|« So You Don't Have To: Choice Excerpts from the Blagojevich Transcripts||Claypool Will Make the Ballot »|
Daley Sat Jun 19 2010
Well it should be apparent right now that if the Supreme Court of the US does rule against the City of Chicago's gun ban ordinances, the city itself may not want to concede defeat just yet. Almost like how Washington, DC, in light of the SCOTUS ruling last year, did attempt to play around with some ideas to maintain some gun control.
As Chicago awaits a U.S. Supreme Court ruling this month that could overturn its 28-year-old handgun ban, City Hall is considering a host of countermeasures that might set off another round of legal fights with gun advocates.
In an interview with the Tribune, Mayor Richard Daley acknowledged an uphill battle against the gun industry, which he described as the most powerful lobby in the United States. Even so, he vowed that in the event residents are allowed to have handguns at home, the city would take steps to ensure that officials can account for the weapons.
The mayor said his primary goal would be to protect police officers, paramedics and emergency workers from being shot when responding to an incident at a home. He said he also wants to save taxpayers from the financial cost of lawsuits if police shoot someone in the house because the officer felt threatened.
"If the ban is overturned, we will see a lot of common-sense approaches in the city aimed at protecting first responders," Daley said. "We have to have some type of registry. If a first responder goes to an apartment, they need to know if that individual has a gun."
I first got wind of this article via Publius Forum, who cut up the reasons why Daley wants to protect his first responders from the implications of the ruling against Chicago's gun ban:
And I like how Daley's argument against the Constitution has morphed over the last few years. Initially he was claiming to be the protector of the City's children by banning firearms in his realm. He was going to save lives in a city constantly on the list of the highest murder rates in the nation (and that quite despite his decades-old gun banning efforts). But now that this spin was defeated all of a sudden Daly [sic] is now all worried about his "emergency workers" safety.
Let's continue from the Tribune article:
Chicago already requires registration of rifles and shotguns, which are legal in the city, and those regulations could easily be applied to handguns, according to the city's corporation counsel, Mara Georges. The city also has the option of rewriting its current ordinance to include stronger, more controversial measures, such as databases that track a gun from the manufacturer to the gun shop to its current owner, and ballistic fingerprinting, which requires manufacturers to test-fire guns and keep a record of the unique ballistic markings left on bullets and shell casings. ... Daley said he likes all aspects of the D.C. law and that Chicago could look there for ways to strengthen its licensing procedures. After its gun ban was overturned, the district adopted stringent requirements for prospective gun owners, including a four-hour class on firearm safety, at least an hour of firing training and passing an exam. The newly purchased gun also must undergo ballistics identification firing by police.
Next year, the district will require semi-automatic pistols to be micro-stamped, a controversial technique in which serial numbers are marked on cartridge cases that can be traced back to registered gun owners. California also has adopted a requirement for micro-stamping, a technology that was recently developed and is not yet in use. New York's legislature is considering a micro-stamping bill.
What I placed in bold makes a lot of sense to me. If we may have to live with the idea of owning guns as an individual right then perhaps we should be forced to be trained in firearm safety. Too bad that this is the spin of this situation:
Daley, who has made gun control a cornerstone of his administration, said he and other mayors struggle daily with the common philosophy that places too much value on guns and too little emphasis on the consequences of gun ownership.
"What has happened in this nation is we really believe that guns are better than the law to settle things," the mayor said. "We're not talking about hunters and gun collectors, but this whole idea that America should be governed more by guns than by the law. That really disturbs me."
The federal government, Daley said, has abdicated its responsibility of regulating interstate commerce in guns and placed that burden on local governments, without giving them leeway to make decisions based on situations in their own communities.
"It's their responsibility, not ours," Daley said. "Guns come here from other states, and we have to figure out how to respond to it."
He isn't the only one that feels that way. I above all do not want to place the gun above the individual. As a matter of fact, I don't believe the gun is a substitute for settling disputes with the law. Also, no one should argue that we need to have emphasis on the consequences of gun ownership.
The issue is for those who do understand the consequences or the responsibility of firearm ownership. Why should they be forced to abide by a ban because there are those who, for whatever reason, don't understand those consequences?