Evanston Relaxes Gun Ban To Fit Supreme Court Ruling

Chicago Tribune:

Following on the heels of a Supreme Court decision that held that a blanket ban on handguns violated 2nd Amendment rights, Evanston's City Council voted 7-1 Monday night to amend the North Shore suburb's weapons ordinance to conform to the landmark court ruling.

Council members believe the move will allow the city to avoid a potential court challenge.

"I find the Supreme Court decision repugnant," said Ald. Steve Bernstein (4th). "But because of it, it's the law. In the short term, we'll be better off getting [the ordinance] off the books."

Evanston's handgun law, one of the more progressive in the country, had banned not just handguns but any device that "is designed to expel a projectile," including BB guns and paintball guns with projectiles larger than .18-inches in diameter. Items such as collectors' guns were exempt from the ban.

Read the whole story: Chicago Tribune

Comments

[muffinman2]

"I find the Supreme Court decision repugnant," said Ald. Steve Bernstein (4th)."

Why? I've been through Evanston on a bicycle. It's a really nice town. It doesn't look like a place where there is much crime, but it DOES border Chicago.

So why do the antis think this will change, because the accountant next door goes out and buys a .38 to keep in the house? And a ban on BB guns? That's actually worse than NJ (which I didn't think was possible), where you need a permit for a BB gun.

[ladyshooter]

Wait until the criminals, robbers and rapists, find out an area is a 'gun free zone'. They will flock there, in droves. Why? They can rob and rape with impunity.

[fact finder]

djkrlsn; It is progressive only if you are a neo-con. BTW that term means NEW COMMUNIST to me.

[djkrlsn]

Factfinder--just to be clear--I was refering to the last paragraph of the article describing Evanston's gunban as progressive. Gun bans are a clear violation of the 2nd amendment.

[CrittersRTasty]

I applaud Mr Bernstein's remark that "it's the law" and I commend him for accepting the verdict although it obviously doesnt meet with his personal approval.


The only thing that I find "repugnant", to use his verbiage, is the description of Evanston's gun law as "progressive".

[djkrlsn]

Please explain to me what is "progressive" about violating someone's Constitutionally protected rights.