Illinois Congressman makes bid to disarm the poor

Yesterday, United States Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) introduced H.R. 965, "To prohibit the possession or transfer of junk guns, also known as Saturday Night Specials." The Hill quotes Rep. Gutierrez's justification for such a ban:

"I am concerned about the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. But I am also concerned by the 'slow-moving massacre' that is occurring every day with handguns," Gutierrez, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said Monday in Chicago while announcing his bill.

Even enthusiastic proponent of oppressive gun laws Robert Sherrill acknowledges that such bans are intended to disarm the poor, and thereby to disarm blacks:

GUN CONTROL AND RACISM
George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal

The history of gun control in America possesses an ugly component: discrimination and oppression of blacks, other racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, and other "unwanted elements," including union organizers and agrarian reformers. Firearms laws were often enacted to disarm and facilitate repressive action against these groups.

Blacks, and especially poor blacks, are disproportionately the victims of crime. Yet, these citizens are often not afforded the same police protections that other more affluent and less crime ridden neighborhoods or communities enjoy. This lack of protection is especially so in the inner city urban ghettos. Firearms prohibitions discriminate against those poor and minority citizens who must rely on such arms to defend themselves from criminal activity to a much greater degree than affluent citizens living in safer and better protected communities.

Yes CORKY keep those guns away from the Democrats permanent underclass less they get off the Democratic plantation.

#7 | POSTED BY CORKY

Democratic actions limiting the access to guns for protection for poor and minorities IS racism. Democrats efforts to make self defense more expensive is a regressive program to keep the upper class white liberal base safe from the underclass.

I mean, you take that kind of asininity seriously?
#14 | POSTED BY CORKY

Sorry but the proof is around you on this one. Democrats are disenfranchising minorities and the poor by making self defense more expensive or unavailable.

District of Columbia v. Heller was nothing more than discrimination against minorities and the poor.

#16 | POSTED BY SAMES1

True and my point would be that Democrats OWN the Chicago area and they are acting in a racist manor by depriving their own citizens the right of self protection while Rahm Emanuel and his family enjoys the safety of armed guards.

Someone tell Rahm Emanuel his children are protected by armed guard at school
Rahm's statement:
It's outrageous and unsettling that the NRA would choose to address gun violence not by taking assault weapons off our streets, but by adding more guns to our schools… That is not the right answer for our society, our schools and most importantly our children.

Yet, a report from Second City Cop, further investigated by Rebel Pundit, reveals that the University of Chicago Lab School, the elite private school where Mayor Emanuel sends his children, has its own armed guard. Not only that, Second City Cop reports that Mayor Emanuel's children have an armed escort to and from school.

#17 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2013-03-13 01:27 PM | FLAG: I got nothing so I attack the source.

#20 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Careful Jeff logic like that could make liberals heads explode.

#22 | POSTED BY CORKY

The evidence is all around us CORKY. Access to firearms yields safer neighborhoods. When you use clean data and remove self inflicted injuries like suicide and hunting accidents the evidence is overwhelming.

Dems.... protecting poor minorities from gun violence.
#25 | POSTED BY CORKY

Dems.... disarming their permanent underclass.

#28 | POSTED BY CORKY

Maybe in lieu of guns the Democrats can pass out car antenna's for protection. I read on the DR that they are effective deterrents to crime.

The fact is, poor people are more likely to be kept from owning firearms due to these fees and other hurdles, that make ownership too expensive.
These fees don't keep middle and upper class people from obtaining guns.
#41 | POSTED BY ROY_BATTY
Good point.

That is discrimination where I come from. You could easily make the point that the poor are being disenfranchised? I pick that term for a reason. The right to right to bear arms is covered directly in the Bill of Rights but the right to vote is not directly covered. I wonder how a poll tax would be accepted these days? Disenfranchisement you say, what the difference in making the right to bear arms too expensive to be enjoyed by the poor and making the, not guaranteed, right to vote too expensive to be exercised by the poor?

