Chicago Columnist Illinois Leader Political Analyst Entrepreneur Business Advisor Chicago Illinois Review

SEIFFE:  Gun Control

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

By Ralf Seiffe

A couple of years ago, just about this time of year, a burglar broke into one of my neighbor’s homes and made off with some property, the house keys and the keys to one of the family’s SUVs.  As these things go, it was a non-descript crime; the felon made his escape, disappearing into the night with the stolen property.  A regrettable event but not inconceivable in the times we live.  

The village police responded to the incident and took a report.. They didn’t do much more because they didn’t expect the creep to return to the scene: to make a special patrol would be like shadowing a damaged tree, waiting for the lightening to strike again.  An understandable allocation of the police department’s limited resources.  

But the thief did return.  Using the pilfered keys, the man let himself in, invading again with a bigger, planned heist.  What the burglar did not expect was to be met by the homeowner with a brace of pistols.  The homeowner blasted away and hit the burglar twice.  The thief was lucky; the wounds were so slight that he was able to flee, steal one of the family’s vehicles and to drive himself to a local hospital for treatment.  When the nature of the injuries became evident, the man was arrested.  

Back in Wilmette , the homeowner was getting a lot of attention from the police.  Before the night was over, he was in custody for the shooting itself, not having a current Firearm Owner’s Identification card and for violating the village’s ordinance prohibiting possession of a handgun.  By the time the initial phase of the case was over, the state had dropped all their felony charges, coming to the obvious decision that he had acted in self-defense.    

Wilmette came to a different decision and decided to pursue its case against the homeowner.  The affair soon became infamous and folks began to take sides over it.  Village trustees held an open meeting to take the residents’ pulse and the event attracted many speakers including remarks by personalities Eileen Byrne and Teri O’Brien from WLS radio. The people who spoke were disgusted by the village’s suit against the homeowner and nearly universally opposed to the village ordinance that authorized it.  

Despite the clear super-majority of those who testified, the trustees were unmoved; they failed to schedule hearings on the ordinance and did not instruct the village attorney to quit the prosecution.  In fact, one of the trustees announced---before hearing even one of the residents---that nothing would be done.  The voters terminated him in the next election but at least he was honest enough to show his visceral disgust of citizens petitioning their government.  This trustee’s reaction to the legitimate concerns of the residents is the key to understanding the gun debate----and much more.   

The proximate reason for the village’s anti-handgun ordinance was the Laurie Dann incident nearly 20 years ago.  It galvanized the short-sighted and the ordinance’s sponsors took advantage of the tragedy.  They sold it as the way to stop handgun violence in the suburbs.  They preyed on the fears of parents who feared this sort of thing might happen again.  But there wasn’t (and isn’t) a problem here and if there was, the grabber’s solution is exactly the wrong approach.  

There wasn’t much reason to pass a gun ban, here, then or now.  If our suburb is like the rest of the nation, there are probably more than 10,000 guns here but the truth is that there’s not much violent gun crime in Wilmette .  The fishing and hunting store that used to sell very expensive shotguns moved away and the rifle club that used to shoot in the water plant was disbanded years ago.  In other states, evidence is accumulating that law-abiding citizens can not only be trusted to own handguns but also to carry them in their pockets.  When they do, real crime declines.  In addition, evidence is accruing that other countries--- that have recently banned firearms----have suffered huge crime increases.  Since England disarmed, one is more likely to be mugged in London than in New York City .  

If the gun grabbers were motivated by facts, one would think that they would not be so fervent about their cause.  But they are.  To be so enthusiastic must indicate that there must be motivating reason that we can’t see and the experience in Wilmette leads me to believe the reason is only peripherally related to firearms.  The real reason is far more sinister than a simple reaction to a random shooting almost a generation ago.     

The first key to understanding the real reasons starts by recognizing the import of the now-retired trustee’s intemperate remark to his constituents.  By pre-empting any possibility of restoring residents’ firearm rights, he revealed his contempt for the very pillars on which our experiment in self-government rests.  He made himself a parody of the sort of politician The Federalist warns us.  His disgust for the process and for the outcomes of democracy---and of his colleagues who failed to censure him--- tells us more about the politicians than anything about the residents who’d come to protest.  

The second key is the village’s fanatical prosecution of the homeowner for defending his castle---its behavior makes Les Miserables’ Inspector Javert look indolent.  There’s no real reason to prosecute the homeowner because his actions were absolutely justified.  That the village continued to harass the homeowner, especially considering the state had dropped all charges, puts other gun owners on notice that the village will use its coercive powers to go after them, given the chance.  Other municipalities with similar laws have acted similarly.  The political calculus goes like this: the left-wing city fathers (and mothers) realize gun owners are mostly conservatives and are likely to stand in the way of their “progressive” schemes.  A gun law marginalizes the political clout of gun owners worried that coming to city hall to protest or to get a license, because it identifies them as gun owners to the authorities.   

The third key is the unpredictability of the village’s prosecutorial decision.  If risk is defined as uncertainty of future events, the village’s decision to prosecute the homeowner under this set of facts, substantially raises the risks of owning a handgun or by proximity, any firearm.  One would expect the village to congratulate the homeowner because he removed a serial threat to all residents of the village rather than make an example out of him.  Other firearm owners looking at this situation are certain to reduce their intersections with the village to diminish the chances of running afoul with the local police.  

Gun control was first instituted by the English governors of the colonies.  One of the most memorable sights in Colonial Williamsburg is the arrangement of muskets on the wall of the Governor’s mansion.  Visitors cannot enter without seeing the arsenal and it tells all who enter that the king had power to maintain his political prerogatives.  That display, and others like it, are the reason we have the Second Amendment.  

Southerners re-invented gun control just after the Civil War because they wanted a method to control the newly freed slaves.  These laws had a political objective and was not a way to control violence.  In fact, its purpose was quite the opposite; by prohibiting freedmen from defending themselves with firearms, gun control laws gave the former slave owners an advantage when terrorizing the newly freed blacks.  With that advantage, Southern Whites nullified the post-Civil War Constitutional Amendments and frustrated cause of civil rights for generations.    

The fifteen-year gun debate in Wilmette has taught me that the real purpose of gun control has not changed much since the late 1860’s.  It is a proxy technique for one group to illegitimately impose their will on others.  The enforcement method has changed from night-riding to threats of uncertain, irrational prosecution in municipal courts but, in both cases, gun controllers have co-opted the coercive power of government for their own political purposes.  Gun ordinances embolden them to take on other freedom sapping initiatives; ever more restrictive zoning; plant and tree ordinances and eventually, eminent domain when it suits them.   

The best way to stop this is by understanding the larger effects of gun control.  Thoughtful Americans will recognize the disreputable history of these laws and understand the deception their supporters must employ to enact them when presented with the facts. Engage the useful idiots who think gun control is about controlling guns; let them know it’s really about people control.   Tell your friends so they understand, too.    The truth is that now, as it has always been, gun control is the essential seed of tyranny.

© 2005 Ralf Seiffe

Ralf Seiffe advises business start-ups and product launches from Chicago, Illinois and is a political analyst and columnist for the Illinois Leader and Illinois Review.