Chicago Fights Gun Rights, and Loses

The city stubbornly insists on entering contests it is bound to lose.

Since the death of communism in most of the places where it once prevailed, North Korea and Cuba function mainly as educational exhibits for an irrelevant and unsuccessful ideology. When it comes to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, the city of Chicago fills a similar role.

The city is famous for some of the strictest gun laws in the country. In 1982, it approved a near-total ban on handguns. In 1992, it outlawed "assault weapons." Mayors and aldermen never tired of railing against firearms.

In 2008, when the Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., it was clear that Chicago was on what liberals often refer to, in other contexts, as the wrong side of history. But the people in City Hall were either not smart enough or not honest enough to make peace with change. They preferred to emulate the cavalry troops in "The Charge of the Light Brigade," who rallied to the call, "Charge for the guns!" despite the certainty of defeat.

In the 2008 verdict, the justices said the Second Amendment upholds an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense. But the city fought a legal challenge to its handgun ban—only to lose, predictably, in the Supreme Court.

Besides being a legal and policy setback, it was a loss for taxpayers, who had to pay not only the cost of defending the ordinance but the cost of challenging it. Chicago was obliged to pay $1.4 million to the National Rifle Association, which won the lawsuit.

Did this expensive indignity persuade Mayor Richard M. Daley to abandon the fight? Ha. He pushed through a new ordinance intended to demonize and discourage gun ownership as much as he could get away with—which, as became apparent, was not very much.

The measure required gun owners to get at least five hours of training, including one hour at a shooting range. In a novel twist, though, it outlawed "shooting galleries, firearm ranges or any other place where firearms are discharged." The city claimed proper training is vital while hindering residents from getting it.

This section prompted another lawsuit, which argued that the right to own a gun for protection was of limited value if owners had no chance to achieve and maintain proficiency in using one—and that they shouldn't have to leave the city to comply with the city's very own rules. A federal appeals court agreed.

Judge Ilana Rovner said, "The ordinance admittedly was designed to make gun ownership as difficult as possible." But she noted pointedly that the Supreme Court has upheld "the Second Amendment right to possess a gun in the home for self-defense and the City must come to terms with that reality."

The same ordinance dictated that every gun be registered (even though Illinois already required every gun owner to register with the state). The courts never got to consider the constitutionality of that requirement, because the General Assembly passed a law overruling it.

A federal appeals court, however, did order the state to grant permits to carry concealed handguns, as every other state does. In short order, Chicago went from completely banning handguns to having to let licensed owners pack them in public.

Defeats don't get much more total than that. But like the Washington Generals, who get beat by the Harlem Globetrotters every night, the city stubbornly insists on entering contests it is bound to lose.

The latest was Monday, when a federal district judge invalidated the city's ban on the sale or transfer of firearms. The ordinance makes it illegal to operate a federally licensed gun shop or even for a father to give a gun to his son.

As usual with Chicago gun laws, it went too far. "The ban on gun sales and transfers," wrote Judge Edmond Chang, "prevents Chicagoans from fulfilling, within the limits of Chicago, the most fundamental prerequisite of legal gun ownership—that of simple acquisition."

This should come as no surprise to anyone who has paid attention to the Supreme Court's reasoning on the Second Amendment. But Chicago politicians have let their hostility toward guns and gun owners blind him to the obvious.

The old proverb says there's no education in the second kick of a mule. But for some people, once is not enough.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Marian Kechlibar||

    A true fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the stubbornness described in the article was actually product of a single old zealot with one-track mind who wields such an influence in Chicagoan political circles that no one (save Death) is willing to oppose him.

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    Go, Death!

  • ImanAzol||

    Except it's been true through multiple administrations. Anyone in Chicago politics should be assumed to be a morally corrupt shitbag bent on publicly gangraping the citizens if an illicit buck might be made. On average, you'll only overestimate about 5% of them.

    Considering that IL can't manage to elect a governor who doesn't wind up in the Federal pen, I seriously propose disenfranchising the entire state from Federal elections.

  • DaveSs||

    From what I understand, Rahm won't be appealing the sales/transfer ban.
    I think they see that one as a hopeless case to win.

    Chicago actually got rid of the worst of their gun laws after the Illinois CC bill was passed.

    No more Chicago firearm permit.
    No more registration of any firearms. (The CC law invalidated their handgun registry so that had to go no matter what, but they also eliminated their long gun registry)

    Pretty much the only thing they kept was the prohibition on sales, black rifles, laser sights, and magazine capacity.

  • Logical 1||

    As a CT resident, I loved this story: http://www.nhregister.com/gene.....uggests-it

  • Paul.||

    From what I understand, Rahm won't be appealing the sales/transfer ban.
    I think they see that one as a hopeless case to win.

    I hate to admit it, but within the context of cadidates that only Chicago seems capable of electing, Rahm Emanuel may have been the best of a very bad and corrupt lot.

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    Great place to shop and eat, other than that Chicago is a fucking disaster….that said, I hope the citizenry finds the safety and liberty afforded by the second amendment…..and can't wait to say, "I told you so, MF's"….

  • ImanAzol||

    But to shop and eat you have to drive and park, and pay the prices.

    Chicago has similar culture to a petri dish.

  • LarryA||

    From what I understand, Rahm won't be appealing the sales/transfer ban. I think they see that one as a hopeless case to win.

    But I bet they come up with all kinds of laws and rules and restrictions and taxes and fees and fines to make opening a gun store as impossible as possible.

  • Paul.||

    While this is more than likely true, having (or not having) an in-city gun store isn't the end of the road.

    In all my life I've purchased one (1) firearm within the city limits, the rest have been purchased in the burbs. While it's certainly not fair to the people trying to open and run the business, it won't stop the people from getting their guns.

  • DJK||

    You can always get your guns on Reddit. Omg! Noez!

  • DH||

    I'm just waiting for future gun violence to be blamed on expanded gun rights. Even though gun violence is endemic to that area because of the gang activity, crime and poverty.

  • Tejicano||

    It always sticks in my craw the way that when "bad" laws (defined by the PC dictionary) are struck down they die on the spot without a grace period to form a "better" law but when a gun ban is struck down that ban is still in place until something closer to constitutional gets passed. If there really is some over-reaching public good to be preserved the ban should be struck down on the spot to put the politicians' feet to the fire to come up with something.

  • DarrenM||

    This is just a bone to throw to the base at the taxpayers' expense.

  • AlgerHiss||

    “…communism… an irrelevant and unsuccessful ideology.”

    Uhhhh, I would think brutal and deadly might be a bit more accurate

  • DH||

    *Raises hand*. Is it E, all the above?

  • joliyana||

    Start working at home with GOOGLE!YAHOO. ABCNEWS AND MORE GLOBAL SITES... It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour.for a work detail go to home tab.... I work through this link,

    http://WWW.CASH46.COM

  • MichalaMatanzagyn||

    my co-worker's aunt makes 67 dollars/hr on the internet. She has been out of a job for 9 months but last month her pay check was 18639 dollars just working on the internet for a few hours. browse this site

    ➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨ http://www.tec30.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement