Mayor Daley and the "Police Power"

Op-ed by a former cop on Chicago's anti-gun ways:

... Shortly after the District of Columbia vs. Heller decision Mayor Daley held an entertaining press conference which revealed him at his illogical, incoherent, and rambling best. Amongst the other inanities, non sequiturs, and irrelevancies he spluttered, one phrase stood out. “But we have home rule.” And therein lies the tale. All of these jurisdictions have hung their hats upon the primacy of “police power” to undermine and infringe upon the second amendment rights of their citizens by banning operable handguns in their homes, as though the inalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms was no different than prostitution, dog leash laws, anti-noise ordinances or stop sign placement. The Heller decision has provided the necessary corrective to end this injustice as the inevitable torrent of local lawsuits are filed. Here’s the money quote from the Illinois State Rifle Associations’ complaint: “By banning handguns, Defendants currently maintain and actively enforce a set of laws, customs, practices, and policies under color of state law which deprive individuals, including the Plaintiffs, of their right to keep and bear arms, in violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”
Daley wasn’t too keen on the home rule concept for Bensenville and Elk Grove Village when he took acres of land away for the expansion of O’Hare airport. Home rule for them was unimportant and didn’t matter when greater governmental interests were weighed.

Daley said: “Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society?” He left out the fact that the decision specifically states felons and the mentally ill can still be prohibited from owning firearms. The Supreme Court decision did allow for registration and licensing schemes. Daley did not mention the fact that ever since the 1968 Supreme Court decision (Haynes vs. United States) felons are specifically not required to register any firearm in their possession since that would amount to self-incrimination. Therefore registration laws can only be aimed at the law-abiding.
Daley said “The Supreme Court and Congress have no obligation to keep our country safe. It falls on the backs of mayors and local officials.”

As a retired police officer, I am well aware that police officers often fulfill the role of armed historians. This means that they often arrive at the scene of a serious crime well after the offense has occurred and prepare a report. This is not because they are not brave and dedicated to protecting the populace that they are sworn to protect, it is simply a reflection of the fact that there are too many criminals and too many opportunities for them to commit crimes against persons and property for police to be positioned to prevent crime. Most mature adults understand this, and do not reasonably expect the police to be everywhere to protect all people at all times. But it is particularly egregious when the various entities of government prohibit to the law-abiding in their very own homes the most effective means of self defense against a deadly attack in progress. To further compound the insults to our reason and intelligence Mayor Daley did not mention that ever since the 1981 Supreme Court decision of Warren vs. DC Metropolitan Police Department the courts have concluded without exception that when a municipality or other government entity undertakes to provide police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and NOT to individual members of the community. Illinois statute law specifically indemnifies local entities of government against lawsuits for the failure to prevent crime and apprehend criminals. Were the State of Illinois to repeal this statute and allow such lawsuits, I would be far more sanguine about the prospects of law enforcement’s ability to protect the individual members of the public.

Read the op-ed here. Actually, the premise that the police have no general legal duty to protect any private individual has been recognized, implicitly or explicitly, long before the Supreme Court's 1981 Warren decision cited in the article. Perhaps if more Americans understood that the police have no general legal duty to protect them from violent criminals, they would be far more enthusiastic about acquiring the tools and the training needed to protect themselves and their loved ones. Sadly, unscrupulous politicians (forgive the redundancy) are happy to spread the lie that the police will be there to protect citizens from violent crime, and fearful and uninformed citizens are all too willing to believe those politicians' lies.