As we mark the 42nd anniversary of the handgun slaying of 42-year-old Robert F. Kennedy in Los Angeles, we also wait to see if the US Supreme Court will strike down Chicago's handgun ban in McDonald v. Chicago, which is expected to be announced later this month.
I had a front row seat, next to the attorneys for Petitioner Otis McDonald, the 76-year-old South Side African-American grandfather, who brought this action. From the justices' questions, it sure didn't seem like a slam dunk for the gun lobby.
Yes, two years ago the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia's handgun ban in D. C. v. Heller, but it was by the narrowest of margins, a 5 to 4 vote. During their give-and-take with counsel on March 2, the justices made known the important distinctions between the two cases.
First off, the District of Columbia is not a state. It is a federal enclave. This means D.C. has no state constitution, unlike Chicago, which is subject to the Illinois state constitution. The Illinois constitution, like 43 other states', already gives its citizens the right to keep and bear arms subject to state police powers.
Attorney Benna Ruth Solomon, who represents the city of Chicago, explained it this way: "We are defending the right of choice for state and local governments. We are not the party seeking to change the law that has existed for the past 200 years. We are not seeking to impose Chicago's handgun ban on other jurisdictions. Gun regulation decisions should be made based on local conditions."
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, in particular, have traditionally paid careful heed to states' rights. As Justice Antonin Scalia put it during oral arguments in McDonald, "If there is a constitutional right, we find what the minimum constitutional right is, and everything above that is up to the states. In Heller, we did not decide the concealed carry law. You may have a great deal of divergence from state to state, and on that I suppose the legislature would do statistics. Statistics are not important for judges but they would be for the legislatures."
Does the US Supreme Court want to tie up its docket for the next ten years with gun cases? Will this be the Roberts Court's legacy? To be viewed as constitutionally encroaching upon the legislature's prerogative to decide which guns and weapons are acceptable based on each state's unique statistics?
The Supreme Court struck down D.C.'s gun law, because it essentially emasculated any right to bear arms. Oh, you could own a gun in D.C. and keep it in your home, if it were locked and unloaded. But it is not easy to defend yourself if you have to unlock and load a gun when seconds may mean the difference between life and death. Chicago's gun law allows for loaded rifles unlocked and ready to go for self-defense in the home.
Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., who, like Otis McDonald, lives on Chicago's South Side, told me: "I hope the Supreme Court will not make another sharp, doctrinal shift and cast aside judicial precedent. The Constitution, legal precedent and common-sense must prevail over a radical 'any gun, anywhere, anytime' argument."
Chief Justice John Roberts left the door open for the states to be actively involved in regulating firearms even if the Court rules to incorporate the Second Amendment as to the states. "Incorporation doesn't say anything by itself about whether those types of regulations that you think are reasonable and your friends think may not be reasonable, are valid or not."
As Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out during questioning: "There are provisions of the Constitution, of the Bill of Rights that have been incorporated against the states where the states have substantial latitude and ample authority to impose reasonable regulations--rights respecting property, the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. We look to see what the political process does. Why can't we do the same with firearms?"
Why not indeed? Conceivably, the Supreme Court could hold that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to the states yet still find Chicago's gun ordinance to pass constitutional muster.
As a footnote, what doesn't raise a constitutional issue is a home security system. Often it can be professionally installed for as little as $100. And it can't nod off and catch some shuteye as a homeowner is likely to do. Instead, it works 24/7 to protect you. A medical alert bracelet, can work in a pinch, to summon help against a home intruder as well.
For it's hard to get away from the picture of a grandparent who can't shoot straight or see straight without his spectacles (and, let's be honest, who wears eyeglasses to bed) killing an innocent bystander like the early A.M. paper boy or a relative because of a bump in the dark. Remember, it only takes one misplaced shot to go from law-abiding citizen to my grandpa, the felon.
***
Lonna Saunders is a Chicago attorney and writer.
Citizen Heroes Snared in Foolish Gun Restrictions
In Chicago, another story of handguns and self defense
Chicago homeowner shoots convicted felon in self defense
Chicago's 2nd recent self-defense shooting 'validates lawsuit,' says SAF founder
To stand by their convictions, they must take a strong stance against the "Hale DeMar Act" (immunity against breaking the handgun ban, for successful home defenders).
They must push for prosecution of those who knowingly broke the law and kept a handgun at home. Otherwise, their continued anti-gun rights stances are hypocritical.
What about the "honorable" mayor Daley's comments to the reporter who asked how effective the ban has been, or him wishing that S.C. justices meet "accidents" on the way home, to change their minds about gun bans.
Total nonsense about handguns not being effective and reliable for home defense.
Pick a type or broad category of firearm, and they'll print something by someone about it being unsuitable for civilian ownership. Like the Brady Bunch and the V.P.C., they'll be satisfied when we o the way some Brits recently want it : No firearms of any kind, for anyone (unless it's a rich person's or Mayor's bodyguard or the Mayor himself)
"He, along with three other men, had been indicted on armed robbery and robbery charges. But they pleaded guilty before Cook County Judge Michael Brown to robbery in exchange for prosecutors dropping the armed robbery charges, records show."
http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2010/06/prosecution-of-chicago-criminals.html
Furthermore a rifle is a HORRIBLE choice for a self defense weapon in a city. Did you even research anything writing this? Rifles will generally overpenetrate and go through walls, endangering neighbors in a crowded city. A handgun is a much less dangerous choice, along with being much more practical in a cramped area.
Continuing, the case is based around the 14th amendment. Something you'd also know if you had read at the blog for the pro-gun lawyers.
Here's the site, www.chicagoguncase.com
Every gun site I've seen has pretty much stated the opposite. Even Box O' Truth suggests otherwise,
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot1.htm
although that only tests hitting drywall directly, not through a person. And barrel length is 16" not 14.5" like an M4(no SBR's in IL though, so irrelevant for Chicagoans).
I don't own a pistol or rifle, only a shotgun.
Regardless, in Chicago AR15 clones of all sorts are simply banned, as is pretty much any semi-auto(Unless it has a fixed magazine, and isn't a clone of one of the 25+ assault rifles they list). Leaving you mostly with bolt action rifles available(and hopefully RPD's are legal too, I'm no lawyer but I imagine a belt not to be a magazine).
Please note the *OTHER* aspects of the case in Chicago, like the endless registration system, the fact that if you fail to register you may not register again etc. These are spelled out on the site. (Also note, I think Chicago has started an amnesty program to try to appease some, but the system is still broken and instead of fixing it they're pretending it's not until people forget)
Shotguns have the disadvantages of limited magazines, stout recoil (worsened by short barrels or pistol grips), and at across the room distances, you do still have to be fairly accurate.
"Conceivably, the Supreme Court could hold that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to the states yet still find Chicago's gun ordinance to pass constitutional muster."....Typical doublespeak for a lawyer...The Constitution applies to the States, but not local governments?...People have the right to bear, but a local government has the right to ban guns?....Whats next for Ms. Saunders, Slavery is really freedom?....
As for your "grandpa", perhaps he should have been in a home for the aged....You seem to have forgotten - intentionally - the 80+ year old Chicago resident who shot and killed a burglar that tried to kill he, and his wife...
Let me guess, you also have visions of dead baristas in Starbucks, Blood in the Streets, Wild West shootouts, people taking down air planes and chemical plants with .50 cals, and a host of other wild hypotheticals parroted by anti gunners which have yet to come to fruition?
BTW, what is YOUR stance on the Hale DeMar Act?
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-05-26/news/ct-met-burglar-shot-20100526_1_handguns-account-handgun-violence-unintentional-shooting
It seems there are plenty of senior citizens who can shoot as straight as anyone else.
http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m6d3-Chicagos-2nd-recent-selfdefense-shooting-validates-lawsuit-says-SAF-founder
I wonder why the hoplophobes are so afraid to acknowledge crime for what it is; our judicial system's inability to keep violent felons behind bars. I'm no statistician, but when I look at the crime being committed by violent recidivists vs. crime being committed by legal gun owners, I'm a bit surprised with the amount of finite financial resources being used to target legal gun ownership vs. the amount being used to address recidivism and the social and socio-economic disparities which are the true roots of violent crime.
But hey, if you can look at yourself in the mirror every morning and, with a straight face, continue to convince yourself that Chicago's handgun BAN is actually promoting public safety....more power to you.
Lonna,
Your target audience might be duped into agreeing with you when you choose the words "gun ordinance" ever so carefully. But those of us who have been following this situation closely know that Chicago's "gun ordinance" is a GUN BAN. Which, in Heller, doesn't pass the smell test. Bans are off the table. Federal enclave v. state or not.
I suppose to strengthen your argument, you could argue how Chicago's gun BAN has saved thousands of lives since its inception, but that would include you having to explain why or how Chicago is yet again on pace for >500 murders/yr, and has what, about 60% of all homicides in IL?
Hoiw can you justify infringement on COTUS rights, even when those infringements do absolutely nothing toward curbing violent crime?
The Kelo case basically ruled that the state can confiscate your property w/o compensation for whatever reason they see fit.
Heller ruled that the right of the individual to own firearms is not dependent on membership in a state militia.
Looking at the justices for the cases makes a stark contrast. All four judges who ruled against Heller also voted FOR state confiscation in Kelo. These would be Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.
Two of the justices, Scalia and Thomas, voted for the rights of the individual in both cases. The other two dissenting Kelo justices, Rehnquist and O'connor, were replaced by Roberts and Alito for Heller and both supported the right of the individual.
The final vote? Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. He voted FOR the state in Kelo and against the state in Heller.
Since then, with McDonald v Chicago on the horizon, Souter has been replaced by another Statist, Sotomayor. Groups like the Brady Campaign are already conducting damage control in an expected loss.
What a difference 1 vote makes.
http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2009/11/compare-and-contrast-kelo-heller.html
The Court is dominated by corporatist philosophy. That's for-pofit above We The People. As this Court has done, it will do again. It will rule with the libertarians, the Cato Institute, the NRA. It will rule against insuring domestic tranquility, it will rule against promoting the general Welfare, it will rule against providing for the common defence, it will rule against People in favor of Profit. The Court will rule against public safety, and public security. The Court will rule in favor of selling as many guns to as many people as possible no matter what the size of the gun or the output of the magazine.
The Court may rule unConstitutionally that an individual has the "right" to own a gun for reasons of insurrection, according to Justice Scalia's decision in Heller.
I have no confidence in the Supreme Court 5 doing the right thing for our nation. They haven't done the right thing since 2000.
The right to bear arms benefits everyone, no matter how much you try to hide the facts showing it is true.
First of all, there is no right to bear arms. A well moneyed propaganda machine sponsored by the NRA and the for-profit gun industry has been saying it is a "right" for more than thirty years. The NRA chooses to ignore the Second Amendment's meaning of "well-regulated." The Court never decided that there was a "right" to own a gun before Heller in 2008. This Court alone in a 5/4 decision struck down all precedence for 200 years of American jurisprudence.
"Well-regulated" is what would help control gun violence in our nation. But the NRA viciously fights against any impediment to gun sales, or bigger guns, including assault weapons; even for felons or the mentally ill.
Continued ....
A right to keep and bear arms is inherent, and protected explicitly by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Your assertion is therefore false and dishonest; your behaviour is consistent with my observation that civilian disarmament advocates are dishonest and irrational.
" This Court alone in a 5/4 decision struck down all precedence for 200 years of American jurisprudence."
If your assertion is true, then you should be able to reference previous precedent that validates your claim. However, because you are lying, you will be unable to do so.
" But the NRA viciously fights against any impediment to gun sales, or bigger guns, including assault weapons; even for felons or the mentally ill."
The National Rifle Association does not behave as you claim. You are, again, lying. Your behaviour is consistent with my observation that civilian disarmament advocates are dishonest and irrational. Your adovcacy for a prohibition on a class of rarely criminially misused firearms is itself also dishonest and irrational.
I understand that people go through the grieving process at different rates. But really...I think having 2 years now to digest Heller and the true meaning of the 2A, which is unconnected to any militia service, and which NINE SCOTUS justices concurred with, would have brought you to the acceptance stage by now.
Oh and a home security system? It's useless without the ability to respond to it with effective force. An alarm cannot be relied upon to peacefully drive off every criminal like you see in the Brinks commercials. One must be prepared for the possibility an alarm alone will not scare a criminal away. In that situation, a firearm in the hands of a trained citizen is the best tool for the job.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-05-26/news/ct-met-burglar-shot-20100526_1_handguns-account-handgun-violence-unintentional-shooting
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-06-03/news/ct-met-intruder-shooting-0604-20100603_1_charge-2nd-man-handgun-ban-possession
Apparently it's okay to violate the handgun ban as long as you don't get caught until you need to use the gun for self defense. I guess Chicago politicians don't like the idea of charging lawful citizens for defending themselves from criminals. Of course most people would consider that a good reason to just ditch the ban altogether, but that would require someone in political office capable of rational thought. You don't find too many of those in Chicago or anywhere else these days.
So do states have the right to tax or the power to tax?