Chicago thumbs its nose at Supreme Court over gun case

Who says a city council cannot act quickly to address an emergency?  Less than one week after the United States Supreme Court ruled Chicago’s 28-year old gun ban unconstitutional, the city’s mayor and compliant council rushed through a new firearms ordinance designed to address what they apparently viewed as a crisis, if not a catastrophe – that crime-beleaguered citizens of the Windy City might actually decide to lawfully possess firearms for self-protection.  The City’s rapid response to such a situation is nothing short of blatant civil disobedience; a local government thumbing its nose at the nation’s highest Court. 

The lightening speed with which Daley and his cohorts, including the city’s top lawyer, Mara Georges, acted to thwart the Supreme Court’s June 28th opinion in McDonald v. Chicago, was swifter even than that by the District of Columbia following the high Court’s 2008 Heller decision striking down the three-decades old gun ban in the nation’s capitol.  While not identical in the particular steps each of these two local governments took to avoid complying with the Court’s rulings, the results are the same.  The regulations instituted by the city councils make it virtually impossible for the citizens of their respective cities to exercise their recently-revived Second Amendment rights in any realistic or meaningful way.

Let’s take the Daley anti-firearm ordinance (the “Responsible Gun Ownership Ordinance,” as he labeled it).  Here’s just a sampling of what a Chicagoan now must do in order to take advantage of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling:

  • He or she cannot purchase a firearm anywhere within the Chicago city limits; Daley’s law prohibits any gun sales anywhere in the city, whether by a retailer or a private citizen.
  • The citizen can have only a single firearm within their home; at least only one gun that is actually operable.
  • That single, functioning firearm cannot lawfully be taken anywhere outside the four walls of the home itself.  That means, literally, a citizen facing an armed assailant on the porch, in their yard, or in their garage, cannot defend themselves with their one lawfully-possessed firearm, without being in violation of Daley’s edict.
  • Even before the city resident can possess that one, operable firearm inside their home, they will have to successfully complete a city-mandated training program in order to obtain a city-issued firearm permit.  Of course, there will be no place within the city that the applicant might obtain such training, because no firing ranges can be operated lawfully inside city limits.

Lest there be any doubt what the true intent of Daley and his colleagues was in passing this ridiculously restrictive ordinance, Hizzoner and other city aldermen made their intent crystal clear in remarks following passage.  Alderman Dan Solis said the city’s action was made necessary because the Supreme Court’s decision simply “was not in the best interests of our citizens.”  Another alderman, Sharon Denise Dixon, exhibiting her obvious Supreme Court-level legal ability, denounced the court’s “blatant misreading of the law.”  The “poor judgment” exhibited by the five members of the high Court who ruled against the City in the opinion, would now be rectified by what I am sure the city leaders consider their own “superior judgment” and their “correct reading” of the Constitution.

Beyond the particulars of the case, Daley’s obstinacy sets a great example for the citizenry – if you disagree with a court ruling, don’t comply; just exercise your power as a government “leader” and circumvent the decision.

The city’s latest anti-firearms ordinance already has been challenged in a lawsuit.  Those of us who believe in the rule of law can but hope that the judges who will ultimately decide the issue, will slap down this blatant government disobedience in the clearest and harshest terms.

110 comments Add your comment

[...] Continue here: Chicago thumbs its nose at Supreme Court over gun case – Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) [...]

David Caruthers

July 12th, 2010
1:35 pm

For the idea tha “Battleships” were never allowed for private ownership. They were until they became unprofiable.

Have you ever heard of a Privateer ( the International Nautical Term), and Letters of Marque and Reprisal. The Privateer was a private warship and Leters of Marque and Reprisals were licenses to prey on “enemy” shippiing or evern warships if you thought you could win.

Without going deep into the details of the constitution I can’t tell you for sure whether the Executive or the Legislative branch of the government had the power to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, though I think it was an Executive privilege.

So, we have historically had private ownership of warships, just not recent.

