Part of Chicago's argument was that DC v. Heller didn't extend 2nd amendment protections to the states because DC is a Federal district.
Sorry for being obtuse, but that was exactly my point. The thread title is erroneous and most of the poo flinging is premature. Reasonable restrictions on gun ownership are permitted, but is Chicago's law reasonable? The SC didn't address that issue.
So is the article wrong? It specifically states that the SC declared Chicago's law unconstitutional: Washington (CNN) -- In another dramatic victory for firearm owners, the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional Chicago, Illinois', 28-year-old strict ban on handgun ownership, a potentially far-reaching case over the ability of state and local governments to enforce limits on weapons. (I have no idea - I haven't paid much attention to this particular case)
That part of the article is incorrect. The Chicago law was not found unconstitutional. An excerpt from the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html?hpw
I just have a hard time telling this guy that he cannot have a gun to keep in his home for the protection of his family in the event of a break in. I live in a good neighborhood, and I have two guns in strategic places in the event of a break in while I am home. I would suggest that a home invasion is a lot more likely on the South Side of Chicago. To ask this guy to be defenseless against a home invasion is, IMO, just unrealistic. I happen to be one of those people that have received some gun training and spent some time on the range, and I refuse to be a casualty to the first rule of gunfighting...bring a gun. This is just another in a tragically long line of examples of the people getting hurt being those members of the citizenry that obey the law. Max, we have known each other a long time, and you know you are one of my favorite people. Do not take this the wrong way...BUT...while mentions of the 18th century and muskets may make for great theater, I believe that this argument completely ignores the harsh realities of our present society. More and more people have been touched by violent crime (as victims and knowing victims). If one expects that the police can logistically protect them and their loved ones, the only way they will escape becoming a tragic statistic is by sheer luck and the grace of God. Count me squarely in the camp of "if you pass the background check, you should be able to own a gun for home protection." Remember, the man in this story was not asking to carry a .44, Dirty Harry style, in the streets. He wanted to keep it in his home in case of the worst case scenario.
When's the last time you have been in Chicago? How much do you know about the amount of Section 8 housing that is interspersed in the buildings in Old Town and the Gold Coast? As has been stated, the process of tearing down Cabrini has been going on for well over a decade (much to the chagrin of minority politicians, especially early on). It was a terrible decision to build it, and one that the city has tried to rectify. I've lived in Chicago on and off for the last 15 years or so. It doesn't "treat minorities like s--t" any more than the rest of America. The handgun ban was stupid, but I'd be really curious to see how many people used handguns to successfully protect their homes. I'm sure it happens, but you don't hear about it much. Unfortunately, you do hear about some parents who carelessly leave their guns around and children who accidentally kill themselves or siblings.
That may largely be because dead children get TV ratings. Sad, but true. People shooting intruders happens. You hear about it more in convenience stores and liquor stores than homes, but it does happen.
It is from a reputation well earned by liberals. Most of those people were not prepared anyways though so I have so sympathy.
One of my buddies lives in Section 8 in the Gold Coast (he's a broke med student). He got a killer deal (no pun) -- about a block from the Clark & Division Red Line stop.
Uh.. Well, pretty much the rest of America treats minorities like s--t too. I lived in St. Louis in the 1990's and spent a bit of time in Chicago. I've been to a bunch of industrial cities in the Midwest and they are all ghettoized to a degree that you don't get in the supposedly "racist south". I will say that St. Louis makes Chicago look like the Rainbow Coalition. But being less bad is hardly a sign to jump for joy. Look at all the metrics. If you are black you are more than twice as likely to be unemployed. You are much more likely not to graduate high school. You are much more likely to not graduate college. You are much more likely to earn a wage below the poverty line. On and on. So you have only two sources for these issues. Either you are a Mein Kampf fan, and the fact that whites have all those advantages proves that Ayrans are inherently more advanced than "mud people". I took several classes in college that dealt with various aspects of the history of racial measure, and I think I can pretty much say that the first option is flat wrong. The other option is that they are inherently born and have the potential of equals, but external forces push you into the boxes you are expected to enter. It is sort of like the way that from a young age most children that boys are supposed to play with toy trucks, and girls are supposed to play with dolls. Nobody outright tells children this, they just pick up on the cues. In the same way, black boys learn that they are supposed to become a gangster and sling rock between shootouts. They are raised to expect that their lives will be meaningless, and if they try to change that, they will come up against a white wall that will push them back "where they belong". And when you think you are just going to be forced into collecting welfare for your adult life, you get what you can while you can.
