4um: Mayor Daley calls Supreme Court's gun-ban reversal 'a very frightening decision'

Title: Mayor Daley calls Supreme Court's gun-ban reversal 'a very frightening decision'
Source: Chicago Tribune
URL Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ ... -court-gun-ban,0,1646975.story
Published: Jun 26, 2008
Author: Jeff Coen and Melissa Patterson
Post Date: 2008-06-26 13:11:11 by Rotara
Keywords: Mayor Daley, 2nd Amendment, Liberal
Views: 346
Comments: 41

An angry Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday called the Supreme Court's overturning of the Washington D.C. gun ban "a very frightening decision" and vowed to fight vigorously any challenges to Chicago's ban.

The mayor, speaking at a Navy Pier event, said he was sure mayors nationwide, who carry the burden of keeping cities safe, will be outraged by the decision.

Chicago's handgun ban, which has lasted for more than a quarter-century, came under threat earlier in the day when the Supreme Court decided that Washington D.C.'s law against handgun ownership is unconstitutional.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court determined that Americans have the right to own guns for self-defense as well as hunting. The decision, which had been expected, is a win for gun-rights advocates and provides a better definition of the rights of Americans to own firearms.

llinois gun-rights activists have said they expect to mount a quick legal challenge to the Chicago Weapons Ordinance.

It was the first time in nearly 70 years that the court had taken up broad questions about the 2nd Amendment's protections of the right to bear arms. The city of Chicago, which has had its own ban on handgun ownership since 1982, had filed a brief with the court in support of the ban in January.

The city was expected to publicly respond to the court decision later Thursday. A spokeswoman for the city's Law Department said the decision would need to be reviewed to see how it affects Chicago, since the city was not directly involved in the suit.

Mayor Daley stressed the danger of private gun ownership, not only to other Chicago citizens, but to the children of gun owners.

"We've shown time and time again how many children have been killed in their homes by guns," he said. "Parents are away, they get the gun. Parents are away, the child takes the gun, runs out in the street and has an argument, comes back and shoots somebody."

He described America as a country of gun-lovers who export their weaponry to neighboring countries like Canada and Mexico, spreading violence to relatively peaceful areas.

Daley said he found it "amazing" how guns are banned anywhere near the Supreme Court and the U.S. Capitol, but the lawmakers who meet there are "changing the rules" to allow them on city streets.

District of Columbia v. Dick Heller began as a group of plaintiffs suing over D.C.'s local gun ordinances, including one barring the registration of handguns by private individuals. Heller was a security guard at the Federal Judicial Center in Washington who could have a handgun at work but not at home, and his lawyers have argued the 2nd Amendment creates an individual right of handgun ownership.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's ruling that had dismissed Heller's suit, finding that the 2nd Amendment did protect an individual's right to bear arms. The Supreme Court took the case and heard oral arguments in March.

In Chicago's brief, lawyers argued state and local rules regulating firearms are constitutional and have had popular support. Chicago's ordinances resemble those of D.C., lawyers for the city acknowledged.

"Chicago, like other big cities, has a compelling interest in reducing crime related to firearms," the brief states. " Chicago Police Department statistics show that from 2004 to November 2007 there were 43,685 firearms-related violent crimes in the city."

The 2nd Amendment is a federal constraint, the city argued, and local and state governments should not be prevented from regulating guns in ways that are tailored to their communities. Washington D.C. is a federal entity, so the decision may not even apply to Chicago, its lawyers have said.

The 2nd Amendment dealt with states and their militias and not individual rights, the Chicago brief states, and American states have a long history of controlling weapons.

"A central purpose of that Amendment was to protect the States against the threat to their sovereignty posed by the power of the federal government to raise and maintain a standing army," it said.

It continues: "The frontier is gone. In domestic matters and international affairs, state militias have been displaced by organized police forces, the National Guard, and the federal military. And criminals with firearms--especially handguns--wreak havoc in American cities."

Richard Pearson, spokesman for the Illinois State Rifle Association, said gun-rights advocates are excited about the ruling. The court's decision that individuals have the right to own handguns in their homes outside of use in militias should have a wide impact, Pearson said.

