Gun registration in California? They just signed a law giving gun owner information to outside parties..

[Abatis]

He knows all about Belleville’s because I schooled the idiot on the fraud…the revoking of his award and the guy getting fired……..he knows all about that….

I assumed he was familiar with Bellisises' "work"; the way the "fact" of rare gun ownership was recited, it's being recalled as an emotional construct. It's obvious he's one of those who reads something like Bellisiles that so confirms a bias and fills a space in their narrative, that it is committed to memory in a box that is immune to any review or reconsideration.

It can't ever be proven wrong, even when the hypothesis and conclusion are debunked and disgraced -- feet are stomped, fists are clenched, spit is spitttled; it just has to be true . . . So it is!

 

[JoeB131]

None of that is the true nature of gun rights vs. gun control and none of the emotional import you feel from those things, alters the legal realities of the protection of right to arms or even the criteria for the right to be disabled for people who have been convicted of crimes or who have been legally declared insane.

Except crazy people still get guns and still commit mass shootings... that's the thing. And at my last workplace, I usually had to go through three security doors to get from one place to another.

As usual, all your posts are, are peeks into the alternate reality you have invented for the COTUS, SCOTUS and gun law in general, that allows you to hold the stupid positions you hold.

Nothing you say "happened in Miller" actually, really, "happened in Miller" . . . It is just your imagination spouting shit.

What happened in Miller was that the 1934 National Firearms Act was upheld. The NRA has been trying to water it down ever since.

Yeah, guns were rare which is why it was so important for the British to ban and confiscate them . . . You do know Bellesiles is a fraud, right? The lying POS won Columbia University's Bancroft Award in 2001, and Columbia rescinded it in 2002, the only time ever . . .

Okay, you guys tell yourself that...

The FBI said there was no racial animus, they investigated Long and found no evidence of racial motivation.

Sorry.

Sure, he just shot those Asian ladies for sexual frustration...

It's funny you guys don't believe the FBI when they claim Trump colluded with the Russians, but you totally beleive them when they spend five minutes on a case and take some racist punks word for it.

Here's what Ray says in your article.

"And while the motive remains still under investigation at the moment, it does not appear that the motive was racially motivated. But I really would defer to the state and local investigation on that for now," Wray said.

Wow- talk about passing the buck!

Point is, if he was sexually frustrated, why didn't he shoot up one of the Strip Joints he passed by to get from the first massage parlor to the second and third ones he hit?

It's easy to find people willing to make the grand diagnosis after the person has done the crazy, that's too late though.

The people in a nutjob's life are the first line of protection (or defense), they are the ones who know the person best and see the changes but often deny the troubles are there and the person is delayed in being helped.

Okay, let's look at that.

Joker Holmes university was in the process of disenrolling him.
The VA Tech shooters behavior was so disturbing they wouldn't put him in classes with other students.
Adam Lanza's Mom was looking to put him in a home.
Nikolas Cruz was in an out of the legal system for years.

All these people had NO PROBLEM GETTING GUNS.

Now, here's the thing. Right now, I am going through the process of getting a home loan. I'm close to 60, I have gotten five mortgages/home equity loans in the past and have completed them, have no credit card debt AND have a credit score of 813.

But this bank is STILL asking me for a lot of documentation to establish my financials. Why? because back in 2008 (four years after I took out my last loan) a bunch of idiots defaulted on their mortgages for the McMansions they never should have been sold to start with. So now the banks are being extra, extra careful.

Good on them.

The Gun industry should be held to the same standard. When some nutbag they sold a gun to shoots up a place, we really, really need to be extra, extra careful who we sell guns to. Kind of makes sense.

 

[JoeB131]

I assumed he was familiar with Bellisises' "work"; the way the "fact" of rare gun ownership was recited, it's being recalled as an emotional construct. It's obvious he's one of those who reads something like Bellisiles that so confirms a bias and fills a space in their narrative, that it is committed to memory in a box that is immune to any review or reconsideration.

It can't ever be proven wrong, even when the hypothesis and conclusion are debunked and disgraced -- feet are stomped, fists are clenched, spit is spitttled; it just has to be true . . . So it is!