For the record I agreed with the Heller decision and reading the 2nd Amendment strictly it makes sense to me that there is a personal right to arms. I still haven't read enough of the McDonald decision to have a solid opinion on it but my own feeling though is that while the 2nd says that the people have a right to bear arms the first part of the amendment cannot be ignored regarding a well regulated militia. Also "arms" is a fairly broad category of weaponry that could mean pointy sticks to nukes. It seems to me that given the vastly different situations and cultures that a lot more deference should be left to the states to determine regulations regarding arms. From what I have seen so far from this ruling it still sounds like there is a lot of still a lot of latitude for state and local gun regulation. One thing though about this issue I have always wondered about which I am going to ask of the well learned minds on Clutchfans. Where in the historical record regarding the creation of the Constitution does it say that there is an individual right to ownership of arms for hunting or personal self-defense? I've read the Federalist Papers and the only discussion I can see regarding arms is about states to form militia for their own defense but nothing about personal self-defense. From what I've seen it seems to me that a strict originalist reading would invalidate personal use of arms except for when called upon for the defense of the state(s).
This is probably a subject for another thread but its one that I have studied quite a bit and was a focus of my research in Grad school. The form of Cabrini Green, and others high rise housing, has been seen as the cause of a lot of social ills but I don't think it is that simple as the situation being completely determanitive of the physical structure. High rise housing like Cabrini Green and Pruitt-Igoe (a high rise complex that was demolished because it became so bad) have actually proved very successful in many places such as Singapore and Hong Kong where the high rises of the same generation have even less amenities than Cabrini Green. Also Cabrini Green wasn't initially developed to be a warehouse for the poor but meant to actually be a mixed income neighborhood. The downfall of places like that have a lot more to do with a variety of factors than just built structure.
But criminals do steal guns from those who have them obtained legally and there also are cases of people buying guns legally to resell them illegally. While making guns illegal likely won't stop criminals from obtaining guns I don't think making it easier to obtain guns legally will reduce the availability of guns to criminals. If anything it seems like the opposite would happen.
I wasn't really speaking of them architecturally. More that the white people basically warehoused "urban" people in these places with the intention of forgetting about them. The issue is thinking of people as "that problem" instead of people. If there had been an incredible government funded social infrastructure in place beforehand, I think those places would have been a lot more successful. What is that public housing tower in South Africa with like 4 floors of trash in the middle? I always get a kick out pictures of that place. (edit: It is the Ponte City Apartments) So yeah, it's not the building, but the perception by politicians that the building by itself is a cheap solution to the "problem", and that once you've built the building the problem is solved.
not arguing for gun control either way but I would suspect the 18th and 19th century were more violent than present day.
Not to derail the thread, but someone asked a question today at the Kagen hearings (hint, it was a republican) and I'd like to know if there's an answer. Was the right to bear arms granted by god or the constitution?
I don't think handguns have to be banned so I am not in disagreement with this ruling.... But I do think there should be a test to require getting a gun...a gun license so to speak. You can't ban them, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't regulate it. We make drivers take a test before they get a license. What's wrong with doing the same for someone who wants to buy a gun. I also think every gun should be registered and marked. That way if someone resells their gun in the black market and someone uses that weapon to commit a crime they can also go after the person who sold the gun illegally.
