Everybody has Rights but the People Who Earned Them

People are funny when they start to talk about their rights.

Guests in my place of business regularly gripe about their rights. As a principle, I believe consumers have rights. I also believe they have responsibilities. I have written in these pages many times before of my disdain for those who try every which way to get out of paying for a product, then expect the service and amenities for that which they did not pay. It is the equivalent of me writing Nissan of my anger that my Altima does not perform at the level of its GT-R sports coupe. Bear in mind, the GT-R starts at $76840, more than three times the cost of my current model.

My employees occasionally gripe about rights, many imagined. I will not tolerate harassment nor abuse. That said, however, Illinois is an “at will” employment state, and a reality of this economy is employers can and have let people for performance and attitude issues but have headed the termination under “loss of business”. This is especially the case with small businesses. People who have left larger corporations during these turbulent times have found not only pay cuts, but drastic changes in how their so-called “rights” apply when they go to work for much smaller organizations. Sadly, all they can fight with are their memories and their mouths, and very few of those fights are won by the little guy.

Chicagoans are dealing with some issues regarding rights as well. The city has had a handgun ban since 1982, when then Mayor Byrne decided banning hand guns was a good way to curb gun violence within the city’s borders.

For the record, I have been shooting since I was 8. I do not live in Chicago, and outlying areas, especially outside of Cook County, are not bound by this law. One of the things that makes Chicago unappealing to me is the handgun law. I love my city. I refuse to live somewhere that forces me to put the primary protection of my family in the hands of overworked and under-resourced individuals who may have to choose between my kid and a gang war. It ain’t happenin’.

While Chicago is not the murder capital of the country, we are in the running, with most of those deaths perpetrated by folk under 25 using handguns. Research and just plain street knowledge confirms almost all of those weapons are not registered, nor used by licensed and trained civilians. The guns are usually in the hands of young thugs that would get laughed out of a gun shop (ya’ll ARE aware gun shop personnel are visibly armed, no?) in a moment’s notice.

I once dated a woman, a lifelong Chicagoan and veteran of some of its toughest neighborhoods, who explained, rather foolishly, that legalizing handguns in the city would be bad because every hood would be able to acquire a firearm.

“Baby,” I yawned, realizing this conversation might kill later expectations of adult activity, “the goons already got the guns.”

It is true.

Firearms are a part of criminal business, and criminal business is as American as apple pie. A lot of money is at stake, and as such, the powers that be in that enterprise have mechanisms in place to address such job hazards as incarceration, money laundering, taxes and yes, protection and enforcement. Those last two usually require guns. Any person in law enforcement will tell you the crooks will always have their guns. It’s like Joe Pesci in “Casino”: “I ain’t afraid of jail. Jail is what I do.” Jail. Guns. Lawyers. The like. No amount of fair legislation is going to convince someone preying on society for their salary to give up their weapons. They will take precautions; they know enough of the law to take steps to avoid a maximum sentence if caught with gun on their person. Real talk? Unlike most of us out here, criminals know their rights.

One of the things I find interesting is the number of legally armed people in our society. Of course, municipal police officers. Think about this, however: parole officers, customs agents, postal police, forest preserve police, armed security guards, gun shop employees, the list goes on and on of the number of people who own firearms as a part of their work and, if forced to use them, have a justifiable excuse for having said weapon in their possession at home.

When I read the story of Otis McDonald, the septuagenarian primary plaintiff in the Supreme Court case against Chicago, I know the handgun ban is ridiculous. McDonald has had his life and property threatened too many times and has figured a handgun would equalize things, or at least provide some peace of mind.

“Why doesn’t he just move?” some would ask.

Where? Why should he? What if he doesn’t have the money?


In too many situations, a Chicago reality is the police are called, and they are so overwhelmed, they have to prioritize which calls to respond to when. Now, I have buddies who are police officers who make it clear that if someone tries to enter their homes and harm their families, they are reacting first and calling their blue brethren after ascertaining their families are safe. Somehow, though, the argument from Chicagoans in high priced neighborhoods where the police have lighter caseloads, and thus, much faster response times, is that every day folk like Mr. McDonald should call the police and wait indefinitely while some young fool tries to enter his home, assault his wife and possibly kill any grandchildren they may be watching. Oh, either that or risk prison for defending his family.

Please.

Mayor Daley, a man who has had some form of government provided armed protection most of his adult life, says the gun ban is necessary.

Say what?

You won’t, or can’t, hire more cops. Face it, if you do, many of them will be deployed to areas where violence is low and revenues are high, like Michigan Avenue. You acknowledge the police in areas such as Englewood, the Pocket, Calumet Heights, Roseland and Lawndale are overmatched. The government is not in a position to do something, but it will tie the hands of the citizenry when it attempts to solve its own problem?

“Well, if we legalize guns, it’s like legalizing drugs, everyone will have them.”

Nonsense.

Alcohol is legal. Not everyone is a drunk. When alcohol was illegal, drinkers still found a way to get their buzz on.

Legalizing handguns will not be a free for all. Background checks are still required, waiting periods are still in place. I often question the racial dynamics of such logic. In Will, DuPage and Iroquois counties, outside of Chicago, citizens who are eligible have the right to bear arms. Granted, those areas are not 53% black and by and large don’t have rapidly growing Latino populations.

Let’s also remember, too: Tyrone, Man Man and Pookie, who are terrorizing everyone n the block, HAVE guns. They have multiple felonies, but they also have Sig Saurs with which they threaten solid citizens like Mr. McDonald.

I am not arguing whether or not a person should be allowed to have an AK-47. My opinion is that if you are eligible to own it, who cares? When these massacres and mass murders occur, seldom is the news coverage opened with, “A legally registered howitzer was used today…”

This is not that issue.

I am curious why some hopped up shooter has the right to carry an illegal weapon, use it indiscriminately, beat the system should he get caught, and acquire a new gun just like his old one within an hour after leaving lock-up, to start the madness all over again.

While someone the age of my grandparents, who has helped weave the fabric of civil society, has to either contemplate completely rearranging his life or a prison sentence to protect what he works for and loves.

Ya’ll know better.