A way to prevent incorporation of the Second Amendment against the states?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0801edit1aug01,0,1174999.story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0801edit1aug01,0,1174999.story
Tribune recommends that Chicago surrender
- Thread starter F4GIB
- Start date
- Status
Solo Flyer
member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2008
- Messages
- 581
Chicago, guns and the court
August 1, 2008
Wilmette's gun ban is history. Morton Grove, which passed the nation's first handgun ban, followed suit on Monday. Those towns repealed their laws because the U.S. Supreme Court in June knocked down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban. Local officials say they don't have the resources to fight challenges to their laws in court.
There's another good reason for their decisions: They would lose. The Supreme Court has made that clear.
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, though, insisted last week that the city would defend its handgun ban in court. "Morton Grove can do anything that it wants," Daley said. "I don't look at this lightly—that, 'Oh, because the Supreme Court's done it we're just gonna dismiss it and all of a sudden people can arm themselves.' "
Like Daley, this page strongly disagreed with the court's ruling. We admire his stand on this issue. But the court ruling was clear and explicit: A blanket ban on handgun ownership is unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment.
Fighting in court to uphold Chicago's ban might buy some time, but at a high cost. The city will pay for lawyers and then it will lose. Better to focus on a law the city can successfully defend.
That doesn't mean that Chicago should abandon its duty to protect public safety and its crucial mission to keep guns off the city's streets. The Supreme Court's decision said that the right to own a gun under the 2nd Amendment "is not unlimited." The court didn't offer much elaboration on that. But that means there's still likely to be ways for state and local governments to impose reasonable restrictions on the sale and ownership of firearms that don't rise to a complete ban on possession. Such measures will have a decent chance of passing legal muster—if they are designed to ensure that firearms are permitted only to those who can use them safely for sport and for self-protection.
That is happening in Washington, D.C. The city recently replaced its handgun ban with a series of requirements for prospective gun owners. They can register a weapon if they clear a background check, pass a vision test and a written test of gun safety knowledge. They must keep their pistols at home, unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks. The guns can be loaded and used only if the owner reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger from an attacker in the home.
That last provision, and the rest of the law, is already being challenged, by the same plaintiff who successfully challenged the D.C. gun ban in the first place.
The Supreme Court said a requirement that a lawful firearm in the home must be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock is unconstitutional unless it contains a provision that allows for self-defense. The courts will determine if the new Washington law goes far enough in protecting that right.
But there is still room for strong license and safety requirements, and that's what Chicago should explore.
Some gun advocates also accuse D.C. officials of concocting a cumbersome process to discourage gun ownership. Those officials have hinted that the city's gun registration bureaucracy could be grindingly slow. Chicago already knows how to play that game. Anyone who's grappled with the City Hall bureaucracy to get a tree trimmed or a building permit knows how Chicago's bureaucracy can plod along.
We share Daley's anger at the 5-4 ruling of the Supreme Court. It was based on flawed legal reasoning, ignored precedent and will lead to years of litigation about the constitutionality of various firearms restrictions.
But there are no more appeals to that ruling. A handgun ban such as the one Chicago passed in 1982—well, the high court made clear that that's dead.
Chicago will have to prepare to live with that ruling and find other ways to protect the public. Might as well start now.
August 1, 2008
Wilmette's gun ban is history. Morton Grove, which passed the nation's first handgun ban, followed suit on Monday. Those towns repealed their laws because the U.S. Supreme Court in June knocked down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban. Local officials say they don't have the resources to fight challenges to their laws in court.
There's another good reason for their decisions: They would lose. The Supreme Court has made that clear.
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, though, insisted last week that the city would defend its handgun ban in court. "Morton Grove can do anything that it wants," Daley said. "I don't look at this lightly—that, 'Oh, because the Supreme Court's done it we're just gonna dismiss it and all of a sudden people can arm themselves.' "
Like Daley, this page strongly disagreed with the court's ruling. We admire his stand on this issue. But the court ruling was clear and explicit: A blanket ban on handgun ownership is unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment.
Fighting in court to uphold Chicago's ban might buy some time, but at a high cost. The city will pay for lawyers and then it will lose. Better to focus on a law the city can successfully defend.
That doesn't mean that Chicago should abandon its duty to protect public safety and its crucial mission to keep guns off the city's streets. The Supreme Court's decision said that the right to own a gun under the 2nd Amendment "is not unlimited." The court didn't offer much elaboration on that. But that means there's still likely to be ways for state and local governments to impose reasonable restrictions on the sale and ownership of firearms that don't rise to a complete ban on possession. Such measures will have a decent chance of passing legal muster—if they are designed to ensure that firearms are permitted only to those who can use them safely for sport and for self-protection.
That is happening in Washington, D.C. The city recently replaced its handgun ban with a series of requirements for prospective gun owners. They can register a weapon if they clear a background check, pass a vision test and a written test of gun safety knowledge. They must keep their pistols at home, unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks. The guns can be loaded and used only if the owner reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger from an attacker in the home.
That last provision, and the rest of the law, is already being challenged, by the same plaintiff who successfully challenged the D.C. gun ban in the first place.
The Supreme Court said a requirement that a lawful firearm in the home must be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock is unconstitutional unless it contains a provision that allows for self-defense. The courts will determine if the new Washington law goes far enough in protecting that right.
But there is still room for strong license and safety requirements, and that's what Chicago should explore.
Some gun advocates also accuse D.C. officials of concocting a cumbersome process to discourage gun ownership. Those officials have hinted that the city's gun registration bureaucracy could be grindingly slow. Chicago already knows how to play that game. Anyone who's grappled with the City Hall bureaucracy to get a tree trimmed or a building permit knows how Chicago's bureaucracy can plod along.
We share Daley's anger at the 5-4 ruling of the Supreme Court. It was based on flawed legal reasoning, ignored precedent and will lead to years of litigation about the constitutionality of various firearms restrictions.
But there are no more appeals to that ruling. A handgun ban such as the one Chicago passed in 1982—well, the high court made clear that that's dead.
Chicago will have to prepare to live with that ruling and find other ways to protect the public. Might as well start now.
:banghead: 
:banghead: 
:banghead: "Oh, it's that pesky Supreme Court again. That's allright because I, the mighty Emporer Dickie Daley, know what is good for you my loyal subjects."
Even the anti-gun author of this article knows exactly what is going on in DC and says that is how Chicago should handle it. Drop the ban, but wrap it up in so much red tape and bureaucracy that the end result is still the same.
Hopefully DC gets the kick in the butt that they need and we won't have this kind of nonsense with the next ban to be struck down.
SCKimberFan
Member
...and the people of Chicago keep people like Daley in office and give us candidates like Barack Obama.
txgolfer45
Member
What do the Chicago Tribune, Mayor Daley and the City of Chicago have to fear from law abiding citizens? :banghead:
It's a well written editorial by the Tribune. Fairly pragmatic.
Richie Daley is gonna have to give something up. And that is very, very satisfying to see--because of his natural Boss' obstinacy. But the stronger his fight against the SCOTUS ruling, the more he'll tie himself and his bureaucracy up.
Like one of those Chinese finger traps.
The RKBA is on its way back to the Windy City....
Richie Daley is gonna have to give something up. And that is very, very satisfying to see--because of his natural Boss' obstinacy. But the stronger his fight against the SCOTUS ruling, the more he'll tie himself and his bureaucracy up.
Like one of those Chinese finger traps.
The RKBA is on its way back to the Windy City....
PirateRadio
Member
I need to move.
There are far too many stupid and ignorant people around here.
There are far too many stupid and ignorant people around here.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Ah, yes. The delight of imposing restrictions on rights.
Though no chance of actually protecting victims from criminals...
It's great to have self-protection legitimized as a purpose for having guns. Thank you Heller.
Suggests that they are doubtful. Good.
"Hint-hint. Here's what we suggest." --Chicago Tribune
Flyboy
Member
On the other hand, if everybody backs down for fear of incorporation, doesn't that achieve the same end? We can always file if one city is bold enough.
siglite
Member
The only flawed legal reasoning was that the ruling wasn't worded such that the NFA registry must be opened or abolished, and true "militia-appropriate" weapons such as M16s be legal for the populace.
SCKimberFan
Member
"What do the Chicago Tribune, Mayor Daley ... have to fear from law abiding citizens?"
Their jobs! They should be removed from office!
Their jobs! They should be removed from office!
Starship1st
Member
Mayor Daily and the idoit mayors of D.C. and San Fran-sicko want to hold out? They want to bankrupt their cities all to cling to a stupid idea. I am glad that Tucson has not gone over to liberals.
FieroCDSP
Member
Like exorbitant registration costs, severe limitations on what guns can be owned, and then maaaaybe we'll let you have it.
It's going to take federal marshalls hauling Fenty and his goons off to jail for Dailey to realize he's already lost.
I sent the following letter to the editor. It is probably in the electronic waste basket by now, but...
"Supreme Court ruling or not, I am sure Chicago politicos and police will continue to find a way to prevent black people from owning guns. That, after all, was the purpose of the law; as in the District of Columbia, crime was the excuse, not the reason.
Maybe they could impose a literacy test. "
Jim
"Supreme Court ruling or not, I am sure Chicago politicos and police will continue to find a way to prevent black people from owning guns. That, after all, was the purpose of the law; as in the District of Columbia, crime was the excuse, not the reason.
Maybe they could impose a literacy test. "
Jim
Gator
Member
118 comments on the editorial so far, and ALL are pro-gun!
Prince Yamato
Member
Hey Folks, look at the bigger picture here:
The Chicago Tribune just stated that Chicago needs to drop its handgun ban.
No, it wasn't a pro-gun article by any means, but if I told you all in 2006 that the editorial board of the Tribune would print an article like this, you would all think that I was a madman. We're winning. Let's keep pushing.
The Chicago Tribune just stated that Chicago needs to drop its handgun ban.
No, it wasn't a pro-gun article by any means, but if I told you all in 2006 that the editorial board of the Tribune would print an article like this, you would all think that I was a madman. We're winning. Let's keep pushing.
mike101
Member
Zip said:
"Well, there must not be any crimes committed with handguns in Chicago right now, huh?
Anyone know?"
I lived in Chicago for a year and a half in the early 90s, in the Gold Coast, a nice neighborhood. Lots of high-rise condos, and bars on Division St.. Three blocks to the west on Division, stands Cabrini Green, probably the most notorious public housing project in the US.
Every Friday night without fail, I could hear gunfire coming from the Green. It's so bad that last year, the History Channel devoted an entire episode of 'Gangland' to Cabrini Green.
It's run by a well armed drug gang called the 'Gangster Deciples'. The report said that hundreds of people have been shot there over the last couple of decades (since the gun ban). And this is in just one project.
Daley's whole anti-crime campaign is BS to keep getting him elected. Chicago PD is far too busy collecting graft from bar-owners (to ignore the fact that they ignore Fire Code capacity limits every night), and far too busy rousting drunken Yuppies and suburban college kids on Division.
One night, my pizza guy was mugged right in front of my building. The doorman looked on and did nothing. I admonished him for not calling 911. I saw cars being broken into all the time. I saw smash and grabs being perpetrated on store-fronts in Lincoln Park. While I was there, a rape was committed on an El platform, while a bunch of commuters looked on. Nobody lifted a finger to help, or to call a cop. One Tue. afternoon, I called 911 to report a crime in progress. Nobody answered the damned phone!
And it's gotten worse since then. You may recall a thread here a few months ago, about Daley arming the CPD with 'assault rifles'. Fenty is doing the same thing in DC. That's not an indication that things are improving.
Nothing Daley has done has kept guns away from criminals, just like every other crime-ridden US city.
My qustion is, how many times does SCOTUS have to rule on the same issue, before their ruling sticks?
Daley should be tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail.
"Well, there must not be any crimes committed with handguns in Chicago right now, huh?
Anyone know?"
I lived in Chicago for a year and a half in the early 90s, in the Gold Coast, a nice neighborhood. Lots of high-rise condos, and bars on Division St.. Three blocks to the west on Division, stands Cabrini Green, probably the most notorious public housing project in the US.
Every Friday night without fail, I could hear gunfire coming from the Green. It's so bad that last year, the History Channel devoted an entire episode of 'Gangland' to Cabrini Green.
It's run by a well armed drug gang called the 'Gangster Deciples'. The report said that hundreds of people have been shot there over the last couple of decades (since the gun ban). And this is in just one project.
Daley's whole anti-crime campaign is BS to keep getting him elected. Chicago PD is far too busy collecting graft from bar-owners (to ignore the fact that they ignore Fire Code capacity limits every night), and far too busy rousting drunken Yuppies and suburban college kids on Division.
One night, my pizza guy was mugged right in front of my building. The doorman looked on and did nothing. I admonished him for not calling 911. I saw cars being broken into all the time. I saw smash and grabs being perpetrated on store-fronts in Lincoln Park. While I was there, a rape was committed on an El platform, while a bunch of commuters looked on. Nobody lifted a finger to help, or to call a cop. One Tue. afternoon, I called 911 to report a crime in progress. Nobody answered the damned phone!
And it's gotten worse since then. You may recall a thread here a few months ago, about Daley arming the CPD with 'assault rifles'. Fenty is doing the same thing in DC. That's not an indication that things are improving.
Nothing Daley has done has kept guns away from criminals, just like every other crime-ridden US city.
My qustion is, how many times does SCOTUS have to rule on the same issue, before their ruling sticks?
Daley should be tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail.
If gun control worked, the two cities with the toughest gun control laws should be the safest. Instead they are close to the two worst. Dickie should wake up and smell the coffee. He won't, though. He will just keep on trying to limit handguns as much as the courts let him get away with.
charon
Member
To be fair, the CPD has a LOT of operational and infrastructure issues, including lack of numbers, that are budget related and caused by Daley and his community bribe programs, general waste, graft, and corruption. Only so much money you can squeeze from the turnips living in the tax capital of the US, and no desire to spend that on law enforcement. Particularly on expensive warm bodies. Also, NO support for the cops from City Hall, but 100% support for the outraged community activists complaining about any real policing. The CPD cops hate daley as much as any of us, for much the same reasons.
That's why he likes gun control so much. He can deflect the real problems and not have to pay for the real solutions. He also just appointed a new "top cop" from the FBI who has managed to alineate virtually the whole department. Check out the second city cop blog sometime. http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/ A very pro 2nd Amendment/CCW site as well, BTW.
Go Chalkie, Go!
armoredman
Member
Gun control isn't, and never was about crime. It's about politicians worried about thier hides, being taken to task for the things they have done, by a population able to do so.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
