October 5, 2009

Chicago Sun-Times: Drop in Crime if Ban is Lifted?

CHICAGO -- A story in the September 30 edition of the Chicago Sun-Times covered both sides of the upcoming gun-ban case in front of the Supreme Court fairly:

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Wednesday to hear a challenge to Chicago’s strictest-in-the-nation handgun ban likely means the other holster is ready to fall on the ban, advocates on both sides of the issue seemed to agree Wednesday.

“A year from now there will not be a Chicago handgun ban,” said Alan Gura, the attorney representing the gun owners fighting the ban.

The high court’s five-member conservative majority last year threw out Washington, D.C.’s gun ban in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, but stopped short of invalidating the rest of the country’s handgun bans because that case dealt with federal bans, not local ones.

But gun control advocates and even city of Chicago officials have been bracing for the high court’s firmer embrace of the Second Amendment, which includes a right to bear arms.

“It’s going to be very difficult for Chicago not to have to make the adjustments D.C. had to make,” said Paul Heimke, president of the Brady Campaign against Gun Violence.

At a news conference in Chicago Wednesday, Gura predicted the crime rate will drop in Chicago if handguns are legalized again, because, he said, would-be burglars would opt not to break into homes for fear owners could be armed.

“I want to be able to protect myself in my own home. This is a right that we have that has been moved away from us, and we should have it back,” said Otis McDonald, 76, a plaintiff in the case against the city’s ban and a retired janitor. He says his neighborhood of Morgan Park has gotten rougher in recent years. “I don’t have any intention of going out there and shooting up anybody. The people who want to control me — these are the people I want to protect myself from.”

Read the rest of the Sun-Times story here.











An Important Note for GunReports.Com Readers:

Our goal on this website is to foster a free expression of views while reining in language that crosses the line of civil discourse. Accordingly, the comments areas are intended to expand the knowledge of all users of this site. But site administrators wish to discourage the use of profanity, insults, disrespect, the advocacy of lawlessness, violence or sedition, or attempts to impinge on the rights of others.

While GunReports.Com encourages robust discourse that furthers our understanding of all the issues affecting gun owners, comments that break GunReports.Com’s rules will be removed. In addition, we reserve the right to edit or delete individual comments, and in extreme cases, to ban commenters at our discretion.

--Tim Cole
Publisher, GunReports.Com

Comments (20)

We can't find them because they are too honest and have their egos in check. Most intelligient ,honest, law abiding citizens have no need to justify their existence and they are NOT gluttons for punishment. They simply make money and friends the old fashioned way; by earning the money and respect, not stealing and lying under the guise of politics as usual.

Posted by: Sharps | October 19, 2009 12:21 AM    Report this comment

A real choice as in someone running for office that is a decent, America-loving, human-being! Why is it that we cannot find some of these people and get them to run for office?

Posted by: aGoodstat | October 15, 2009 11:43 AM    Report this comment

Brings to mind the saying" There is no accounting for taste". If we, the people keep re-electing the perverted thiefs and greedy lawmakers, we have no one but ourselves to blame. Robert J is correct in his take on why they are re-elected. It would be nice to have a real choice . Semper Fi

Posted by: Sharps | October 15, 2009 10:39 AM    Report this comment

Jeff W, people DO vote for liars, thiefs, and cheaters because they are convinced it is for the greater good. There are members of our society that would rather vote for one of their own kind, bad or not, than vote for the other side. I think the situation with the Mayor of D.C. Marion Barry says it all. The guy was caught red handed doing crack with a prostitute and after being tried, convicted, and served time in jail he was re-elected, by his people, to be the great mayor again. Considering the crime stats for D.C., I don't think it was in their best interest to have a criminal for a major. I hope this clearly explains why we have some of these elected officials for I refuse to tap dance around the true root cause.

Posted by: Robert J | October 13, 2009 7:07 AM    Report this comment

I was referring to how lifting the gun ban would only affect the agenda of Elected Anti-2nd Amendment Chicago Officials and how most Chicagoans ignore the infringement. Gaviota brings up an interesting point. Why do elected officials consider themselves exempt of the laws they create? One obvious answer is they feel we are incapable of appropriate decision making. I mean, after all, nobody in the right mind would vote a liar, thief, or cheater to represent them would they? How can we expect someone to honor their word to the American Voter when most of the time they do not honor their word to their life partner? As a Nation, we seem to elect liars, thieves and cheaters each election cycle. Our Nation needs to start holding elected officials accountable for their actions instead of ignoring the infringements they enact.

Posted by: JWallace | October 9, 2009 7:48 PM    Report this comment

As near as I understand it, anything that is posted to this forum is in the public domain, and is, therefore, information/opinion that is available for distribution to whomsoever might choose to view/use it. The fact is that the overwhelming number of posts that we see in this forum are pro-Second Amendment. That said, the greater the distribution of our messages that substatiate the preservation of our civil rights, the more people will see the truth, rationale, and common sense of our cause. That can only provide for the education of many folks, who may not ever read any gun magazines, attend gun shows, or experience this particular forum. We need to spread the word, my brothers, so feel free to redistribute anything that appears in this forum.

Posted by: canovack | October 9, 2009 11:32 AM    Report this comment

Thank you canovack for your post. I am glad to see that someone can put into words how I feel. If you don't mind I might use parts of your post to convey how I feel to other people from time to time.
In God We Trust

Posted by: aGoodstat | October 9, 2009 8:52 AM    Report this comment

Just ask Senator Soles. Gun bans are for the sheeples. Even the most ardent anti-gunners could very well have a firearm hidden around the house. Like the fellow from Chi Town said, we never gave our guns up.

Posted by: Sharps | October 8, 2009 11:45 PM    Report this comment

"It appears that lifting the Chicago Handgun Ban will only affect the officials."

From what I've read, the Chicago Handgun Ban never did affect officials. The mayor, the city council, city department heads, and innumberable employees were all either specifically exempted from the ban or allowed exemptions by their supervisors.

This is the thing with gun bans. It's not a matter of liberty vs. security as much as it is a matter of liberty vs. corruption, because the gun banners never ban all guns, they just ban yours and mine. The gun ban crowd is perfectly okay with keeping their own guns for themselves and their posterity, in spite of all their hysterical arguments about stolen guns, black markets, and illegal trafficking.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | October 8, 2009 9:25 PM    Report this comment

It appears that lifting the Chicago Handgun Ban will only affect the officials. It's life as usual for most Chicago residents. I couldn't imagine someone suggesting I surrender my firearm. I'd most likely reply: if you can get it out of the holster, it's yours.

Posted by: JWallace | October 8, 2009 8:30 PM    Report this comment

Hear, hear. I wholeheartedly second the sentiments of canovack.

I have been asked (usually sarcastically) if I believed that it was my duty and responsibility to use my concealed weapon to protect everyone around me, and my answer is NO. It is my moral responsibility to aid the helpless who cannot protect themselves. It is not my obligation to protect the clueless who are perfectly capable of acquiring their own weapons and permits, but chose not to do so.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | October 8, 2009 6:05 PM    Report this comment

As regards the carrying of concealed firearms, I have always carried. Now let me elaborate. I am pushing age 69, and I have always carried a handgun since the time I was legally old enough to purchase a handgun. During my 21 year Army career, I lived in many jurisdictions. Some were Second Amendment friendly, and some were not. When I traveled, whether on business or for pleasure, I usually always had a side arm with me. Nobody was ever the wiser, because I did not call attention to myself, and I always made certain that my weapon was very discreetly concealed. In my second career, following retirement from the Army, I was a public educator for 22 years. Again, I always had a firearm nearby. My point is this: While our Second Amendment affirms our God given right of self-defense, I believe that it is the civic duty of every able bodied and clear headed American to carry the most effective weapon they can. It is a responsibility not only to one's self and loved ones.....It is a civic responsibility to ensure that in the most awful of circumstances there will be respectable, trustworthy, God fearing citizens present who will have the means and and the moral courage to step forward in defense of the American public from
the predation of criminal and terroristic elements who may be among us. That I am now, and have been a licensed concealed carrier whenever and wherever that could be effected is merely a way to provide the best possible legal defense in such case as I might be called upon to exercise my civic duties and responsibilities.