DEC

John D

July 12th, 2010
2:05 pm

David–

I suppose at the time there was less of a practical distinction between a warship and a privately owned commercial vessel.

That said, the very fact that Congress is separately empowered to grant letters of marque suggests to me that armed seagoing vessels stand outside the Second Amendment’s definition of “arms.”

Phyllis Tomlinson

July 12th, 2010
2:24 pm

I grew up in Chicago and I have one thing to say to you, Mr Barr…YOU ARE AN IDIOT!

OIFVet@USC

July 12th, 2010
2:56 pm

Gee, Phyllis, both sides were having such an intelligent disscussion until now. I will say to you what I would say to anybody on either side of this important issue. Cite your reason for or against the right to keep and bear arms and support it with why you think you are correct. Calling our host an idiot does neither you, nor those who would agree with you any justice.

JimInMT

July 12th, 2010
2:57 pm

In violation of, and thumbing nose at, the Supine Court of the United States? Isn’t that, in essence, what our side advocates? Consider, if Congress usurps powers not granted by the Constitution, and creates privilege of Executive Order to the President, aren’t those things the courts have yet to strike down? And, if they do not? We have the only recourse left: to thumb our noses at SCOTUS, Congress and the President, regardless of party or faction or longevity in office, or of the unlawfulness of their actions and “codes”. It’s called “nullification”, Mr. Barr. And, while I do not like what Chicago is doing, I am not entirely unsympathetic to “representatives” (until voted out of office) doing exactly what they are doing. Push comes to shove. At some point, the people of Chicago will have to decide who they want representing them: SCOTUS or their own thugs…

JimInMT

July 12th, 2010
3:02 pm

John D cites “needful rules and regulations”.

Will you be so kind as to tell us where in the US Constitution that phrase resides? It seems to me that was a construct of SCOTUS, not the Framers.

JimInMT

July 12th, 2010
3:05 pm

Leif Rakur states: “It is “the right of the people” as a society to form their own government for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence says so.”

Remind you all: the Declaration of Independence is NOT NOT NOT the “law of the land”.

JimInMT

July 12th, 2010
3:08 pm

David S. said: “but the thugs who HAVE all of the guns (Daley’s police force) would certainly stand in the way of any mob.”

I would bet there are far more “privately held” arms in Chicago than all the military and SWAT crap the cops have at their disposal. So, if the entire citizenry of Chicago were to take to the streets…..

JimInMT

July 12th, 2010
3:13 pm

John D is wrong: “Even among very strong gun control opponents, there is generally an agreement that the Constitution does not protect a right to private ownership of, say, chemical weapons.” I can buy rat poison at local stores, I can buy RAID at any hardware store OR food store that carries same. These ARE chemical weapons, as are spray paints, propane tanks, drain cleaners (the really toxic kinds), and many many many drugs obtainable over the counter (ask any Meth lab tech).

JimInMT

July 12th, 2010
3:16 pm

John D is wrong, again: “Likewise, few oppose measures that aim to disarm felons or the insane.” Many states restore rights to those who have served their felonious sentences or been adjudicated as “sane”, for the plain and simple reason that it would be unconstitutional to prevent someone who is otherwise not qualified (by reason of insanity, for instance) to the full ‘equal protection of the laws’.

John D

July 12th, 2010
3:23 pm

Jim–I don’t think I have time to address your other points, but the “needful rules and regulations” clause is in Article IV, section 3.

Among the several questions the Court dealt with in Dred Scott was whether Congress had the power to prohibit slavery in federal territories (i.e. territory to which the Art. IV s. 3 applies).

They went through an “original intent” argument and decided that even though the provision says “all needful rules and regulations,” it should in effect be read as though it said “all needful rules and regulations, except as regards the institution of slavery.”

It’s a bit dated, I know, but it’s a good example of “originalism” giving rise to content beyond that which appears in the constitutional text.

