Who needs gun bans?
In short, instead of banning guns outright, Illinois legislators will simply make their ownership impossible for all but the richest individuals -- and that's assuming insurance companies would even issue such policies in the first place, as they'd apparently be on the hook for a million bucks any time a homeowner willfully defends his property from violent intruders.
I don't want to stray too far from the point at hand, which is to highlight the ease with which politicians can issue de facto bans on certain activities without actually having to legally prohibit them, but this is not a Second Amendment issue.
Contrary to popular belief, the Second Amendment (supposedly) prohibits the federal government from usurping gun freedom, not the states. While the provisions set forth by the Bill of Rights were never meant to apply to the states, the feds use the incorporation doctrine to continually seize state power. However, the right to keep and bear arms has not been legally incorporated against the states (for the moment, anyway).
I bring up this point because many pro-gun activists are apt to argue that the Constitution should prohibit Illinois from imposing this anti-gun legislation on gun owners. However, while such an overreach by the Supreme Court could give the appearance of preserving the right to bear arms in this particular instance, it would nevertheless result in an overall loss of liberty as the federal government centralized even more of its authority.
Simply put, we should never turn to government in the first place with the naive expectation that it can or should protect our freedom. Rights to life, liberty, and property are not man-made rights; they are natural rights that can neither be conferred nor upheld by the criminal state.
Until we refuse to play the role of servile slave to our government masters, we will remain unfree. And that goes for the ownership of anything from guns to goulash.
6 years 13 weeks ago, 9:24 PM