Failed Gun Bans Defeated

The Huffington Post: Chicago Gun Ban Axed After Violent Weekend: At Least 29 Shot, 3 Dead In Weekend Shootings

It’s the Huffington Post, and so I really can’t tell if the irony is intentional or not, but there sure is a lot of it:

On Monday, the Supreme Court upheld a challenge to Chicago’s 28-year-old handgun ban, which ultimately signals the end of the ban on handguns in Chicago and Oak Park. As gun rights were extended throughout the country by SCOTUS, Chicago was recovering from another violent weekend that left at least 29 shot and three dead.

Even with the gun ban in place, shootings in Chicago have been rampant.

What’s this? Gun bans don’t work? You think?  The Supreme Court also noticed, and they specifically referenced the fact in yesterday’s decision:

Chicago Police Department statistics, we are told, reveal that the City’s handgun murder rate has actually increased since the ban was enacted and that Chicago residents now face one of the highest murder rates in the country and rates of other violent crimes that exceed the average in comparable cities.

It is’ truly mind-bending that–despite the obvious evidence to the contrary–the anti-gun crowd still believes that if you ban guns people are safer.  I’m very glad that the Supreme Court wasn’t swayed by that “argument”, and stuck to the United States Constitution.

Share

Comments

  1. Jordan Bell says:

    I’m very glad that the Supreme Court wasn’t swayed by that “argument”, and stuck to the United States Constitution.

    The Supreme Court very narrowly stuck to the Constitution. Five members found it important to stick to the rule of law, while four decided to vote with how they felt. This should have been a no brainer 9-0 voting in favor of upholding the Constitution. If one more judge had voted the other way, then what? Would that nullify the 2nd Amendment? Would the Constitution no longer be the supreme law of the land if State and local authorities can do as they please?

  2. William A. Rose says:

    Jordan, I agree that the vote shoulda been unanimous. Had it gone the other way, that woulda surely been grounds for the people to rise up – armed.

    Folks, if your state allows it, get your open/concealed carry permit. Mine came the other day. I now openly carry everywhere I go – except to the places that choose to disallow open or concealed carry. I don’t need to go in those places and be a sheeple/sitting duck at the mercy of a criminal.

    And get this: It’s been opined that guns kill people! Mine hasn’t shot anyone! Weird. Utterly weird. It hasn’t even drawn itself or aimed itself at anyone. I really need a liberal to tell me what’s wrong with my firearm. Hmmmmmm.

  3. Anonymous says:

    1:49 THAT is the 64,000 dollar question. Can the Constitution become a worthless piece of paper? Surely revolution, or coup d’etat would say not.

  4. Anonymous says:

    1:49 Millions in uniform, sworn to the constitution, vs a guy that botched his swearing to it….. a swearing disingenuous at best anyway. It’s a quandary which trumps the other.

  5. William A. Rose says:

    Has anyone read the decision? The thing is 214 mind-numbing pages long. Well, not really mind-numbing. Actually, it should scare the bejesus out of everyone that considers themselves an American Patriot. You have no idea how close it was to going the other way. It’s bad enough it was a 5-4 vote when it should have been a 9-0 vote. Read the decision. You will be blown away at how close we are to losing our right to keep and bear arms – for any reason. Here’s the link: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

  6. Robert Wallace says:

    Just to keep things in perspective, folks, the issue isn’t actually as clear-cut as you guys make it seem to be. The Constitution of the United States refers to the *federal* government. The Bill of Rights limit what the *federal* government can do.

    Initially individual states were pretty much left to their own devices. The feds couldn’t abridge your right to free speech, but the state you lived in could. States were governed by their own state-level constitutions, and–since most of these were written by the same folks who wrote the Constitution–the principles were often pretty similar.

    It was only later that we started saying that – through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment – the Bill of Rights could be applied to the states. And – to be quite honest – I’m not 100% OK with that because it infringes on the notion of federalism. Both philosophically and practically you could argue that we’d be better off in some ways without incorporation because there would be more variation between the states. Crazy states like Mass would be free to become the communist utopia of their dreams, and the rest of us sane folks could learn a lesson and run the other way as fast as possible.

    As it stands we’re sort of all stuck together in one big blob, and that’s not what the Founders intended.

    Still, it’s a great ruling for gun rights and – since turning back the clock on incorporation wasn’t on the table today – it’s the best we could have hoped for.

  7. Jordan Bell says:

    Paragraphs 2 and 3, from Article VI in the Constitution:

    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    Paragraph 2 would imply that the Amendments were meant to be applied to the States. State Laws and Constitutions were never meant to supersede the Constitution of the United States. I don’t see how the Framers of the Constitution would restrict the Federal government from infringing on our rights, and at the same time then allowing the individual States to trample all over it. From the 10th Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Speak Your Mind

*