Otis McDonald
Posted on 01/31/2010 7:32:19 AM PST by KeyLargo
THE PUBLIC FACE OF GUN RIGHTS
The Supreme Court will decide the legality of the city's handgun ban in McDonald v. City of Chicago. This is Otis McDonald.
By Colleen Mastony Tribune reporter
January 30, 2010
From behind the wheel of his hulking GMC Suburban, 76-year-old Otis McDonald leads a crime-themed tour of his Morgan Park neighborhood. He points to the yellow brick bungalow he says is a haven for drug dealers. Down the street is the alley where five years ago he saw a teenager pull out a gun and take aim at a passing car.
Around the corner, he gestures to the weed-bitten roadside where three thugs once threatened his life.
"I know every day that I come out in the streets, the youngsters will shoot me as quick as they will a policeman," says McDonald, a trim man with a neat mustache and closely cropped gray hair. "They'll shoot a policeman as quick as they will any of their young gangbangers."
To defend himself, McDonald says, he needs a handgun. So, in April of 2008, the retired maintenance engineer agreed to serve as the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging Chicago's 28-year-old handgun ban. Soon after, he walked into the Chicago Police Department and, as his attorneys had directed, applied for a .22-caliber Beretta pistol, setting the lawsuit into motion. When that case is argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 2, McDonald will become the public face of one of the most important Second Amendment cases in the nation's history.
Amid the clamor of the gun-rights debate, McDonald presents a strongly sympathetic figure: an elderly man who wants a gun to protect himself from the hoodlums preying upon his neighborhood.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Otis McDonald
This follows the successful practice used by the NAACP in civil rights cases in the 1960s. Wise move NRA.
Notice, the term used is "gun rights", not "gun control". Even in the leftist press the debate is shifting in favor of those who support the constitution.
If anyone does not know - The bankrupt Chicago Tribune is known as the “Lib-une.”
Bankruptcy Judge Approves $45.6M In Bonuses For Tribune Execs
By Peg Brickley
Of DOW JONES DAILY BANKRUPTCY REVIEW
* JANUARY 27, 2010, 11:14 A.M. ET
A bankruptcy judge Wednesday approved $45.6 million in bonuses for executives of Tribune Co. (TRBCQ) and advised the company’s leaders to roll the rest of its bonus requests into a Chapter 11 plan.
Judge Kevin Carey overruled protests from federal bankruptcy monitors and from a union representing some workers of the publishing and broadcasting enterprise, which filed for bankruptcy protection at the end of 2008.
He authorized the company to pump up the 2009 pay of 720 top executives, including Tribune’s top 10 leaders, in February.
The bonus program represents a historic high in cash payments for Tribune, said Bill Salganik, a representative of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild.
Tribune leaders will collect more in cash bonuses for 2009, a year the company spent in bankruptcy, than they did in 2008 and 2007 combined, court documents say.
Carey said there was a “reasonable relationship between the plan and its goal of increasing the company’s chances of survival.” He said he would reserve a decision on two other bonus programs, suggesting Tribune incorporate them into the reorganization plan it is expected to file.
In combination with the bonus program approved Wednesday, the company’s two other bonus proposals would mean up to $67 million for Tribune’s leaders, nearly half of it for the 21 highest-ranking executives.
Salganik said the guild was pleased Carey did not approve the remaining two programs.
Tribune has more than $11 billion in debt to resolve in Chapter 11 and will pay off some of it with equity that was supposed to go to an employee stock-ownership plan if the company’s leveraged buyout had played out. Instead, Tribune filed for bankruptcy protection, unable to pay the interest on some $8 billion borrowed to carry off the LBO.
excerpt
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100127-711255.html?mod=WSJ_Deals_LEFTLatestHeadlines
Otis, “U da man.” But seriously, I would’ve thought he’d need to seek the right to defend himself with a handgun in the range of a 9mm or better, rather than a .22 plinker pistol.
Otis! My Man!
The NRA didn't do this. From the article:
Financed by the Second Amendment Foundation, a gun-rights group based in Bellevue, Washington,....
My mistake. Thanks for correcting.
Otis,a.22 is not going to get the job done.Heavy up, my man!
In that ‘hood”, maybe a M4 and ten 20 round mags would be better.
Welcome to the innercity, brought to you by the deomcrats and other welfare state lovers. No White people after 9pm.
The NRA is involved now. The NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation have shared numerous lawsuits since the Heller decision.
He’s 76 years old for crying out loud.
It may also be part of the lawsuit. The other side can’t argue against assault weapons or heavy calibers.
Good point. Also if he just has the one they can’t say he has an “arsenal”. Tired of tha meme too.
Heller was smallball in a sense. Federal enclave, squeaky clean plaintiff, actually carries a gun legally during the day, etc, thus taking a lot of potentially confounding objections off the table. Maybe that’s what’s at work with the caliber. I can just hear Scalia “You mean you’re afraid of this little old black man owning a 22??”
I guarantee you that's part of the lawsuit. The principle is the same regardless of the caliber, so why give the gun-banners the opportunity to shove the case off into the weeds of "cop killer" bullets and "automatic" semi-automatic pistols? Did you know that New Jersey, for example, prohibits hollow-point ammo, and simple possession is a crime?
In Chicago, I would add one number to that and go with the .223 handgun. 
Not just Chicago, but NY/NYC as well.
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.