John D

July 12th, 2010
3:25 pm

Jim said: “John D is wrong, again: “Likewise, few oppose measures that aim to disarm felons or the insane.” Many states restore rights to those who have served their felonious sentences or been adjudicated as “sane”, for the plain and simple reason that it would be unconstitutional to prevent someone who is otherwise not qualified (by reason of insanity, for instance) to the full ‘equal protection of the laws’.”

You appear to be agreeing with me here.
A person who has been pardoned is no longer a felon.
A person who has been adjudged sane is no longer insane.

These are not the classes of people I referred to earlier.

Mike H

July 12th, 2010
4:22 pm

You southern folk are so naive. Nobody cares in Chicago and nobody is worried about the upheaval of murders except politicians and people in the poorest of areas.

None of the murders have taken place in the areas where the majority of the tax-paying citizens live. Check out the recent map on the Chicago Tribune’s Red-eye site.

Tripp

July 12th, 2010
4:29 pm

I’m very largely conservative. Closer to Libertarian than Republican. And have enjoyed several conversations at fraternity alumni events with our good host…

But the idea that owning a gun is part of “natural law”… A right with which our creators endowed us? Get over yourself and your redneck mentality. Handguns are a modern development (modern in the grand scheme of “creators” and “nature”. So how is owning one part of “natural law”?

Guns are rarely used for self-defense during crimes. There is no reliable, stastically significant difference in the types and frequency of crimes committed when people use guns to defend themselves – except for one. Women defending themselves using guns are statistically significantly at much higher risk of then being raped versus the results of defending themselves with other weapons.

I strongly support the right to own guns. And I think Chicago is being foolish, partisan, and headstrong in this matter. But some of you idiots really discredit the right to own guns movement when you say stupid things like “natural law”. So stop. Because you make me think that stupid people should probably not own guns.

Dr. Pangloss

July 12th, 2010
5:12 pm

“The citizen can have only a single firearm within their home; at least only one gun that is actually operable.”

Gee, Bob, you’re getting paid to be a journalist. Try to make your pronoun agree with the antecedent.

So in Chicago, you won’t be able to take a gun to church as you can in Louisiana?

Or into a bar as you can in Tennessee, Virginia and Ohio?

Or onto a college campus as you can in Colorado and Utah?

And they won’t allow convicted felons and ex-mental patients to carry concealed weapons as they do in Arizona?

And they won’t give a carry permit to anybody with a nominal sum of money as they do in Georgia, Mississippi and Utah?

Sounds as though Chicago is trying to preserve this thing we called civilized life.

Grand Forks

July 12th, 2010
5:16 pm

“I grew up in Chicago and I have one thing to say to you, Mr Barr…YOU ARE AN IDIOT!”

Such nice people, Chicagoans are.

Tricky

July 12th, 2010
5:16 pm

Didn’t you you “accidentally” fire a gun at your house a few years back. As I remember you were hosting a party for NRA nuts or something and no one could remember who pulled the trigger, But of course no one was ever in any danger from that. Perhaps we should only listen people that have not had accidental discharges in their own home.

Jefferson

July 12th, 2010
5:31 pm

So who’s gonna do anything about it?

OIFVet@USC

July 12th, 2010
5:41 pm

Dr. Pangloss, it will undoubtedly be up to the people of Chicago and the state of Illinois to stand up and demand the same restoration of rights that almost the entire country is now enjoying. That is not in dispute. If the majority continues to keep electing Daley and like politicians to office, then there will be little or no change, with or without favorable Supreme Court rulings, and regardless of how the rest of the country feels. Chicago and Washington, DC are free fire zones now and they might remain that way because of the assured “victim status” of their law abiding populous.

What you failed to mention was that where there are armed law abiding citizens with a minimum of use of force self defense training, and especially where concealed carry is allowed, there are fewer gun crimes and fewer gun accidents; that according to the U.S. Department of Justice’s own National Institute of Justice/Bureau of Justice Statistics and the annual FBI Uniform Crime Report. Further, 48 out of 50 states now have these laws in effect. Should Chicago, Washington, DC and a few other holdout jurisdictions that still cling to the old draconian gun control laws of the 20th century be viewed as special cases and separate from the rest of us?

OIFVet@USC

July 12th, 2010
5:56 pm

Sorry Tricky, Bob Barr did not misfire a weapon at his home or anywhere else. Another person, a lobbyist, was handing a century old antique Colt to Barr to look at when it went off. The lobbyist still had the gun in his hand. Since the weapon was not pointed at anybody, nobody was injured. It was a lesson learned by all that evening to not be complacent around firearms. Perhaps the same could be said of swimming pools, ATVs and automobiles which claim more lives through accidents than firearms. I knew that you would want to know …

Tricky

July 12th, 2010
6:13 pm

I asked if he had an accidental discharge, I do recall that the lobbyist said “one of us” pulled the trigger, that doesn’t seem to rule out anyone. One thing we can agree on though is that it was a lesson learned…about Bob Barr.

Mark Carruthers

July 12th, 2010
6:50 pm

John D- In response to your earlier post about the second amendment not being an absolute right without limit and never allowing battleships, nuclear weapons and such. When the second amendment was ratified with the rest of the constitution it was treated as absolute. Keep in mind that in that time frame, citizens were allowed every type of weaponry that the military at the time had. It wasn’t until later in history that militaries started to invent bigger and better ways of killing enemy that restrictions started to appear in this right. This is the same reason that any restrictions in the small arm category of weapons is an absolute infringement. In regards to the first amendment, you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. In regards to the second, nuclear weapons-F 22 Raptors-M1 Abram tanks, that is fire in a crowded theater. Restrictions on how many and what type of small arm you can own is the equivalent right infringement of saying the first amendment does not allow you to speak negatively about democrats and republicans.

John D

July 12th, 2010
7:01 pm

I disagree!

But I have to go!

Daryl

July 12th, 2010
7:20 pm

That’s all the amendment says? Guess what? It also includes the words “well regulated.” Why not mention that, too? Because it negates your second sentence about “no other Constitutional right requires….” Exactly. No other amendment includes the words “well regulated” either. So you really have no point.

Jeff, Your comment shows a distinct lack of intelligence even for one of Daily’s boy’s. If the founding fathers had meant gun ownership was restricted or illegal don’t you think they would have restricted or confiscated all firearms after the revolution? As for the well regulated comment, read the whole paragraph if you can.

Mark Carruthers

July 12th, 2010
7:44 pm

John D- To be continued then.

H. Vinson

July 12th, 2010
7:52 pm

Reminds me of the Arizona situation between the feds and state (or city, in this case).
It would appear that the city feels that it can over-ride the Constitution, the Supreme Court and common sense. I seem to be missing the liberal outrage. Let’s see if Holder files suit!

Steven Pawloski

July 12th, 2010
8:02 pm

Enter your comments here

Hunk Williams Jr.

July 12th, 2010
8:51 pm

TRY TO TAKE MY DAMN GUNS……………

Dwatney

July 12th, 2010
9:39 pm

Daley is just jealous that he can’t give the Supreme Court the big middle finger on national TV to as large of an audience as Obama did during the State of the Union address.

Leif Rakur

July 13th, 2010
2:26 am

There are two kinds of well regulated militias. The first is the one in which all militiamen move their bowels on time, and the second is the kind that is governed by the rule of law, or as George Washington put it, by “a well regulated Militia Law.” The first kind is sometimes referred to a “smoothly operating” militia, but it is the law-abiding kind that the Second Amendment refers to and that Washington wrote about:

“But your first object should be a well regulated Militia Law; the People, put under good Officers, would behave in quite another Manner; and not only render real Service as Soldiers, but would protect, instead of distressing, the inhabitants.” (George Washington to William Livingston, governor of New Jersey, January 24, 1777)

