Sensible control measures

From the Washington Post:

Many legal analysts predict that Chicago’s handgun ban is done for. While proponents of gun control may feel discouraged, the actual impact could be minimal, depending on what regulations the court allows Chicago to put on the books instead. New York City, for example, makes it quite difficult for private citizens to obtain handguns through an expensive and drawn-out permitting process that falls short of an outright ban.

Local officials from Dodge City to Chicago have understood that some regulation of firearms within city limits is in the public’s interest, and that regulation and law enforcement are important complements in the effort to reduce gun violence. Even before the repeal of D.C.’s handgun ban, the city’s police reestablished a gun-recovery unit and focused on seizing illegal firearms. The city’s homicide rate has been relatively flat the past several years. If the court decides that Chicago must follow D.C’s lead in getting rid of its handgun ban, we can only hope that it leaves the door open for sensible control measures.

It’s not explicitly stated but the implication seems pretty clear to me that they think NYC making it “quite difficult for private citizens to obtain handguns through an expensive and drawn-out permitting process” are “sensible control measures”.

The courts should no more allow “sensible control measures” for gun owners than they did Jim Crow Laws.

6 thoughts on “Sensible control measures

  1. But they will. Remember the one sentence.

    “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possesion of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sales of arms.”

    That one sentence caused how many bullcrap gun “prohibitions” to be upheld in lower courts? Not to say they were all legitimate but people keep saying “X will be struck down of brought to court”. It won’t be. We have a long list of times it didn’t. We all expect chicago to make the restictions so difficult and expensive it will still be literally impossible to get a handgun and by that one sentence its fine and dandy.

    They need to stop being so specific so to speak. Because it will hurt us.

  2. @ Sahwn; “We all expect chicago [sic] to make the restictions [sic] so difficult and expensive it will still be literally impossible to get a handgun…”
    Surely you mean, “…impossible to get a handgun legally…” You may have left out a word there. Getting a handgun and getting a handgun legally are very, very far from being the same thing. That’s where Prohibition and similar vice laws always go horribly wrong. Making it “impossible to get (X) legally” is the same thing as saying we’re going to create, and maintain, at government expense and with the full force that government can bring to bear, a profitable opportunity niche for organized crime, and furthermore, that the most aggressive and violent crime organizations, with government connections, will be the ones to profit most. Now that pretty much screams “Chicago” doesn’t it? QED. But who cares, really? I just want my Medicare payments and Socialist Security disability checks.

    ubu; No. See, the thief (and any accomplices) is responsible for the theft, and no one else. If your car is ever stolen and used in other crimes, I suppose it is you who should be punished. “We” should take away your right to ever control a car. Well, maybe “we” can let you have one, but certainly not the car and the gasoline at the same time. Don’t you agree it’s just too risky?

  3. Lyle,

    Thefts can happen to anyone. That wouldn’t be the reason to take away his guns. The reasons would be: 1) He’s blind; 2) He shot himself; 3) He can’t remember where he’s put guns around the house, like the one in the oven mitt.

    We DO take away cars from blind people, or at least we take away their rights to drive a car. (That’s why I suggested we might only take away his rights to own bullets.)

  4. It’s pretty telling that no one, aside from Lyle, ventured into this thread. Everyone knows that there are people who really shouldn’t own guns and/or bullets.

  5. ubu52,

    I thought that Lyle did such a great job there was no need for me to add anything.

Comments are closed.