Posted on 10/06/2009 1:01:27 PM PDT by neverdem
Down here in West Texas, I keep a handgun in my car and usually one somewhere on my person. My habits are not novel: For I live among people who understand and value our inherent right to keep and bear arms, as well as our right to self-defense.
Yet in many parts of the country, like Chicago, where handgun ownership was banned in 1982, the norm is quite different.
In the Windy City, men like Otis McDonald, a 76 year-old retiree, tell stories of being prisoners in their own homes: unable to defend either their property or their lives because they are denied access to the very tool our Founders believed belonged in the hands of all “free men.” That tool is a gun. And for someone in McDonald’s position, having one or not could spell the difference between living and dying on that city’s crime-ridden streets.
When the Supreme Court struck down Washington D.C.’s gun ban last June, in the now famous Heller decision, groups like Illinois Rifle Association (IRA) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) promised to file suits to overturn the ban in Chicago as well. Meanwhile, Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley could only say the Heller verdict was going to result in “more guns on the street [which would]…make it more challenging for law enforcement." Of course he didn’t explain how “more guns” in the hands of law abiding citizens would make things more challenging for law enforcement.
Come to think of it, liberals never have demonstrated that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens make a policeman’s job tougher. Nor have they yet disproven John Lott’s seminal work that shows “more guns [equal] less crime.”
But Daley, never one to let facts get in the way of a liberal policy, is on record claiming an “[end] to Chicago's handgun ban would spark new violence and force the city to raise taxes to pay for new police.” How liberal does Daley have to be to view the possible end of a handgun ban as a justification for raising taxes?
Fortunately, neither the IRA nor the NRA were dissuaded Daley’s huffing and puffing, as they were both party to the lawsuit filed against Chicago’s gun ban by McDonald last year. McDonald explained his suit thus: “Rightfully, we are due the [gun] to protect ourselves in our homes, and there's nothing wrong with us having that.” His words bring to mind those spoken by President George Washington over two centuries ago: “Free men ought to be armed.”
Sadly, however, the 7th Court of Appeals refused to overturn the Chicago ban after hearing McDonald’s case, claiming the Supreme Court had not explicitly applied the Heller ruling to cities and municipalities outside of D.C.
The 7th Court’s opinion was echoed by Chicago's Corporation Counsel Mara Georges, who said Chicago’s gun ban “continues to be valid law…[because] the Supreme Court did not say that the Second Amendment right to bear arms extends to state and local governments.”
So McDonald appealed his case to Supreme Court, and on Wednesday September 30, 2009, news broke that the high court will hear the appeal during its 2009-2010 term. This means the 7th Court of Appeals, Mayor Daley, Mara Georges, and every criminal in Chicago who’s grown accustomed to accosting unarmed victims may need to be brace themselves for a dose of reality.
The very Mayor Daley who angrily responded to the Heller verdict by asking rhetorically, “Why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West, [where] you have a gun and I have a gun, and we'll settle it in the streets?” may soon realize what so many of us around the country already know: They’re already settling it in the streets of Chicago Mr. Daley. The only problem is that the settlements are all going the criminal’s way.
Hopefully, if the Supreme Court is consistent with the Heller decision as the case against Chicago’s ban goes forward, millions of law-abiding citizens will soon recapture the right to keep and bear arms. Then, men like Otis McDonald will be able to fight back against the criminals “that want to control [him], [his] family, [and his] property.”
He’s said all along that that is all he wants to be able to do.
That would be the ISRA.
But Daley, never one to let facts get in the way of a liberal policy, is on record claiming an “[end] to Chicago's handgun ban would spark new violence and force the city to raise taxes to pay for new police.”
Assuming they follow the pattern that John Lott demonstrated, the people of Chicago will be able to demand a reduction in their taxes.
I thought the Irish Republican Army disarmed?!
Looks like they may just have migrated to Chicago.
:)
What other amendments can we say do not apply to the states?
LOL!
One reason I was actually happy to see Chicago lose the Olympics is because of Rich Daley. Aside from the fact that the Olympics would have only lined his buddies’ pockets, and made the people of Chicago poorer, he’s a little tin horn dictator. It’s gratifying to occasionally see him NOT get what he wants.
My question is does it have to be under one clause or the other? Could it be both? I also want it under the due process clause for those folks unjustly bounced from NICS system when attempting to buy a firearm. Remember Ted Kennedy being bounced from the no fly list.
BTW, Gura is going to argue both clauses.
450 Mayors Petition Obama To Adopt Broad Gun Reform
And federal prosecutors should more aggressively prosecute people who fail the background check, the study says. In 2005, the FBI referred 67,713 cases to the ATF, but federal prosecutors pursued only 135 of those cases.
This might not be such a bad thing for those being unjustly denied their rights. This could come back to haunt the gun-grabbers since SCOTUS said it was an individual right and the feds are denying it. Thanks for the link.
Doctor Chicago!!! That’s too much! ROTFLMAO!
Yet in many parts of the country, like Chicago, where handgun ownership was banned in 1982, the norm is quite different.
Strictly speaking, not banned. They just don't issue any new licenses, and heaven help you if yours expires.
**
A policeman's job is only easy in a police state.
- Orson Welles
Does this amendment apply to the states? - -
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.
If the first amendment applies, presumably the second one does. If not, well it would seem appropriate to fight for the freedoms of the first amendment (and the second).
Meanwhile, MacDonald should get himself a railroad tie. They seem to be a pretty useful weapon these days.
“Why don’t we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West, [where] you have a gun and I have a gun, and we’ll settle it in the streets?”
Mayor Daley, I bet a whole slew of people would line up to open the door for ya, ya shlup!!!
Someone told me tonight that the right to a trial by jury for a civil offense, and protection against troops wanting lodging in your house, strangely enough, have never been judged to apply to the states, although challenges will probably never come up on these two.
Amen
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.