handgun hypocrisy - chicago style

[paulsby]

http://reason.com/archives/2009/11/23/gun-control-chicago-style


Last week, the body of Chicago school board president Michael Scott was found in the Chicago River with a single bullet wound in his head. The big story was that this powerful, well-connected public official had, according to the county medical examiner, committed suicide. The less-noticed story was that he did it with an illegal weapon.

After all, handgun ownership is not allowed in the city of Chicago, which has one of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and Scott killed himself with a .380-caliber sidearm. Unlike most Chicagoans, Scott could have been a legal handgun owner. Because he had it before the ban was enacted, he was allowed to register and keep it. But the police department says he never did. By having it in the city, Scott was guilty of an offense that could have gotten him jail time. Amazingly enough, he was not the first local public official to take the view that firearms restrictions are something for other, ordinary people to observe. Chicago politicians are zealously committed to gun control in law but fairly relaxed about it in practice.

In 1994, State Sen. Rickey Hendon had an unregistered handgun stolen from his home in a burglary, and he didn't feign contrition about his disregard of the ordinance. "I have a right to protect myself," he declared, noting that he had been burglarized before—and forgetting that the state legislature of which he is a member allows Illinois cities to deprive their citizens of that right. Asked if he would replace the lost piece, Hendon said, "No comment." The police were kind enough not to charge him.

U.S. Sen. Roland Burris, another Chicagoan, has endorsed a nationwide ban on handguns and, in 1993, organized Chicago's first Gun Turn-in Day. But the following year, while running unsuccessfully for governor, he admitted he owned a handgun—"for protection," he explained—and hadn't seen fit to turn it in along with those other firearms. Lesser mortals apparently can protect themselves with forks and spoons.

Scott was shot in the abdomen while chasing a burglar in 1988, so it's understandable that he would appreciate the value of having the means to defend himself against criminals. But that understanding didn't extend to the needs of ordinary Chicagoans. When the city gun ban was challenged in court, the board of education that he headed filed a brief defending Chicago's right "to prohibit classes of arms in order to prevent crime and protect public safety."

A law banning handguns, in Scott's view, was necessary to protect public safety. But when it came to protecting his private safety, he somehow perceived the law to be a hindrance, not a help. Does his attitude carry the distinct tang of hypocrisy? Yes, but that's not out of the ordinary for Chicago politicians. Under a state law dating back to 1872, mayors and aldermen are designated peace officers. And, conveniently, peace officers are permitted to not only own but carry handguns

[greennina]

1. Could his wife be arrested?

She had to of known of that horrible thing in her house. She is an accomplis to the crime.

[eqfan592]

2. Her husband just killed himself apparently...

...and you want to punish her because she MAY have known about "that horrible thing?" And what exactly makes it a "horrible thing" in the first place?

[paulsby]

3. not unless it;'s a strict liability statute

which i kind of doubt. generally speaking, one must knowingly possess for it to be a crime. there is no way to prove that she KNOWINGLY possessed it, or for that matter possessed it at all. maybe he kept it in a storage locker. that's way beyond reasonable doubt.

if she knew he had an illegal gun (iow if he admitted it to her), she also couldn't be compelled to testify to his admissions if he was arrested, because of spousal privilege.

while many states are community property states, iow everything that belongs to the husband belongs to the wife and vice versa, it doesn't mean one spouse is criminally liable for stuff the other spouse possesses./

if your spouse snorts cocaine in the house, you haven't committed a crime, unless you PERSONALLY possessed it. if only he possessed it, only he is guilty.

of course even if they COULD arrest the wife (they almost certainly can't), they wouldn't, because arresting the grieving widow after her husband commits suicide would be very bad pr

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

4. Not the dreaded horrible thing!!!

[Euromutt]

5. For reference, there was an earlier thread about this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x270711

[spin]

6. Obviously, handguns are very common in Chicago...

the mere fact that this item is illegal for most has little effect on its existence.

Hell, If I had to live in Chicago, I would have a handgun. Fortunately, there's no chance of that ever happening.

I can continue being an honest citizen and enjoy the fact that I can own firearms throughout my state for enjoyment and for self defense.