Mayor Daley Rips Supreme Court Over Gun Ban Stance

With many people predicting that the Supreme Court will overturn Chicago's ban on handguns following arguments heard Tuesday, Mayor Daley expressed outrage.

His voice "dripping with sarcasm," the mayor ripped SCOTUS on Wednesday. The Sun-Times reports:

"Why can't I go to the Supreme Court and sit there with a gun and listen to the arguments? If a gun is so important to us on the street or someone's home, why can't I go to the Supreme Court and sit there with a gun? I'm not gonna shoot anyone. But, I have a right to that gun," Daley said.

"Why can't I go see my congressman who doesn't believe in gun laws? Why can't I carry my gun into congressmen's offices or go to his home and knock on his door and say, 'Don't be worried. I have a gun. You want me to have a gun.' Why is it they want to be protected by all the federal money ... to protect all the federal bureaucrats, but when it comes to us in the city" there's no protection?

Handguns have been outlawed in Chicago for 28 years. But in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court reversed a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., emboldening gun-rights activists to challenge the Chicago law. Suburban Oak Park, which has even stronger gun legislation, is also involved in the lawsuit.

Daley called the 2008 ruling "frightening," the Sun-Times reports.

"When a child gets shot or killed, that is a failure of society," Daley said. "Adults should stand up and say, guns don't solve things in homes or streets. If it was, then everyone here would be carrying a gun in our own corporations."

Following the DC ruling, the D.C. Council replaced its ban with regulations that require gun owners to receive five hours of safety training, register their firearms every three years and face criminal background checks every six years, according to the Sun-Times.

Though a decision is not expected until June, those familiar with the case predict that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Scalia, Alito, Kennedy and Thomas would favor overturning the ban, for a 5-4 majority.

Comments

[Cambridge9]

11:09 AM on 03/12/2010

Does it ever amaze anyone that the law requires that we get a license for our dog, keep it leashed and clean up after it (even in rural areas) but guns are OK, except, as Mayor Daley says, in the Supreme Court, in Corporate halls, in the Capitol around the White House, on domestic airlines and trains. Shall I go on??

[molonlabe]

11:39 AM on 03/12/2010

As far as i know, you do not have a constitutional right to keep and bear dogs. So no, it doesn't amaze me.

By all means, go on.

[Cambridge9]

11:56 AM on 03/12/2010

We also don't have a constitutional right to fly on plane, use the internet, cook on a gas stove, get an education, get care in a hospital, use an elevator or ride in the subway.

However, it IS necessary to register your car in order to drive on a highway - but you don't have to register a horse and wagon (although you are precluded from using that vehicle on an interstate) .- or is it your reasoning that the car needs to be licensed because it ISN'T in the constitution.

So why aren't the items in my first paragraph required to be licensed?

It's fine to quote the Constitution where it fits your argument - but you forget that that document was signed two-hundred-and-thirty years ago. A lot has happened since then - so I guess we should pass amendments to either include - or exclude - everything that has been invented since the late 1700s - including a tazer gun or mace for protection..

[OdinsEye]

01:26 PM on 03/12/2010

Name any enumerated right we have to be licensed to exercise.

[ChicagoSuz]

07:51 PM on 03/08/2010

Well... HP's not letting me reply to anyone on this thread. Just as well. I'm talked out. Don't take it personally if I didn't respond to you... & have a nice day... :-)

[OdinsEye]

08:11 PM on 03/08/2010

Sometimes the posts just take a long time.

[ChicagoSuz]

03:30 AM on 03/08/2010

For Odin... unlike yourself & some others, I don't like to make blanket statements based on made-up facts &/or worst-case- scenario fantasies... I'd rather talk about my actual experiences. I was responding to someone who said the police don't come when you call. Earlier, someone said we have to pay when they do. In my experiences, neither of those statements are true...

[OdinsEye]

07:52 AM on 03/08/2010

I don't make up facts. What I have told you about cops is true. And I am a cop. What I have told you may not set well with you. It may make you uncomfortable or even angry, but it is the truth --

We have a goal of arriving within so many minutes, but that is only a goal and it is often not met. That is providing that a victim is able to call 911 and the 911 and dispatch operators don't mess anything up. But even if we get to the scene by the 5 minute mark, the crime is very likely to have been completed and the victim severely injured or dead. It takes mere seconds for a bad guy to kill someone.

The courts have repeatedly ruled that police are not obligated to protect individuals.

These are all 100% fact.

[ChicagoSuz]

08:55 AM on 03/08/2010

Well, I guess I've been blessed then. Where do you live?

[ChicagoSuz]

03:25 AM on 03/08/2010

For the Rev & everyone else... obviously, there's something wrong with the reply button on this post. You're just gonna have to see if the answers went to your question....

[ChicagoSuz]

10:51 PM on 03/07/2010

I guess we'll just have to wait & see how it all plays out...

[djcrsn]

07:10 PM on 03/08/2010

from what I can tell--Chicago is not only going to lose, but will have to pay Gura and CLement several million dollars EACH

[ChicagoSuz]

10:37 PM on 03/07/2010

On Thanksgiving, a woman & her niece got into a screaming match that could be heard all over the building. Within 10 minutes, 8 police arrived. They talked the niece into going home & everyone went back to their turkey...

[RevJimIII]

11:22 PM on 03/07/2010

What is the relevence here?

[OdinsEye]

11:59 PM on 03/07/2010

And if it had been a violent attack, someone would have been dead before the police arrived. 10 minutes is more than enough time to stab someone to death (which takes a matter of seconds). Therefore, your anecdote proves absolutely nothing except that you live in an apartment.

[ChicagoSuz]

10:22 PM on 03/07/2010

This is for Odin's Eye... I didn't misread it. He implied that I was the one who wanted to ban the law. It's already the law.

[djcrsn]

10:39 PM on 03/07/2010

and the law in Chicago is going to fall--the only question is which section of the 14th amendment is going to be used==due process or privilege and immunity

[somebodyelse2]

11:23 PM on 03/06/2010

Mayor Daley has intentionally overseen one of the fastest growing homicide rates in the nation. He has chosen to become an accessory to each and every murder in Chicago--by insisting that every victim be unarmed at the time of their demise. Every citizen of Illinois has to show proof that he/she has bribed a politician (for the one uninfringable right secured to the people of the United States) before purchasing ammunition or a firearm--the Firearm Owner Identification Card. I cannot imagine a more disgraceful position given Chicago's rising homicide rate after his gun ban.

[Ravi Abunijad]

01:34 AM on 03/08/2010

Actually, Chicago's murder rate has been on the decline for awhile now. Not sure what propaganda machine told you otherwise. Per capita, Chicago is not nearly as bad as places like Detroit.

Also, a FOID card is $10 and you don't get denied unless you're a convicted felon with a violent record. Quite honestly, I think you're crazy if you consider that extremist gun control. I think it's pretty reasonable.

And listen, I'm all for gun ownership because I strongly believe in civil liberties and I think the government has no business telling you what you can and can't have, within reason. But, let's stop pretending everyone has an unchecked RIGHT to own guns. Read the WHOLE second Amendment carefully: "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."

More importantly, read the drafts leading up to this passed version - they were trying to establish that people should have arms so they could serve in the militia. It's not so you can carry an uzi in your glovebox, it's so you can go fight when your country needs you. I really wish people knew history better.

[OdinsEye]

01:41 AM on 03/08/2010

"Read the WHOLE second Amendment carefully: "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." "

Do you know what the whole sentence means?

[djcrsn]

01:06 PM on 03/08/2010

Don't forget that when the COTUS was written, if you were a citizen, male and 17 or over--you were a member of the militia with limited exceptions (like being active duty military or a member of the merchant marine)--and those laws are still on the books

[Ravi Abunijad]

01:41 AM on 03/08/2010

Well, okay, to be fair, Chicago's 2008 murders were up a bit from 2007 - so it didn't go down every year - but overall the last 20 years have shown a consistent drop. Go ahead and check.

[OdinsEye]

07:55 AM on 03/08/2010

Their rates went up for the first dacade after their virtual ban was enacted.

[OdinsEye]

08:43 AM on 03/08/2010

Oh, and going back to 1995 there was an increase in 2001, 2005, and 2008. In fact their rates only twice have dropped to 1982 levels.

[showsa59]

09:45 PM on 03/06/2010

Do you think Daley's body gaurds have guns?

[BACK-to-REALITY]

11:21 AM on 03/08/2010

WHY does Mayor Daley hate black Americans so much? Why does he not want them to be able to defend themselves? Is he hoping that more blacks are killed in his city?

Seems like another racist liberal to me.

[krz2]

02:55 PM on 03/06/2010

the neighborhoods in chicago with the highest gun murder rates,also seem to have the highest number of community organizers. why aren't the community organizers demanding the national guard to insure the safety of the citizens in the affected neighborhoods, when the police are unable to provide protection? there are neighborhoods and suburbs of chicago where this level of violence would not and is not tolerated. everyone, in every neighborhood is entitled(big word) to protection from violent crimimals.this is a fundamental duty of govt.
lesson: when you see the 1st community organizer in your neighborhood, call the moving van.

[Stephen Wahls]

11:56 PM on 03/08/2010

.That would be profiling.

[USAFVET76]

05:27 AM on 03/06/2010

Mayor McCheese is so wrong on his stance on guns.
As if rigid gun laws are going to alter the thug mentality of Chicago urban creatures.
Get real Daley.
Its all about playing the blame game for you.
And you can't blame the real culprit because they vote for you and your party in mass.

[ejhickey]

04:53 PM on 03/05/2010

even if the SCOTUS strikes down the Chicago gun ban, it will still be illegal for teenagers and children to own and possess firearms. Also not everyone who wants a gun will be allowed to buy a gun. there will still be background checks and convicted felons will not be able to buy one

[OdinsEye]

05:05 PM on 03/05/2010

Yep. The only thing which will be affected when the ban is struck down are bans. This ruling will not overturn other gun control laws.

[ChristopherAtom]

02:37 PM on 03/05/2010

Just keep a couple Makita UC120DWD Commercial Grade 4-1/2-Inch 12-Volt Cordless Electric Chain Saw's stashed around the house...unless the assailant broke in carrying a gun than things could get pretty dicey.

As long as we use a monetary system that thrives on scarcity: humanity will never see the end of gun culture.

[OdinsEye]

01:13 PM on 03/05/2010

As mentioned before, Mayor Daley appears to not be able to tell the difference between prohibiting ownership in a person's own residence vs prohibiting carry in a federal building.

[sillyprogressafarian]

12:24 PM on 03/05/2010

When every chicago citizen has the same security detail you have Mayor Daley then we can ban guns. Just another hypocritical liberal...nothing to see here

[47th]

07:28 PM on 03/06/2010

Hypocritical? Yes! Liberal? Not at all!