Would the Times say that Otis McDonald's defense of himself and his
wife is "ludicrous?"Otis McDonald acknowledges a standing ovation at the
Second Amendment Freedom Rally in downtown Chicago as his fellow
plaintiffs and their Chicago attorney look on. From left to right: Colleen
Lawson, Adam Orlov,Otis McDonald, David Lawson, and Chicago
attorney David Sigale.
(Otis McDonald Photographed by Agent Frederick Jones)
Gun Rights Examiner: New York Times editorial shows desperation of anti-gun arguments
- NY Times editorial underscores why media elite is losing relevance
IllinoisCarry: "This is pretty funny--Hard Work of Gun control
- If you liked Mcdonald v. Chicago, you'll love Benson v. Chicago
- If you liked Mcdonald v. Chicago, you'll love Benson, Count II: teenagers with guns
The Times editors are gloomy because it's so darned difficult to get that good old-fashioned big-city gun control passed nowadays. Everybody's always interrupting with silly questions like "But doesn't that violate my inherent human right to defend my life?" and "Ok, ok, but will this even work?"
There's no need to repeat Codrea's able work here, but a perceptive friend of this column called "GarandFan" at www.illinoiscarry.com noticed a telling quote that others might miss--this quote from the editorial:
"As flawed as the Chicago regulation is, the lawsuit challenging it is entirely over the top. It disputes virtually every aspect of the law as a violation of the Second Amendment and poses ludicrous hypothetical situations to show that everyone needs a gun. “If an elderly widow lives in an unsafe neighborhood and asks her son to spend the night because she has recently received harassing phone calls,” the lawsuit complains, “the son may not bring his registered firearm with him to his mother’s home as an aid to the defense of himself and his mother.” Putting granny in the middle of a neighborhood firefight is preferable to having her simply call the police?"
That might sound like the standard New York Times condescension, but it may have a factual problem. The passage in the Benson v. Chicago complaint referenced here would seem to refer to plaintiff Raymond Sledge, who explains in the complaint that he lives alone but often spends the night at his mother's home in a high-crime neighborhood on Chicago's south side. For Mr. Sledge, one suspects, this is not a hypothetical situation at all. "Simply call(ing) the police" is a good idea, and there's no reason not to call them when a threat appears, but the Chicago Police Department is alleged to be thousands of officers short of its authorized strength and known to have long response times. If "granny's" adult son is willing to stay with her all night (which the police certainly couldn't do even if they were willing) then it doesn't seem ludicrous at all to ask that he be allowed to keep his registered firearm at her home with him, especially since, under the law the New York Times editors are defending here, he had to pay at least $135, wait at least a month, then pass extensive background checks plus a five-hour training course in order to be allowed to register that firearm. Where does anyone find the chutzpah to put someone through that obstacle course before he's allowed to exercise a constitutional right and then deride him as "ludicrous" when he has the chutzpah to demand that he be allowed to exercise the right at a different address?
Although efforts are being made to contact Mr. Sledge for comment, he has not yet responded. With Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis set to announce Chicago's training requirements and list of unsafe firearms this afternoon, it may be that Mr. Sledge is too busy dealing with threats to what remains of his right to keep and bear arms to deal with chatter from people who are only upset that he hasn't rolled over and accepted his proper place in the Chicago hierarchy.