Here’s a video showing Chicago Mayor Richard Daley decrying the Supreme Court’s decision that the Second Amendment refers to the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Will the Court Actually Strike Down the Challenged Provisions of D.C. Law? Yes. The Court struck down the handgun ban; and also the requirement that firearms in the home be kept locked and unloaded/disassembled — to the extent the latter requirement prohibits citizens from “rendering … firearm[s] in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” … the lower courts may have to piece out what level of readiness and access is realistically required for “immediate self-defense.” …
Are “Keep” and “Bear” Separate Rights? … It clearly includes the right to “use [arms] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense” in the home. … What about carrying them outside of the home? Justice Scalia notes that 19th-century state courts regularly upheld prohibitions on “carrying concealed weapons.” … The opinion does not mention that many of these state courts hold that the right to bear arms obligates governments to allow some form of weapons carry — if concealed carry is banned, then “open carry” (holstered on the hip) must be allowed, and vice versa. …
The imposition by the U.S. government of a U.K.-style system of sweeping gun bans and prohibitions on armed self-defense is now off the table. Such laws are a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court Second Amendment decision comes on the heels of decisions to allow enemy combatants access to the American legal system and striking down death penalties for child rapists. The decisions exemplify the fault lines in American political opinion and how they are played out in the courts. Chicago is now prepared to make the argument that the Supreme Court decision does not apply to it’s fair city.
“In the sense the Supreme Court has found this is an individual right to bear arms, we recognize this is a significant threat,” said Jennifer Hoyle, spokeswoman for the city’s law department. “It gives people an opening to challenge the ordinance in a way it hasn’t been challenged in many years.”
Hoyle said the high court’s ruling does not invalidate Chicago’s law because it does not apply to cities or states. And, she said, lawyers are confident they will be able to successfully fight off any legal challenge to the 1982 ordinance that makes it illegal to possess or sell handguns in the city.
“We have very strong legal arguments to make at every level of the courts,” pointing out, for example, that the gun law constitutes a reasonable restriction for a densely populated urban area. But Hoyle fully expects legal challenges to those arguments are coming.
She can count on it.
The City of Chicago is not of course opposed to firearms; simply who gets to bear them. The police department recently proposed arming police officers with assault rifles.
CHICAGO (CBS) ― One answer to curbing Chicago’s gun violence, according to police, is putting officers on the streets dressed in full battle gear and traveling in vehicles normally used in hostage and barricade situations. I think it acts as deterrent,” Chicago Police Dept. Supt. Jody Weis said. “The first thought is that it’s SWAT and they’ve backed off. I think the deterrent factor is important.” …
But in Chicago’s South Shore neighborhood, the idea of police with assault weapons is a concern. “If they’re going to carry assault rifles like that that’s just going to be an all out war with citizens criminals because they’re going to defend themselves,” said area resident Kevine Green.
Pat Hill, a former police officer and the president of the African American Police League, questions the message police are sending to the black and Hispanic communities where the battle-ready officers are expected to be deployed. “This is the stuff you use in war,” Hill said. “This is what you use in Iraq and Afghanistan. So are they telling the community now that they’ve declared us as the enemy?”
The Chicago police department says the heavy weapons will only be used “when needed”, which raises the question, will they ever be used when they are unneeded?
Contribute to the Belmont Club.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
41 Comments
1. fred:I’m not a lawyer, so please make it plain to a simple citizen how the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution does not apply to the states and the cities. The Chicago elites and leadership say they have a strong argument. What is it?
The crowd that the Chicago police need to fear are not those gun owning people in the future if the city’s defense of its restrictions falls by the wayside. The enemy of the police are already in the city.
Why do liberals continually mix the baddies with the goodies and call it all black?
This is a fight by the good people of America against the criminals and the criminals’ allies among the legal and political professions. Where I live law enforcement likes the idea of citizens having guns for home defense and for hunting. Off the record, I’ll bet a lot of Chicago PD would agree with that, but they can’t say it publicly because of their union and because of the politicians.
Jun 26, 2008 - 8:17 pm 2. jwillie:Wretchard,
Not sure how to say this other than to just say it – the PJM blog interface sucks! It is very reader unfriendly. Never thought i would fawn for blogger, but… While I understand that moving here was a multifaceted decision from your perspective, from a pure user interface point-of-view, there aren’t many worse than PJM (although Townhall is close). Since I only have one perspective as it relates to reading your blog, which is whether it is easy for me to do so or not, I would strongly encourage you to either put Belmont on your own wretchard.com portal (but use drupal or joomla or community server, not dotnetnuke, for the underlying platform), put it on wordpress.com, use a webhosted/fantistico version or wordpress to achieve a fully customizable environment or, last, but not least, consider one of the white label “social networking” platforms (there are at least as many of them as their are portal/cms platforms). Otherwise, I guess you could seek to prevail upon PJM to adopt one of the above-suggested alternatives. If the status quo @ PJM prevails, you will likely lose as many if not more readers as you stood to gain from their “subscriber” base. This interface is that bad! Just my two cents.
Jun 26, 2008 - 8:38 pm 3. Elroy Jetson:The battle lines are being drawn, the choices are stark. Those, like the political hacks in Chicago, who think the Heller decision doesn’t apply to them against law-abiding citizens in the city who just want a chance to defend themselves against the increasing amount of violent crime. It looks like someone in Chicago is going to have to sue and the Supremes may see a similar case brought before them.
Jun 26, 2008 - 8:46 pm 4. Alsadius:What a pity.
That last question is an easy one. Will any member of a large group of people ever abuse a power given to that group? Yes. Yes, they will.
Also, I’ll second jwillie to some extent – I always used to read the Blogger site by opening all the Read More in new tabs, which made it incredibly easy to catch up and keep everything neatly organized. I rather miss that structure.
Jun 26, 2008 - 8:46 pm 5. Richard Fernandez:The “Readmore” feature was a hack I implemented and will again once things have settled down. Right now, for technical reasons, I can’t access the stylesheet. But it will happen eventually.
Jun 26, 2008 - 9:00 pm 6. Mark:You would almost think Thomas Jefferson knew there would be a Mayor Daley in the future and we would need the 2nd amendment to keep him under control.
Jun 26, 2008 - 9:22 pm 7. Wil:It’s starting right now . The NRA is preparing to sue Chicago for it’s strict gun laws and for Mayor Daley and the rabid anti-gun supporters in Chi-Town , their only hope is to drag this thing until the Obamessiah gets elected as President and with the Democratic Congress and Senate , they will be able to stack SCOTUS with left leaning judges that will override the previous decision . Of course , if Obama lost , Dick Daley and his political machine here in Chicago will be in a lot of hurt politically and legally . It will also bring down the Illinois Democratic party including Barack Obama . So prepare to see his Highness , the perpetual mayor of Chicago , Richard Daley to begin campaigning heavily for Obama . He cannot afford to lose this battle .
Jun 26, 2008 - 9:25 pm 8. fred:I think I have recently come to understand how much of the progressive legal Left in this country thinks. They believe that the U.S. Constitution represents not our identity, but as merely an important moment in the Hegelian historical evolution of the human race. The 2nd Amendment, to those people, is so… 18th century. Does not apply to us today or in the future. It’s time is past. I realize that this sounds simplistic, but these people do indeed relative our traditions. They bring in legal thinking from other countries and other institutions. Or, they bring it in from the chameleon Marxism of the post-modernism found in academia.
They are urban elites who look down on us hayseeds. And that is the truth.
Jun 26, 2008 - 9:27 pm 9. dla:It was pretty hard to not see the 2nd amendment an individual right. Good grief, even Kennedy recognized that.
The American anti-gun crowd has never been swayed by logic or reason. It is a matter of emotion to them. There are two kinds of emotion (1) the Elite is afraid of the common person being armed because they lose some power, (2) those kind souls who believe in the inherent evil of weapons.
Jun 26, 2008 - 9:39 pm 10. NahnCee:fred – good analysis. I’ve always thought the left think the Constitution only pertains to them, the “educated” ones who are smart enough to understand it, and not everyone else — those of us who need the progressives to tell us how to do everything. That, of course, means that they will tell us when we can have an abortion, when (and if) we can carry a gun, and even when we can vote … and for whom.
Jun 26, 2008 - 9:53 pm 11. andrewdb:W –
I would only add to jwillie that the RSS feed is still truncated (although in a different way than before).
I know it is a bit presumptuous of me to complain that I want to have your wisdom for free and avoid the ads too, but I am told that one can set the RSS feed to still get credit for the page views even if I don’t actually view the page with the ads and other links and content. I like the RSS reader as I read a number of blogs – and as good as the content on PJ Media’s site, I do read others.
Jun 26, 2008 - 10:07 pm 12. whiskey:Wretchard, as you note in the post above, this is essentially Aristo politics. Guns for our police, but not for Joe Average. Or our bodyguards, but not you peons.
Same for terrorists. “We” the aristos find them cool, so we heck with you peons. Child rapists, well “we the aristos” weep for them, so the heck with your penalties.
Jun 26, 2008 - 10:56 pm 13. Panday:For some interesting reading on American crime, take the violent crime found in the 10 most populous cities in the US, compare the rate with rural crime statistics, and then subtract it from the total crime in the US.
Jun 27, 2008 - 3:17 am 14. Tom the Redhunter:So this Jennifer Hoyle thinks that an individual right to bear arms is a “significant threat”?
And to think that the same people who approve of her statement call George Bush a fascist.
Sigh.
Jun 27, 2008 - 5:07 am 15. RWE:The reason the Left is against gun ownership is because the basis of their philosophy is that there are no standards of behavior, no good and bad lifestyles, no cultures that are inferior to other cultures.