"I think that's going to impact the de facto Chicago gun ban greatly," he said, as well as other ordinances across the state. "Those ordinances will either need to be changed or will be in jeopardy from legal challenges."

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

John McGinnis, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law who specializes in constitutional law and served in the office of legal counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, called the decision "a complete victory" for those who advocate for the rights of individuals to own guns, though it does leave some ground open for a legal battle.

McGinnis said the court clearly stamped approval on the rights of citizens to own "ordinary guns that are in common use," including handguns.

What the decision ultimately means for Chicago is a different question, McGinnis said.

"It still leaves a wide swath open for substantial litigation in the future, in the context of local and state gun laws," he said.

Chicago would be "absolutely open" to make the argument that the 2nd Amendment should not be incorporated to apply to Illinois and the city, he said, though he said he believes with the current makeup of the court, that argument ultimately would fail.

McGinnis said he expects a local challenge to the Chicago ban to be filed in U.S. District Court here, with the question again heading up to higher courts. The professor estimated that it could take months for a local challenge to play out.

Daley is a typical, duplicitous, "Liberal", "Lefty", "Progressive", "Socialist", "Communist", America-hating s**t wad. ;-)

F**k you, f**k them and f**k all the s**t hole Federally supported urban jungles where decent people are nothing but prey for your social experiments!! ;-)

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

So, some Americans get to have their rights protected and others don't. Last I looked, the Constitution applied to all Americans.

"Waaaaah! We want to run the world! Damn ~~Framers~~ Founder's of America! Damn them! Waaaaah!"

Mayor Daly should be questioned as to why his "police detail" all carry guns and he has 24/7 protection?????

Big whoop. They're destroying our economy, our livlihoods and our country and they've decided thay don't wish to incur the wrath of people who still have something left to fight about. It's called saving their own skins for another day.

In the meantime, stocks are heaed south big time and the prospects of what's to come aren't any better.

Share
Print View
The Supreme Court's ruling on Thursday that a ban on handguns in the District of Columbia was unconstitutional sent immediate ripples throughout the presidential campaign.

Even prior to the decision, Sen. Barack Obama sought to clarify a past statement in which it was directly implied that he thought the D.C. handgun law to be constitutional. That remark, spokesman Bill Burton said, was inartful in that the Senator had yet to develop a position on whether the law violated the Second Amendment.

Sen. John McCain, meanwhile, was quick out of the box in taking advantage of the Supreme Court's ruling, declaring it "a landmark victory" and blasting Obama for refusing "to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief" on the case. His campaign, in addition, hosted a conference call with reporters blasting Obama for being against Second Amendment rights and lacking a record of bipartisanship in tackling gun policy issues.

How much traction McCain will get out of the Supreme Court's ruling is, however, an open-ended question. As Ben Smith of Politico opined, the issue could now effectively be taken off the table as the bogeyman fears that the government would take away people's guns become more of a fringe mindset.

But it is also important to note that one of the country's most prominent and sought after Independents happens to be leading a movement to crack down on hand-gun violence in cities. And during a press conference to celebrate the construction of man-made waterfalls in New York City, mayor Michael Bloomberg laid out talking points in support of the ruling that could, in the process, provide a template for Obama. (Updated below with comment from Obama)

"I haven't read the decision yet," said the mayor, who heads the coalition, Mayors Against Gun Violence. "The court ruled something that we, our 225 mayors, believe is one of our tenants. You have a right under the Second Amendment to hold a pistol or a rifle. What you don't have the right to do is to hold one if you are a criminal. And the courts clearly ruled that reasonable regulation, which we believe would include all of the laws on the books in New York State and City... they ruled that reasonable regulations are permitted under the decision."

As for whether the decision would help persuade the mayor - out of concern for the future of the Supreme Court - to make an endorsement, Bloomberg demurred.

"I think the public has the two candidates," he said. "I want to hear what they have to say, I think people who vote based on who they think the president will appoint to the Supreme Court tend to be not pleased. Supreme Court justices are notorious for eventually doing things that the appointer didn't expect. It is difficult to determine how they will rule down the road."

