Chicago Sun-Times
A dialog between Sun-Times opinion writers and our readers

Chicago gun control case could change constitutional map

| 16 Comments | No TrackBacks

As much as I favor strong gun control legislation, I've never felt the Second Amendment supported my position. Just my bad luck. If I could, I'd change the amendment.

But for the longest time, the Second Amendment really was the only provision of the Constitution that came into play in the gun control debate. Now we have a new wrinkle:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday, having ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment does indeed protect the right of an individual to bear arms, will hear arguments in a Chicago case that this constitutional protection applies not only to federal laws and federal jurisdictions (such as the District of Columbia) but also to cities and states.

At issue now is the 14th Amendment, which limits states from enacting laws that essentially subvert federal law. The amendment was passed after the Civil War to prohibit Southern states from writing up laws that would effectively deny full rights and freedoms to the newly emancipated slaves.

As so often happens, the Supreme Court's decision in the Chicago gun case could have wider ramifications, as nicely explored in this article at, a generally smart libertarian journal.

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL:


Daley is a nepotistic horses A55 and a fool. The people committing these crimes are not and were not obtaining their firearms legally. Most of them are funneled in the same routes that drugs are.

This law primarily affects the lawful gun owner and IS DIRECTLY IN CONFLICT WITH OUR CONSTITUTIONAL 2ND AMENDMENT. It doesn't state "Right to Bare Arms unless you are some blow hard politician that wants a lot of feathers in his cap"

And Finally, What has this ordinance done? Has crime involving fire arms really decreased? In fact, we hold a national record for violent crimes against children involving these already banned weapons. It is a reactionary law that doesn't address the problem.

Daley is a big blow hard, with the exception of blasting reporters and making sure there are blooming plants on Michigan Ave, has no Value. He Stroger and Blago are scumbags.

Let the people of Chicago vote on it. I would wager the vast majority of them don't carry guns and would prefer certain guns be kept off the street. There aren't any deer to shoot here, so the only reason you would own a gun in Chicago is to potentially shoot another person.

I hope Guns and Cig's are out lawed....I can run them for a couple of years and retire..

ChicagoPoetry,.... First, the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting see DC vs Heller. There are plenty of other things to do with "certain guns" other than shoot people, try an GOOGLE Camp Perry as a start. As far as letting the people of Chicago vote on it I would ask what other rights are you willing to put to a vote?

Chicagopoetry, Do you honestly think a vote would change anything? Would it be better than your current laws which only prohibit honest citizens from having guns, but does nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining them? I hope you don't have to find out the hard way.

If SCOTUS OVERTURNS THE CHICAGO BAN ON GUNS WATCH THE CRIME RATE DROP SIGNIFICANTLY. The criminals won't know who has guns, the cowards like to attack defenseless people.

Linda you are so right! And to the writer of this story Tom McNamee, it's a good thing you or I can't change any laws because none of us would be able to do anything free! Everyone has an opinion about everything. Least the founding fathers of the United States had better motives then, I guess people forgot about not having any freedoms at all.

The real question of this case is whether there is a difference between a shotgun (legally owned by the person in the case) and a pistol (which the law bans.)

The state has laws that require many things, including gun registration.

The question is "Why is a pistol different from a shotgun?"

Read before you type.

Daley is a fool! Let`s vote him out! I bet his security force has guns. " You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers!"


With all due respect, the 2nd Amendment cannot be changed or amended. None of the Bill of Rights can be changed or amended. Read the Federalist Papers - the Bill of Rights simply recognizes the preexisting god-given rights of a free people. "Changing" the Second Amendment would simply be to convert our free society into a tyranny - one that a free people would be obligated to "change" in return.

The Chicago ban has no merits in crime reduction. Look at the city's crime rate. Thugs run and own the streets. Citizens have the right to protect themselves. Humanist asked what is the difference betwwen a handgun and a shot gun. Simple answer is concealability and number of rounds avaialabel. A semi-automatic pistol can hold between 8 and 15 rounds while a shot gut holds around 6. A pistol can be tucked in your pants and fired one need both hands to effectively fire a shot gun. Now, I prefer a shot gun for home defense, especially a pump shot gun. Racking that first round lets the intruder know they will be in for a fight. There are plenty of documented cases where violent crimes have been stopped by responsible gun owners. That is the real issue...can the general populace be considered responsible enough to have a handgun in Chicago? We all know the criminal doesn't care and he/she will carry that or an automatic rifle because our courst will not enforce the current laws on the books. That is an easy charge to dismiss and use as leverage for a plea.

