Morton Grove has joined Wilmette in suspending its gun ban.
Morton Grove Mayor Richard Krier said the village would comply with the law.
The Heller dominoes are falling. One thing I hadn’t considered in all of this is that many of these Chicago suburbs have far less financial resources than Mayor Daley has at his disposal. These towns may have been happy to maintain handgun bans as a symbolic gesture, as “an expression of the kind of community we want to be.” But when it comes to actually spending tax dollars to fight a case in federal court, potentially all the way to the United States Supreme Court, I think they might just decide to fold rather than fight.
UPDATE: More here.
I shoot at the range they show in that picture in the article. In fact, I was there exercising my individual right to turn money into very tiny holes in paper the day after that picture was taken. 400 rounds through my .22LR plinker. It isn’t my favorite local range but the G.A.T. gun shop, which stands for Guns, Archery, and Tackle, is excellent.
This is a sad day in US History when a City cannot make a law to protect its own citizens. The Gun Ban is on HAND GUNS, not shotguns and rifles which work just fine for home defense. The 2nd amendment has its place however hand guns in heavy urban area such as Chicago pose a much bigger threat than a hand gun in the middle of nowhere Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Iowa etc… If the handgun ban is overturned in Chicago I will be suing the NRA for removing my inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness protected by the Declaration of Independence.
Jason,
Why does geography have anything to do with the “threat” posed by an inanimate object?
Jason,
Why don’t you try suing the city government of Chicago for failing to keep its recidivist criminals locked up long enough to actually make the crime rate go down?
If the handgun ban is overturned in Chicago I will be suing the NRA for removing my inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness protected by the Declaration of Independence.
Thanks for the Saturday dose of dumb.
Uh, Jason, do you suppose there were a lot of southerners saying the same kinds of things after the Brown decision? Just substitute uppity ni***rs for guns. Something to think about anyway.
Jason,
Make sure you hire a very expensive lawyer. That way, at least you’ll feel like you got your money’s worth when he laughs your scrawny ass right out of his office.
Hey dumbass, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. That document guarantees you none of the above. However, the 2nd amendment is in the Constitution. THAT is an inalienable right, and your candy-ass fear of inanimate objects does not trump it.
Brigadier General Sir Charles Uppington Smythe (Mrs.)
There’s a little town up the street, Kennesaw, GA, that has a city ordinance REQUIRING homeowners to have a gun. After the ordinance took effect, burglaries ceased in Kennesaw, completely.
“An armed society is a polite society.” Robert A. Heinlein
“When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” unknown
“The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it’s goodbye to the Bill of Rights.” unknown
“Hell, when the man said Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, I just thought he was making a delivery!” James Wesley Rawles
“Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms should describe a convenience store, not a government agency.” unknown
Guns: Keep ’em, shoot ’em, clean ’em. Git ‘r done America!
Jason, Directly from the Heller decision PDF
|
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms†that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
I live in Chicago. Sad to say, Chicago is filled with millions of Jasons, guys who are completely at a loss about what the 2nd A. is all about. They are the ones who keep electing the Daleys and Strogers of the world. I wish it were different.
I can have my handgun in my pocket, discreetly, while I answer the door. No such thing can be done with a long gun. A handgun can also be more easily controlled in very tight quarters. Shotguns are good for home defense, but I certainly don’t need someone who is 100% ignorant on the subject telling me how to do it.
I don’t know why I have to bring this up so often, but there is no “right” to deny rights. There’s no “right” to enslave, no “right” to ban speech or religion, etc.. And sure as hell, no criminal is going to obey a stupid gun ban, anymore than they obey laws against dealing drugs or committing robbery. Why is that so hard to understand?
Jason; For one thing, you have no standing to sue the NRA ILA, as they have the right to lobby Congress, file suits, etc.. You’d have to retry Heller (which wouldn’t last a nanosecond either) or push for a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd. Get yourself some meaningful education on these issues, then come back and talk to the big kids.
Jason, You said “shotguns and rifles … work just fine for home defense.” Shotguns and rifles are often NOT sufficient nor “fine” for women to use in self-defense. Too bulky, too heavy, etc. etc. etc. Thanks for showing your concern for women who may be the Defender in the home .. always, or just at the crucial moment, cuz “the man” is away from the house.
Rhonda (– A woman definitely in favor of a gun in every home, but wishes the licensing required a test, & training until the person passed the test!)
I remember when the madman on the Long Island Railroad shot and killed six people and injured nineteen in 1993. The suburbanites on the train were unarmed. They presumed that armed police could protect them before any madman with a gun could shoot them. They were tragically wrong.
If the same madman pulled a weapon on a MARTA train in Atlanta or on a Birmingham bus, he would likely be dead before he could reload. He might be dead before he got off a second shot.
Have you noticed that you never hear about madmen shooting up country & western bars? rodeos? Marine reunions? biker campsites? jukejoints? (real) blues clubs? farm expos? fishing tournaments?
Even madmen know they are safer walking the Pakistan-Afghanistan border wearing an “I Love NY” T-shirt than trying to shoot up such places.
If the same madman pulled a weapon on a MARTA train in Atlanta or on a Birmingham bus, he would likely be dead before he could reload. He might be dead before he got off a second shot.
Bad assumption about Atlanta Georgia. We have some of the most insane and restrictive conceal carry laws. Most of them date back to Jim Crow days. HOWEVER your statement will certainly be possible after July 1 since they put a little more sanity in our laws where we can carry on public transportation and even where alcohol is served as long as we are not partaking. Still some unreasonable restrictions about “public gatherings” but the right direction.
Jason this is a ruling about LEGAL firearms for law abiding citizens. I doubt if your neighbor runs out to get a handgun tomorrow your personal danger level is increased one iota. Probably it will go down because it creates a greater insecurity in the criminal mind. He actually has to worry again about his personal safety. That is assuming Jason you are not a thug and this ruling cramps your lifestyle and profession. One of the most enlightening insights I got was areas where crime is worst are overwhelming in favor of gun bans because they are afraid someone they love engaged in crime will get hurt.
Interesting . . . Morton Grove has folded, even though the Keller decision affects only the Federal government, and the Supreme Court didn’t find that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated against the States. Seems to me that even some who want to ban guns realize which way the wind is blowing.
I just moved to Chicago about two months ago. Although there’s a gun ban in place, more people are shot in this city than in Baghdad. During the weekend I moved here, with the gun ban in place, there were 36 separate shooting incidents (nine fatal)…and the statistic I hear most recently is that 21 public school children have been killed by guns in the first half of the year. Just this past week, a co-worker’s husband had three guns pulled on him during a routine fender bender (university police intervened and the “youths” with guns ran away and were subsequently apprehended). I’m personally afraid of guns, but I’d rather have a bunch of law-abiding citizens owning them than just the criminals. Seems logical.
Oh, and the person who thinks the Declaration of Independence guarantees his rights is exactly what’s wrong with the other side of this argument. Reflexive, unthinking liberals who get their news from The New York Times…they generally have good motives, but mushy brains.
From now on, anyone in Chicago who is injured (or who has a relative killed) by an unlicensed gun should sue the City of Chicago for taking away their rights without protecting them. I.e. since the City disarmed them, the City *must* have sufficient police to protect every single individual in the City, and if they fail, they pay.
You didn’t have a gun and got shot because the police weren’t there to protect you, they should pay. See how Mayor Daley likes that.
Also, his armed guards should be dismissed immediately, and he shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun, either.
Folks who lack expierence with firearms need not “fear them” or be “afraid”.
I have and will continue to help the Ladies at my school be safe and comfortable with a handgun any time they ask.
One of my former students was really anti gun until she visited Yale/New Haven. Turned several full rides at eastern schools,she went thru 450 rounds with my 45ACP Colt and now can shoot expert any day of the week.Her greater fear was herself becoming the victim,she chose life.New Haven convinced that the 2Nd is the best defense.
J.R.
TEXAS
Folks who lack expierance with firearms need not “fear them” or be “afraid”.
I have and will continue to help the Ladies at my school be safe and comfortable with a handgun any time they ask.
One of my former students was really anti gun until she visited Yale/New Haven. Turned down several full ride scholarships at eastern schools,she went thru 450 rounds with my 45ACP Colt and now can shoot expert any day of the week.Her greater fear was herself becoming the victim,she chose life.New Haven convinced that the 2Nd is the best defense.
J.R.
TEXAS
Instalanche!
Chicago’s gun ban was pushed through by the Chicago Mob.Here’s a background on the Chicago Mob and gun control.
http://nalert.blogspot.com/2008/03/chicago-democrats-and-chicago-mob.html
For how Chicago’s gun ban is a racketeering enterprise.
http://nalert.blogspot.com/2008/06/chicagos-gun-ban-as-racketeering.html
Jason,
Like Forrest Gump said: Stupid is as stupid does.
You really need to do some reading dude… You have not a clue!
twolaneflash: Don’t forget, “If in-laws are outlawed, only outlaws will have in-laws!”
Criminals with a gun are either stopped by the bottom of their magazine, or the top of someone else’s.
So those fascists in Morton Grove are going to comply, eh? About time; actually, long past time. You know, it seems like everything I read about Illinois makes it sound like it’s the most screwed-up, corrupt, dishonest state in the country. It sounds like it’s even got Jersey beat, and that takes some doing. If Blago turns out to be AC/DC, Ill. has the booby prize for sure.
Why in Hell would Americans be thinking they wanted to elect an inexperienced, apparently racist (from the contents of his books) academic Marxist from this corrupt state to be POTUS? It sounds ABSOLUTELY BLEEPING NUTS to me. All I can think of to attribute such insanity to is that old saying, “those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.”
Has Morton Grove really folded? The newspaper article is worded in a confusing way:
Morton Grove Mayor Richard Krier said the village would comply with the law.
“We are a small suburban town,” he said of the north suburb, which banned the possession or sale of handguns 27 years ago. “We’ve never had any real handgun violence before then or since then.”
So they will “comply with the law”. Which law? Their handgun ban law or the supreme law of the land.
Many big city gun bans were designed to protect criminals and mobsters, who requested this protection from their paid politicians. The Sullivan Law in New York City is one example. Second generation Irish would not knuckle under to protection rackets like their immigrant parents, and armed themselves to repel these thugs. “Big Tommy” Sullivan passed the gun bans because too many mob enforcers were being shot. Oh, but it was for the “protection” of “citizens”. Yeah, if you consider mobsters to be citizens.
Myself, I use the Second Amendment as a litmus test for politicians. If they are going to strip Second Amendment rights from law abiding citizens, then they’re not going to respect other rights. Some say it’s wrong to be a one issue voter, but I find there is a lot you can tell about a politician just on their stance on firearm ownership by law-abiding citizens.
Brian I hope you don’t mind if I blog that.
So Jason, can I sue the ACLU for enforcing the 1st amendment? The right of the city to enact gun laws? Where is that right?
You do not have an inalienable right to deny others of rights you don’t agree with, you ding dong.
http://www.gunmap.org
Don