Supreme Court to hear Chicago gun case

Status
Not open for further replies.

leekohler

macrumors G5
Original poster
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
The Supreme Court announced this morning it will hear a challenge to Chicago's gun restrictions that will determine if local handgun bans are legal.

Last year, the high court ruled the 2nd Amendment gave individuals the right to possess firearms and struck down Washington, D.C.'s gun bans.

Left open was the question of whether states and local governments are required to do the same.

But the court said today it will review a lower court ruling in the case of McDonald vs. City of Chicago that upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. That action court potentially could set in motion a nationwide re-establishment of the right to bear arms. The case will be argued next year.
With the court's action today, Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said his organization has a good chance at reversing the city's ban. The rifle association is a party to the McDonald suit.

"All the ban does is prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves," Pearson said. "It has no affect on the criminals at all."

If anything, not allowing citizens to carry guns puts criminals at an advantage, Pearson said.

City officials were not immediately available for comment.

In the high court's decision in June of last year, it ruled 5-4 for the first time that the 2nd Amendment establishes the right to own a handgun for personal self-defense, not only as part of a state militia.

Mayor Richard Daley immediately condemned the court's decision and vowed to fight any attempt to invalidate the city's now 27-year-old gun ban.

Hours after the court's decision, the Illinois State Rifle Association sued Chicago and Daley in an attempt to overturn the ban.

One of the plaintiffs is Otis McDonald, an elderly man who last year lived in the Morgan Park area and told the Chicago Tribune he keeps a shotgun at home to protect himself from gangs that plagued his neighborhood.

After the court ruled in the Washington, D.C., case, Morton Grove, Wilmette, Evanston and Winnetka dropped their gun bans, in large measure to fend off costly lawsuits.
Let's hope the court brings down this silly gun ban.

Here's the Tribune poll results so far today. Chicago is a pretty liberal town, so this says a lot, IMO.
 

Attachments


yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
Here's the Tribune poll results so far today. Chicago is a pretty liberal town, so this says a lot, IMO.
I wouldn't read much into a web poll that anyone in the country can vote in. Freepers are known for jumping all over these polls and voting their way as much as they can. I'd be more interested in a phone poll done professionally and strictly of Chicago residents.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Original poster
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
I wouldn't read much into a web poll that anyone in the country can vote in. Freepers are known for jumping all over these polls and voting their way as much as they can. I'd be more interested in a phone poll done professionally and strictly of Chicago residents.
While that is true, this was breaking news at the time. Usually, these polls stay pretty local that early. I could see it getting skewed later in the day for sure. TBH, I only know a few people who support the ban, one being PlaceofDis.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Original poster
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
I was actually expecting you to be for this gun ban. :D
Because you and others make assumptions about people's political leanings. I have said over and over that I am not the liberal people think I am. I look at situations and see what evidence shows works best. Gun bans do NOT work, just like making drugs illegal does not work. Education is the key to reducing the risks of both.
 

barkomatic

macrumors 601
Aug 8, 2008
4,027
1,798
Manhattan
I can understand why a city like Chicago would want to ban guns. However, the constitution is clear on this issue--law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms. I'm not sure why this keeps getting challenged in court.

Nevertheless, even if the ban is ended. Chicago is well within its right to make the process of obtaining a gun so cumbersome that practically no one will legally purchase a gun anyway.
 

quagmire

macrumors 603
Apr 19, 2004
6,256
1,061
I can understand why a city like Chicago would want to ban guns. However, the constitution is clear on this issue--law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms. I'm not sure why this keeps getting challenged in court.

Nevertheless, even if the ban is ended. Chicago is well within its right to make the process of obtaining a gun so cumbersome that practically no one will legally purchase a gun anyway.
You're the first person I have heard that said the 2nd amendment is clear.

I still think it isn't.

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.
In any case, I am not for a gun ban, but for gun control.
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
Because you and others make assumptions about people's political leanings. I have said over and over that I am not the liberal people think I am. I look at situations and see what evidence shows works best. Gun bans do NOT work, just like making drugs illegal does not work. Education is the key to reducing the risks of both.
Gun bans don't work, but neither does gun ownership. St. Louis is a fine example. Concealed carry is legal in MO, yet St. Louis has one of the highest crime rates in the city. Letting people walk around packing heat hasn't done a damn thing to reduce crime.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Original poster
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
Gun bans don't work, but neither does gun ownership. St. Louis is a fine example. Concealed carry is legal in MO, yet St. Louis has one of the highest crime rates in the city. Letting people walk around packing heat hasn't done a damn thing to reduce crime.
Then you guys have bigger problems than guns. Let me make this clear- I am not against regulating gun ownership, I am simply against bans. And I never said anything about conceal/carry.
 

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
One of the plaintiffs is Otis McDonald, an elderly man who last year lived in the Morgan Park area and told the Chicago Tribune he keeps a shotgun at home to protect himself from gangs that plagued his neighborhood.
A great example of a non-solution to a perceived problem. Well done elderly Otis McDonald.
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
Then you guys have bigger problems than guns. Let me make this clear- I am not against regulating gun ownership, I am simply against bans. And I never said anything about conceal/carry.
Yes, there are bigger problems. The point I was trying to make about conceal/carry is that while gun bans may not do much to prevent violence, neither does putting more guns out there in the hands of people and letting them carry. We definitely need more gun control. I don't think handguns should be banned outright either (assault rifles are a different story) but tighter controls need to be in place.
 

tofagerl

macrumors 6502a
May 16, 2006
952
389
Quick fact: the US is the only country in the world where guns are given higher importance than free speech.

Think about it! How many debates about free speech have you observed lately? Now how many debates about the legality of weapons?