Or that he just didn't meet an arbitrary standard of scholarship...

But his point still stands... guns in those days were an expensive luxury most people didn't need and couldn't afford, and had little practical use.

 

[danielpalos]

The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.

 

[2aguy]

Except crazy people still get guns and still commit mass shootings... that's the thing. And at my last workplace, I usually had to go through three security doors to get from one place to another.



What happened in Miller was that the 1934 National Firearms Act was upheld. The NRA has been trying to water it down ever since.



Okay, you guys tell yourself that...



Sure, he just shot those Asian ladies for sexual frustration...

It's funny you guys don't believe the FBI when they claim Trump colluded with the Russians, but you totally beleive them when they spend five minutes on a case and take some racist punks word for it.

Here's what Ray says in your article.

"And while the motive remains still under investigation at the moment, it does not appear that the motive was racially motivated. But I really would defer to the state and local investigation on that for now," Wray said.

Wow- talk about passing the buck!

Point is, if he was sexually frustrated, why didn't he shoot up one of the Strip Joints he passed by to get from the first massage parlor to the second and third ones he hit?



Okay, let's look at that.

Joker Holmes university was in the process of disenrolling him.
The VA Tech shooters behavior was so disturbing they wouldn't put him in classes with other students.
Adam Lanza's Mom was looking to put him in a home.
Nikolas Cruz was in an out of the legal system for years.

All these people had NO PROBLEM GETTING GUNS.

Now, here's the thing. Right now, I am going through the process of getting a home loan. I'm close to 60, I have gotten five mortgages/home equity loans in the past and have completed them, have no credit card debt AND have a credit score of 813.

But this bank is STILL asking me for a lot of documentation to establish my financials. Why? because back in 2008 (four years after I took out my last loan) a bunch of idiots defaulted on their mortgages for the McMansions they never should have been sold to start with. So now the banks are being extra, extra careful.

Good on them.

The Gun industry should be held to the same standard. When some nutbag they sold a gun to shoots up a place, we really, really need to be extra, extra careful who we sell guns to. Kind of makes sense.

Except crazy people still get guns and still commit mass shootings

Over 330 million people in the U.S.

12 people committed mass public shootings in 2019.

2 people in 2020.

10 people in 2018.

Out of over 330,000,000..............

Total killed in 2020.....5

Total killed in 2019....73

Deer kill 200 people every year.

Lawn mowers kill between90-100 people every year.

Ladders kill 300 people every year.

Bathtubs kill 350 people a year.


You are irrational and insane.

 

[2aguy]

Or that he just didn't meet an arbitrary standard of scholarship...

But his point still stands... guns in those days were an expensive luxury most people didn't need and couldn't afford, and had little practical use.

Wrong.....it was a frontier society and gun ownership was a Right, even then.....

 

[2aguy]

Except crazy people still get guns and still commit mass shootings... that's the thing. And at my last workplace, I usually had to go through three security doors to get from one place to another.



What happened in Miller was that the 1934 National Firearms Act was upheld. The NRA has been trying to water it down ever since.



Okay, you guys tell yourself that...



Sure, he just shot those Asian ladies for sexual frustration...

It's funny you guys don't believe the FBI when they claim Trump colluded with the Russians, but you totally beleive them when they spend five minutes on a case and take some racist punks word for it.

Here's what Ray says in your article.

"And while the motive remains still under investigation at the moment, it does not appear that the motive was racially motivated. But I really would defer to the state and local investigation on that for now," Wray said.

Wow- talk about passing the buck!

Point is, if he was sexually frustrated, why didn't he shoot up one of the Strip Joints he passed by to get from the first massage parlor to the second and third ones he hit?



Okay, let's look at that.

Joker Holmes university was in the process of disenrolling him.
The VA Tech shooters behavior was so disturbing they wouldn't put him in classes with other students.
Adam Lanza's Mom was looking to put him in a home.
Nikolas Cruz was in an out of the legal system for years.

All these people had NO PROBLEM GETTING GUNS.

