Chicago's Mayor Daley A Complete Embarrassment

Two news headlines caught my eye this week and both involved Chicago's Mayor Daley.  It's not bad enough that Chicago is known to be an inherently corrupt government. No. Daley has to prove that he cares more about quashing our civil rights than fixing his city.  The first article, from the Los Angeles Times, had this headline:

Chicago Mayor Daley offers to shoot reporter to prove gun ban works

It happened at a news conference to discuss Chicago's gun ban and the Supreme Court's pending ruling on the issue.  A reporter from the Chicago Reader asked him if the ban was effective.  Here's how the exchange went:

"Since guns are readily available in Chicago even with a ban in place, do you really think it’s been effective?" asked Mick Dumke.

“Oh!” Daley said. “It’s been very effective!”

He grabbed a rifle, held it up, and looked right at me, Dumke said. He was chuckling but there was no smile.

“If I put this up your—ha!—your butt—ha ha!—you’ll find out how effective this is!”

“If I put a round up your—ha ha!”

Dumke said the room became "very, very quiet" before reporters realized he was joking.

As bad as this is, what is worse is Daley's comment about the Supreme Court. In referring to the court's likely decision to overturn the Chicago gun ban, Daley commented:

"Maybe they'll see the light of day," Daley said. "Maybe one of them will have an incident, and they'll change their mind overnight, going to and from work."

Now, I have to wonder at Daley's sanity, his mental capacity or possibly his hearing. His response to the question did nothing to answer it. In fact, he seemed to be showing that firearms were actually effective (which is the obvious reason to ban them).  On top of that, had a city official been the recipient of such a "joke" by a Chicago citizen, Daley's henchemen in blue would charge him with aggrivated assault and confiscate the weapon.  Daley, of course, was not charged with anything.

But for the mayor of a major city to say he hopes that one of the Justices (or one of their family members) could be assaulted and injured in a mugging, is just idiotic. 

The second headline, from the Chicago Tribune,  to catch my attention was simply ironic.

Police officer slain as mayor embarrasses himself and city

Thirty year-old Thomas Wortham IV was a victim of a robbery, shot down outside his boyhood home in the staunchly middle-class Chatham neighborhood, his body dragged 100 feet or so by the getaway car.  Thugs tried to steal his motorcycle, a gift to himself upon his return from a second tour of duty in Iraq as a first lieutenant in the Army National Guard. 

By all accounts, Wortham was leader, a good soldier, a dedicated police officer who tried to help others reclaim their neighborhoods.  He was a man of service, giving his time to serve his city to make it a better place to live said family friends.

Ironically, however, in Mayor Daley's "gun free utopia" where his anti-gun laws are "effective", the criminals had guns and shot Wortham to death.  Apparently it never bothered Daley that the death toll in Chicago was higher than the one in Iraq for two years.

Worse yet, Wortham's homicide occurred just as Mayor Daley was giving the above-mentioned press conference and threatening to shoot a reporter.  How ironic and tragic is that?

Daley seeks ways to circumvent Supreme Court Decision

This ABCNews video reported on the likely legal changes that Mayor Daley would promote if the Supreme Court overturns the Chicago gun ban.  Daley said they'd probably model their statutes along those draconian D.C. measures, plus requiring special liability insurance for gun owners. Why?  Daley says it's for the protection of first responders, as if no one else anywhere in the country has had to deal with this alleged problem. 

This is on top of Daley's call two weeks ago for an international court to decide an internal U.S. Constitutional matter.  You can read about Daley's international ploy here on our website.

The question that I'd like to see answered, by a legal expert, is what prevents someone from charging Mayor Daley with violating his oath of office to uphold the constitution? Or charges of conspiracy to deprive 2.8 million people of the constitutional rights.

