,
1:35 misconstrues my point. Pat's logic suggests that a law should be deemed a failure because crime persists in spite of it.
I quite humbly suggest that a more quantitative analysis is required before making such a bold statement, and came up with two examples of why the lack of "results" (as Pat narrowly defined them) could be due to any number of reasons besides the effectiveness of the law itself.
If anything, I'm trying to point out that we shouldn't come to simplistic conclusions, not making up any of my own.
10:00 again,
Responding to 1:07:
I liked where you were going with the balancing of costs versus benefits but you betrayed your own argument with:
"I think it's pretty intellectually dishonest to say that no lives could be saved or injuries could be prevented through lawful self-defense using handguns. "
Is anyone arguing that absolutely NO lives would be saved via self-defense handgun use? Its well-known that a handgun owner is statistically more likely to hurt themselves of a relative unintentionally than they are to actually use the gun in self defense properly. Are you trying to say that if ONE person uses their handgun correctly in self-defense, it justifies their existence (outside any constitutional arguments)? Where's your balancing?
I also want someone to explain why I can't have a missile launcher to protect my family from intruders and/or the IRS.
Hi there! My Dad would definitely love your site. I'd bookmarked this for sure. Thanks for sharing this with us. More power to you and to your site!
Post a Comment
<< Home