Now, here's the thing. Right now, I am going through the process of getting a home loan. I'm close to 60, I have gotten five mortgages/home equity loans in the past and have completed them, have no credit card debt AND have a credit score of 813.

But this bank is STILL asking me for a lot of documentation to establish my financials. Why? because back in 2008 (four years after I took out my last loan) a bunch of idiots defaulted on their mortgages for the McMansions they never should have been sold to start with. So now the banks are being extra, extra careful.

Good on them.

The Gun industry should be held to the same standard. When some nutbag they sold a gun to shoots up a place, we really, really need to be extra, extra careful who we sell guns to. Kind of makes sense.

Moron...they aren't asking you if you are insane.....which you obviously are....they want to know if you are a fucking deadbeat who won't pay them their money...

You idiot.

 

[FA_Q2]

Moron, we can’t execute people anymore……….he has no reason to lie.

Just like Smollett, Garner, Covington, hands up don't shoot (he even brings up Russia and then directly lies about what the FBI stated in the Russia investigation) and the rest of the outrage generating memes, the incident or the facts around it are not important. It is not important that the shooting was not racially motivated, it makes a better narrative if it was so it is. Details and facts are meaningless now, only narrative matters.

It is why he does not point to any relevant facts, just complaints that he did not hit the places that Joe thinks he should have hit. Somehow, because they were filled with white people even though that is an outright lie as well. Again, narrative.

 

[FA_Q2]

The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.

Oh look M14, he cant complain that you are insulting him so now he is just pretending you never even brought up any points....

What a shocker.

 

[Abatis]

Except crazy people still get guns and still commit mass shootings... that's the thing.

And again, you are using essentially slang as a proxy for a legal circumstance and insisting your word has a meaning and effect in law that it just does not have.

In the real, legal world, just because the mailman or the lunch-lady or the cashier at the Quickie-Mart says somebody is "crazy" (or they knew he was "crazy" after an incident) doesn't mean shit regarding the real legal ability to take someone's gun away or barring them from buying one.

Again, for what, the 5th fucking time, explaining this legal concept to you, this time in purple and capitalized:

TO HAVE ANY FIREARM PROHIBITION IMPOSED, THE PERSON NEEDS TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED TO A MENTAL INSTITUTION BY A DOCTOR OR ADJUDICATED AS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE BY A JUDGE.

Only then, after those official determinations and due process, will the legal mechanism to impose a gun dispossession on that person kick in . . .

For you to keep harping on "crazy people can get guns", well, make sure crazies get the help they need and those government agents who's job it is to record and enforce those restrictions, do their duty.

Your apparent cure to the problem of crazy people getting guns, (people who were never diagnosed nor committed or adjudicated), is to say restrict guns for people who are sane and not criminals.

Funny that such a crazy idea is presented as a solution for the issue of crazy people with guns.

What happened in Miller was that the 1934 National Firearms Act was upheld. The NRA has been trying to water it down ever since.

Wrong. Have you ever read the case or do you just get talking points from Vox or ThinkProgress or Salon or some other cabal of anti-gun doofuses?

Why don't you actually read the case, then copy the ACTUAL QUOTES that you feel prove your point, paste them in a post and parse them and explain to me the reason why you end up with what you claim, "happened in Miller".

Sure, he just shot those Asian ladies for sexual frustration...

It's funny you guys don't believe the FBI when they claim Trump colluded with the Russians, but you totally beleive them when they spend five minutes on a case and take some racist punks word for it.

Because of the immediate outcry from the grievance mob, the FBI went and looked for hate crime evidence. They didn't find any evidence of a racial component thus no federal hate crime interest, so the FBI's involvement was over.

Here's what Ray says in your article.

"And while the motive remains still under investigation at the moment, it does not appear that the motive was racially motivated. But I really would defer to the state and local investigation on that for now," Wray said.

Wow- talk about passing the buck!

Correct, there was much remaining to be investigated by the local and state authorities. The only interest for the feds was for possible federal hate crime charges, the FBI was not interested or involved in the case once the narrow, limited federal jurisdiction question was decided.

Okay, let's look at that.

Joker Holmes university was in the process of disenrolling him.
The VA Tech shooters behavior was so disturbing they wouldn't put him in classes with other students.
Adam Lanza's Mom was looking to put him in a home.
Nikolas Cruz was in an out of the legal system for years.

All these people had NO PROBLEM GETTING GUNS.

Correct, because again, none of them ever met the legal criteria to have their right to possess (or purchase) a gun, legally disabled. (putting aside Lanza doesn't even fit into your argument).

Why don't you get your panties in a twist over Devin Patrick Kelley?

How was he able to buy a gun and kill 26 people?

https://media.defense.gov/2018/Dec/07/2002070069/-1/-1/1/DODIG-2019-030_REDACTED.PDF

.

 

[Abatis]

Okay, you guys tell yourself that...

No, it's you lying to yourself . . .

Back in the late '90's and early 2000's, there was so much anti-gun crap being thrown against the wall (law review articles, 2nd Amendment symposiums) because the individual right model was gaining ground fast in academia and law. The various "collective right" models were crumbling and anti-gun academia needed to try to keep some foothold of relevance and devise some way of impugning the individual right interpretation.

Worst among those articles were Carl Bogus' infamous "Hidden History of the Second Amendment" and Bellesises' "Arming America". There was also Saul Cornell's "Well Regulated Militia" which tried to maintain some foothold for the "collective right" theory by conjuring a "conditioned individual right"; OK, OK!!! it's an individual right, BUT . . . !

Bogus and Cornell and others were arguing their legal interpretations; Bellesises claimed he was arguing from historical fact . . . These "facts" that so fit into a political narrative, many people bought in to his crap. That's what makes his actions so egregious; he torpedoed a lot of well known, well respected historians because they jumped on board with him.

The one guy spouting the narrative that "gun ownership was rare in the constitutional period" was proven to have faked his data, forged his sources and written a fraudulent article (then book) and he was proven to be what the majority of anti-gun "academics" are, political driven charlatans.

His embarrassment and debasement wasn't something done on the demand or at the behest of the gun lobby, it was forced by the integrity of real historians and the reputational preservation instinct of the trustees of Columbia University, rejecting and denouncing Bellesiles and demanding he surrender the Bancroft Prize.

.

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong.....it was a frontier society and gun ownership was a Right, even then.....

You keep telling yourself that. Most people didn't live on the frontier, and in fact, the Revolutionary War was in part because the British Government didn't want to instigate more wars with the Native Americans by sending more settlers into the territories just won from the French in the French and Indian War.

No, it's you lying to yourself . . .

Back in the late '90's and early 2000's, there was so much anti-gun crap being thrown against the wall (law review articles, 2nd Amendment symposiums) because the individual right model was gaining ground fast in academia and law. The various "collective right" models were crumbling and anti-gun academia needed to try to keep some foothold of relevance and devise some way of impugning the individual right interpretation.

Yes, exactly. Prior to the 1990's, people didn't believe there was a god given right for crazy people to have guns.. Then the NRA needed to sell more guns and started pushing "Guns as a right" bullshit. Something they didn't even believe.

The ironic thing was the NRA was started by a Civil War General who was horrified that so many Americans never had guns and had no idea how to use them when the civil war broke out.

 

[Abatis]

Yes, exactly. Prior to the 1990's, people didn't believe there was a god given right for crazy people to have guns.

So it looks like I nailed it, everything you "know" was learned at Vox or ThinkProgress or Salon or HuffPo . . . Have you ever cracked open a history book or is everything you know about history a derivative of your politics?

Then the NRA needed to sell more guns and started pushing "Guns as a right" bullshit. Something they didn't even believe.

Everything you think you know is a goddamned lie.

Actually, the shift in academia was a product of a liberal anti-gunner's epiphany. In 1989, Yale Law Review published a seminal law review article that challenged the legal intellectual elite to begin a true examination of the 2nd Amendment.

The Embarrassing Second Amendment was written by Sanford Levinson, and his arguments were compelling and the (mostly liberal) legal academic community did what he challenged them to do, and the "militia right" and "state's right" and "collective right" interpretations began to wither under their scrutiny--as the NY Times noted in 2007 writing about the case that preceded DC v Heller, "A Liberal Case for the Individual Right to Own Guns Helps Sway the Federal Judiciary ".

It is important to understand why Levinson titled his article the way he did; to liberals like him, especially those formally trained in the law and even worse, constitutional law in the mid 20th Century, finding out what they were taught, what they believe about the 2nd Amendment was totally wrong . . . was, well, embarrassing (this sense of surprise is spoken of in the NY Times article).

Sanford Levinson upset that paradigm and the deluge of anti-gun propaganda that followed his article, written by anti-individual right "intellectuals" like Saul Cornell, Carl Bogus, Jack Rakove, Michael Dorf, Adam Winkler, Erwin Chemerinsky and yes, Michael Bellesises, erected castles in the sky in the 90's and early 2000's, to try to disprove the individual right interpretation.

Understand that those "militia / state's / collective right" theories were never legitimate, never recognized or endorsed by SCOTUS. Those theories were, as I've mentioned before, inserted in the federal courts in two lower federal court decisions in 1942, and were embraced and endorsed by the leftists in academia -- BECAUSE OF AND IN SERVICE TO, THE STATIST, COLLECTIVIST, AUTHORITARIAN LEFTIST POLITICS THEY ALIGNED WITH.

In the federal legal system, the individual right interpretation was the only interpretation until 1942; that was when your theory began, which means your theory is the newcomer. The question is, for what purpose was the anti-individual right interpretation crafted and promoted and why do you embrace and support it?

The answer is the same . . .

You have adopted your anti-Constitution / anti-rights and especially anti-gun rights positions not derived from knowledge of the Constitution and rights theory and the 2nd Amendment and what it is, what it does and its enforcement . . . Your positions on and about the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment comes from a place of hate for those who vote for your political opposition. Your hostility for gun rights and especially gun rights supporters is first grounded in in their opposition to your politics , not by any grand altruistic sentiment or concern for public safety.

You don't know what you don't know and what you think you know is propaganda, which is why you have no factual or legal argument in support of your posisitions, it is all politics . . .

 

[danielpalos]

There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.

 

[JoeB131]

So it looks like I nailed it, everything you "know" was learned at Vox or ThinkProgress or Salon or HuffPo . . . Have you ever cracked open a history book or is everything you know about history a derivative of your politics?

Actually, I hold degrees in History and Political Science.

But never mind, those actually came from a State University, not one of those colleges that teach about Talking Snakes in Science Class.

Everything you think you know is a goddamned lie.

Actually, the shift in academia was a product of a liberal anti-gunner's epiphany. In 1989, Yale Law Review published a seminal law review article that challenged the legal intellectual elite to begin a true examination of the 2nd Amendment.

Blah, blah, blah,... not interested.

Reality- before the crazies took over the NRA, government had no problem passing common sense gun control laws, and even the NRA supported them.

Black Panthers walking the streets with guns? Let's pass a law to stop that!

 

[JoeB131]

You have adopted your anti-Constitution / anti-rights and especially anti-gun rights positions not derived from knowledge of the Constitution and rights theory and the 2nd Amendment and what it is, what it does and its enforcement . . . Your positions on and about the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment comes from a place of hate for those who vote for your political opposition. Your hostility for gun rights and especially gun rights supporters is first grounded in in their opposition to your politics , not by any grand altruistic sentiment or concern for public safety.

Oh, I agree, that you Gun Nutters leak your poison into other parts of our politics, but um yeah, 43,000 gun deaths, 70,000 gun injuries, 400,000 gun crimes.

You guys claim to love liberty, but have created a police state around your fetish. We have trigger-happy police armed like soldiers because they never can tell who is going to dispute a moving violation with bullets. You want a society based on fear, because the gun industry is making a fortune off of it with NO accountability.

 

[2aguy]

Oh, I agree, that you Gun Nutters leak your poison into other parts of our politics, but um yeah, 43,000 gun deaths, 70,000 gun injuries, 400,000 gun crimes.

