Chicago Gun Laws and Its Effect on the Criminal Justice System - Research Paper Example

?Given the propensity for firearm-related crime in the of Chicago, it is not much of a surprise that the has a reputation for some of the most stringent gun control policies in the nation. More so than most other municipalities, the governing body of Chicago restricts the possession and use of firearms so that the supply to individuals may be squeezed in an effort to save lives. These laws keep changing in significant ways, which suggests to the optimist that Chicago’s city council is ever mindful and open to new suggestions. However, to the pessimist, it suggests that gun control laws are always imperfect, if not more detrimental than simply allowing guns in the first place. In fact, perhaps Chicago is a case study in which we see quite clearly that strict gun controls harm the public rather than protect it, by removing legitimate access to firearms and leaving the illegal arms trade to those who have less legitimate purposes for those guns. The legal climate of Chicago’s gun control policies is complex and confusing to most who try to follow it, especially with the constitutional challenges even new laws are facing. A detailed study of these laws, and their respective effects on the criminal justice system, should provide a useful perspective on whether their existence is warranted given Chicago’s crime rates. Chicago’s reputation for strict gun control laws started in the 1980s when the city passed, along with Washington D.C., tighter restrictions on who can legally acquire and use firearms within the city limits. However, despite these laws being in place in both Washington D.C. and Chicago, neither city enjoyed a reduced crime rate (Levitt 174). Although Chicago never received a careful analysis at this time, it was known that Chicago lagged behind the nationwide homicide decline during the 1990s. This had led those familiar with the Chicago legal situation to suggest that policies raising the cost of using guns as opposed to targeting ownership is the most effective strategy for reducing gun-related crime. Although Chicago’s policies against guns were well known even in the 1970s, some authors have remarked that enforcement of those laws is the weak link connecting gun control laws to reduced crime (Bendis and Balkin). Because gun laws vary by state to state and, in some cases, from city to city, the best strategy for understanding the impact of Chicago’s gun control laws is to examine those laws in the context of state laws related to guns. In Illinois, firearms are not required to be registered nor are carry permits issued. However, individuals need a state permit to purchase a firearm and an owner license is issued to every firearm owner. Part of this process is the Firearm Owner’s Identification (or FOID) card, which owners acquire from the Illinois state police (Illinois General Assembly). An individual must present a valid FOID card whenever he or she attempts to purchase firearms or ammunition. This allows the state to monitor the purchasing of firearms (1) to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people and (2) to assist in investigations in gun-related crime. Additionally, the use of FOID cards screens out and prevents individuals who have been convicted of a felony from acquiring firearms from a licensed vendor. The FOID card is difficult to acquire for individuals under 21 years (Illinois General Assembly). As the most populated and crime-ridden city in Illinois, Chicago has in place its own level of restrictions on gun ownership. For instance, the municipality has an ordinance in place that requires all firearm owners not only to have possession of a FOID card, but also that firearms are registered with the Chicago Police Department, in addition to the Illinois State Police. This policy did not include handguns up until June 2010, when new registrations of pistols were unfrozen by law after thirty years (AP). The effect of not allowing handguns was negative in the view of many city officials, who began to recognize the need for conceal-and-carry laws around the turn of the century (Lott). Like many gun advocates claim, there does seem to be a reason to allow individuals to conceal their handguns, which made the registration of handguns with the police an inevitably necessary measure for the city as it faced increasing waves of homicides and gun-related violence. The principle of conceal-and-carry policies is that of deterrence. Similar to how criminal behavior can either be incentivized or deterred depending on several factors related to the potential crime, such as arrest and conviction rates, so too does the risk of danger when committing a crime provide some deterrent from committing that crime. For instance, a thief who knows that his victim is armed is far less likely, like any predator, to strike than if his target is completely defenseless. There is, in essence, a negative relationship between the number of registered gun owners and the crime rate. According to scholar John R. Lott, Jr., for each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect, the murder rate declines by three percent, robberies by two percent and rape by two percent. These numbers are explained by a drop in the number of attempted crimes because of the uncertainty that surrounds attacking a target that may have a concealed weapon. Also, armed victims are in a considerably better place when it comes to defending themselves against attack. These observations are based on empirical data taken between 1977 and 1994 (Lott). In terms of these outcomes and their effects on the criminal justice system in the Chicago area, less armed criminals are arrested and convicted when the use of guns for the execution of illegal acts decreases through time. Gun control laws have been connected with institutional racism (Cramer). During the 1990s, as previously mentioned, when homicide rates in Chicago remained relatively constantly while those same measures decreased all across the country, the most stringent gun control laws in the nation were being enforced within the Chicago city limits. This kind of situation was observed in Washington D.C. both in the early 1980s and even now in the late 2000s. The United States Supreme Court overruled a handgun ban in Washington D.C. very closed related to the one in Chicago up until 2008 (Levy). The removal of that ban led to the removal of similar such policies all over the country. In the 2008 landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court decided that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to possessing a firearm for private use within the home. Similar ordinances in the suburbs around the metropolitan area instituted similar repeals of bans based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court. Unwilling