He’s
suing the suburban villages where he often has protested in the past,
contending those municipalities are lax in their enforcement of
firearms-related laws.
AS
A REPORTER-type person, I have covered protests held in the past by Pfleger and
the Rev. Jesse Jackson outside of Chuck’s Gun Shop in suburban Riverdale. Their
objections to that shop are long-running – they believe the store’s owners let
just about anybody buy a firearm.
Even
if the few existing laws concerning firearms ownership would ban those
individuals from having pistols of any type.
Because
I have covered these protests, I also know the ownership of Chuck’s says it is
in compliance. The letter of the law is being followed, they say. They’re
probably telling the truth!
Which
means the laws themselves are lax. In need of revision. Except that the
NRA-types who want to believe that firearm ownership is a God-given right will
go out of their way to intimidate political people from doing any serious
revisions.
WHAT
MAKES THIS particular store so unique is its location. Riverdale is right on
the southernmost border of Chicago, not far from the Altgeld Gardens public
housing complex.
The
store itself is about five blocks from the city limits. There likely are
firearms originally purchased there that eventually wind up in the hands of
Chicago residents who aren’t supposed to have them.
I
suspect similar conditions exist for Midwest Sporting Goods in suburban Lyons
and for Shore Galleries in suburban Lincolnwood.
So
that led to the lawsuit filed this week in Cook County Circuit Court. Not
against the gun shops or their owners. But against the municipalities
themselves.
PFLEGER
AND HIS allies on this issue want a judge to issue an order requiring the local
governments to be more aggressive in policing those local businesses – even
though in the past, local officials have said they’re doing everything the law
requires of them.
WBBM-TV
reported Tuesday that the lawsuit seeks to have the local governments require
background checks of gun shop employees, more training for employees to prevent
sales to people who intend to sell them to others who can’t make the buy
themselves, keeping lists of those who are not allowed to buy firearms and also
of all firearms they sell that later turn up as being used in the commission of
a crime.
That’s
a lot of work. I’m sure the store owners, when they eventually get around to
responding, will claim it’s an undue burden being placed upon themselves.
Then
again, there is the nature of the product that they’re selling. One that can be
too easily misused to cause bodily harm to others in our society.
IT
WILL BE interesting to see if the courts accept this line of logic. Even if a
local judge does, how quickly will it wind up getting appealed to a court
located outside of the city where the perception might be that someone will
want to believe that some hunter seeking to shoot elk or deer or whatever is
being denied his chance because of such restrictions?
This
could wind up as a long-running battle – one that I wonder if it will outlast
even Pfleger’s time on this planet.
There
are certain issues that it seems will perpetually linger on; we’re never going
to come to a resolution. Particularly since there are those in our society who
believe that the solution to public violence is to require everyone to be
armed.
Which
is something the gun shops would probably like – more business for them and a
boost to their financial bottom line.
-30-
1 comment:
I wonder if the answer to the supreme court ruling is legislation that differentiates between urban, suburban and rural gun ownership. Hunting deer in downtown Chicago is different from hunting deer out near the Missouri river. Perhaps we need to fund a strategy that ties up gun ownership in the courts for the next decade or two, endless frivolous suits. All it takes is finding a few courageous judges to issue restraining orders preventing the sale of guns until the legal issues are settled. Of course, the real problem here is the ruling itself, establishing an individual right to gun ownership. How anyone can read the second amendment and extract that nonsense from it, I don't know.
Post a Comment