http://www.chicagohandgun.org/2007/11/lisa-madigan-our-antirights-at.html
If you only patronize Chicago media, you may not be aware of the historic Supreme Court decision looming on the horizon.
To summarize, the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.) has petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the landmark D.C. Appellate Court ruling that declared several aspects of D.C.'s gun control laws.
In that petition, they slyly attempted to re-phrase scope of the ruling:
Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns.
Luckily, you don't get to be Supreme Court justice without knowing how to recognize a sneaky trick when you see it. The justices returned the scope to address the original court ruling that is being challenged:
Whether the following provisions -- D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 -- violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
For reference, those statues prohibit D.C. residents from possessing a handgun in their home as well as a functional rifle or shotgun. Interestingly, if someone managed to have a grandfathered handgun, they were prohibited from carrying it between rooms of their own home.
But don't feel too bad if you missed this news, residents of Chicago, because your tireless Attorney General, Lisa Madigan did not miss it.
In fact, she co-authored an amicus brief urging the court to hear the case. Before you cheer, take a look at the brief:
This petition implicates the important interest of the amici States in protecting the safety of their residents by restricting access to certain types of particularly dangerous firearms.
Cities such as D.C. and Chicago have the strictest gun control laws in the nation and yet have the highest violent crime rates. The Supreme Court has already ruled, ironically on behalf of D.C., that the police and government do not have a responsibility to protect individual citizens. With 9-1-1 calls in Chicago going as long as 30 minutes without police response, that's good news for Chicago.
The law-abiding citizens of D.C. and Chicago have been disarmed while the violent law-breakers scoff at the ordinances. Gun Control has been shown to be ineffectual in reducing violent crime.
From the respondent's brief:
According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, the city experienced 26.8 murders and 1,481.3 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 1976, the year before gun prohibition began. The crime rate has skyrocketed since then. In 12 of the years between 1980 and 1997, including all nine years from 1989 through 1997, the violent crime rate in the District exceeded 2,000 per 100,000 inhabitants, reaching a high of 2,921.8 in 1993. The high point represented a 97 percent increase in violent crime, 17 years after law-abiding citizens were forbidden from defending themselves with firearms. Moreover, the murder rate climbed as high as 80.6 per 100,000 inhabitants in 1991 - triple the pre-prohibition level. The murder rate is still 32 percent above the 1976 pre-prohibition level.
It is hard to see how Ms. Madigan can defend the notion that her opposition is in the interest of protecting the safety of Illinois residents.
If permitted to stand, it will tend to destabilize the settled understanding of the federal and state constitutional provisions protecting the right to bear arms, and cast a cloud over all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms.
The real truth at last, she simply wants to protect Illinois State's gun laws---at the cost of prevent Illinois residents from protecting their lives and the lives of their families from violent criminals that will respect to gun control law.
REASONS TO GRANT CERTIORARI
I. The Decision Below is Inconsistent with Miller.
Simply incorrect. Miller has been abused by courts to uphold gun control laws for 70 years. Miller was arrested with a sawed-off shotgun, a weapon restricted by Federal law. The Supreme Court ruled only that absent evidence that a sawed-off shotgun was a proper military weapon it could not overturn Miller's conviction on Second Amendment grounds. It readily accepted the fact that all ordinary law-abiding citizens passed the militia test, being, by U.S. Law, members of the unorganized militia. Ironically, the only reason no evidence was presented was due to the fact that Miller had died and no one showed up to contest the petition. In fact, saw-ed off shotguns were and are still used by the military under certain circumstances.
II. The Court of Appeals' Absolute Protection of a Particular Weapon is Without Precedent.
The argument presented is that just because they don't ban all arms, they can ban those arms they choose. They cite State and Federal court rulings in support of this. However, citing bad law is no reason to perpetrate more bad law. After all, the Second Amendment doesn't contain a clause reading "except those arms that make gentler folks pee their pants". One of the founding fathers, Tenche Cox, speaking about the Second Amendment said:
Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
And finally we have the straw-man argument intended to create the hysterical notion that if the Second Amendment protects handguns it could also be interpreted to protect tanks or bazookas.
III. Granting Absolute Protection to "Lineal Descendants" of Founding-Era Weapons in "Common Use" Today Creates an Unmanageable Standard.
To anyone that has read any of the discussions taking place during the ratification of the Bill of Rights or the Federalist papers, it is clear that the intended purpose of the militia was defensive. It is also clear that the original intent was for militia members to provide their own weapons. It is easy to presume, that rather than allowing for tanks or bazookas, that the intent was to allow for the arms needed by infantry, namely pistols and rifles. It would be easy for a thinking court to draw the line on arms at small arms and allow for restrictions on crew-served weapons and weapons that are clearly non-defensive (such as poison gas or nuclear warheads). This type of argument is intended to divert attention away from logical reasoning toward emotional fear-mongering.
I urge everyone to contact Lisa Madigan and voice your displeasure. For someone to purport to defend our rights, it is hypocritical to work against them.
Want to do something about Chicago's clearly illegal handgun ban? Click Here to learn more about how you can help get your rights back!