to change their policies, Chicago and the suburb Oak Park refused to place a similar repeal on their gun control laws. Then, on June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court likewise ruled the bans unconstitutional on the basis that they abridged the Second Amendment right to owning firearms. In the case McDonald v. Chicago, the Court decided that there was no substantive difference between the Chicago and Washington D.C. handgun bans, the former of which they had recently decided was unconstitutional. Recognizing the apparent need for strict gun control laws that Chicago is notorious for, the city council sought to implement the appropriate measures that both avoided the constitutional problems faced by the previous ban but with respect given to the safety of the city’s residents and to the rights of firearm owners. What resulted from this challenge from the Supreme Court was the passing of a new city ordinance immediately following on July 12, 2010. The ordinance allowed a conditional handgun possession once the owner obtained a permit from the police. Part of the process of acquiring this permit was passing a firearms training course and requiring handgun registration. This kind of lengthy, difficult process was designed to limit people access to dangerous weapons. Because this ordinance did not outright ban the objects, it did not conflict with the Second Amendment, but still had the effect of making handguns very difficult to acquire. “We believe that Chicago’s ordinance is a reasonable attempt to balance the right of individuals to possess handguns in the home for self-defense with the substantial risks to public safety that are associated with the proliferation of firearms,” said Jennifer Hoyle, a spokeswoman for the city’s law department (Harris). Additionally, the ordinance banned gun shops in Chicago and prohibited owners from leaving their houses with their guns (KSTP). Nevertheless, this ordinance likewise is facing legal challenges from citizens of Chicago. Their case will likely be more difficult to make than arguing the constitutionality of the previous handgun ban. Like Chicago, the suburb Oak Park removed its complete ban on handguns in July 2010. Around the time this new Chicago ordinance was introduced to the public, a Chicago Mercantile Exchange trader, along with the Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers, sued the city of Chicago (Harris). In Benson v. City of Chicago, the plaintiffs’ claim, that the new ordinance restricting handgun possession to inside the home and mandating firearms, is constitutional. In essence, their case depends upon their ability to demonstrate that the city of Chicago intended to limit its citizens’ Second Amendment freedoms by introducing this ordinance. Among the defendants listed in the lawsuit is the current mayor of Chicago, Richard M. Daley, who declared that the new ordinance is intended to keep guns away from drug dealers and gang members (Harris). However, the relationship between stricter gun laws and decreases in gun-related violence is spurious. Even though gun control is intuitively appealing (the process of screening and registration) for keeping access to weapons away from dangerous criminals, the fact is that dangerous criminals find firearms that are more efficient on the black market than those sold in gun shops (Lott). The only effect on the criminal justice system that restricting gun access has is disarming citizens and making them less able to defend themselves, particularly outside the home where handguns are no longer legal to possess. One could argue that in the end, an ordinance like the one in Chicago hurts law-abiding citizens more so than criminals. In support of this argument, the city of Chicago removed nearly 8,000 illegal, unregistered weapons from its streets last year. Gun control laws did nothing to prevent these weapons from being on the street or being used. Although the laws helped in seizing them, this could have been too late for some. Mayor Daley, who first took office in 1989, is a well-known advocate for strict gun laws and introduced in February 2011 a proposal to further limit access to firearms in Chicago, as he attempts to walk the fine line between constitutionality and illegality. This new proposal increases penalties for selling firearms to minors or to a convicted felon, requires background checks for private sales at gun shows, and puts an outright ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines (Lum). As he announced these proposals, Daley stood with families who lost a family member to gun violence. This kind of emotional appeal clouds the likelihood that Thomas Wortham, the police officer who was killed last year in front of that family, was killed with a weapon that the criminal would either have acquired had there been strict gun laws or not. In terms of an overall effect on the criminal justice system, the negative relationship between strict control and crime is unclear at best, and a pretense for limiting constitutional freedoms at worst. Chicago, along with some other major cities in the United States, are well-known for their strict gun control ordinances that go beyond the restrictions put in place by their particular states. However, there is no evidence for the claim by politicians and policymakers who put these measures into place that gun control laws decrease violent crime and put less people into prison. In fact, it may be the case that gun control laws deprive law-abiding citizens of the right to defend themselves more than it deprives individuals who use guns to commit violent crimes. Depending on the outcome of pending legal battles, the future of Chicago gun laws will hinge on their advocates’ ability to prove, using logical appeals, that their solutions are constitutional. Works Cited AP. Chicago Gun Law Spurs Deluge of Applications. 13 April 1982. 6 March 2011 . Bendis, P. and S. Balkin. "Look at Gun Control Enforcement." Journal of Police Science and Administration (7) (1979): 439-448. Cramer, Clayton E. "The Racist Roots of Gun Control." Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy (4) (1995): 17-22. Harris, Andrew M. CME Trader, Firearms Sellers Sue Chicago Over Gun Law. 7 July 2010. 5 March 2011 . Illinois General Assembly. Illinois Compiled Statutes. 2010. 2011 . KSTP. Tough New Chicago Gun Law Takes Effect. 12 July 2010. 5 March 2011 . Levitt, Steven D. "Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors That Explain the Decline and Six That Do Not." The Journal of Economic Perspectives (18) (2004): 163-190. Levy, Robert A. "Taking the D.C. Gun Ban To Court." 28 February 2003. Cato Institute. 6 March 2011 . Lott, John R. An interview with John R. Lott, Jr. 1998. 2010 . Lum, Joanie. Mayor Daley Proposes New, Tougher Gun Laws. 14 February 2011. 5 March 2011 . Read More