Workhorse 95

July 13th, 2010
4:02 am

John D it is obvious from your own arguments and postulations that the limitations on consitutional rights are considered when the excercising of my rights infringes upon yours, ie. right to swing arm ends at your nose. So why should my right to bear arms end at the walls of my house if I can get mugged in the dangerous streets of Chicago, ie. having my rights terminated by a criminal, taking away my inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, don’t I have a right to limit their violence and protect my self. Excercising that right does not infringe on your rights maybe just your sensibilities, but using your point and your logic that is not the same as infringing upon your rights and therefore is not the same and would not be reason to limit my right to bear arms. It is a horrible waste of tax dollars in an era we as American can ill afford mishandling of revenues, and obviously from statistics the wrong direction to protect citizens, but the right direction to disarm and control an electorate, to gain and control our government, and obviously the government isn’t concerned about the costs of these legal defenses as much as advancing a agenda. Some mention the will of the people, why do they get elected? Look at their answers to surveys from NRA and Christian Coalition, “No Response”. In our founding only well educated were allowed to vote, now we have people in the schools in Chicago dumbing down the populace so they don’t realize they have a responsibility to protect their freedom and understand the process, and we are finding ways for illegals to vote. If a man cannot in with integrity tell you his beliefs don’t vote for him, “its above my pay grade” what a joke. A woman as Mr. Franklin upon the founding of our nation “What form of government did you give us, a monarchy? His reply, “no a republic as long as you can keep it.” They all knew that some will think they know better than the rest how we should live, and probably for their own ends, but that as a union we truly understand what they gave their lives defending and yet today in this one right as an example we yield. The one most important right, the right that defended our freedom. I think Patrick Henry said something like if you loose this republic I will repent in heaven for the sacrifices we have made. Why be so pationate about the limitations of our rights than about protecting them everyday, maybe because you don’t trust your own judgement.

Workhorse 95

July 13th, 2010
4:07 am

Sorry for the quick long post in the wee hours of the morning, should have proof read but you get the point. Fill in the blanks on the theys.

Eli Jones

July 13th, 2010
7:58 am

Barack Obama’s Amnesty will cost American retirees 2.6 Trillion in retirement benefits as your money is redistributed between Obama’s legalized illegals and retiring or retired Americans. Social Security will be decimated with retirees checks reduced to maybe half if you are lucky. How generous do you feel with your grandchildren’s financial future? Amnesty serves two purposes for Obama, one being Obama getting a 20 Million union organized Democrat voting bloc. Obama will use your money to pay for the massive entitlements to buy these people’s votes. Another purpose Obama has for legalizing the illegal’s is that it will redistribute American’s wealth and make all American’s poorer and therefore more vulnerable to forced social change. This fuels Obama’s Marxist ideology and his dream of a Global government dominated by Marxists and Muslims. Below are some information sites on Obama’s Amnesty and what it will cost you, your children and their children’s children.
You can stop a lot of Obama’s tyranny and nonsense by voting out his rubber stamp Democrats this November!

(SITES OF VERIFICATION)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/white_house_spin_masks_the_rea.html

———————————
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/06/Amnesty-Will-Cost-US-Taxpayers-at-Least-26-Trillion

——————————–
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/06/White-House-Report-Hides-the-Real-Costs-of-Amnesty-
and-Low-Skill-Immigration
———————————-
http://www.limitstogrowth.org/articles/2010/05/14/illegal-alien-costs-considered/

Eli Jones

July 13th, 2010
7:59 am

“THIS IS WHO ELENA KAGAN IS”

