Why the Second Amendment Should Be Promoted In Chicago (or ANY Urban Area)


New Study Shows Criminals Don’t Get Guns from Legal Sources
While the suburbs could be decisive for the future of the Second Amendment, urban areas may be prime locations for pro-Second Amendment efforts.

Chicago – -(AmmoLand.com)- When we talk about the future of the Second Amendment, it is correct to note that the suburbs could be decisive. But there is another area which could be ripe for Second Amendment supporters to make gains – and which could help offset any gains made by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg and other anti-Second Amendment extremists.

That place? Chicago.

Well, to be honest, we’re not just talking Chicago. Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami, New York City, Los Angeles, New Orleans. Just about any major urban center of the United States is very ripe for Second Amendment supporters. It may be the most significant vulnerability Bloomberg has.

Here’s why: Many of the major cities have crime problems. Chicago and Baltimore have notoriously high murder rates. Both towns also tend to tilt state-wide races in favor of candidates who oppose our right to keep and bear arms. Philadelphia, while not as notorious, has had 333 murders as of December 18 of this year, higher than Baltimore’s total of 298 so far.

Violent crime is one issue that Second Amendment supporters need to address. While the mass shootings draw media attention, most murders happen one at a time, to say nothing of other violent crimes. Guess who the high rate of violent crime in those cities is blamed on? Not the politicians who have presided over the decline of great cities like Philadelphia, Detroit, Baltimore, and Chicago. It is law-abiding Americans who support the Second Amendment who get the blame.

The good news is that we know what works. You get tough on the violent criminals and put them away for a long time. When you look at 18 USC 924, there are some provisions that are so rarely used, it should be scandalous. Caught with a gun while dealing drugs? That’s a five-year mandatory minimum under 18 USC 924(c). For a career criminal (three violent felony or drug-related convictions) caught with a gun, 18 USC 924(e) provides for a 15-year mandatory minimum.

Now, here’s some bad news for many of those politicians.

The constant rate of violent crime and these scandalously underused tools can be an opening. The conditions have gone on for decades, and Second Amendment supporters have the example of how enforcing the laws can work in Project Exile’s implementation in Richmond, Virginia.

One of the signature cases involved Melvin Smith, who was busted with crack cocaine, a sawed-off shotgun, and a handgun. According to the New York Times, Smith got a 16-year sentence after the federal convictions and went to an out-of-state federal prison. He did have to come back to Richmond, where he was to face trial for six murders. The crime rate, notably murders, dropped.

A number of these politicians will oppose this – crying about incarceration rates. Well, here is a chance to turn Bloomberg’s rhetoric back on him. By fighting a nation-wide version of Project Exile, the politicians who oppose it will have the blood of children on their hands.

While Project Exile is not universally beloved among Second Amendment supporters, it could be the key to opening up urban residents to pro-Second Amendment arguments. Once the inaction of the politicians who have let urban areas fester for decades has been shown, it may be possible to earn the votes of those residents.

Here’s the deal with efforts to make the case in urban areas – we don’t need to win them outright to strengthen our Second Amendment rights significantly. We just need to reduce the margin by which we lose. For example, let’s look at the margins in Baltimore for the 2016 general election. Chris Van Hollen beat Kathy Szeliga by 164,513 votes in the Senate race.

Now, in Maryland, Van Hollen won by racking up huge margins in the DC suburbs of Montgomery County and Prince George’s County. This makes that state a particular case but in many other states. In most other states, though, cutting the margin of defeat in the big metro area (Chicago, Seattle, Philadelphia, or Detroit) can make it easier to win the general election.

In a sense, though, Baltimore could be an ideal location to test efforts to win over urban voters to pro-Second Amendment positions. With the dominance of the DC suburbs, it would be the perfect place to perfect efforts that could shift the terrain in other states and improve the odds of electing pro-Second Amendment statewide candidates.

After all, what is there to lose with this effort if all we accomplish is lower crime?

Harold Hu, chison
Harold Hutchison

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.

  • 13 thoughts on “Why the Second Amendment Should Be Promoted In Chicago (or ANY Urban Area)

    1. As a black man who lives in Philly most of my life until recently can tell you this. The police and govt are weak in enforcing the law. In the past 17 days 2 public transportation buses were riddled with gunfire. No arrests in either case. The the fucking book at them! BUT the criminal fears neither the police or the courts…they must be taught to fear the victim. Not my words but you get the point. That place has become a war zone. Legislation is one way in the meantime, ALL law abiding citizens protect yourself. #veteran #2ndamendmentforall

    2. I like your ideas a lot. Do republican politicians want to win..or to appeal to republican donors. The first is hard. The latter is too easy.

    3. It is beyond my understanding why any person who claims to be an American Citizen would not want to honor our 2nd Amendment. It has been proven over and over that the only way to deal with a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun. Any American who reads and is able to understand the data should immediately understand that our 2nd Amendment is a good thing. To me our 2nd Amendment means that every Citizen of the United States of America should be able to carry a gun for his or her protection without a concealed permit. What is our Constitution for other than to follow? There should be no squabbling or arguing about it, it’s the law of the Country. The 2nd Amendment clearly states “Shall Not Be Infringed” which to all of us law abiding gun owners that means there shall be no law enacted which goes against it or infringes on the rights of us Citizens to keep and bear arms. PERIOD!

    4. While SOME applictions of the mandatory minimum sentence laws MAY be beneficial, many are not.

      Someone I know is, per the laws of his state, a legal grower, processor, and distributore of cannabis and deriviatives. Since that substance remains, illegally a “prohibited substance” per federal law, and since he has his Mother May I Card to carry his defensive handgun everywhere he goes, he thus falls into the category that qualifies for those “mandatory minimum sentences” and could be put away for five years for the mere carring of his handgun when he has packaged commercial product in his car to deliver.

      In the case mentioned here, it seems likely the guy with the short shottty along with his other “items” perhaps needed that long sentence. But WHY pass such a harsh blanket law that also scoops up and locks away (at a cost of some $80K/year to we who pay taxes) someone innocent of anything more “evil” than happening to have, at the same time and place, two unrelated items that the government irrationally and illegally links together?

      This sort of thing is enacted for the sole purpose of making some congresscritters appear to be “harsh on crime”, thus increasing their odds of reelection so they can enact MORE such tripe.

      Ini the case cited, WHY cannot the judges and prosecutors simply take into consideration the evident connexioni between the guy’s “merchandise” and the hardware he carries long with it? In this case, it seems evident the guy is a dangerous dirtbag. Sentence him accordingly. WHAT is the real advantage of sweeping up people like my acquaintance mentioned above, who is merely an honest businessman plying his trade in full complaince with the laws of the state wherein he is a lawful resident?

      The roots of the high crime rates in the urban hellholes mentioned (and others that were left off the list) lie much deeper, and will require more serious remediation than Congress can enact. But, it does appear that some work could/should be done to enlighten the blind lemmings now on a tear to enact increasingly unconstitutional anti-gun laws that only affect the law abiding. The lever yankers continue to pour their money into the vacant crania of the knee-jerk voters.

    5. I think that we are being visited by a new low level propagandist. I think that because this person has never commented here, prior to this and the first comment that he has is negative toward firearms ownership. The next indicator is that his comment is vague and presumes many facts that are not facts. So I will not respond to this person or help him get paid.
      If this person were really interested in the truth, they might read the appropriate Constitutional provision. Please see Amendment II or follow up with the explanatory Federalist Paper 46. The Tennessee Law Review did a Second Amendment Symposium issue that is quite illuminating. Please see Vol. 62 number 3. Or he might just read the Heller case in its entirety. Please see District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), OCTOBER TERM, 2007 [Note: the thorough historical research was done by Prof. Joseph Olson of Hamline Univ School of Law]
      MC and Happy New Knowledge … NUPs everywhere.

    6. The only way to curtail crime is to increase the number of guns on the streets and in the hands of the same people who already have too many. Talk about epitomizing idiocy…

      1. And you drew that conclusion based on what information in this article? I’m trying to follow your thread of logic to see where this article spoke about increasing the “number of guns on the streets”. Can you share the basis of your conclusion?

      2. Increasinv the number of guns on the streets won’t solve the crime issue. Increasing the number of guns in the hands of GOOD GUYS certainly will, as has been proven multuple times by namy different folks.

        WHen the bad guys (with or without guns) realise their likelihood of selecting a victim that will NOT be able to resist is a rapidly diminishing set of odds, some, at least, may well make informed decisions to take up some other line of work.At times I really think the “homeless” population, occupying themselves with fvariosu froms of begging, oanhandling, manipulating government “help” agencies and feel-good’ charities” are simply criminals who have made this decision…. using force to get what you want can be risky, as is proven some three million times a year by Good Guys using their own guns to defend against such violence

        And plase do tell.. how many guns are “too many”, and on what basis do you derive that number?

        My guns are NOT “on the streets” except when I am, and whatever I bring along everywhere I go is also there…… but if “guns on the streets” are a risk, who are not “guns in the home” a similar risk.. except to those who would do harm to innocents?

        Stop listening to that Hogg Boy critter…. money is being put into his pocket to assure the stream of idiocy emanating from his corrupt pie hole continues. Until he is no longer useful to his handlers, then he’ll be taken out with the rest of the trash. Maybe then he’ll have a moment of lucidity and realise how he’s been played for the fool he is. You are in the same camp….. its either gross ignorance or dirty money driving you to troll here.

    7. The low-information voters that typify urban areas simply will not vote for GOP candidates; they will continue to thoughtlessly back the same crooked Democrat politicians they always have. For crying out loud, they voted in Alexandria Cortez, the epitome of an idiot in office! Moreover, they’re inimical to basic liberty and the principles it’s based upon. They couldn’t name all of the Bill of Rights to save their life, or what form of government the Constitution guarantees. They expect government to give them everything they want, including their dim concept of ‘rights’, and deny to conservatives and gun owners our rights!

      I’m not saying it absolutely can’t be done, I’m simply stating the plain fact that it’s incredibly statistically improbable!

      1. Not really, i know some gun owners in Chicago that thought they should vote for HilLIARry. Changed their minds after awhile of laughable explaination as how they are going to probable lose their gun permits and over-sized soft drinks.

      2. Alexandria Cortez………………that should leave all heads shaking with disbelief! I just can’t get over her wining.
        She should be a regular on SNL.

    Leave a Comment 13 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *