This letter appeared in the Chicago Tribune yesterday:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gun Laws
August 6, 2008
The Chicago Tribune's Aug. 1 editorial "Chicago, guns and the court" fails to mention the long-standing legal principle that the 2nd Amendment limits only the power of Congress, and that state and local laws are not subject to challenge under the 2nd Amendment.
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision knocking down Washington's handgun ban decision did not change this well-established rule, which dates back more than 100 years. For this reason, Chicago is well within its authority, and has a strong legal basis, to defend its ordinance banning handguns. Moreover, cities must have the ability to respond to gun violence with whatever measures they deem necessary and appropriate. Chicago has not only the right but an obligation to implement laws that protect its citizens from the dangers of handgun violence.
Nina Vinik
Legal Director
Legal Community Against Violence
Evanston
--------------------------------------------------------------
I'm getting really tired of this crap...
I think the anti-gun nuts are strategizing in Chicago and Evanston to avoid the court battle with the NRA, since they would undoubtedly lose. By "giving in" and "following" the Supreme Court decision, they will be in the position to ALLOW legal possession of handguns in Chicago and Evanston... but with a lot of onerous requirements and restrictions.
Being able to have a handgun in Evanston would feel like a victory for me.
Having to register with the local police and get fingerprinted, or having to keep it unloaded, disassembled, locked in a safe and buried under six feet of concrete... would not feel like a victory.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gun Laws
August 6, 2008
The Chicago Tribune's Aug. 1 editorial "Chicago, guns and the court" fails to mention the long-standing legal principle that the 2nd Amendment limits only the power of Congress, and that state and local laws are not subject to challenge under the 2nd Amendment.
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision knocking down Washington's handgun ban decision did not change this well-established rule, which dates back more than 100 years. For this reason, Chicago is well within its authority, and has a strong legal basis, to defend its ordinance banning handguns. Moreover, cities must have the ability to respond to gun violence with whatever measures they deem necessary and appropriate. Chicago has not only the right but an obligation to implement laws that protect its citizens from the dangers of handgun violence.
Nina Vinik
Legal Director
Legal Community Against Violence
Evanston
--------------------------------------------------------------
I'm getting really tired of this crap...
I think the anti-gun nuts are strategizing in Chicago and Evanston to avoid the court battle with the NRA, since they would undoubtedly lose. By "giving in" and "following" the Supreme Court decision, they will be in the position to ALLOW legal possession of handguns in Chicago and Evanston... but with a lot of onerous requirements and restrictions.
Being able to have a handgun in Evanston would feel like a victory for me.
Having to register with the local police and get fingerprinted, or having to keep it unloaded, disassembled, locked in a safe and buried under six feet of concrete... would not feel like a victory.