Odd also that the anti gun left operates on the theory that to exercise the 2nd amendment you need to not only supply a lot of money but also a massive about of personal data and ID's but to exercise the, not guaranteed, right to vote no money or ID must be involved. The anti gun left is also willing to accept a number of ways that the 2nd amendment rights can be removed with out due process of law and by unelected bureaucrat but the right to vote is sacrosanct?

The founding fathers thought to include one in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and not the non nonexistent right to vote, which is determined by the rule of law.

#55 | POSTED BY ROY_BATTY

The only real difference here is that the Illinois law requiring getting a FOID is state law and the right to bear arms is federal law. States can do as they please as Colorado and NY is now proving.

Actually, they can't as Chicago and Washington DC proved.
#58 | POSTED BY KANREI

Good point, I should have added with in the law and the constitution.

The 10th allows states to do as they please so long as they don't block any right given by the Feds.
#58 | POSTED BY KANREI

Important clarification: any right given to the Feds.

#60 | POSTED BY KANREI

Then I'm missing your point.

The 10th allows states to do as they please so long as they don't block any right given by the Feds.
#58 | POSTED BY KANREI

Tenth Amendment - U.S. Constitution
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

#61 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS
Your information is private.
•We'll keep your information private as required by law.

The 13 Amendment
#63 | POSTED BY KANREI

I hope not :-)

This means the state cannot change the 2nd Amendment.
#65 | POSTED BY KANREI

I'm not reading it that way but I understand your point

#69 | POSTED BY KANREI

If we know one thing about this administration, it is that they are not restrained by little things like the Constitution, Congress, Common law or the Supreme Court.

The Discriminatory History of Gun Control

Gun control in the United States is based on a long history of discrimination which continues to this day. While blacks were the first targets of gun control measures, different racial and ethnic minorities have been targeted over time, and today the poor now face economic
discrimination in many gun control laws.

The Gun Control act of 1968 was another major shift in firearm restrictions. The supposed aim of this bill was a reduction in crime, but an underlying motive was to keep black militant groups from arming themselves with readily available and inexpensive weapons.

On the surface this seems like a reasonable way to keep guns out of
crime prone areas. In reality, it ensures that criminals will be the only people with firearms. People who obey the law, but need housing assistance, will have no means to protect themselves.

The gun laws in Washington D.C. were some of the strictest in the nation. In 1976 the city completely prohibited the ownership of handguns, but saw no meaningful or lasting reduction in gun crime

This graph shows that, after an initial decline, the percentage of homicides committed in Washington DC with a gun skyrocketed above the national average in the 1980's after the implementation of a handgun ban. Clearly the availability of guns in the city did not stop people
from committing homicides with guns

The most influential work from the medical field may be "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home". This study was led by Arthur Kellermann in 1993 and claimed that the presence of a firearm in the home made it 2.7 times more likely that someone in that household would be murdered by a firearm.74 This journal article became one of the most widely cited works dealing with homicide and guns.75 Its conclusion and methods, however, are problematic and misleading. The basis of the study was a comparison of sample households where homicides occurred to a control sample of supposedly similar households. From this comparison the study determined that households with guns were more likely to experience homicides. The first problem with this conclusion is that people who are at higher risk for being murdered could be more likely to own guns. The presence of the gun does not necessarily change this risk factor. It is very likely that victim's high risk lifestyle puts them at higher risk for murder, not the ownership of firearms.76 Nearly all of the homicides in this study were committed with a gun brought by the intruder, not the gun in the home.77 This indicates the gun is most likely a measure of risk, not a cause of it. The victims were also selected from very high risk households. This, coupled with a limited number of cases, makes a nationwide application of the potential risk factor questionable.78 Finally, the statistics themselves are disputed by Gary Kleck in "Can Owning a Gun Really Triple the Owner's Chances of being Murdered?"

Many attempts to control guns result in a disproportionate burden on the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society with no proven benefit to the surrounding community