Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Should justices overturn gun prohibition, city will need sensible regulations. ChicagoTribune.com

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Be sure to read the associated 'Featured Articles' in the left-hand side panel.

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...dment-justices

    If the court kills the banShould justices overturn gun prohibition, city will need sensible regulationsJune 07, 2010Back in the 1980s, people did lots of things that might seem hard to understand today. Women sported big hair and shoulder pads. Pop music fans listened to New Kids on the Block. Motorists bought the Yugo, which has been rated one of the worst cars ever built. And Chicago passed a law barring residents from acquiring handguns.

    We can't justify those other developments, but the handgun law passed with the Tribune's support. It was a reasonable attempt to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and reduce the number of homicides, which in 1981, the year before the ban was enacted, averaged more than two a day.

    Today, though, that well-meaning ban's days appear to be numbered. The U.S. Supreme Court, which is now considering a legal challenge to the law, is likely to find it violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

    How much difference would that make? Not as much as we would like. Gang members and other criminals have not had much trouble getting pistols and revolvers. Chicago's murder rate has fallen but remains stubbornly high.

    What's more, many Chicagoans with no criminal history also have ignored the ban:

    One expert has estimated that 100,000 homes in the city may have handguns.

    Even as Mayor Richard Daley rails against the gun ban's critics, the Police Department doesn't seem up to vigorous enforcement of the law. In two recent instances, homeowners have shot intruders with handguns that apparently fall under the ban.

    But so far, the city has not filed charges against the shooters.

    If the law is worth having, it has to be applied even against sympathetic violators. If Chicago's not willing to enforce the law, it won't make a substantial difference if the Supreme Court says Chicago can no longer have it.

    If the Supreme Court knocks it down, though, Chicago will need some new and sensible legislating.

    The court's 2008 decision overturning a Washington, D.C., handgun ban made it clear that the Second Amendment does not preclude less stringent firearms regulation.

    "Like other rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," said the court. The justices indicated that laws barring the carrying of concealed guns, excluding felons and the mentally ill from gun ownership, and forbidding unusually destructive weapons are all acceptable.

    So the justices also may be willing to permit rules requiring handgun owners to undergo safety training, pass background checks, register their weapons and secure them from children. What the court probably won't tolerate is restrictions whose obvious purpose is to make it so hard for citizens to acquire guns legally that they give up.

    We believe the high court should allow state and municipalities maximum discretion on firearms law. We strongly disagreed with the court's 2008 ruling.

    But Chicago has a duty to respect the Constitution as it is interpreted by the Supreme Court, just as Chicago has the right and responsibility to protect its citizens against the abuse and misuse of guns.

    City Hall had better get to work figuring out how to do both.


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    Post imported post

    Is the upcoming supreme court McDonald casesuch a foregone conclusion that the plantiff will prevail, that Chicago is already crying over the outcome before the decision is made?

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I think so, but remember, I-ANAL, an aśśhole and a coward according to |user=45641.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    136

    Post imported post

    I had always wondered how they got away with an outright ban like that. I desperately hope it gets overturned. Even if it does though, there are still plenty of unconstitutional gun control laws in Illinois that are an affront to the 2A, and more importantly, to God. It is, after all, a God-given right. But I guess it's okay, since the People's Republic of Illinois denounces any form of 'religion' being involved with politics. After all, it's a lot easier to strip away rights when you don't believe they come from someone higher upthan Uncle Sam.

  5. #5
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    "...New and sensible..."

    The article admits that a complete handgun ban -That it supports- is useless. Then it tries to say that more legislation is the answer.

    OK.... soooo, This is like switching to a 9mm because you couldn't kill it with a grenade, right?

    I don't understand.

    Or perhaps its like scaling back the tyranny to a level people will accept?

    Overton Window anybody?
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  6. #6
    Regular Member johnny amish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    High altitude of Vernon County, ,
    Posts
    1,025

    Post imported post

    Does anybody know when they intend to rule on this? Sometime before June I had heard last.
    "To sin by silence, when we should protest makes cowards out of men."
    Ella Wheeler Cox


    We must contact our lawmakers today, tomorrow and the next day to remind them of Constitutional Carry.
    Laws are not written because of the actions of many, they are wrtiten because of the inactions of many.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Someone was speculating on the radio, Mark Levin, I think, that the ruling might come out tomorrow or Thursday.

  8. #8
    Regular Member AL Ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    238

    Post imported post

    Let's hope that the people get their rights back...but Chicago politics being what they are, don't expect the politicians to go silently into the night. They will try something else to disarm the sheeple so they can be controlled easier.
    Check out my home page @ www.alabamaopencarry.com and Carry On!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    87

    Post imported post

    They didn't issue the Heller decision until the last day of the session. I wouldn't be surprised tht they do the same this time.

    DC, following the Heller decision, wrote what remains one of the most draconian handgun laws in the nation. They tried to keep an outright ban of semiautomatic pistols, but couldn't, and tried tokeep handguns that are out of production on a banned list, but neither survived. Unfortunately most all else did. Depending on how strictly the McDonald decision is written, look for places like California, New York City and others to keep or write laws that will barely survive strict scrutiny. Look for cities in relatively gun friendly states but which have large populations of liberally leaning folk to attempt similar law. If your state doesn't have county and municipal preemption of gun law by the legislature, look for trouble.

    As always the Supreme Court willdelivera mixed blessing. I've no doubt that "may issue"statues will fall. I'm also sure thatstrict scrunity will be the rule, which will mean the state, county or citywill have to prove an overriding interest, difficult but not impossible. Since the court has already ruled (more than once) thatthe police are not required to protect any single individual,cities and counties have already given up a lot of groundin the area of responsibility for safety, simply put, they can't claim they will protect individuals, when they've already claimed they don't have to.

    Let us hope that they will put some teeth into the phrase "shall not be infringed", that in itself could solve a great many problems.

    The anti gun politicians are not going to go quitely into their good night. They will do all in their power to keep up their fight. the good news there is thatsuch large majorities no longer buy the lie. It will remain on us to help new gun owners to carry and use their arms responsibly, public opinion is fickle and can turn rapidly. No matter how good a ruling SCOTUS makes, we will need to remain ever vigilant about our freedom.

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    I got $20 that the decision follows "party" lines.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  11. #11
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    If the Supreme Court knocks it down, though, Chicago will need some new and sensible legislating.
    I agree 100%.


    I think that Chicago should adopt the most sensible laws in the nation.

    How about using New Hampshire as their model--they have the most "reasonable" laws in the country with regards to purchase, possession, and carry of firearms, IMO...

    Hear that Mayor Daley? You need to give Governor John Lynch and Attorney General Michael A. Delaney of NH a phone call, and get your new laws all lined up, NH-style. It seems to work for them JUST FINE...

    :celebrate :celebrate :celebrate
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggressionand this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    Man am I glad I don't live in Chicago! Then again Wisconsin isn't that much better.....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •