search
top

Chicago Sticking to Its Gun Ban

The City of Chicago has vowed to fight the lawsuits against their gun ban, and to keep enforcing it while the case is pending:

“Chicago’s gun ordinance was not invalidated by the . . . decision. Three prior Supreme Court decisions have found that the Second Amendment does not apply to states and municipalities,” Georges said. “The decision did not change that case law.”

And all three of those prior cases existed prior to the Supreme Court’s decisions in the early 20th century that apply many provisions in the Bill of Rights to the states.  Fortunately for gun owners in the Chicago area, Wilmette and Morton Grove decided that discretion was the better part of valor, and repealed their bans.  Mayor Daley would obviously not suffer such an indignaty from anyone who dared challenge his authorty in Chicago.  The Daleys own that town.  Hopefully the Supreme Court didn’t get that memo.

7 Responses to “Chicago Sticking to Its Gun Ban”

  1. I hate to say it, but I actually see this as good news. I had worried a bit that Chicago would try to dodge the lawsuit, using a Washington D.C.-like ban-in-all-but-name. That would, of course complicate an attempt to get the Second Amendment incorporated.

  2. DirtCrashr says:

    From where in hell did any city or county get “Rights”?? People have Rights, not cities.

  3. Sebastian says:

    I don’t disagree, but it says a lot about the mindset of Daley that he’s willing to batton down the hatches and risk defeat rather than moderate even an inch.

  4. jones says:

    Very good. Stand still so we can slam ya’.

    I was woried they would bolt before we can get incorporation.

  5. Sebastian says:

    It’s really amazing to me that these guys can’t even bring themselves to make a small tactical retreat. They are so enamored with their own greatness, the thought revolts them.

  6. Thirdpower says:

    Daley really doesn’t care about what the courts say. He had an injunction to not touch Meigs airfield during a court case. He had a construction company go there in the middle of the night and demolish it anyway.

  7. Matt says:

    I’d argue the whole point was to challenge Daley on his home turf much in the same way Fenty was. Challenge their power and they’ll only dig in harder and become blind to the reality. You can use that to your advantage.

    We’re all students of human nature to lesser or greater degrees. I would say the other municipalities dropped their bans because they lacked the resources to fight back. They probably didn’t want to but accepted reality and made it into a PR victory for them by giving citizens back their rights (as they see it). I am quite certain representatives in both places were privately chewing glass in rage at the prospect but like all good politicians, they saw the damage going against their constituencies could do.

    Not so with Daley. He sees himself as an elected king. I fully believe he would never act to further the interests of the serfs and all we needed to do was take advantage of that. He had a working example of the downside in Fenty but like all kings, he sees himself as better, different or more powerful and will prevail where others have not. Just like any other despot.

    These big city mayors can serve our cause do by using their personalities against them. I love it!

top