The amicus briefs from the anti-rights side in the McDonald v. City of Chicago Second Amendment incorporation case are now appearing online, right at the deadline for filing. That's a whole lot of reading, and I have yet to make significant progress in getting through all of it. Still, a story about the Anti-Defamation League's (ADL) brief caught my eye.
ADL's "friend of the court" brief in McDonald v. City of Chicago points to the long history of gun violence by anti-government and racist extremists. The brief describes three such examples in detail: the June 2009 shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, by avowed anti-Semite and white supremacist James Von Brunn (an incident which left a security guard dead); the April 2000 shooting spree in Pittsburgh by white supremacist Richard Baumhammers (which left five dead); and the deadly standoffs in Waco, Texas in 1993 and Ruby Ridge, Idaho in 1992.Whether or not it is legitimate for any unit of government to disarm "extremists" (who would, presumably, get their "extremist" designation from that very government--which would seem to be a bit of a problem) is a topic worthy of discussion (and I've discussed it in the past), but there's a narrower issue here.
That issue is the fact that Chicago's handgun ban applies to everyone (except aldermen and the like)--not just the "extremists." In fact, although I don't have stats on hand, I'd be willing to bet that a disproportionate percentage of those prosecuted (or persecuted, perhaps) for violation of Chicago's gun laws are themselves members of ethnic minorities--just the folks whose protection the ADL claims to stand for.
Whose side is the ADL really on?
Update: An anonymous comment reminded me of something I should have mentioned myself. The plaintiffs in McDonald v. City of Chicago are themselves racially diverse, with
I'll bet he's thinking "Gee--thanks, ADL!"