It hasn’t taken long for Chicago Mayor Richard Daley to make clear his intentions to push the limit on how the Windy City is going to respond now that the Supreme Court has essentially sounded the death knell for the city’s 28-year-old handgun ban.
McDonald v. Chicago was a landmark victory for the Bellevue, WA-based Second Amendment Foundation for sure, but it was also a win for gun rights all over the United States because it incorporated the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights to apply as a limit on state and local governments. Chicago’s Corporation Counsel, Mara Georges, made it clear that the city is going to furiously fight to discourage as many of its citizens as possible.
(Georges) said that limiting Chicago residents to one handgun would pass constitutional muster. Nowhere has the court determined that "a person is entitled to more than one handgun," she said. "And one handgun is sufficient for self defense."
Among the gun law suggestions fielded during a Tuesday meeting were mandatory firearm insurance, a limit of one handgun per person and a ban on gun shops inside the city. Georges is supposed to offer a draft ordinance this week.
What appears obvious is that the Supreme Court ruling in McDonald is not seen as a deterrent by Daley to do as he pleases. A conversation with an Associated Press reporter in Chicago pretty much confirms that. Certainly, attorney Georges’ suggestions reveal an intention to frustrate citizens and take ever step possible to regulate their newly-restored civil right out of practical existence. Perhaps there is no better demonstration of municipal tyranny than what the tantrum-prone Mayor Daley is about to unleash on his constituents. It is the ultimate arrogance of public office, exercised by a politician who plans to stay in the same office for life, and who keeps getting elected for reasons only the gods in the heavens can fathom.
She said banning gun shops in the city is another reasonable restriction. She said studies have shown a disproportionate number of shootings near gun shops and because there are dozens of gun shops in the Chicago area - 40 in Cook County alone - a ban would not inconvenience gun buyers.
This brings up an interesting, even challenging, dilemma. At what point do we draw the line with such people, and if they cross that line, what should be the consequences?
This column brings up that question because Daley is hardly the only person living in their own private fantasyland, a term used not without considerable thought, as will become clear in just a moment.
Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn and Bob Scales, the senior policy analyst for the Seattle City Attorney’s office, apparently believe that the illegal parks gun ban – struck down earlier this year by King County Superior Court Judge Catherine Shaffer as a violation of state preemption – may still have a spark of life. The case is on appeal, and the Appeals Court will probably uphold Shaffer.
At a press briefing…a KING-5 TV reporter asked Mayor Mike McGinn whether Monday morning’s Supreme Court ruling finding that the Second Amendment gives people the right to bear arms in state and local jurisdictions would have any bearing on the city’s efforts to ban guns in city parks. (A local court struck down Seattle’s gun ban earlier this year, but the city has said it will appeal).McGinn’s response? He hadn’t, as of 11:00 yesterday morning, even heard about the ruling. “What Supreme Court is that?” McGinn asked, before saying that although he wasn’t familiar with the ruling, “We’re not the only city across the state that looks for flexibility to ban guns from parks, pools or community centers where appropriate.” - Publicola
A second case filed in federal court was rejected by District Judge Marsha Pechman, who ruled that the ban is constitutional under the state and federal constitutions. Because of Monday’s McDonald ruling, Pechman may be reversed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
But there is also a cultural challenge facing gun rights activists, and this one is even more difficult than simply dealing with arrogant, stubborn politicians. Despite the 2008 Heller ruling that defined the Second Amendment, and despite McDonald that extended this right to every corner of the land, many people still refuse to believe that the Amendment protects anything other than a collective right to bear arms in a militia.
Surprisingly, this philosophy was expressed by Lis Wiehl, a former federal prosecutor in Seattle and now a legal analyst and regular guest on Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor. During a Tuesday evening segment – for which a transcript is available on Lexisnexis – Wiehl repeatedly posited that the Second Amendment only protects a right to bear arms in a militia.
Wiehl is very bright, and she can be a hard-nosed legal advocate, but on this she is dead wrong and two years behind the curve. The Supreme Court’s Heller ruling is the law, it clearly defined the scope of the right to keep and bear arms as extending far beyond service in a militia, and the fact that Wiehl stubbornly clings to that militia argument – which is and always has been a fantasy – is clear evidence that gun advocates still have an uphill battle to win.
WIEHL: Let me answer your question and then go on, because even if you believe that there is a fundamental right that's enunciated in the Second Amendment for citizens.O'REILLY: Even if you believe. It's stated.WIEHL: For militia. This is what I'm trying to get through to your head.
To his credit, host Bill O’Reilly quickly rebuffed Wiehl’s argument, with support from Kimberly Guilfoyle, the other news and legal analyst in the segment.
What the Wiehl-O’Reilly-Guilfoyle debate underscores is the urgent need to define what a “reasonable” regulation is. In Chicago, they think limiting people to a single handgun, and requiring liability insurance are “reasonable” requirements. Such rules would never pass muster in Great Falls, Montana or Post Falls, Idaho, and because the Second Amendment has now been extended to the states through the 14th Amendment – which has an equal protection clause – the standards better be the same or very similar, so that the courts are not clogged for the next 25 years with cases seeking to set the definition.
Remember that it may ultimately be up to the Supreme Court to sort this reasonableness mess out, because they created it. That is why it is so important to have nominees who are not merely sympathetic with firearm civil rights, but will strengthen those rights through well-researched opinions.
I've been a Democrat all my life. I've worked for two Democratic presidents, and that's what my political views are,"—Elena Kagan
John Lott weighed in here against Elena Kagan, who has been talking the talk during confirmation hearings this week, but has hardly walked the walk on gun rights, as noted here yesterday. It appears Kagan will most likely be confirmed, and here, again, there was a disturbing revelation by Wiehl. She thinks Kagan is a “moderate” when everything about her suggests a hard leftward tilt.
She is moderate, first of all. She's very, very, very smart....”—Lis Weihl, Fox News legal analyst
Kagan is a self-acknowledged lifelong Democrat, and as Alan Gottlieb and I pointed out in our book These Dogs Don't Hunt: The Democrats' War on Guns, the party has always had gun control as one of its major planks. Richard Daley is a Democrat, as was his late father.
As the number of President Obama's judicial appointments and nominations continues to grow, it appears pretty clear that he does not care about the individual's right to self-defense. We can tell this by looking at the record of his two Supreme Court picks but also by examining the long list of lower-level judicial appointments.’—John Lott
PLEASE FORWARD the link to this column and share with all of your chat lists and forums
More from Gun Rights Examiners
Atlanta Ed Stone | Austin Howard Nemerov | Boston Ron Bokleman | Charlotte Paul Valone | Cheyenne Anthony Bouchard | Chicago Don Gwinn | Cleveland Daniel White | DC Mike Stollenwerk | Denver Dan Bidstrup | Des Moines Sean McClanahan |Detroit Rob Reed | Fort Smith Steve D. Jones | Knoxville Liston Matthews | Los Angeles John Longenecker | Minneapolis John Pierce | National David Codrea | Seattle Dave Workman | St. Louis Kurt Hofmann | Tucson Chris Woodard
And Don’t forget to visit:
Comments
I think your article clearly points out two issues. the first is that as long as democrats think they can ignore gun owners and get elected they will and they will continue trying to disarm honest citizens. The second is that we need another case to be filed so that "reasonable" can be defined under McDonald since it is not reasonable to deny some the right to self protection by forcing them to buy inusrance or limiting them to one gun. I own many since I am a collector and over half have never been fired. Also there has to be a grandfather issue brought up so that states and local governments cannot go back make requirement retroactive on guns that were owned before law changes.We are going to have to fight them every step of the way but now we need anotehr Mcdonald to resolve "reasonable" and where ever possible we need to go for punitive damages to discourage this kind of unreasonable anti-gun behavior.
Glad to see the reference to John Lott. If anyone is unfamiliar with his work or that of Gary Kleck, I recommend a quick check on Wikipedia. Academics who actually research gun control issues and statistics are hard to find.
I get so sick of the Militia issue. It is so simple. An excellent example for the non-academic type and maybe for these thick headed anti-types in Mel Gibson's movie the Patriot. Today people think of militias as "gun freaks weekend clubs" Or there is the worn out connection that the militia has morphed into the National Guard. In Gibson's movie, the army regulars give an order to call out the militia. So what happens? Riders are dispatch to travel to each farm in the area and tell the farmers that the militia is being called up and their participation is greatly desired. Sure their may have been some organized structure to the militia leadership, but in the end, the militia as it in known when the constitution was written, is the people. The militia was comprised of any farmer with a gun and any man of adult age - able bodied enough to fight. THAT is what the militia is. The people with their unrestricted personally owned firearms
"She said studies have shown a disproportionate number of shootings near gun shops"
Doncha just love the way these people just throw out ridiculous statements with no justification? I don't recall reading about a rash of shootings near Wades in Bellevue or Champion Arms in Kent.
There is a vast history of case law prohibiting the restriction of constitutional rights by any sort of nuisance regulation. Poll taxes and literacy tests were tried and defeated in the South. A suspect in a crime not only has the right to remain silent and have an attourney, but those rights must be explained to them prior to arrest. There are countless other examples of why their so called "reasonable" restrictions can and will be challenged.
For those venues that insist on trying to hamper the free exercise of Second Amendment rights it's going to be a target rich environment for an entire generation of attack lawyers.
More than any other issue, the Second Amendment reveals the elitist attitudes of the politically powerful. Even when forced to accept that a right is individual and fundamental, they still cling to the notion that the Bill of Rights is an exclusive club and its protections extend only to the the wealthy and well connected.
If the issue is to be settled it will be settled by force or the realistic probability of force being applied. If we have the courage we win, if we do not, they win. It is really that simple because force is their stock in trade. They have become used to employing unresisted force. If resisted with force they will fold. After all, they believe they are too important a part of the cosmos to risk.
Bruce,
I also found that a ridiculous statement, that "studies have shown a disproportionate number of shootings near gun shops." I'll wager that a different study would show that a disproportionate number of shootings occur near schools. Shall we ban schools within city limits?
Having a right is one thing. Being legally allowed to exercise that right is another. Exercise of ones rights is regulated by law. Therefore, although one has the right to keep and bear arms, both the federal government and the states can pass laws regulating possession and use of them, which is not infringing on the right itself.
So what is an infringement? Prior to the SCOTUS ruling, Chicago did not allow one to exercise their right and there was, for most people, no legal means of doing so, which is an infringement.
Dick Heller can now keep a gun in his home for self-defense. However, he still can't carry it outside of his home in Wash. D.C. The same thing will likely hold true for Chicago. These are not infringements.
To Anon: What good is it to have a right but be unable to exercise it?!? For all intents and purposes, it may as well not exist! If the regulations are so stringent that the right cannot be exercised, it certainly IS an infringement!! All that the law abiding citizens want is to be able to defend themselves against criminals, whether that be in their homes or out on the street. I believe that is it the right of every human being on the planet to be able to defend themselves from harm. We already HAVE thousands of gun laws on the books, I really don't think we need more. What we need are people in public office, within and without the legal system to enforce those laws. If someone is sentenced to 20 years for a felony, then by God, they serve 20 years, not get out on parole in 10 or 15 and commit another crime. We already have laws to prevent criminals and mentally ill people from owning guns, which I think is reasonable. I don't think more restrictions are reasonable.
I also believe that Daley and Bloomberg, because of their refusal to allow people to defend themselves, have the blood of innocent, defenseless people on their hands. Think about it. How many people in Chicago or New York have died at the hands of criminals because they had no effective way to defend themselves? Let's take away Daley's & Bloomberg's bodyguards and see how they like it. Like it or not, these two men have caused the deaths of innocent people. That is outrageous!!! Who do they think they are that they can do that to other people??? Who gave them that authority?!? This conflict between gun activists and the antis isn't just about guns. It's about the RIGHT that you and I have to defend the life God gave us and no other human being on the planet has the authority to take that right away from anyone!!
Dave Workman, you say only the heavens can fathom why Daley keeps getting re-elected. I'll tell you, why.
It's called Jesse Jackson. The voters of Chicago do not like the man, and they figure as long as Daley can draw a breath, they'd rather see him on the fifth floor at City Hall (mayor's office) than Jesse Jackson, or a black puppet controlled by Jackson.
More and more voters are disgusted at Daley the Younger, true, but they're more wary of Jackson, and they figure as long as Daley's in power, Jackson will stay away from Chicago.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!