Mayor Daley calls Supreme Court's gun-ban reversal 'a very frightening decision'
High court strikes down Washington D.C. law in ruling that could have Chicago implications
Melissa Patterson and Jeff Coen | Chicago Tribune reporters
12:09 PM CDT, June 26, 2008
An angry Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday called the Supreme Court's overturning of the Washington D.C. gun ban "a very frightening decision" and vowed to fight vigorously any challenges to Chicago's ban.
The mayor, speaking at a Navy Pier event, said he was sure mayors nationwide, who carry the burden of keeping cities safe, will be outraged by the decision.
Chicago's handgun ban, which has lasted for more than a quarter-century, came under threat earlier in the day when the Supreme Court decided that Washington D.C.'s law against handgun ownership is unconstitutional.
In a 5-4 decision, the high court determined that Americans have the right to own guns for self-defense as well as hunting. The decision, which had been expected, is a win for gun-rights advocates and provides a better definition of the rights of Americans to own firearms.
Video
Related links
Steve Chapman: A triumph for individual freedom
Gun ban ruling
Did the Supreme Court make the right call?
Yes
No
View current results
Reaction from Chicago and beyond Video Illinois gun-rights activists have said they expect to mount a quick legal challenge to the Chicago Weapons Ordinance.
Other city officials said they felt confidant that challenge would fail.
"We are confident that this does not invalidate Chicago's ordinance at this point," said Jennifer Hoyle, spokeswoman for the city Law Department.
Benna Solomon, deputy corporation counsel for the city, asserted that the Supreme Court decision only applies to the federal government. Washington D.C., she said, is part of the federal government, but Chicago is an independent home-rule unit of Illinois.
"The court notes that is not required to consider whether the 2nd Amendment also applies to state and local government, and therefore it does not consider that question," Solomon said. "The court had previously held on three occasions the 2nd Amendment does not apply to state and local government, and it does not reconsider or even address that issue in this opinion."
Nevertheless, the city expects to be sued, Hoyle said. "We are prepared to aggressively litigate this issue and defend this ordinance," she added.
Daley said the Supreme Court decision, by allowing guns in city streets but still banning them in the halls of federal power, further widens the gap between the country's elite and the common people.
"This decision really places those who are rich and those who are in power [to] always feel safe," Daley said. "Those who do not have the power do not feel safe, and that's what they're saying."
The press never mentions the many citizens who are maimed but not slain by guns, the ones who take the real toll on America's health-care and tax systems, Daley said.
"They're the forgotten souls, they're in the nursing home for the rest of their lives," Daley said. "They're the ones with spinal cord injuries, head injuries, costing the government millions of dollars to taxpayers."
"They can have all the guns we want in the fed building," Daley said. "They can have all the guns. But why should we as a city not be able to protect ourselves from those who want guns in our society?"
It was the first time in nearly 70 years that the court had taken up broad questions about the 2nd Amendment's protections of the right to bear arms. The city of Chicago, which has had its own ban on handgun ownership since 1982, had filed a brief with the court in support of the ban in January.
Daley stressed the danger of private gun ownership, not only to other Chicago citizens, but to the children of gun owners.
"We've shown time and time again how many children have been killed in their homes by guns," he said. "Parents are away, they get the gun. Parents are away, the child takes the gun, runs out in the street and has an argument, comes back and shoots somebody."
He described America as a country of gun-lovers who export their weaponry to neighboring countries like Canada and Mexico, spreading violence to relatively peaceful areas.
Daley said he found it "amazing" how guns are banned anywhere near the Supreme Court and the U.S. Capitol, but the lawmakers who meet there are "changing the rules" to allow them on city streets.
District of Columbia v. Dick Heller began as a group of plaintiffs suing over D.C.'s local gun ordinances, including one barring the registration of handguns by private individuals. Heller was a security guard at the Federal Judicial Center in Washington who could have a handgun at work but not at home, and his lawyers have argued the 2nd Amendment creates an individual right of handgun ownership.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's ruling that had dismissed Heller's suit, finding that the 2nd Amendment did protect an individual's right to bear arms. The Supreme Court took the case and heard oral arguments in March.
In Chicago's brief, lawyers argued state and local rules regulating firearms are constitutional and have had popular support. Chicago's ordinances resemble those of D.C., lawyers for the city acknowledged.
"Chicago, like other big cities, has a compelling interest in reducing crime related to firearms," the brief states. " Chicago Police Department statistics show that from 2004 to November 2007 there were 43,685 firearms-related violent crimes in the city."
Reaction from Chicago and beyond Video The 2nd Amendment is a federal constraint, the city argued, and local and state governments should not be prevented from regulating guns in ways that are tailored to their communities. Washington D.C. is a federal entity, so the decision may not even apply to Chicago, its lawyers have said.
The 2nd Amendment dealt with states and their militias and not individual rights, the Chicago brief states, and American states have a long history of controlling weapons.
"A central purpose of that Amendment was to protect the States against the threat to their sovereignty posed by the power of the federal government to raise and maintain a standing army," it said.
It continues: "The frontier is gone. In domestic matters and international affairs, state militias have been displaced by organized police forces, the National Guard, and the federal military. And criminals with firearms--especially handguns--wreak havoc in American cities."
Richard Pearson, spokesman for the Illinois State Rifle Association, said gun-rights advocates are excited about the ruling. The court's decision that individuals have the right to own handguns in their homes outside of use in militias should have a wide impact, Pearson said.
"I think that's going to impact the de facto Chicago gun ban greatly," he said, as well as other ordinances across the state. "Those ordinances will either need to be changed or will be in jeopardy from legal challenges."
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
John McGinnis, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law who specializes in constitutional law and served in the office of legal counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, called the decision "a complete victory" for those who advocate for the rights of individuals to own guns, though it does leave some ground open for a legal battle.
McGinnis said the court clearly stamped approval on the rights of citizens to own "ordinary guns that are in common use," including handguns.
What the decision ultimately means for Chicago is a different question, McGinnis said.
"It still leaves a wide swath open for substantial litigation in the future, in the context of local and state gun laws," he said.
Chicago would be "absolutely open" to make the argument that the 2nd Amendment should not be incorporated to apply to Illinois and the city, he said, though he said he believes with the current makeup of the court, that argument ultimately would fail.
McGinnis said he expects a local challenge to the Chicago ban to be filed in U.S. District Court here, with the question again heading up to higher courts. The professor estimated that it could take months for a local challenge to play out.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
[email protected] [email protected]