Elena Kagan Not Supreme Court Material

That Barack Obama is the most anti-gun president we've ever had in the White House is an obvious worry.  His previous selection of controversial "wise Latina" Sonia Sotomayor for the court raised eyebrows because her views on guns are relatively unknown.  Nevertheless, we'll know shortly when the McDonald v. Chicago decision comes out in the next month or so.

Not so with Elena Kagan.  Her thinking is apparently in line with the anti-rights crowd, as evidenced by her history. 

In 1987, she was a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall.  At that time, she said she had no sympathy for the claim of a man that his 2nd Amendment rights were violated.  The case involved a man convicted for carrying an unlicensed pistol in Washington D.C. 

She was in the Justice Department during the Clinton administration and according to records at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Ark., she also drafted an executive order restricting the importation of certain semiautomatic assault rifles.

There’s more evidence of hostility to gun rights on her part. The Times also reports that “gun-control efforts were a hallmark of the Clinton Administration. Kagan had already been involved in an executive order that required all federal law-enforcement officers to install locks on their weapons.”

There is a high probability that Kagan also worked on legislation to effectively close gun shows.

Today, Kagan serves as Solicitor General, whose job it is to argue the government point of view in important legal cases before the Supreme Court. 

When the Supreme Court considered its last Second Amendment case, the landmark 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller, then-U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement filed a brief in the case, then requested and received time to argue the federal government’s position in that case as to the meaning of the Second Amendment.

When the McDonald case was argued before the Court on March 2 of this year, current Solicitor General Kagan argued… Nothing. Not only did she not ask for time during oral argument, she didn’t even file a brief (which the solicitor general routinely does in important constitutional cases—and the McDonald case is monumentally important).

Normally, we'd expect the Solicitor General to argue the government's view of the case.  However, today that would require acknowledgment of the Heller decision that individual Americans have a right to keep and bear arms.  The Solicitor General could argue to narrowly define the right or to support the case against Chicago. 

However, it appears that Kagan has little desire to be forced into the position of acknowledging the Heller decision in the first place. 

In the spring of 1995, Kagan wrote a book review of Stephen Carter’s The Confirmation Mess. “When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in a meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public,” Kagan wrote.

So we, as gun owners, must write our representatives in Congress and demand they hold Kagan up to her own standards.  She should not be allowed to weasel her way around direct questions about Second Amendment issues.  Support of "most of" the Constitution is not acceptable.

The 1968 Gun Control Act

Life Before GCA '68

In 1966, just as anti-Vietnam War protests were starting to take off, I was not yet an adult. However, at a nearby discount store where my mother shopped every other week, they had something I just longed to have.

It was a Remington Nylon 66 .22 rifle. This thing was the epitome of cool. It was sleek, light and had a really snazzy looking front sight. Best of all, the price tag was $49.95! Every week I counted up my earnings and saved it all in a small bank I had. Finally, I reached $50.36. Der Tag at last!

I had planned to slip away while mom shopped. She knew she could find me either in sporting goods or by the book section. I had planned to buy the rifle and wait for her by the comic books and present her with a fait accompli.

Unfortunately, excitement got the best of me and I spilled the idea in the parking lot as we walked towards the store. My head was filled with visions of how cool that rifle was and how all my friends would envy me.

Only Mom said no.

When she said it the way she did that day, I knew there was no arguing with her. I asked my father who said I should ask my mother. In trying to pin him down, he talked to her, heard her answer and said, "Not yet." I was crushed. I was bitter. I was just 12 years old.

Dad walked me into our suburban back yard and showed me why a .22 wasn't such a good idea. The BB gun I'd received at age 10 and worn out in just over a year had only once sent a BB between the fence boards. At that, I'd been lucky because Mrs. Hawkins had been watering her plants at the time and she was a rather... large target. But now dad was telling me that .22's could go through the fence and keep going.

If you've read this far, depending on your age, you may be wondering how a 12-year old boy could have bought a rifle by himself. Well, the truth is, in most states it was legal.

Get up off the floor.

