Gunning for Chicago

No matter where I go — from my current city of Chicago where handguns are banned, to my home state of Colorado where a casual get-together with friends over break ended in a demonstration of how to properly engage a slide-lock — rarely have I encountered anyone who’s indifferent when it comes to gun laws.

The reason I bring it up this week is that Supreme Court hearings began Tuesday in a case that may be a landmark decision on gun rights in the U.S. The court will decide the constitutionality of Chicago’s city ordinance banning handguns, an ordinance which may eventually be struck down if the court favors the pro-gun rights crowd.

I would argue that nothing that government can regulate affects the day-to-day lives of citizens more than safety-related issues, especially in a metropolis like Chicago where crimes and gun violence are daily realities. Since whatever decision that comes down from D.C. will affect the streets of Chicago and hence affect you (yes, you, reading this right now), I want to know what you think (more about that later). Here’s a rundown of what’s happened so far:

The so-called “gun case” against Chicago, McDonald v. City of Chicago follows in the wake of another Court decision that banned handguns in Washington, D.C. However, the previous case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, only ruled that the federal government can’t ban guns. It didn’t rule on whether states or municipalities, like Chicago, can do the same. Hence, the lawsuit.

The namesake of the Chicago case is Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old resident of the Morgan Park neighborhood on the far South Side. In a January interview with Chicago Magazine, McDonald said his property has been broken into several times, and that he wants a handgun to defend himself from armed drug dealers in the neighborhood.
Three other Chicago residents are also plaintiffs in the case, but at least one prominent Chicagoan has emphatically railed against lifting the ban: Mayor Richard Daley. Speaking Monday, the day before the hearings began, Daley said, “We’ve turned our backs on common sense gun laws in America and we continuously, unfortunately, continue shooting each other on a daily basis,” Daley said.

“You would think there would be a wake-up call in America. But we’re silent. We’re not doing anything,” Daley also said. And in a sense, how could you blame him? He’s ultimately responsible for a city where  gangs, thugs and criminals continue to gun each other down, along with the occasional bystander.­­

Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez has said (most recently in an L.A. Times article from Feb. 26) that overturning the handgun ban would lead to an increase in violence since the ban currently gives law enforcement officials a legal basis to stop drug dealers and gang members who look like they’re carrying a weapon.

But you don’t have to be from a gun-loving western state like me to know the counter-argument from gun rights advocates: In their view, criminals already have the guns, so letting law-abiding citizens pack heat deters crimes. In fact,  DePaul University, has a student group devoted to promoting the concealed carry of legal handguns on college campuses.

So how do you think the Supreme Court should decide? Because McDonald v. City of Chicago will likely settle the question of whether municipalities and states can ban handguns, it could potentially set a prececent that sweeps across the county, far beyond Chicago.

So you tell me  —  do you want to see legalized handguns on the city streets? Are handguns what the musket-bearing Founding Fathers had in mind when they crafted the Second Amendment? Is the solution to dangerous illegal guns more legal guns? Or does it just level the playing field against thugs who already carry weapons?

Comment on this column at www.loyolaphoenix.com or send me a letter at phoenix@luc.edu. I’m looking for a firestorm of opinion.

LeeAnn Maton is the Editor-in-Chief
lmaton@luc.edu

• Facebook Comments
• Site Comments

5 comments

Anonymous

Fri Apr 16 2010 16:35

I am from one of the “gun loving western states” and proud of it. Guns built this great country, and don’t you forget it. If it wasn’t for superior fire power, the savages would still be in control of everything west of the Alleghenies. Then where would we be.

The problem is not that we have too many guns, it is that we don’t have enough guns. We should pass a law that everyone over the age of 10 should be required to carry a handgun. Not just some wimpy six shot revolver, but a real handgun. Full auto. 20 round clip. I mean, really, if we are expected to protect ourselves, , how can we do that with six measly bullets.

Worried about terrorists hijacking planes? Arm all of the passengers. That way if some funny looking foreigner starts acting strange, or starts trying to light his shoe on fire, 120 of his fellow passengers can rise up en mass and shoot his ass. Problem solved. Airplane disaster averted.

Naturally, there may be collateral damage. Maybe a few innocent bystanders hit. Maybe even an overzealous shooting of some foreigner scratching his ass (can’t forget the underwear bomb). But those are problems that we are all going to have to learn to live with. No pain, no gain.

The collateral affect is that we will all be living in a kinder, gentler, safer society. Knowing that everyone else is armed would also go a long way toward making us act more civil toward one another. Who would risk flipping someone off if you knew they were armed? Road rage? A thing of the past!

what a great society it will be.

Anyway, that’s just my two cents worth, from a gun loving westerner. God Bless America.

Elgatojiggy

Jason in Chicago

Tue Mar 16 2010 18:21

Daley brought this problem on himself. If he would have been "sensible" about gun regulations he could have allowed handguns in Chicago and not blocked concealed-carry in Illinois. The law could have been written in such a way that law-enforcement could request proof of a concealed-carry permit at any time and still been able to weed out the gang-bangers and drug-dealers which would not have passed background checks. Now it is very possible that the supreme court lifts many of the prohibitions to carrying firearms including the necessity for license to do so.

The abiding fact that the anti-gun advocates seem to conveniently ignore is that armed citizens make a population more safe, not less. Legitimate, unbiased studies continue to bear this trend out much to the bewilderment of Daley and his ilk. It is impossible for the police to keep the streets safe by themselves. Just ask Daley's armed bodyguards. If he wants to make his point that guns make us less safe then he should start by disarming his personal entourage.

Much discussion has taken place over where it is reasonable to restrict gun possession. A little common sense would tell you that it's sensible only in places where you can screen ALL incoming people to be reasonably sure that they are not armed. Other than that, level the playing field and allow all honest citizens a tool to protect themselves.

Jim in Houston

Thu Mar 4 2010 08:44

Anonymous
Wed Mar 3 2010 22:54
Easier solution.
Allow law abiding citizens to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, the best solution. Doesn't require a Police State.

Anonymous

Wed Mar 3 2010 22:54

Easier solution.
Allow law abiding citizens to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Anonymous

Wed Mar 3 2010 12:56

Easy solution.
Immediate life imprisonment or execution for anyone caught with a gun. No exceptions. Period.

Add comment


I am not posting spam. I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Enter the characters in the image above:

log out