=== the Bill of Rights simply recognizes the preexisting god-given rights of a free people. ===

Funny, I don't remember any mention of handguns in the Garden of Eden.

But, if you're going to take a strict view of the Second Amendment:

"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."

You have to agree that the state has no power to limit any arms in any way, including automatic weapons, hand grenades, bazookas.

And I don't see any exception in there for ex-felons, so pretty soon you'll see them pushing to get their guns back too.

Or am I misreading the law?

Mayor Daley sites horror stories of people who were hurt by guns in his town as a reason to ban guns. He fails to point out that these happened under his watch and his austere rules, witch failed to protect them. It seems the criminals were not too impressed with the Mayer’s rules as 410 out 412 murders used handguns. Perhaps some might have been spared if they were not perceived as unarmed and helpless. The shooters might have thought better of it if and held there fire. No criminal wants a confrontation on equal terms. They strike with the advantage, of being the only one armed. No one knows how many crimes have been deterred by the perception (real or imagined) that the intended victim can return aggression in kind. If you check the statistics you will find that the greatest gun control results in the highest the murder rate and least yields the lowest. Wolves attack sheep not bears.

Criminals are immune to gun laws. Only the law abider has a something to lose. Many otherwise law abiders have been turned into criminals by there desire to stay alive. The primary problem with all gun laws is the very people they are aimed at are those least likely to follow them. The penalties for gun possession pal in comparison to those for the much greater affiances they have committed when caught. Many gun confiscations from criminals are as a result of unlawful searches and not prosecutable. Thus the deterrent is small compared to the perceived utility. Criminals must have guns to stay in business or run the risk of losing their ill-gotten gains and their life to another criminal. For them a gun is almost an imperative. The motive to acquire one is strong. Predators are themselves prayed upon by stronger meaner predators. Criminals make the best victims, as they are not going to call 911. The shepherd lost a lamb to the wolf so he got a dog. The dog’s teeth were no sharper nor his bite more vicious then the wolf’s but the wolf would rather go hungry than face them.

Police often have difficulty detecting and prosecuting crime for lack of witnesses. The overwhelming reason for this is intimidation or fear of retaliation. Most people feel helpless against a violent criminal in his prime and know they have no defense. Even when they are in jail many of them can reach you from behind bars. Would you be willing to turn in or testify against a criminal whom you are defenseless against? I don’t think so. He may have friends, family, employees, or fellow gang members or get out and personally thank you for testifying against him. A lot can happen in the time it takes police to respond, if they are notified, and if their budget hasn’t been cut to badly. It takes but one dog amongst the sheep to deter the wolf.

Let law abiding citizens own and carry weapons that is the only way crime in this city will be reduce. If not we will continue to have killings on the streets of chicago. The police can not stop crime. Criminals will think twice before they do any crime if they knew that somebody may have a weapon on them and have the right to use it, you will see a drop in crime only when that happens, until then we are on are own the police can not help us.

Liberals do suck. Um OK if you are against fire arm ownership good for you. But this is the United States of America, a constitutional republic that guarantees it's citizens the right to keep and bare arms in plain English. If you don't like it move to Canada, Cuba, North korea and a million other countries. All liberals are for gun control until someone invades their home and threatens to harm their family, at that point gun control is the last consideration. If law abiding citizens don't own guns who does? Criminals and government agencies. That's totalitarianism folks and if you support it you can shove your utopia right in your ear. You all keep saying that their are no deer to shoot here. Shut up. That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It is our right you droids, our red blooded American right and the government takes that away we cease to be America. It's just that simple. Liberals are so obsessed with handing the bastards in power more control while claiming to challenge the system, it's down right weird.

I don't know if any of you have actually seen King Daley's residence before? The block is surrounded by undercover and uniform officers the many times I've seen it. I too would be able to live without fear of gun crime if I had my own armed security detail surrounding me. Daley, come stay with me for a few nights and listen to the gun shots ring out through the night. Listen to the police scanner and learn how the Police don't rush in when shots fired have been called in. Then your highness tell me how we should keep guns in the hands of the lawless and not with people who just want to live their lives with a little less fear.

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Tom McNamee published on March 1, 2010 2:35 PM.

A tsunami of e-books? was the previous entry in this blog.

Banning release of information? Someone call 911 is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.