Posted by: canovack | October 8, 2009 3:58 PM    Report this comment

I am in Chicago and can tell you that most of the people I know have guns in their homes, but I am on the suth side where the blue collar people live. Maybe on the North side where the liberals live they are unarmed, but the real people have guns.

Posted by: gunreports | October 8, 2009 1:30 PM    Report this comment

Well, Friends, it certainly IS encouraging to see a newspaper actually print a fair and balanced report on a subject as touchy as our Second Amendment rights! Perhaps the brain dead slugs who keep on imposing useless restrictions on firearms and their owners are seeing a little ray of the light of truth. I am cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court will deliver a just decision in this case. This will also be an opportunity for us to show the nation that the confirmation of Justice Sotomayor was a mistake. While Heller vs DC provided a landmark decision of Second Amendment rights, the case now coming before the High Court will, hopefully, provide a far reaching decision that should significantly advance the preservation of our Second Amendment rights. Once again, though, I am viewing this with CAUTIOUS optimism.

Posted by: canovack | October 8, 2009 11:36 AM    Report this comment

As we all know, anything given by the gov't. can just as easily be taken away. They reiterate this each time they try the same case over and over in different districts. What I don't understand is why they keep trying to re-invent the wheel.?????? Our right to bear arms has been intact for over two hundred years, why try and change it because your husband or loved one got shot?. The Brady's and all the other gun banners are simply trying to justify their feelings to the masses.Chicago has the highest murder rate per capita in the U.S WITH and I said "WITH" the gun ban. Take the ban away and you still have CHICAGO (graft and murder capitol of the nation). Nuff said Semper Fi

Posted by: Sharps | October 8, 2009 10:40 AM    Report this comment

"No one in his right mind would allow a bureaucrat to make life-and-death decisions for him/her." .... Agreed! But this is just what government run health care will assure IS the case.

Posted by: BigIron | October 8, 2009 9:56 AM    Report this comment

"I am all for non-compliance with unconstitutional laws.". That comment makes me smile! Because I feel exactly the same way! In God we Trust

Posted by: aGoodstat | October 8, 2009 8:03 AM    Report this comment

"I am all for non-compliance with unconstitutional laws.". That comment makes me smile! Because I feel exactly the same way! In God we Trust

Posted by: aGoodstat | October 8, 2009 8:03 AM    Report this comment

I had a friend who was a cop in Waukegan, Ill, about 50 miles north of Chicago, and he told me that he estimated that nearly 40% of Chicago homes have unregistered handguns in them.

No one in his right mind would allow a bureaucrat to make life-and-death decisions for him/her. The startling thing that neither cops nor gun-banners will talk about is the HUGE non-compliance rate with the gun laws in this country, and the tighter the laws, the higher the rate. The California Department of Justice once estimated the non-compliance rate for its assault-weapons ban at over 80%.

I'm all for non-compliance with unconstitutional laws.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | October 5, 2009 6:48 PM    Report this comment

Otis McDonald should be able to protect himself and his family through the use of firearms if he so desires. The ederly depend on such devices for protection because the aging process limits their ability. A 76 year old man fighting for his right to bear arms makes me smile.

Posted by: JWallace | October 5, 2009 4:41 PM    Report this comment

Add your comments ...

New to Gun Tests? Register for Free!

Already Registered? Log In