Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Be sure to read the associated 'Featured Articles' in the left-hand side panel.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-06-07/news/ct-edit-handgun-0608-20100607_1_handgun-ban-second-amendment-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.
Be sure to read the associated 'Featured Articles' in the left-hand side panel.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-06-07/news/ct-edit-handgun-0608-20100607_1_handgun-ban-second-amendment-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.
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.
