Some review of the fallout from McDonald vs. Chicago

As we celebrate the country's 234th birthday today, we have the opportunity to reflect on some of the rhetoric and reaction to the recent McDonald vs. Chicago ruling. Both sides of the gun debate seem to be pleased with the ruling, which essentially incorporates the Second Amendment of the Constitution down to the state level. The pro-gun side is happy because the right to possess firearms in the home is now guaranteed to all citizens, and the anti-gun side is happy because state or local laws regarding the possession of firearms outside of the home (and in some cases, even inside the home) were not touched.

The person who was the most disappointed in the ruling was obviously Chicago's Mayor Richard M. Daley. His disappointment did not last long, however, as he quickly rolled out new gun regulations in the wake of the McDonald ruling. In what should be a forehead-slapping moment, it is interesting to note that his rank and file police officer's union does not necessarily agree with the Mayor's perception on how effective Chicago's firearms laws have been.  From an article in The New York Times:

Though Mr. Daley complained that the court’s 5 to 4 decision rendered the ban “unenforceable,” the head of the police union said it had rarely been enforced anyway.

“It apparently didn’t have much of an impact, judging from the number of shootings and the number of guns seized on an annual basis,” said Mark Donahue, president of the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 7, which represents officers below the rank of sergeant.

Both Mara Georges, the Daley administration’s top lawyer, and Jody Weis, the police superintendent, said they did not know how often anyone had been charged and convicted of violating the handgun ban.

Continuing in the article, another interesting quote appeared:

Mr. Daley took offense at the Supreme Court’s suggestion in its ruling that local leaders might not be doing all they could to stem gun violence.

Alderman Robert W. Fioretti (2nd Ward) said, however, that he did not think the justices’ point was without merit. “If we don’t have the full complement of police on the street, we’re not doing everything possible,” he said.

The answer is not more police on the streets. While our law enforcement officers are on the front line every day, they simply cannot be everywhere at anytime. So long as criminals who are prone to violence are released from prison, local, state, and federal officials are not doing everything possible to stem gun violence. The simple fact remains that criminals will always find a way to acquire a firearm (or any other tool) to promote their trade. Putting more police on the streets will not solve that problem. Keeping anyone who cannot be trusted with being back in society locked up will. Criminals today know that once they do their time, they can go back to their way of life, so being locked up is only an inconvenience, not a deterrent. Instead of putting more police on the streets, perhaps it is time to build more prisons (not “correctional facilities”) and keep the predators behind bars where they belong.

Scanning news reports from other sources across the country, one theme that appears to be repeated time and again is the fact that “arms” that exist today are much different than the arms that existed in the late 18th Century when the Constitution was penned. Therefore, a strict interpretation of the Constitution should allow only swords and flintlocks to be the arms of choice. The flaw in that logic would be the natural progression of that thinking to other rights as well. What were the religions that were present in the late 18th Century? What kind of printing presses were available? Certainly the Internet was not available in the late 18th Century, so how can Freedom of Speech be applicable today to something that did not exist then? The citizens – and newspaper editors – that promote the “flintlocks only” line of thinking are simply foolish.

There is also the opinion that the ruling will now lead to more litigation, as questions arise about a citizen's right to bear arms outside of the home. The answer to that is simple – what part of “shall not be infringed” is difficult to understand? Until state and local officials allow their citizens to exercise the right that is guaranteed to them by their Creator and enumerated in our Bill of Rights, there will be challenges. Officials in Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont have not found themselves on the wrong side of lawsuits over firearms because they do not infringe on the rights of their citizens.

It is no different here in Iowa. The new law that is set to go in effect on January 1st is a huge step forward from where we are right now, but it is still not enough. As pointed out in a previous article, the City of West Burlington still infringes on the rights of Iowa citizens in spite of a law that prohibits this, and now Hancock County is very close to doing the same thing. Also, the entire process of permit approval will be closely monitored, as a few Sheriffs have stated that they will not follow the new law as it is written. In both cases, this simply opens the door to litigation that ultimately, and unnecessarily, takes money from the taxpayers.

When governments disregard the liberties of the citizens, there are only three methods of recourse: litigation through the courts, a complete change of elected officials, or in the gravest extreme, armed removal of elected officials.  Since our elected officials do not appear to be afraid of the second action, and the third action is to be used only as a truly last resort, litigation (or fear of it) is the most effective tool currently available.  And the sad truth is that government entities bring this on themselves.