History Justifies Supreme Court Overturning Chicago Gun Ban
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago’s handgun ban in a manner similar to the Heller decision in 2008, with one major difference: today’s decision incorporates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for everybody, not just D.C. residents.
History is on the side of this decision; you need look no further than the 14th Amendment. When equal rights were granted to newly-freed African Americans, that was also a situation where gun control conflicted with the civil right of self-defense.
African American disarmament dates back to America’s colonial period. For example, 1640 Virginia militia law stated: “All persons except negroes to be provided with arms and ammunition or be fined at pleasure of the Governor and Council.” This law was expanded in 1723 to include all non-whites: “[N]o negro, mulatto, or Indian whatsoever; (except as hereafter excepted) shall hereafter presume to keep, or carry any gun.” There was one interesting exception in this law: “That every free negro, mulatto, or Indian, being a housekeeper, or listed in the militia, may be permitted to keep one gun.” Free persons of color were given limited privileges only if they were willing to defend white-owned settlements and property.
African American disarmament did not end after the Civil War. As historian Clayton Cramer notes in his monograph The Racist Roots of Gun Control: “[T]he various Black Codes adopted after the Civil War required blacks to obtain a license before carrying or possessing firearms.”
For example, the 1865 Mississippi Black Code declared: “[N]o freedman, free Negro, or mulatto not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry firearms of any kind.”
Gun control has always been a tool of bigotry and oppression; current data shows this is still the case.
Mayor Daley, member of gun-ban organization Mayors Against Illegal Guns, resides in one of the two remaining states which ban citizens from carrying a concealed handgun for protection. The Illinois Firearms Owner Identification card mandates owner licensing and firearms registration for all residents.
Examination of FBI Supplemental Homicide data indicates that between 2000 and 2007, African Americans comprised about 73% of all homicides in “handgun-free” Chicago (see chart below), and that portion is increasing over time.
According to the Census Bureau, African Americans comprised 36.8% of Chicago’s population in 2000.
Between 2000 and 2007, Chicago saw handguns comprise a bigger portion of all homicides, increasing from 55.5% to 70.8% of all homicide methods. Firearm usage increased from 65.6% to 73.0% of all homicide methods.
[Note: Illinois doesn’t report all crime data to the FBI, so the Supplemental Homicide reports only include Chicago data. As a result, this section also relies on Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data for the years 2000-2007, the latest data available.]
Meanwhile, CDC data show that for the rest of Illinois, firearm usage decreased from 72.3% to 59.8% of all murders. Unfortunately, the FBI’s Chicago data doesn’t include Hispanic origin like the CDC does. Statewide, white non-Hispanic victims dropped from 9.0% to 6.6% of all murder victims between 2000 and 2007. If Chicago mirrors this trend, the difference between whites and blacks becomes even more drastic, underscoring how the traditional “ex-master” racial group is far safer than “ex-slaves.”
In 2007, Chicago had an overall murder rate of 15.76 (per 100,000 population). The rest of the state’s rate was 4.17. Chicago’s firearms homicide rate was 11.51 and the non-firearms homicide rate was 4.25. The rest of Illinois’s rates were 2.49 and 1.68, respectively. While some of this variance is due to the fact that urban areas generally have higher violent crime rates, Chicago’s gun control laws failed, with the consequences falling heavily upon African Americans.
The rhetoric promoted by gun control proponents is: We don’t need guns because the police protect us.
This is a fiction.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, found that even when the victim has a restraining order, it:
- “imposed no duty on police” and
- “It does not follow that respondent had ‘a legitimate claim of [police] entitlement.’”
The highest court in the land declared that police have no obligation to protect you.
Recently, the Chicago Sun Times reported that the “Chicago Police Department is seriously considering scrapping the police entrance exam.”
The Times also found: “The Police Department is currently operating at least 2,000 officers-a-day short of authorized strength, counting vacancies, medical leave and limited duty.”
Purportedly, there’s no money in Chicago’s budget for more officers. Only 56 new officers will be hired in 2010 using federal stimulus money.
Worse, another 1,000 officers may retire by the end of 2010, leaving the department about 3,000 officers below staffing goals.
great article. i remember reading that last year out of something like 412 homicides in chicago, 206 were committed with handguns.
supposedly, this was offered in support of the ban. but it seems like a damning argument against it.
Like most liberals, gun ban proponents are immune to irony.
Worse, another 1,000 officers may retire by the end of 2010, leaving the department about 3,000 officers below staffing goals.
—-
I thought Obama promised us that his $1T stimulus pork bill would prevent police officers from being fired?
I found Justice Scalia’s smack down of Stevens’ dissent amusing and refreshing in the extreme.
For those who have not read it, google it and take a look. Scalia took Stevens to the intellectual woodshed and used a belt on him.
Of course, it’s been my experience the liberal wing of the court is a pack of intellectual lightweights anyway.
Patrick
Scrapping entrance exams? The Cook County Democratic Party currently have an unusually large supply of unemployable but politically deserving friends and relatives lying around. Why not simply raffle off new police jobs at precinct meeting houses like they used to do with Christmas turkeys?
Damn, the Readin’, Writin’ and ‘Rithmatic are keeping the Chicago PD down? Supreme Court did away with the gun ban none too soon for Chicago citizen’s safety. Oh, Mayor Daley, you can have your cops give that elderly guy who shot the armed robber who was breaking into his place his gun back and not charge him now.
After reading the article, I still fail to see the justification for the Supreme Court to insert itself in the internal affairs of the City of Chicago. The residents of that basket case of a city choose their living conditions through their political choices. The idea that the Second Amendment was intended to apply to the states is a fallacy that has to be exposed. There is no way a society can operate in an environment where “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Those words are clear and precise, and there are obviously times and places where the bearing of arms should be infringed. What has just been accomplished is that the Federal Legislature will now determine when and where these limits will exist for all of us, instead of each state or locality having the ability to set their own standards per the desire of their electorate, right or wrong. The responsibility of the Federal Government in this regard is to ensure freedom of movement. If a locality is oppresive or dangerous, all Americans should have the rights to leave that place for a better, more free place. The Federal Government has a role in ensuring that a state or city does not make captive, any law abiding citizen of the United States, not to determine those citizens living conditions.
In your opinion, if the City of Chicago decided to jail anyone who objected to Blago selling Obama’s old seat, that would be OK?
Couple of points, first the seat being sold was, and is, a Federal seat. As such the Federal Government has an interest in protecting the integrity of the process by with that seat is filled. The Feds could and should interfere in any attempt to fill that seat by other than legitimate means.
More importantly though, there is clear constitutional prohibitions on ex post facto prosectutions. I don’t beleive it is or was illegal to “object to Blago selling Obama’s old seat”. To, after the fact, jail someone for an act not illegal at the time performed is a violation of Constitutional as well as Natural rights. No, that wouldn’t be ok in my opinion.
If, on the other hand, you wanted to make objections to Blago illegal prior to the act, you would run into First Amendemnt prohibitions on the free expression of political speech.
There are all kinds of problems with your premise.
Nice attempt at a dodge there.
I find it interesting that you are willing to justify the “Supreme Court to insert itself in the internal affairs of the City of Chicago” when it comes to the first ammendment, but doing so in defense of the second ammendment is not acceptable?
Why the double standard?
While I haven’t read the Illinois State Constitution, I suspect that contained therein would be protections of freedom of speech. If a State violates it’s own constitution, or a city violates their states constitution and that state’s courts fail to uphold those constitutional provision, then it would fall to the Federal Courts and ultimately the Federal Supreme Court to uphold the rule of law and protect citizens from arbitrary “rule of man”.
I don’t suspect that there are prohibitions in the Illinois State Constitution on state regulations on the possession or carrying of guns. If so, that would be important information to posses. I would find a great deal of relief were it revealed that the Federal Supreme Court had used protections enshrined in the Illinois State Constitution to justify it’s ruling in McDonald. As yet, I have not heard such evidence.
Mark, I have had a chance to look at the Illinois Constitution.
Article 1, Section 4 protects speech
Article 1, Section 16 prohibits ex post facto laws
I did note that Article 1 Section 22 is virtual mirror of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. As far as I can see, the right to keep and bear arms is already a protected right in the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago. Chicago was in violation of the State laws. There was no reason to look to the Federal Constitution for the U.S. Supreme Court’s finding.
The Federal Government is well within its purview to intervene when a state or city violates it’s own laws, but it should do so on the basis of the laws being violated, not look to outside statutes that have historically not applied.
I went through the Amendments to the Illinois Constitution and could not find a repeal of, or change to Section 22. If anyone is aware of such, I would appreciate knowing it’s location.
Walter,
You should read the Illinois Constitution a bit closer,
“SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Police Powers – The inherent authority of a government to impose restrictions on private rights for the sake of public welfare, order, and security.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution put limits on the states use of police powers in restricting the rights of citizens, incorporating the Bill Of Rights upon the states. So yes, there is a problem with Section 22 of the Illinois Constitution.
Walter,
You should read the Illinois Constitution a bit closer,
“SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Police Powers – The inherent authority of a government to impose restrictions on private rights for the sake of public welfare, order, and security.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution put limits on the states use of police powers in restricting the rights of citizens, incorporating the Bill Of Rights upon the states. So yes, there is a problem with Section 22 of the Illinois Constitution.
You’re welcome to lobby for a change in the Bill of Rights. The notion that a society can’t survive in a place where the right to keep and bear arms is no9t infringed, however, is historical nonsense. Most all of us of a certain age recall a time when it simply wasn’t true that there were any particular restrictions on handguns, and I even remember looking at them in the Sears catalogue. The notion that a free man would be prevented from buying a gun in the US, or even England, would have appalled and angered most anyone at the turn of the last century.
Walter: You just publicly declared your support for slavery. After all, why should the Supreme Court be able to “insert itself” (nice phrase for a slave master) into the internal affairs of any city or state, should you want to own slaves. We either have a 14th Amendment, or we don’t. In your world, it’s the latter.
I don’t find your attitude surprising. After all, gun control was a standard tool of the slave masters to keep their “property in their place.” I have additional datasets, beyond this article’s, showing how today’s gun control puts Americans of African descent at far greater risk than it does white Americans.
Just like the old days! That must warm Massa Walter’s heart.
I’ve done no such thing Howard. I don’t believe I mentioned slavery.
As to your assertion in the second paragraph. You do understand that “disparate impact” is a flawed and illegitimate legal maxim. The laws of the land must be applied equally and equitably in accordance with the Fourteenth Amendment. When one adjusts the application of laws to equalize outcomes, that is the very essence of unequal treatment under the law.
Oppressive gun control laws are ignorant and dangerous to liberty. Using the Federal Constitution to invalidate those laws, in this case, is equally dangerous as it will allow the Federal Legislature to now intervene under the assumption that the phrase “Shall not be Infringed” will need to be further interpreted. (If you don’t believe me, ask yourself how the Federal Brady Bill is squared with the Second Amendment.)
Walter,
As per your earlier post, I’m still waiting to hear about this time and place where the right to keep and bear arms should be infringed.
Again I say to you, there are none.
As regards your statement: “I did note that Article 1 Section 22 is virtual mirror of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. As far as I can see, the right to keep and bear arms is already a protected right in the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago.”
The city of Chicago and the state of Illinois are obviously not obeying their own laws. So, by your own assertion, it was necessary for the Federal government to step in and require them to do so.
Your logic has holes in it Walter.
Patrick
the 2d amendment is for the “People” to rise and fight the government when they stop or refuse to uphold the laws and constitution!!! the police force is the “STATE and the Government” how can they control what is our god given right to protect ourselves FROM THEM!!!
Name a time and a place where a law abiding citizen carrying a weapon is a bad thing.
So long as he obeys the law there isn’t one.
Patrick
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. The facts of Castle Rock v. Gonzales should be shouted from the rooftops: Jessica Gonzales had a restraining order on her ex-husband, who came by her house, took her three children, and killed them. The cops did nothing other than tell her, repeatedly, to call back later. Aside from gross malpractice on the part of the Castle Rock police, the fact that Ms. Gonzales had no way to protect herself or her children is unconscionable.