|
Home rule is defined in Article VII, Section 6, of the
Illinois Constitution;
it allows local municipalities to impose higher taxes on its constituents and to
pass local ordinances that are more restrictive than state law. Exceptions to
this rule occur in sections where the state does not give the power to local
units of government or preempts their ability to tamper with state law. Those
local municipalities that exercise home rule worship at its altar, and any
infringement on home rule is regarded as an attack on the liberty of local
officials to make their own rules.
In the State legislature any attempt to further preempt home rule is always met
with furious doomsday defense by some senator or representative who represents
districts containing home rule communities. Those proposing further preemption
of home rule are castigated and depicted as being only slightly less evil than
Lucifer himself.
The states that do not allow local municipalities to preempt state firearms law
are Illinois, Hawaii, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Alaska. One of the
areas that Illinois allows home rule communities to govern is the ownership and
sales of firearms. Conversely, Alaska thinks the whole idea of any kind of
restriction on a person’s firearms rights is simply out of the question; why
then the need for preemption? Wise, those Alaskans.
The problem generally recognized with home rule and firearms is that it causes a
patchwork of ordinances that put citizens traveling through these local
jurisdictions at risk. A person may be a law-abiding citizen in one place, but
moves a tenth of an inch further over some invisible line and becomes a
criminal. It doesn’t seem fair, and it isn’t. The argument persistently spouted
by the defenders of home rule is that the citizens should know the law. Do you
suppose legislators know all the special ordinances in the home rule communities
they represent? I’ll bet they don’t, but they expect everyone else to know them.
Without firearms preemption local units of government can tinker with your
Second Amendment rights. They are more than willing to say you cannot own this
gun or that gun. Can you think of any other amendment in the Bill of Rights we
allow local municipalities to restrict? Those who defend home rule view it as
the liberty to make their own rules. Most definitions of liberty include freedom
from government control. Home rule gives a few people, such those on a village
boards of trustees or city councils, the power to take liberty from others. The
standard definition of liberty includes “freedom from despotic or arbitrary
government control and freedom from interference, restriction, and hampering
conditions.”
We have two definitions of liberty here: one – freedom from government control,
and two – freedom to control. Liberty is far more than just a topic of scholarly
discussion. Liberty is what people have lived, fought, and died for. The want of
it is why this country was founded. The Founding Fathers incorporated the
liberties they held dear in the Bill of Rights. Liberty, or the lack of it,
affects everything in our daily lives. Clearly, liberty was not to be meddled
with by every tyrant in every fiefdom throughout the state.
One of those rights embodied in the Bill of Rights is the right to keep and bear
arms. The prevailing thought is that right was guaranteed so that every
individual could protect themselves from criminal attacks and protect our
country from attacks by foreign governments. These are both true, but the
primary purpose of the Second Amendment was to guarantee liberty from the
greatest predator of freedom, man’s own government. The curtailing of the Second
Amendment by home rule also affects our most inalienable right, the right to
self-defense. Every creature on this planet has the right to self-defense. Home
rule often limits the most efficient tool of self-defense, the handgun. We would
think it preposterous to forbid the snake to use its fangs or the cat to use its
claws, yet, mayors, village presidents, city councilmen, and village trustees
think it is their absolute right to be able to limit the right of others. Home
rule ordinances are not what is best for their communities because they are
designed to promote the special interests of mayors, village presidents, city
councilmen, and village trustees. Any ordinance more restrictive than state law
should be ratified by the state legislature. There are two reasons for this:
first, to make sure the particular ordinance complies with
Article VII, section
6 of the Illinois State Constitution, and second, to protect the citizens of
these jurisdictions from the personal agenda of their own local government
officials. While this would require a constitutional amendment, it would expose
these ordinances to the light of debate by broader and more experienced people.
The fear of tyranny is why the Founding Fathers added the Bill of Rights to the
Constitution. If home rule communities want to tax themselves into oblivion, I
guess I don’t much care. It is a different matter when it comes to the right to
keep and bear arms. Some of the leaders of home rule communities talk and act
like despots. I guess, the person who said there is no tyrant like a small
tyrant was thinking of home rule.
The Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) is in the forefront fighting for our
gun rights – we need your support. If you’re not already a member of the ISRA –
join today. To become a member or for more information, please call 815.635.3198
or visit this web page to
join
on-line or download an
application.
|