I'm serious. Yes, it was legal for a 12 year old boy, heck even a 10 year old, to purchase a rifle if he had the cash, could reach the counter top and could carry it out of the store. Heck, some stores would forgo everything but having the cash. Of course a some stores might ask for a parental note or call the parents, just to be sure.

In fact, I recall going into a Conoco station in Ft. Worth with my father and seeing a small display case with western-style revolvers inside and some ammo stacked along one edge. The local hardware store was more fun as they had a wall of fishing gear and guns with a long display case full of handguns of all kinds. Just leave me there, looking, and I'd dream of owning one someday.

Believe it or not, you could order a rifle or pistol through the mail! Yep. Places like Numrich Arms (now http://www.e-gunparts.com/) could legally sell complete guns via mail order. Right to your door. No paperwork at all.

Sellers of guns did not need a special license to sell guns. They were considered just another product to sell. You'd find guns for sale in places like gas stations, hardware stores, Auto parts stores, Sears, Montgomery Wards and sometimes in beauty parlors. The latter were usually small purse guns like .25 Autos and .32 revolvers.

It was literally no different than buying a Black & Decker drill or a pair of pants. No forms filled out. Cash and carry. If you had the money to buy five guns at once, they'd ask you if you wanted help out to your car.

Heck, some states didn't even have prohibitions on felons owning guns.

True, some states had some age limits. As I recall, you had to be at least 12 to buy a rifle in Colorado and in other states 16 to buy a handgun. In some of the rural and good hunting areas, nobody looked twice if a youngster had an old .30-40 Krag Jorgensen strapped to his handlebars a week before deer season opened. Heck the school principals would keep them in racks in their offices until after school.

Some high-schools had ROTC rifle teams or their own regional rifle teams. Sure, many fired .22 rifles, but there were also .30 caliber leagues too. And problems with these students were minimal. I find it ironic that when guns were plentiful and as easy to acquire as buying a pipe wrench, there were fewer problems with them.

Those days are probably gone forever though. Too many kids today do not receive the kind of discipline and parental oversight as kids growing up much earlier decades. Too many kids today think violence makes them "tough guys" or more like adults. Our role models were guys like Roy Rogers or Audie Murphy.  Their role models are flashy rappers with pimped out Escalades.

In early 1967, even in California, it was not against the law to carry a loaded handgun in the glovebox of your car. In an era when cars had no seat belts, kids weren't confined to car seats, and dashboards were made of painted steel, we managed to survive even having a handgun in the glovebox.

When we drove to California from Ft. Worth, times were certainly different. Mom tells me that my brother and I were asleep in the back seat when dad was pulled over in New Mexico for speeding. During that trip, dad kept a loaded S&W Victory Model in the glove box of our '57 Ford sedan. The N.M. troopers had seen the Texas plates of course. Walking up to the car they probably saw two young boys asleep in the back amongst the ice chest and pillows and relaxed somewhat.

Now, the reason I say life has changed is that the glove box was open so mom could rest her cold water there while she unwrapped a sandwhich for my dad. One trooper simply said, "Ma'am, would you mind closing the glovebox for me? We get a little nervous when folks have guns within reach." And that was that.

Amazing, isn't it?

Are there any parts of the U.S. that are still this relaxed about guns? I tend to doubt it, unless you know the officer involved. Perhaps Arizona and Nevada tend to be more relaxed since open carry is legal in many areas.

Now, I don't think I'd advocate a sudden, abrupt turnaround to those days. While it would be nice, I don't think it is really workable. Too many wanna-be tough guys out there who have no clue. And too many 15-18 years olds today don't know what responsibility means.

One thing is certain to me though. The so-called "Gun Control Act of 1968" has neither controlled crimes in which guns are used nor reduced the number of them. We've had over 40 years of these laws adding extra cost to the price of guns, burdening dealers with strict regulations and limiting our rights. And it doesn't work. It's time to revoke these laws.