Is Chicago's handgun ban a "life saving" law?

[spin]

Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence Praises Appellate Court Ruling Protecting Chicago’s ‘Life-Saving’ Handgun Ban

Definitive Ruling Holds that Gun Violence Prevention Laws Do Not Violate the Second Amendment; Decision Is Major Setback To Gun Lobby’s Radical Agenda To Eradicate Nation’s Gun Laws

(June 3, 2009, Chicago) – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the Chicago and Oak Park handgun bans by a 3-0 decision. The 7th Circuit said that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller that stripped D.C. of its handgun ban only applies to the federal government. Chicago enacted its handgun ban in 1982.

The Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence (ICHV) praised the ruling.

“The 7th Circuit arrived at the correct decision. This ruling saved lives,” said Thom Mannard, Executive Director of ICHV. “The debate over Chicago’s handgun ban is not an abstract legal argument, but about the right of governments to enact sensible policies to keep deadly guns out of our communities. It’s time that more judges, lawyers and legal scholars understood that these important decisions are more than just legal theories, but about preventing gun deaths and injuries.”
http://www.gunguys.com/#post-3420

But here is the opposing view:

Gun control hasn't stopped Chicago shooting deaths.

Gun violence is so pervasive in Chicago because of the sheer number of gang members, according to Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis.

"We have the largest gang population of any city in the United States," Weis says. "The only city that rivals us is Los Angeles."

Weis says that while L.A.'s gang population is estimated to be somewhere between 55,000 and 70,000, he estimates there are at least 100,000 gang members in Chicago.

That's essentially an army of occupation, Mr. Superintendent.

Marches and photo-ops aren't going to fix that. Fr. Michael Pfleger flying a flag upside down or marching on gun shops in other jurisdictions and threatening to "snuff out" the lawful proprietor won't stop the killings either.

And here are a few other things that haven't worked:

The federal ban on firearm possession by "prohibited persons."

The Illinois requirement for a Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) card.

The Illinois prohibition on concealed carry.

Chicago's ban on handgun ownership.

So-called "gun control" has utterly failed at declawing the predators. The only thing it has done is ensure them a disarmed and defenseless victim pool. And any "strategy" that fails to recognize this essential truth will only guarantee that it will be a long, hot summer.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m6d1-Gun-control-hasnt-stopped-Chicago-shooting-deaths

[TheWraith]

1. It's always a wonder that nobody gets this.

The cities with the most stringent gun laws--New York, Washington, Chicago, LA--still have astronomical levels of violence, mostly from gangs. Yet nobody who argues for stricter laws seems to see the slightest reason in that fact to pause and take stock of whether it actually works.

[Indy Lurker]

2. Yes

It protects criminals from well armed civilians.

[krispos42]

3. Unlikely.

However I'm not sure a reversal would help much, either. At this point the anti-gun feelings in most large cities is such at few would take advantage of the legalization of handguns and CCW permits.


I don't think the mentality that makes self-defense viable is there in Chicago. It's considered uncouth, dangerous, uncivilized, bloodthirsty, rethuglican, redneck, uncultered, etc., to think about and study and prepare for a violent attack. Discussing the merits of various handguns or ammunition, how they work on the human body, etc., disgusts many people.


Even on DU, when lethal force in self-defense is justifiably used, there is still a segment that is upset that the criminal got killed. "You don't know he was going to kill" or variations of that are stated. "If the clerk didn't have a gun, that robber would still be alive", "another victim of gun violence", "what gives that clerk the right to be executioner?", etc.

[DonP]

4. Could be, but some of at least want the choice

I'm convinced that over a period of time stories of successful self defense would leak out to the public and more people would start carrying.

Right now, between the mayor and the two city papers that are both virulently anti gun, you seldom hear about a citizen defending their home or life.

When you do it's usually about which archaic law they may have broken, like a guy named Hale DeMar a year or two ago.

His home was broken into when he was away and the crook came back the next night again - after the owner came home with his children. The criminal wound up with a couple of rounds of .38 spl in him and was arrested at the local hospital. Then they charged the homeowner with illegal use of a weapon. That made front page news as an object lesson to any and all that dared to defend themselves or their family.

The prevailing attitude will change very slowly but I believe it will change.

[JDPriestly]

5. Gun control is an exercise of police powers -- which is essentially

a state issue. If the people of Illinois want to have gun control, that is their business. The 2nd Amendment is interpreted to guarantee a basic right to bear arms, but that right, like any other, is subject to reasonable regulation. So it depends on just how far the gun ban goes. An absolute gun ban probably won't pass the 2nd Amendment review at least as our current Court interprets it. A reasonable gun regulation probably would.

I live in L.A. There was a shooting recently right near my local grade school. Being shot as an innocent bystander to to a gang fight on the street is probably more likely than being harmed by Al Qaeda within L.A. -- I'm talking statistical odds. I don't deny that either event could happen. But it's pretty certain that a number of people will be killed in gang violence in L.A. this year, whereas an Al Qaeda attack is not so certain.

So gangs are a more immediate threat to people in L.A. than is Al Qaeda.

[spin]

7. I also have no problem with individual states regulating firearms...

as long as they are available to the average citizen who can meet "reasonable" requirements such as criminal background checks and perhaps training requirements. Such requirements should be determined at the state level.

However, gun control has often been used as a method of insuring that only the elite and politically connected can own or carry firearms. The expense of obtaining a license to own or carry a firearm should be reasonable and affordable to even the lower and middle classes. Licenses should be issued in a timely manner. No extreme hurdles should be placed in the path of gun ownership.

To me, Florida weapons law is reasonable and could serve as an example for those who favor firearm ownership in other states.

[Statistical]

8. Gun control is one thing.

Heller even clearly states that reasonable regulations are constitutional at the federal level.

We aren't talking about regulation we are talking about a complete ban. Almost EXACTLY the same ban in DC that Heller found to be unconstitutional.

The idea you can have a right but then the state can completely ban it is laughable.

Try it with anything else.

Freedom of speech except the state can ban any expression it deems "unfit".
Right to privacy except the state can publish anything and everything.
Freedom to petition the govt except the state is absolute and can never be petitioned.
Freedom of religion except the religion of the state is now Lutheran and all other forms are considered a crime.

Come on. This exactly is an absolute ban not "reasonable regulation".

The problem with "reasonable regulation" is some antis think no guns is "reasonable".

[JDPriestly]

9. A total ban will probably be overruled by a court. Just a matter of time.

[spin]

6. Perhaps the reason New York City has fewer homicides per 100,000 than Chicago is...

the government is less corrupt.

But perhaps the most serious blow to New Yorkers’ morale is a sense that we have been thoroughly outclassed in an area where we have always excelled. We’re referring to corruption and other forms of wrongdoing by public officials. When it comes to bozo politicians, we like to think of ourselves as king of the hill, top of the heap (though a colleague correctly points out that our neighbors in New Jersey and Connecticut are hardly slouches in this regard).

Then along comes Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois, he of the implausible hair and the hard to pronounce name. The damage that he has done to New Yorkers’ self-esteem cannot be overstated. It’s not easy topping someone who, if the federal charges against him are true, tried to sell the Senate seat of the president-elect. Years ago, Mike Royko, the great Chicago columnist, called his hometown “the city of the big wallet.” That label may well apply to all of Illinois.

So New Yorkers are understandably smarting. We don’t mind being taken nearly as much as we do being overtaken, and there is an unsettling sensation that Illinois has gotten the better of us.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/nyregion/16nyc.html?_r=1