reallyboring.net

The Tribune ran a piece straight out of Reason Magazine proclaiming Chicago the the least-free city in America.

A welcome corrective to the most recent round of adulation that glosses over a bit too much that’s still going awry, including a City Council both meddlesome and overly complaisant to the wishes of the Lord Mayor? A totally justifiable attack on 10.25% sales tax?

No. Rather, they’re pissed that Chicagoans can no longer smoke in bars, must not drive while talking on handheld cell phones, and pay high vice taxes. They characterize the city as having an unhealthy blend of “blue state public health fanaticism” and “reddish state … moral prudery”. Welcome to the Midwest; and welcome, by and large, to common sense.

There are certainly restrictions and activities that they unearth that actually are problematic. The growing surveillance network in the city is absolutely creepy. It sucks that (some) drugs are illegal and the subject of prohibition rather than taxation and regulation; ditto prostitution. But the legal and cultural framework within which this city operates means those things are unlikely to change here anytime soon. When it comes to drugs and sex, it’s quite unfair to blame the city when the state and federal government are the real problems.

By and large, though, the article takes an obnoxious stand on the “fuck you, I’ll do what I want” side of individual rights, and one utterly dismissive of the possibility that the actions of the legislative branch might actually reflect the will of the people governed, even when it reduces their freedoms to act. Good luck stacking up the second-highest population density in the country with that outlook.

Disappointing though I found the article, the subject brings me to two specific things I’ve been meaning to write about.

District of Columbia v. Heller

I don’t actually have a whole heck of a lot to say about this. The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down DC’s handgun ban wasn’t a surprise, and a lot of constitutional legal scholars that I respect seem to agree with their interpretation of the Constitution, even if they dislike the result. It’s certainly possible to agree with the reasoning, and abhor the outcome, which is more or less where I stand.

I grew up in a household with guns, in a city. I even shot them a few times, although I hated it. I don’t like loud noises, and recoil is terrifying. Plus, I have no aim. The guns were stored safely, and only came out on trips out to our family “farm”, or what’s left of it, east of the city. I’ve got no real problem with hunting (as long as you eat it) and shooting skeet, and live mistletoe is cool to have for the holidays, but it’s not my thing. I only shoot with my camera on our annual Thanksgiving “hunting” trip.

I’ve also been robbed at gunpoint, as long-time readers may recall. I certainly recall it, although it made less of an impression on me than you might guess having a gun pressed to your head would.

But if you add up my disinterest in shooting guns, with the fact that I’ve been victimized by one, you can probably guess how I feel about them: not particularly positively. They have their uses, for sure, but there are just too damn many of them floating around, in my opinion, and our culture has an unhealthy attachment to them. The right seems to think we’ll be safer if more people can own guns legally to defend against the crooks who already own them illegally. I think a society like that is no society I want to live in.

So ultimately, and without hope of getting what I want, I think we need a constitutional amendment that enacts sensible regulations on the right to bear arms. Unfortunately, I think the history and culture of this country makes that completely unlikely, and it’s one of the (relatively few) things that I truly deplore about this country.

I don’t predict mayhem on the streets as a result of this decision - it’s already hell out there now compared to countries with reasonable cultural and legal frameworks for firearms. Unfortunately I don’t see any of this changing, with or without gun control laws.

Photographer’s Rights

Something else I feel strongly about is the right to take photos in public places. Chicago’s generally a good town for doing that in, although there was that silly business in Millennium Park, the CTA can be touchy, and that stupid “No Cameras” sign on the gate to the Calatrava bridge construction area in the Loop. I’ve had a couple of awkward encounters in outlying neighborhoods, but nothing serious. Except at the Pride Parade, I actually usually try to keep people *out* of my photos, which makes things easier.

Nonetheless, there is plenty of stupid nervousness in the air thanks to 9/11. The notion that photographers are a security risk is complete and utter horse manure, of course, but the connection has been made in the public psyche, so it’s a good idea to know your rights (and maybe even carry them around with you in your pocket).