Perhaps the most telling aspect of the early reaction to the Supreme Court decision is that it illustrates how un-partisan gun control debates have become. Shortly before McCain's conference call began, and as Bloomberg was taking questions, the office of Sen. Russ Feingold, one of Congress' leading progressives, sent out a statement on the ruling.

"I am very pleased the Supreme Court finally recognized that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms," the statement read. "This is an important decision for millions of law-abiding gun owners. Public safety must be ensured without depriving our citizens of their constitutional rights."

UPDATE: The Obama campaign has come out with a statement, saying that the Court's ruling "will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."

"As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."

I could care less what the US Supreme Court of Political Kangaroos or any politick says anymore, other than how it pertains to how I will have to navigate the course of my life in lieu of the traitor's public proclamations. ;-)

Who gives a good damn what Bloomberg has to say. The Sullivan law has been there for years and is worthless. NYC should be towed out to sea and torpedoed, Mayor and all. Get rid of the human filth.

Bloomberg is waved around by the MSM as an "independent" candidate. Have you ever noticed that the only way an "independent" is promoted by the mass media is when they sound just like a Democrat or a Republican?

Being Chewish, worth billions, own a share of MSM and you are someone. God how those people despise the "common man".

Cunning
using clever, subtle, and sometimes dishonest means to achieve things

Then and only then can you get anywhere in politics without help from the DNC or RNC party bosses. The trouble is, you already own those Dem and GOP party bosses, so it doesn't matter.

Stupid white guilters will vote Obummer so they will "feel" good about having a black friend.

As long as you're a Globalist that s**ts on America as instructed/expected, then it makes no difference whether R, D or I.

Those morons should be shoved into Mississippi and a moat should be dug around the State. ;-)

Curious: does this make Cheyenneans 'better' than Chicagoans, or, just different? LOL

Of course there's also that other favorite MSM "independent" phony, Joe Lieberman.

he is such an idiot to always refer to the 2A as IF it is strictly for hunters and sportsmen.

That's because he knows deep down that 2A really means "open season on politicians when they choose George III as a role model" and is the doomsday clause in the Constitution.

Of course, a good attorney could redefine "hunting" corrupt and fascist politicians as "sport" right?

"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!

That's because he knows deep down that 2A really means "open season on politicians when they choose George III as a role model" and is the doomsday clause in the Constitution.

Of course, a good attorney could redefine "hunting" corrupt and fascist politicians as "sport" right?

“The best and first guarantor of our neutrality and our independent existence is the defensive will of the people…and the proverbial marksmanship of the Swiss shooter. Each soldier a good marksman! Each shot a hit!” Schweizerische Schutzenseitunt (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941

Oh, he's not an idiot - that is an intentional usage that has been planted into the common discourse to divert from the real function and purpose of the Second Amendment - to act as an implied threat to corrupt leaders. It is a PR/PsyOps line to implant the concept that the Second Amendment is about shooting Bambi - and with that established the Bambiists become ardent supporters of further restrictions.

What the politicos fear is a heavily armed populace with the potential to kill corrupt politicians and resist tyranny, and the resistance to tyranny was and IS the primary function of preserving the right of firearms ownership to the individual free citizen. If you are not allowed ownership of the ability to resist tyranny you are not free. Tyrants throughout history have always sought to disarm the common citizen.

"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken

Actually, that which isn't specifically included as a federal power is excluded.

So, Justice Stevens is wrong to assume that the govt is all powerful unless specifically limited by the constitution.

The right to own arms was so fundamental at the time of the drafting that there was no need to include it. It was as essential to survival as the right to breathe air.

And, the constitution is made applicable to all levels of govt through the 14th amendment, so, Chicago's ban will eventually fall, too.

"Hello Mayor Daley? Yeah, two 'hood rats are raping my wife. Could you swing by and keep her safe?"

The despite the bans and long continuing criminal gun carnage in Washington, DC (and Chicago, as well) clearly proves this adage to be an absolute truth: