Guns Part 2

Read most of the case and a bunch of lovely articles on the handgun ban overturned in Chicago. I have such mixed feelings. I don't think the case does much but I recognize the immense public outcry against more gun violence in Chicago. I so want to love the 2nd Amendment but it is so difficult at times.

And the whole thing to me has such an undercurrent of racism. Even the opinion talks about law abiding citizens wanting to protect themselves in their own homes against inner city criminals. While I acknowledge that the name plaintiff has dark skin, I think for the vast majority of Americans that when they think of law abiding citizens they think of whites and when they think of inner city criminals they think of blacks. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

And of course the statistics used are gun ownership in rural areas is high and violence is low. Gun ownership in the city is low and gun violence is high. More guns would just solve that problem right? Criminals (well known for completely rational cost-benefit analyses) will be less likely to be criminals if they know that they can die. Well, they've kind of been on to that for a while I think and it doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent. (What me worry?). Maybe the total lack of acess to education and jobs in several minority inner cities has something to do with the crime rate. But as a backstop, the some misguided individuals - patriots, gun owners, fearful (perhaps living outside of cities due to fear of black males) may suggest that even if more guns, leads to more violence, we just have more criminals than we thought. Dead criminals don't commit crime after all, and the noise from the right is that to solve inner city gun problems we don't need more jobs or schools, just more jails. We're good at jails! After all, the criminal justice system is disproportionately targeting minorities, why not just remove that pesky (and expensive) process and let the minorities fight it out (while feigning looks of shock and awe).

And then I realized it. Perhaps I can out flank the right wingers. I find the denial of voting rights to felons an intentional act to disenfranchise thousands of black men from their constitutional right to vote. As a correllary, I don't see how in good conscience that felons who have paid their debt to society can be denied such a fundamental right as the right to bear arms. Now I know what you're thinking - they are a danger to society. Well first of all some of them aren't and won't be again. But even for those who are - chances are they were going to carry again anyway and for sure they probably are returning to the highest crime ridden areas of our cities. Any attempt to deny them their right to defend themselves or their right to vote is essentially a cruel and unusal punishment. Likewise given the disproportionate effects of our legal system, it should not pass strict scrutiny. The system seems designed to create an underclass of disenfranchised, disarmed black males. This is wrong. It was wrong under slavery, wrong under Jim Crow laws and is wrong now.

For me the worst case scenario of such a decision is black on black violence. Status Quo Ante I say. For others the worst case scenario would be a violent minority insurrection. Like I said, I have such mixed feelings.