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

just-another-sheepdog

July 14th, 2010
1:27 am

I guess that Daly & Chi-town have found how to secede from the United States; something the Republic of Texas couldn’t do some years ago.

As Daly & the current Administration have the same mantra: Americans don’t need the 2nd Amendment – very little will be done by the Obamites.\

Listen up, people,

435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives & 35 seats in the U.S. Senate are up for grabs this November -

VOTE OUT THE DEAD WOOD!!!

Our Congressmen & women are our employees, NOT OUR BOSSES!

[...] Court ruling and notably Chicago’s response, with the city passing new tough laws, this week The Atlanta Journal Constitution offered an editorial from Bob Barr. In his piece Barr offers insight that Chicago, and Mayor [...]

No More Progressives!

July 14th, 2010
10:43 am

Grand Forks

July 12th, 2010
10:12 am
Chicago will become the next Somalia.

Chicago IS the next Somalia, with gang/warlords fighting over drug turf, shooting each other at random, choas in the street and no one with any sense daring to walk down “certain” sidewalks. So, in the end, what’s the difference?

Oldshooter

July 14th, 2010
11:28 am

James: Automobiles are very dangerous, killing and maiming far more people in every age group than firearms. Suppose, living in Chicago, you are allowed to have a car, but only one car, and you cannot drive it except on your own property. Furthermore, no car dealerships are allowed in the city, nor any driver’s education classes, but you must pass a driving test before you can buy your car. HHMMMM…. and driving a car isn’t even a constitutionally protected right, like “keeping and bearing” a firearm is. Would that still seem like good legislation to you?

John D

July 14th, 2010
2:41 pm

No, Oldshooter, but “unwise” doesn’t equal “unconstitutional.”

Tyler S.

July 15th, 2010
1:36 pm

Go f*** yourself, Steve. This isn’t something Daley is jamming down the throats of Chicago residents, there is overwhelming support for the ban within the city. Our elected leaders are just responding to the will of the populous (And before you go calling me a Daley crony or anything, I can’t stand the guy). So if the Supreme Court rules that equal protection requires that gays be allowed to marry, will you support that grant of constitutional power to the federal government the way you support this one? I’m sick of the blatent, downright stupid hypocrisy of the conservative movement.

Hank Williams Jr.

July 17th, 2010
9:14 am

got run off Rodney Ho’s site, so I say to Rodney and his deadbeat bloggers what I always say…….

zzzzz…………zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…zz…………zzzzzzzzzzzzzz……….zzzzzzzzzz………zzz…
boring ass bunch that needs a life…….

No More Progressives!

July 18th, 2010
6:49 am

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.

Well said. The city of Chicago would be much, much better off if the City would crack down on the gangs that seem to shoot each other to pieces on a regualr basis (but they tend to vote for Democrats) and allow the citizenry to defend themselves, as the Constitution allows.

But then, why would anybody expect a Daley-run “machine” to do anything intelligent?

Bob

July 20th, 2010
3:23 pm

Can everyone say “Six pence and none the wiser?” How much time will it take for the courts to strike down this law?

John D

July 21st, 2010
3:04 pm

Who knows if the Supreme Court even can?

The Heller and McDonald rulings are actually fairly narrow (they only concern the right to have a handgun in your home for the purposes of self-defense). The court didn’t speak to a broader proposition than that… Most likely becuase a more far-reaching judgment probably wouldn’t have garnered 5 votes.