I wrote an editorial for the Washington Times on the racist nature of Chicago’s new gun regulations. Commentator Old Shooter said it better . . .
The SCOTUS very clearly used, and discussed, the anti-black racist nature of historical gun control laws, and their discriminatory nature and specific effect on the black community, in their opinions. Just as the old Jim Crow Poll Taxes were not specifically directed to any race, they disproportionately affected the poor, which were primarily black, voters. There is no question that this was their intent from the beginning.
Most of the violent crime in the US in general, and in chicago in particular, is black on black violence. The lowest income rates in the Chicago area are among the inner city black community. So the effect of making it more expensive to procure a gun is clearly going to disproportionately impact the black lower SES community.
If you don’t think Daley’s intent is racist, that is, that he specifically intended to be discriminatory against black citizens, consider this: Do you think he is more concerned about the availability of guns in the poor black inner city neighborhoods or in the rich white suburbs? Have you listened to his rhetoric on this? Yet which residents are in greater need of an effective form of self-defense against violent crime?
The probability that a poor black inner city resident will need to defend him/herself against a violent attack is vastly higher than the probability that a wealthy white suburban resident will. Even if he is not intentionally being racist, the effect of the new law will unquestionably be so. Isn’t unintentional racism still racism?