If you only patronize Chicago media, you may not be aware of the historic Supreme Court decision looming on the horizon.
To summarize, the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.) has petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the landmark D.C. Appellate Court ruling that declared several aspects of D.C.'s gun control laws.
In that petition, they slyly attempted to re-phrase scope of the ruling:
Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns.
Luckily, you don't get to be Supreme Court justice without knowing how to recognize a sneaky trick when you see it. The justices returned the scope to address the original court ruling that is being challenged:
Whether the following provisions -- D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 -- violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
For reference, those statues prohibit D.C. residents from possessing a handgun in their home as well as a functional rifle or shotgun. Interestingly, if someone managed to have a grandfathered handgun, they were prohibited from carrying it between rooms of their own home.
But don't feel too bad if you missed this news, residents of Chicago, because your tireless Attorney General, Lisa Madigan did not miss it.
In fact, she co-authored an amicus brief urging the court to hear the case. Before you cheer, take a look at the brief:
This petition implicates the important interest of the amici States in protecting the safety of their residents by restricting access to certain types of particularly dangerous firearms.
Cities such as D.C. and Chicago have the strictest gun control laws in the nation and yet have the highest violent crime rates. The Supreme Court has already ruled, ironically on behalf of D.C., that the police and government do not have a responsibility to protect individual citizens. With 9-1-1 calls in Chicago going as long as 30 minutes without police response, that's good news for Chicago.
The law-abiding citizens of D.C. and Chicago have been disarmed while the violent law-breakers scoff at the ordinances. Gun Control has been shown to be ineffectual in reducing violent crime.
From the respondent's brief:
According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, the city experienced 26.8 murders and 1,481.3 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 1976, the year before gun prohibition began. The crime rate has skyrocketed since then. In 12 of the years between 1980 and 1997, including all nine years from 1989 through 1997, the violent crime rate in the District exceeded 2,000 per 100,000 inhabitants, reaching a high of 2,921.8 in 1993. The high point represented a 97 percent increase in violent crime, 17 years after law-abiding citizens were forbidden from defending themselves with firearms. Moreover, the murder rate climbed as high as 80.6 per 100,000 inhabitants in 1991 - triple the pre-prohibition level. The murder rate is still 32 percent above the 1976 pre-prohibition level.
It is hard to see how Ms. Madigan can defend the notion that her opposition is in the interest of protecting the safety of Illinois residents.
If permitted to stand, it will tend to destabilize the settled understanding of the federal and state constitutional provisions protecting the right to bear arms, and cast a cloud over all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms.
The real truth at last, she simply wants to protect Illinois State's gun laws---at the cost of prevent Illinois residents from protecting their lives and the lives of their families from violent criminals that will respect to gun control law.
REASONS TO GRANT CERTIORARI
I. The Decision Below is Inconsistent with Miller.
Simply incorrect. Miller has been abused by courts to uphold gun control laws for 70 years. Miller was arrested with a sawed-off shotgun, a weapon restricted by Federal law. The Supreme Court ruled only that absent evidence that a sawed-off shotgun was a proper military weapon it could not overturn Miller's conviction on Second Amendment grounds. It readily accepted the fact that all ordinary law-abiding citizens passed the militia test, being, by U.S. Law, members of the unorganized militia. Ironically, the only reason no evidence was presented was due to the fact that Miller had died and no one showed up to contest the petition. In fact, saw-ed off shotguns were and are still used by the military under certain circumstances.
II. The Court of Appeals' Absolute Protection of a Particular Weapon is Without Precedent.
The argument presented is that just because they don't ban all arms, they can ban those arms they choose. They cite State and Federal court rulings in support of this. However, citing bad law is no reason to perpetrate more bad law. After all, the Second Amendment doesn't contain a clause reading "except those arms that make gentler folks pee their pants". One of the founding fathers, Tenche Cox, speaking about the Second Amendment said:
Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
And finally we have the straw-man argument intended to create the hysterical notion that if the Second Amendment protects handguns it could also be interpreted to protect tanks or bazookas.
III. Granting Absolute Protection to "Lineal Descendants" of Founding-Era Weapons in "Common Use" Today Creates an Unmanageable Standard.
To anyone that has read any of the discussions taking place during the ratification of the Bill of Rights or the Federalist papers, it is clear that the intended purpose of the militia was defensive. It is also clear that the original intent was for militia members to provide their own weapons. It is easy to presume, that rather than allowing for tanks or bazookas, that the intent was to allow for the arms needed by infantry, namely pistols and rifles. It would be easy for a thinking court to draw the line on arms at small arms and allow for restrictions on crew-served weapons and weapons that are clearly non-defensive (such as poison gas or nuclear warheads). This type of argument is intended to divert attention away from logical reasoning toward emotional fear-mongering.
I urge everyone to contact Lisa Madigan and voice your displeasure. For someone to purport to defend our rights, it is hypocritical to work against them.
Want to do something about Chicago's clearly illegal handgun ban? Click Here to learn more about how you can help get your rights back!
