Radioactive Communist Zombies

Civil Rights Chicago Style

The mayor of Chicago, Richard Daley, today announced new regulations on computers.  Residents can only buy one computer a month, if you want to buy a computer you have to take a class in safe computing (that the city won't allow to be taught in the city), homes with children must lock up their computers, and residents aren't allowed to take their computers out of their homes (so I guess, no smart phones allowed), and all computers must be registered with the police.  This is all to stop child pornography and protect children from the baser sides of the internet.

Wait, I'm sorry.  Wrong civil right.  It's guns the mayor was talking about.  As Fox News reports, the mayor is planning on making Chicago residents jump through flaming hoops to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights:

-- Limit the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.

-- Require residents in homes with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.

-- Require prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers . . . 

-- Prohibit 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. Residents convicted of a gun offense would have to register with the police department.

-- Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

Mayor Daley justifies this by saying: "As long as I'm mayor, we will never give up or give in to gun violence that continues to threaten every part of our nation, including Chicago."  (Funny, how there is less gun violence where there are more guns in the hands of citizens, Mayor.) 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you have to jump through flaming hoops to exercise a civil right, do you still have that right?

Chicago Already Planning on How to Restrict Guns

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court extending 2nd Amendment rightsto the states, Chicago is already trying to figure out how to get around the ruling.

The fact of the matter is, these people don't want their citizens to be able to protect themselves.  So they, like Washington D.C., are trying to make gun ownership as difficult as possible:

Chicago may severely limit the number of handguns that can be kept in a single home and ban gun dealers within city limits in the wake of Monday's landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that gutted the city’s handgun ban, City Hall’s top attorney said today . . .

“Reducing the number of handguns in Chicago is critical to public safety,” [Corporation Counsel Mara] Georges said.

Right.  So why is, oh, North Dakota which has many more guns per capita than Chicago so much safer?

Frankly, the only gun control law we need is "Use a gun in a crime, go to jail for a long time."  (Hey, that rhymes!)  But gun control is not about safety, it's about controlling the population and keeping them beholden to the government.

The 2nd Amendment Lives!

Today the U.S. Supreme Court validated that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution applies to states and localities.  In other words, your civil rights can't depend on where you live.  As Thomas Sowell says today:

Those who have no confidence in ordinary Americans may expect a bloodbath, as the benighted masses start shooting each other, now that they can no longer be denied guns by their betters. People who think we shouldn't be allowed to make our own medical decisions, or decisions about which schools our children attend, certainly are not likely to be happy with the idea that we can make our own decisions about how to defend ourselves.

But history shows again and again the allowing private law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms lowers crime.

As for the merits or demerits of gun control laws themselves, a vast amount of evidence, both from the United States and from other countries, shows that keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It is not uncommon for a tightening of gun control laws to be followed by an increase — not a decrease — in gun crimes, including murder.

Conversely, there have been places and times where an increase in gun ownership has been followed by a reduction in crimes in general and murder in particular.

Take Washington D.C., for example.  After the Heller decision striking down D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership, crime . . . dropped.  This despite the fact you have to jump through flaming hoops to exercise your civil rights.

Gun control is based on the laughable notion that criminals will obey some laws, but not others ("I'm going to rob this bank but I'd better not use a gun because that's against the law").  Chicago will be safer thanks to the Supreme Court.

D.C. Still Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of Citizens

Since the Heller decision by the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Washington D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership, the city has set up the procedures necessary to obtain a gun.  They are long and arduous.  And expensive.

But the question is, do you have a constitutional right if you have to jump through flaming hoops to use it?

Piece in today's Wall Street Journal (sub probably required) about that very issue:

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's 32-year ban on handguns in 2008, a victory for the gun-rights lobby that seemed to promise a more permissive era in America's long tussle over gun ownership. Since then, the city has crafted rules that are proving a new, powerful deterrent to residents who want to buy firearms.

And that's the way they want it: they don't want you owning a gun:

Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's non-voting representative in Congress, is blunt about the point of the city's laws: discouraging gun ownership.

"To get them you have to go through a bureaucracy that makes it difficult," she said in an interview. Her constituents tend to oppose firearms because of gun violence, she said. "Nobody thinks we would have fewer shootings and fewer homicides if we had more relaxed gun laws."

Uhm, I do.  And in fact, the experience of D.C. since the Heller decision makes my case:

In 2009, the first full year the law was in effect, homicides in the city dropped to 143 from 186 in 2008. The 2009 total was the lowest since 1966.

Wow, that's pretty good considering how hard it is for people to exercise their Constitutional right to keep and bare arms.  But what other explanation is there for a drop in murders?  It's obvious (slightly) easier access to guns has not increased violence in the city.

Frankly, the best gun control laws would be to allow people to own, carry concealed and use in self-defense the gun of their choice unless they are felons or mentally unfit for the responsibility.  That and long long sentences for using a gun in a crime.  That would make D.C. as peaceable as, say, Fargo, North Dakota.

"Gun Free Zone" Murder

Yesterday there was a tragic murder in Tacoma, Washington.  A 30-year-old special education teacher was gunned down by a man who had been apparently stalking her for years.  The killing took place at the school where the woman taught before students arrived.

The woman had a protective order against the man, and he was out on bail after being arrested for violating that protective order.  He obviously violated it again to get close enough to kill her.  So, once again, fat lot of good a protective order did.  But the killing also happened in a "Weapons Free Zone" of the school in Washington State (which are all "Weapons Free Zones").  This woman relied on the state to protect her and now she's dead.  Because she was a teacher and worked in a "Weapons Free Zone" she didn't have the means to protect herself.  Perhaps that's why the killer chose that venue to attack her, knowing she would be defenseless and no one else would be able to stop him. 

"Weapons Free Zones" do not work.  They simply ensure that the most vulnerable are unable to protect themselves.  I've talked about this before in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings.  Gun control and gun-free (or weapons free) zones only leave victims unable to defend themselves.

The state couldn't protect this teacher.  And the state denied her the ability to protect herself or anyone else near her to protect her.

Anti-Gun Nuts At It Again

Despite the fact that crime is down overall, anti-gun nuts in Washington State are calling for an "assault weapons" ban saying it will prevent violence. From the Seattle Times today:

After 2009 ended in a hail of high-profile gun violence, Washington state's gun-control advocates are frustrated by an apparent lack of political support for an assault weapons ban, warning that the state will likely face more deadly shootings without it.

The bill comes just weeks after a spate of deadly police shootings, and proponents of the ban say those killings should force politicians to confront gun violence.

"There's more guns, a repressed economy and a lot of angry people," said Ralph Fascitelli, board chairman for state gun control group Washington Ceasefire. "You can't sweep this problem under a rug. Apparently the shooting of eight police isn't enough to confront gun violence in the state."

Yes, there's more guns, a repressed economy, and crime is down (see here and here).  And confronting gun violence does not mean banning guns, it means controlling criminals.

Luckily, this bill is unlikely to see the light of day, not even getting out of committee.   But it just goes to show the mind-set of those against guns: guns = violence so to end violence we have to ban guns.  Then why are some of the most violent places in the United States those with the strongest gun control laws (viz, Chicago, New York City, Washington D.C.)?

Fighting gun violence is easy: put and keep criminals in jail.

Gun Sales Surge; Violent Crime Drops

(Hat Tip Cassy Fiano via Instapundit)

When Barack Obama was elected President, gun and ammunition sales surged probably due to a lot of people assuming he was going to ban guns.  (Even now you can't find ammunition very easily.)  And a funny thing happened: violent crime dropped.  According the the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) blog (links original):

Preliminary statistics released by the FBI for the first half of 2009 show that violent crime continues a downward trend that began in 2006. The figures show crime falling in all categories--robbery, aggravated assault, motor vehicle thefts, etc.--with murders down a remarkable 10 percent from the previous year.

As the NSSF blog points out, this is in direct contrast to the (lie) of the anti-gun nuts that more guns means more crime.  I don't know if there's a correlation (i.e., more guns has caused there to be less crime) but there definitely isn't a correlation between more guns meaning more crime, as liberals and anti-gun nuts would attest.

