Posted on 06/27/2008 1:19:36 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
(CNSNews.com) - Following Thursday's Supreme Court ruling on gun rights, Second Amendment groups are preparing to challenge gun bans in cities other than Washington, D.C.
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) announced Thursday they already have filed a federal lawsuit challenging Chicago's long-standing handgun ban. The case is McDonald v. City of Chicago.
The National Rifle Association has said it also plans to challenge gun bans in Chicago and San Francisco.
"Chicago's handgun ban has failed to stop violent crime," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. In Chicago, it is illegal to possess a handgun within city limits, unless the gun was purchased before the 1982 ban took effect. (There are some exceptions for police officers and city leaders.)
Other guns -- not handguns -- can be registerd, but the process is onerous, critics complain.
Plaintiffs in McDonald v. City of Chicago include four city residents who want to keep handguns in their homes. (Otis McDonald is a retiree who has been working with police to rid his neighborhood of drug dealers and who wants a handgun for protection.)
Attorney Alan Gura, who argued the District of Columbia challenge before the Supreme Court,, and Chicago area attorney David G. Sigale, represent the plaintiffs.
"Chicago's handgun ban, and some of its gun registration requirements are clearly unconstitutional," Gura said.
"The right to defend our homes and families against those who would do them harm, whether a random criminal, violent ex-domestic partner, or other wrongdoer, is one of the principles upon which America was founded," Sigale said. "It is time the City of Chicago trust its honest, law-abiding residents with this Constitutional right."
Under current Chicago gun law, firearms must be re-registered annually. And each time that happens, a tax is imposed, forms must be filled out, photographs submitted, Gura said. "A person who owns more than one gun will find herself or himself constantly in the process of registering each gun as it comes due for expiration. If registration is to be required, once is enough."
Gura also complained about Chicago's requirement that guns be registered before they are acquired, something that often makes registration impossible. Guns that are not registered on time can never be registered again.
In Chicago, a city racked by gang violence, Mayor Richard Daley insisted on Thursday than guns in the home often end up killing children.
He said Thursday's Supreme Court ruling with made the streets even more dangerous. "The Supreme Court and Congress has no obligation to keep our country safe. That falls on the backs of mayors and local officials," Daley told the Chicago CBS station.
How interesting. I guess the "leaders" include the mayor.
What’s that they say about payback?
Go for it.
Good!!
“He said Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling with made the streets even more dangerous. “The Supreme Court and Congress has no obligation to keep our country safe. That falls on the backs of mayors and local officials,” Daley told the Chicago CBS station.”
*Snickers* He missed it on both.
And they are doing such a good job.
Dr. Sweet approves...
Actually it's Aldermen.
They are not only allowed to possess handguns in their homes, they're allowed to carry them. They're also issued badges.
L
The wheels are already rolling...
I can just imagine how much better qualified they are than we average citizens. What a joke!
not as many as swimming pools...
Daley needs to just get gangs outlawed. That'll fix it, right?
There was quite the kerfluffle here a few years back when a female Alderman, Dorothy "The Hat" Tillman pulled her pistol on the council floor and started waving it around.
The local rags did a brief 'investigation' and found that the Chicago City Council had given it's members 'police powers' and had in fact issued them badges and exempted them from the Chicago gun ban.
The matter quickly died down and nothing more was said about it.
Tillman btw is the same Aldercreature who demanded reparations for slavery from the US government in the form of "a condo and a Lexus".
A real piece of work that one....
L
“Daley told the Chicago CBS station.”
Poor mayor Daley. Yesterday he lost his personal monopoly on Firepower.
It occurs to me that when our Consitution was written, there were a lot of areas in the new-born country where there were no “police” departments, and the right to self-protection was essential.
It also occurs to me that there are now many areas in our country where the police can’t be relied upon to respond in a timely fashion, or are unwilling to even go.
We therefore, still have the right to self-protection, granted to us by the Constitution. Even though our founding fathers could not imagine the ghettos in our urban areas, they understood that we needed to be able to protect ourselves and our communities, whether we live in ghettos, the ‘burbs’, small villages, or rural outposts.
It's open season on them thar gun grabbin' varmits! And ah hates varmits!
Something I saw written elsewhere:
80% of gun crime is urban inter-gang battles. One gangbanger killing another gangbanger. That's not a problem: It's a self-cleaning oven.
Leftists won’t exclude these criminal deaths because it doesn’t fit their template.
I don't suppose that he used researched statistics to back up that claim, did he?
Didn't think so.....
Daley also claims the D.C. vs. Heller decision was a “victory for the rich and powerful.” Not as much as Chicago’s existing gun ban - only politically-connected civilians (and some ex-cops) can own guns.
No! If registration is required, it's not a right, it's a privilege.
Although the first cases are in SF and Chicago, the real state test will be when the first cases are introduced in New Jersey. NJ ranks dead last among the 50 states in gun restrictions. DC was the only location that was worse — until yesterday.
There is no such thing as police protection. Police cannot, and are not obligated to, protect you. Their job is to get the perp who killed, or wounded, you or your family members and that is that. This has been ruled on in court. So therefore we are entitled to arm ourselves and defend ourselves as we see fit. The constitution does not give us this right. It affirms the right as given to all men and women by birth. The government, according to our constitution, cannot bestow rights upon an idividual, nor can they take the enumerated rights away. Enough said.
This is a common error many folks make when referring to the Second Amendment. We were given the right to bear arms to protect us "FROM" government. The other nine amendments were for the same purpose. Read "em"!
#1 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
#2 A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
#3 No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
#4 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
#5 No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
#6 In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
#7 In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
#8 Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
#9 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
#10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (My favorite...just think of all the illegal things our Federal Government is doing!)
The ratification process was hung up because folks wanted assurances that this new government would basically.... leave them alone. This is where the Bill Of Rights came from and the states now ratified the Constitution.....knowing that they had given their citizens protection from a All Powerful, Centralized Government which would have a tendency to ride rough shod over the backs of its own citizenry. This is what King George had done.
All ten amendments protect us from a possible tyrannical government.....and especially the Second Amendment, because it would be very difficult for George Bush, Bill Clinton or any other individual (or group) bent on tyranny to enslave an armed citizenry. The framers weren't concerned about the folks being able to shoot a turkey for dinner.....or protect themselves from a burglar. They knew already the folks could do that. They wanted their citizens to be self assured in the knowledge that "Government" would have to mind its P's and Q's.....or the people would rid themselves of it!
SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution, Article I.)
If the Federal Court uses this part of the Illinois constitution and the recent Heller gun case, the Chicago ban on handguns should be ruled unconstitutional.
Thanks for your wisdom.
I posted that on the fly, just a lil ol’ grannie here, and not any kind of expert.
Correction... It wouldn't be a problem if the bozoes could shoot straight. Have you seen "range stance" on the majority of these dilwaps? The tragedy is the "collateral damage" these idiots accrue when they're idiotically trying, and failing, to bump one another off...
Such wastage of ammo should, in itself, be a capital crime...
the infowarrior
I am a little old grandpa, so there you go. I am glad I could help.:)
Thank you for your kind words....."lil ol' grannie"!
Got six grandchildren myself.....each one better lookin' than the next. LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.