Oh, and the founders of your lovely country weren't into guns, they were into staying free from the british. It's the hicks nowadays who are into guns, maybe cause there haven't been any invasion attempts for a few hundred years.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Original poster
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
Yes, there are bigger problems. The point I was trying to make about conceal/carry is that while gun bans may not do much to prevent violence, neither does putting more guns out there in the hands of people and letting them carry. We definitely need more gun control. I don't think handguns should be banned outright either (assault rifles are a different story) but tighter controls need to be in place.
I don't have a problem with what you're saying at all.
 

callmemike20

macrumors 6502a
Aug 21, 2007
855
3
USA
Personally, I think Daley's answer to every crime is "We must have tighter gun control." Yet, look at all innocent people, even students, getting shot in the bad areas of Chicago. He doesn't seem to be doing a good job keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals, so its actually having a reverse effect. After what happened the other day, maybe he should consider banning railroad ties.

Criminals are going to get weapons if they want them. Now, I am for conceal/carry, and I believe it will allow people to better defend themselves in many situations.
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
Personally, I think Daley's answer to every crime is "We must have tighter gun control." Yet, look at all innocent people, even students, getting shot in the bad areas of Chicago. He doesn't seem to be doing a good job keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals, so its actually having a reverse effect. After what happened the other day, maybe he should consider banning railroad ties.

Criminals are going to get weapons if they want them. Now, I am for conceal/carry, and I believe it will allow people to better defend themselves in many situations.
I don't think you're going to stop gangs and other forms of organized crime from getting guns with tighter gun control. What you can stop though are things such as school and workplace shootings. Take Virginia Tech for example. The shooter legally bought his guns. He had mental issues and had spent time in a mental facility and a judge ruled that he was a danger to himself due to his mental condition. But the law had no restrictions on the ability of someone with his condition to buy firearms. If he was not legally allowed to purchase guns, the shooting probably would've never happened because I highly doubt someone like him has the connections to get guns on the black market.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,986
I just think bans are ridiculous in this case. If we want people to jump through lots of hoops to get a handgun, fine. I'm all for it.
Your arguments in other threads have actually swayed me Lee. I'm for gun regulation, as much as I hate guns, but not full out bans anymore.
 

bobber205

macrumors 68020
Nov 15, 2005
2,182
0
Oregon
That's good to hear. :)
I agree with you Lee however I would not mind seeing guns exterminated from our society, although I understand that is quite idealistic of me.

I do have a question for you: Japan has extremely strict gun laws and also has among the lowest homicide rate in the world. Does that make you reconsider your position at all? (I do realize there are pretty huge cultural differences that make a difference in this situation).
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Original poster
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
I agree with you Lee however I would not mind seeing guns exterminated from our society, although I understand that is quite idealistic of me.

I do have a question for you: Japan has extremely strict gun laws and also has among the lowest homicide rate in the world. Does that make you reconsider your position at all? (I do realize there are pretty huge cultural differences that make a difference in this situation).
Not at all. We have serious cultural problems in this country that need to be addressed. But instead of dealing with the roots of our problems, we put bandaids on them with things like bans. Bans on things like guns and drugs do nothing to solve our problems, but it can make them worse.
 

bobber205

macrumors 68020
Nov 15, 2005
2,182
0
Oregon
Not at all. We have serious cultural problems in this country that need to be addressed. But instead of dealing with the roots of our problems, we put bandaids on them with things like bans. Bans on things like guns and drugs do nothing to solve our problems, but it can make them worse.
It can indeed make it worse. I blame our violence in this country on the insular way our nation developed. It encouraged hatred towards other (and the way some organized religions behave(d) did nothing to help the situation).
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Yes, there are bigger problems. The point I was trying to make about conceal/carry is that while gun bans may not do much to prevent violence, neither does putting more guns out there in the hands of people and letting them carry. We definitely need more gun control. I don't think handguns should be banned outright either (assault rifles are a different story) but tighter controls need to be in place.
How many times are assault rifles used in crime vs. handguns? I imagine not much.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
I don't think you're going to stop gangs and other forms of organized crime from getting guns with tighter gun control. What you can stop though are things such as school and workplace shootings. Take Virginia Tech for example. The shooter legally bought his guns. He had mental issues and had spent time in a mental facility and a judge ruled that he was a danger to himself due to his mental condition. But the law had no restrictions on the ability of someone with his condition to buy firearms. If he was not legally allowed to purchase guns, the shooting probably would've never happened because I highly doubt someone like him has the connections to get guns on the black market.
Should mentally unstable people be allowed to vote?
 

Desertrat

macrumors newbie
Jul 4, 2003
2
706
Terlingua, Texas
From federal testimony before Congress during the runup to the Assault Weapons Ban in 1993, with my assumption that the demographics of violent crime involving firearms in New York state resembled that of the rest of the country:

New York is what, roughly 10% of the US population? The deaths,nationwide, via use of firearms in 1993 was roughly 13,000. So, roughly 1,300 in NY state, okay?

That year, per Justice Department numbers, three people were killed via "assault weapons", separate from handguns, shotguns or non-AW rifles. Some 2,400 were killed via fists, feet, clubs and knives.

Three.

Other contemporaneous testimony indicated that AWs were involved in roughly three percent of all shootings.

IOW, can we forget the foolishness about these so-called assault weapons? The term is strictly a media made-up, anyway. Only the military has assault rifles, which are capable of selective rates of fire. Civilians have semi-auto para-millitary lookalikes, a design which has been in fairly common use since around 1907. "Assault Weapon'" is almost as foolish as the non-existent "cop-killer bullet".
 

Status
Not open for further replies.