Liberal Knee-Jerk Reaction

When four police officers were murdered in Washington State, I predicted:

[W]ait for the calls for stronger gun control laws, even though as a felon, Clemmons is already banned from touching a gun.

Well, it's happened.  In the typical knee-jerk reaction of liberals wanting to take away your freedoms because some few people abuse them, Democrats in Washington State are pushing for more gun control.  The Seattle Times reports:

In response to recent shooting deaths, three state lawmakers say they want to ban the sale of military-style semi-automatic weapons in Washington . . .

The legislation, called the Aaron Sullivan Public Safety and Police Protection Bill, would prohibit the sale of such weapons to private citizens and require current owners to pass background checks.

Leave it to liberals to turn tragedy into an excuse to take away your rights.  And typical of left-wing anti-gun movements, it's based on emotions, not fact:

The ban would cover semiautomatics designed for military use that are capable of rapid-fire and can hold more than 10 rounds. Semiautomatics designed for sporting or hunting purposes wouldn't be banned.

"If they're used in the army, used in the war — that's what this ban is about," said Ralph Fascitelli, the board president of Washington Ceasefire.

In other words, if they look evil, they'll be banned.

Gun control is based on the notion that people who are going to break the law will obey gun control laws.  That obviously isn't true.  'Bout the best we can hope for is this ban dies in the legislature.

Lose Your Gun Rights Due to Government-Run Health Care?

(Hat Tip: Instapundit)

The gun rights group Gun Owners of America (I used to be a member) is warning that Obamacare could lead to people losing their gun rights.  The Hill reports:

The Gun Owners of America group, which boasts more than 300,000 members, has been warning its ranks that the proposed healthcare legislation would compile the information of Americans into a government database. The group says that by using this data, the government could deem a citizen “medically unfit” to carry a gun.

“All of the proposals that we’re aware of would handle people’s health data that way,” said Larry Pratt, executive director of the group.

“And then you end up having a gazillion people lose their gun rights because of some medical record that someone doesn’t like, where they say, ‘Oh, that might be a danger to their self or others.’ No trial, no due process, just gone.”

And if the government has access to your electronic medical records, why not.  "Oh, you're bi-polar, you can't have guns."  The anti-gun crowd would use any excuse to strip guns from Americans.

The group also objects to Health and Human Services Secretary Katherine Sebelius, saying that she is prone to restrict gun rights.

“It wouldn’t be any problem for her to drag up some old discredited study from the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and say, ‘Guns are contagious and they’re a public health menace. This is another reason for someone to pay a surtax on their insurance because they’re causing all of that trouble in the emergency room,'” Pratt said. “That means that we have a dog in this fight.”

So yet another reason to oppose Obamacare.

Coming to Protests Armed

The AP has spotted a trend.  This is the kind of "trend" the AP would probably spot if it happened once or twice since it feeds into their preconception of the right wing.  However, it is a trend and one that is interesting.  People are coming armed to anti-Obama protests:

About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday -- the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.

This happened in Arizona where openly displaying a weapon is legal.

Phoenix police said the gun-toters at Monday's event, including the man carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder, didn't need permits. No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested.

And Arid-zone-a isn't the only place it's happening:

Last week, during Obama's health care town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., a man carrying a sign reading ''It is time to water the tree of liberty'' stood outside with a pistol strapped to his leg.

''It's a political statement,'' he told The Boston Globe. ''If you don't use your rights, then you lose your rights.''

The sign is an obvious reference to the Jefferson quote:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

I really don't know if this is helpful.  Yes, we need to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights but bringing guns to protests only feeds the paranoia of the left and the mainstream media.  Yes, oppose Obama politically with everything we've got.  But don't bring guns and don't make veiled (or open) threats.  Just the AP headline "Man Carrying Assault Weapon Attends Obama Protest" (no, it wasn't an assault weapon) is inflammatory enough.  We don't need to make the left more afraid of guns than they already are.