You guys claim to love liberty, but have created a police state around your fetish. We have trigger-happy police armed like soldiers because they never can tell who is going to dispute a moving violation with bullets. You want a society based on fear, because the gun industry is making a fortune off of it with NO accountability.

And the other side...

600 million guns in private hands......over 19.4 million Americans can carry guns legally in public for self defense.........



American use those legal guns 1.2 million times a year to stop rapes, stabbings, beatings, robberies, and murders, as well as also stopping mass public shootings when they are allowed to have their legal guns with them...



Gun deaths...the truth....



2019...



Gun murder...10,235



Gun accidents...486



Of the gun murder deaths....over 70-80% of the victims are not regular Americans....they are criminals...murdered by other criminals in primarily democrat party controlled cities....where the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians have released them over and over again no matter how many times they are arrested for felony, illegal gun possession and violent crimes with guns...that's on you and your political party...not normal gun owners.





Gun suicides... 23,491...





Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop brutal rapes, robberies, beatings, knifings, murders......according to the Centers for Disease Control, and 1.5 million times according to the Department of Justice.



Lives saved....based on research? By law abiding gun owners using guns to stop criminals?



Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct





that makes for at least 176,000 lives saved—



Money saved from people not being beaten, raped, murdered, robbed?.......





So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.

Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 trillion per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.

I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.

When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”

Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”

So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.


Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns

 

[JoeB131]

And the other side...

600 million guns in private hands......over 19.4 million Americans can carry guns legally in public for self defense.........

That's like saying we had a million flights in 2001, but only three of them crashed into buildings...

That was still three too many.

 

[2aguy]

That's like saying we had a million flights in 2001, but only three of them crashed into buildings...

That was still three too many.

No...dipshit...that would be like saying we had one plane crash so now we have to end flying forever.......you idiot.

 

[Abatis]

Actually, I hold degrees in History and Political Science.

But never mind, those actually came from a State University, not one of those colleges that teach about Talking Snakes in Science Class.

So you paid good money for a bad education . . . My condolences.

The "university" that gave you your degrees teaches a religion more brain-rotting and faith-based than any Bunghole Baptist U.

Blah, blah, blah,... not interested.

I understand it can be disorienting when you learn the force that destroyed your beliefs came from inside your house, instead of that evil house up on Gun Lobby Hill.

Reality- before the crazies took over the NRA, government had no problem passing common sense gun control laws, and even the NRA supported them.

Reality is not something you are familiar with. Before 1967, federal gun law was virtually non-existent and the laws that did exist were very narrow and targeted on actual criminals. There wasn't any reason for Republicans or even the NRA to be rigid and unbending "gun control" opponents because the leadership then was under the delusion that there wasn't a growing movement inside federal Democrats to ban all guns.

An awakening did occur in the 1970's

Black Panthers walking the streets with guns? Let's pass a law to stop that!

You keep harping on the Mulford Act but your ignorance doesn't allow you to see the futility of that line of argument as it relates to the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment was not enforceable on the states and since California has no RKBA provision in its state constitution, the state legislature considered itself unrestrained in writing restrictive laws on guns.

If you want to see what racially motivated gun control looks like, examine Washington DC . . .
The political elites watched the demographics flip in the late 60's and by 1970 blacks outnumbered whites 537,512 to 209,272.

With the city in economic ruin and devastated from the '68 riots and a rocketing crime wave it's really no surprise the nervous DC elites in power enacted a handgun ban in the mid-'70's (of course it didn't do shit).

Same can be said for your city and state. Illinois added a so-called RKBA provision in the state constitution in 1970 but with an important caveat, "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (Art. I, § 22)

It's not surprising Chicago and other Illinois cities passed handgun bans in short order. And none of those laws implicated the 2nd Amendment until 2010 when SCOTUS incorporated the 2ndA under the 14thA in McDonald v Chicago.

Parading around state gun laws passed before 2010 as having anything to say about what the 2nd Amendment is or does, is just stupid.