On June 28, the United States Supreme Court overturned Chicago’s handgun ban, ruling that Second Amendment protections on keeping and bearing arms applied to state and local governments.
Reuters characterized the ruling as “a defeat for Chicago.” By “Chicago” they mean the current administration of the Chicago government. If “Chicago” had meant people in the city who don’t want to rely on the armed enforcers of the local political machine, the ruling is a win for Chicago.
Of course, the government of Chicago will most likely use all kinds of legal obstacles to make it difficult for the people of Chicago to arm themselves. Acquiring handgun permits will be inconvenient and expensive.
And that doesn’t even cover people who won’t even be permitted to navigate the bureaucracy. People convicted of felonies for victimless crimes, people in the United States without government permission, and people who have not reached an arbitrary age standard will need to look outside of the law to protect themselves from predators. Presumably their lives are not considered to be as valuable or they are expected to rely upon their superiors.
Government is a protection racket. Statists want to monopolize force by ensuring that only the “right kind of people” have access to firearms.
Real neighborhood safety depends on respect for individual freedom, mutual aid, solidarity, and the ethic and capability of self-defense. These foundations cannot be enforced by government programs. They must be built through the spread of libertarian ideas and grassroots action.
Government protection measures involve giving police free rein to commit crimes against other individuals: shaking them down on the street, throwing them in cages for drinking alcohol in public, branding them with the label of “felon” for what’s in their pockets, or even blockading neighborhoods and checking for papers. Crime statistics will probably be manipulated for political appearances, police will get away with assaulting people, and everyone will be told to know their places.
It’s good for rulers, but not so good for people on the receiving end of political calculation.
That which is good for the United States government, like its ability to dominate, is not necessarily good for the American people who are expected to support and obey those who rule America. It is certainly not good for foreigners who have to deal with covert and overt violence by the US Government, and it is not good for Americans who are attacked because they have been put into the same category as soldiers and politicians who kill children.
Powerful interests who purport to represent those who are ruled will often declare themselves to be working on behalf of people they have forced into a category. When the interests of a city, nation, or other political grouping are spoken for, it is crucial to examine who really benefits.
Citations to this article:
- Darian Worden, Cities, Honor Gun Ruling, Fort Myers News-Press, 29 Jun 2010
IMO, the best part of the court's opinion is that it cites Lysander Spooner's The Unconstitutionality of Slavery.
Could we get the precise quotes? Or a link to the court ruling?
@Mordecai…
You've probably found it on google by now but, if not, here is the opinion (pdf). Search for instances of "Spooner".
I think we should be careful about premature celebration of so-called "liberalization" of laws and Statist institutions. it can be both good and bad. An obvious example, I think, was the replacement of the military draft with an all-volunteer army. While libertarians should abhor the draft, replacing it with a professional army, on later recollection, has allowed a glorification of the military to enter into our culture and has enabled a certain passivity to predominate regarding fighting "long wars." So you ended the draft, but if you have tax payers funding a private army, well that creates it's own problems, which are now evident.
For libertarians, self-defense is fundamental, but I can't help think that the incorporation of the 2nd amendment is going to precipitate federal legislation that is eventually going to impose a uniform federal standard for what guns you can own, how many guns you can own, which guns you may carry concealed, with everything registered and administrated more centrally by the likes of the DHS. In other words, it's likely to create an increased burden in the future for most. Keep in mind, that ownership of guns, unlike, say, the first amendment right of free speech, is not a negative right; it's construed to be a privilege, a privilege that can be denied for various reasons, and a privilege that can impose various burdens and obligations.
In other words, we are really talking about an incorporation of a privilege and not a "right." If you, say, live in Texas or New Hampshire, you might live to rue the day of this glorious libertarian victory.
dL, Good point. I'm certainly not in favor of focusing on legislative and judicial action. I think in this case, it's unlikely to result in tougher federal laws in the near future – gun control at the federal level would be difficult to do politically. And I'm cautiously optimistic about the state losing more political support in the less-near future.
[…] What’s Good for Chicago?, I commented on Reuters coverage of the Supreme Court ruling against Chicago’s handgun ban. […]