She is a radical judicial activist, who agrees with former Justice Thurgood Marshall that the Constitution given to us by the Framers was “defective” and that it contained “outdated notions of liberty, justice and equality.”
Her “judicial hero” is former Israeli justice Aharon Barak, who said a judge “may give a statute a new meaning…[t]he statute remains as it was, but its meaning changes, because the court has given it a new meaning that suits new social needs.”
She is anti-military and pro-homosexual. While dean of the Harvard Law School, she kicked military recruiters off campus, in defiance of a federal law which had been upheld by the Supreme Court on a unanimous vote. She said she “abhorred” the military’s ban on open homosexual service, and called it a “moral injustice of the first order.”
She believes in the supremacy of international law over the Constitution. While dean at Harvard Law, she dropped the required course in the Constitution and replaced it with a required course on international law.
She is pro-abortion and anti-life. She has contributed financially to pro-abortion groups, and believes that abortions should be taxpayer funded.
She believes that the government may ban political pamphlets and books during an election season, in violation of the First Amendment’s free speech protections.
She is anti-Second Amendment. She is “not sympathetic” to the claim that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms under the Constitution.
She is pro-Muslim. At the same time she kicked military recruiters off campus, she allowed Saudi Arabia to recruit lawyers for work on Shariah-Compliant Finance.
She is anti-capitalist and pro-socialist, once writing glowingly of “socialism’s greatness.”
Former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork said that if Kagan is confirmed “you will have a court that is much more to the left than we have today.”
She advocated using public funds to fund sex change operations for Harvard students

Brad

July 13th, 2010
10:03 am

How much money is/has been wasted trying to tweak the second amendment to fit Mayor Daley’s perverted wishes regarding gun control?If the mayor put that money towards the cities deficit perhaps Chicago would be a whole lot better off.

Bob

July 13th, 2010
11:00 am

Had Enough Said: “Actually Jeff the constitution calls for a militia that was to be controlled by the president in times where a militia was needed.”

I don’t think you know what a “militia” was back in the 18th Century. Back in 1787 there were no permanent standing armies or paramilitary police forces or any of that. The militia, formed as a state defense force, by ordinary citizens, not a military elite, was the only permanent military force ready to defend the nation. Each citizen of the militia was expected to learn how to fire a firearm on their own and thus having an armed, but well regulated, society. The regulation, but not prohibition, of firearms, plus English Colonial common law supporting necessary self-defense, is to be protected by the 2nd Amendment. A citizenry, as a whole, that is prohibited to learn to properly fire a firearm cannot defend his community or nation. This point was so important that the Constitution convention felt the need for such of an amendment.

Also, in the Constitution, there is nothing that states the militia was only to be used by the President, like some standing national army. This has never been true in our Republic. Governors have called militias, sometimes on behalf of the locals officials, since the start of the Republic.

Now I am not for a lack of gun regulations. In fact I believe the punishment for the abuse of guns should be more severe. Committing a crime, with a gun, should be more harshly punished than it is today.

rspock

July 13th, 2010
12:14 pm

There is a lot of anti-gunner disinformation out there about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, particularly the phrase “well regulated militia”. If you read period documents (1790s, or even Jules Verne) you’ll discover it does NOT mean ‘lots of regulations’ or the National Guard. Here it is translation into modern day English – as supported by the Supreme Court:

“Because a well equipped and well practiced {=well regulated} military eligible citizenry {=militia} is necessary to keep a nation free, the right of citizens {excludes felons, etc} to own and carry weapons shall not be infringed.

Notice the first phrase is a non-exclusive justification – not a restriction.

And no you can not carry a nuke.

Gman

July 13th, 2010
12:27 pm

Only in Georgia would people even consider electing someone to be governor without a college education…

TX Patriot

July 13th, 2010
1:48 pm

I think John D got out because he realized he was losing the argument.

Most of the respondents are arguing about the terminology. And that could keep the arguments going indefinitely. Well regulated, in military terms, means disciplined and able to accurately hit what you are aiming at. But “shall not be infringed” is pretty straight forward. None of the other Amendments contain that phrase.

The 2nd Amendment is the one that allows us to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. It is not about self defense from criminals.

It's a shame what he did to that dog

July 13th, 2010
1:55 pm

“Only in Georgia would people even consider electing someone to be governor without a college education…”

Not sure what that has to do with a gun law. Either way, you should check out Chicago politics. They have elected and non-elected leaders who don’t even have a GED.

[...] to exercise their recently-revived Second Amendment rights in any realistic or meaningful way.-[source] July 13th, 2010 | Tags: Chicago, civil rights, corruption, Democrat, firearms, gun control, laws, [...]

JimInMT

July 13th, 2010
5:09 pm

John D – You totally [and no doubt intentionally] misconstrued Article 4, Section 3, which you cite as justification for infringing on the “right to keep and bear arms” which “shall not be infringed” [by any government]! Here are the exact words of Article 4, Section 3, IN CONTEXT, relating to “rules and regulations”: “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States”. This ONLY relates to the disposing of or making “rules and regulations” concerning FEDERAL property, not ANY State lands, and not private residences, the latter two of which Federal Constitution does not have ANY discretionary powers. There appear to be people on this thread who do not possess a simple understanding of “context”. Bowing out because losing the argument, makes sense to me.

John D

July 13th, 2010
6:48 pm

I didn’t bow out because I was losing; I bowed out because it was my sister’s birthday and I took her out for dinner. And then I played God of War III for awhile. And then I went to work.

Jim, just to clarify: I didn’t bring up Article IV as a possible source of a Congressional power to regulate firearms, I brought it up, in the context of Dred Scott, as an example of how “originalism” can sometimes lead us to absurd interpretations of constitutional text.
In Dred Scott, the Supreme Court read that provision as though it had a whole extra clause saying that it didn’t apply to slavery (they also read it as though it said it only applied to federal territories the United States owned in 1787).

I only brought the provision up as a criticism of originalism.
It has nothing to do with gun control (except maybe in Guam, Puerto Rico, and so forth).

John D

July 13th, 2010
6:55 pm

I want to make clear for the record, though, that I generally oppose gun control as knee-jerk and ineffective.

That said, I also generally support the right of the people to govern themselves–subject of course to the strictures imposed by the Constitution.
What I’m doing here is musing about the SCOPE of the individual right protected by the Second Amendment… Which is, of course, equivalent to musing about the extent to which the citizens of the states, wisely or not, can legitimately attempt to control the use and ownership of firearms in their midst.

Fundamentally, all Daley is doing is helping us FIND that line by passing an ordinance as borderline compliant with McDonald as could possibly have been written.

This thing’s sure as #$^& headed back for the courts.

Scout

July 13th, 2010
7:25 pm

I propose this as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

“Judicial interpretations of this Constitution shall be made in accordance with the common meaning of the language at the time it was written and no foreign rulings or opinions will be considered in its application.”

Tyler S.

July 13th, 2010
7:50 pm

Seriously, F*** you all! You state rights jerk offs will fight tooth and nail for the right to discriminate, gay bash, and and electrify yourselves at local levels, but all of a sudden a liberal city in a liberal state bans guns, and state rights fly out the window. I live in Chicago, and I want to know why you suddenly think you have any right to tell MY city what to do? There’s a lot of gun crime in this city (most in the country, in absolute terms), and the gun ban exists for a very specific reason, to reduce the number of guns available to commit those crimes. We, as a local government have decided to legislate at the local level to solve a local problem. The really sad part is that if we were spreading hate and intolerance at a local level, we;d have your full support.

x-usaf(ss)

July 13th, 2010
9:48 pm

Give a state,county ,or city the ability to vary a constititutional limitation on
their governance and look at what you get-Thanks a lot Supreme Court!

JOMA

July 13th, 2010
10:03 pm

Grand Forks,,,,it already has been Somalia. The south and west sides have been like war zones every night for the last fifeteen years since I have been a paramedic. It is total war zone, try driving through the west side on a warm night.

Steve

July 14th, 2010
12:04 am

Whoa Tyler, you must be a lib. Watch the speech please. Just because Daley does not like the 2nd Amendment does not mean that he and his henchman can ban it. This is a right that we use for self defense if it comes down to that. The 2nd exists to protect the 1st. What if Daley & Company decided they did not like what they were hearing or reading in this comment section? If you don’t want a firearm don’t buy one—be a sheep. But don’t try to regulate everyone else to conform to just what you or Daley wants. Daley is a thug and you can bet he is protected by gun totin’ bodyguards—he just doesn’t want anybody else to have the same protection. Put the man-suit on Chicago and stand up and be counted.