Given that basic belief, gun control is a necessity. They fully realize the damage that such an approach can cause and therefore seek to limit that damage.
Welfare programs and abortion clinics derive from that same approach as well.
In the name of greater liberty for all they seek less liberty for everyone.
Jun 27, 2008 - 5:14 am 16. The Heller Decision « The Smitten Eagle:[...] I agree with Zen, too. Also, some interesting analysis at The Belmont Club. [...]
Jun 27, 2008 - 5:38 am 17. Michael Hoskins:Reference, Winston Churchill’s “History of the English Speaking Peoples”. In the segment of the book describing England’s debt to the longbow, and the yoeman bowman, he traces how English nobility (Aristos) differed from their French bretheren. At some point people get tired of abuse and someone gets “shafted”; from about 350 yards. Thus were born the legends of Robin Hood and ideas about the limits of power and the rights of individuals. Good stories, good government, good stuff all.
Jun 27, 2008 - 6:17 am 18. Doug Loss:For those asking what the basis of Chicago’s claim that they aren’t covered by the 2nd Amendment will be, I think it will go like this:
“The Constitution and the amendments to it define the reach of the federal government. The amendments in the Bill of Rights prevent Congress from passing any laws infringing on the named rights. But the states are sovereign and have the right to pass their own more restrictive laws if they so choose. This was widely understood at the time of the drafting and ratification of the Constitution.”
All this was exactly correct up until the passage of the 14th Amendment which extended the constitutional prohibitions on the infringement of rights down to the state and local governments. Since then, all jurisdictions must abide by these prohibitions. But isn’t it just like the left to pick and choose which laws and prohibitions they want to abide by?
Jun 27, 2008 - 6:17 am 19. 3Case:2d Amendment for Dummies:
Tyranny, the neverending pursuit of the evil, must be resisted violently from time to time, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.,
Once upon a time it amazed me that people such as Ms. Hoyle did not understand that through history the evil have disarmed their populations as a precursor to their tyrannies and genocides, but time has prompted me to realize, her ilk is evil, also…not evil in the Robert Mugabe sense, but not benignly evil, either; sort of like the Germans down the road from the ovens who said they didn’t know what was going on there, but worse.
The cops wanting assault rifles is ,b>an open admission that of their failure to protect the community, but they do not want the community to be able to protect itself. What will happen with this is that the “I want one, too.” principle of bureaucracy will kick in and every half-brained city and town across the country will be writing M-16s into their budgets. Eventually, all will have to have them. Not too long after that, I suppose, traffic stops will require “felony stop” routines.
Jun 27, 2008 - 6:17 am 20. 3Case:Oh…and thanks for the Zevon reference.
Jun 27, 2008 - 6:19 am 21. Richard Fernandez:“But the states are sovereign and have the right to pass their own more restrictive laws if they so choose. This was widely understood at the time of the drafting and ratification of the Constitution.”
What wasn’t immediately clear to me from the decision is what happens to “no gun zones” on state-owned schools or facilities. It might be argued that certain types of land use or population densities, such as airports, are inherently places where guns cannot be allowed. Whether the argument can be made for an entire city like Chicago is something that lawyers will have to debate. Be interesting to watch though.
Jun 27, 2008 - 6:37 am 22. Michael Hoskins:“yeoman”…my keyboard made the mistake, not me.
Jun 27, 2008 - 6:38 am 23. Doug Loss:“What wasn’t immediately clear to me from the decision is what happens to “no gun zones” on state-owned schools or facilities. It might be argued that certain types of land use or population densities, such as airports, are inherently places where guns cannot be allowed. Whether the argument can be made for an entire city like Chicago is something that lawyers will have to debate.”
I think they would have a very difficult time making that argument. They may be able to claim that state-owned facilities or certain types of land use are inherently “no gun zones,” but to say that an entire metropolitan region could be so classified when major portions of it are privately owned and occupied by free citizens who have an acknowledged, Constitutionally-protected right to own and carry a gun seems to me to be a completely untenable position. All that would be necessary to shoot it down (so to speak) would be to show a citizen who is a resident of that city and who has no interest or substantial ability to move elsewhere and who desires a gun.
Jun 27, 2008 - 6:46 am 24. Herb:Interesting that Hizzoner raises States Rights as a cause supporting suppression of human rights. I thought that got settled a while back. He really doesnt want to go there. Particularly over this issue.
Just exactly what is a cop going to do with an automatic weapon in a crowded public space?
An armed society is a polite society.
Jun 27, 2008 - 7:11 am 25. Marcus Auerlius:That was the decision the gun control advocates feared the most – one that declares the Second Amendment an individual right with concrete consequence not just empty words.
Chicago’s lawyers may argue the decision only applies to Washington D.C. and not the nation but that logic is spinning faster than our washing machine does in its terminal cycle. That is they will attempt to argue the decision is narrow and applies only to the DC ban, an argument that will only fail as, IIRC, their is a passage in the decision stating if the second amendment is not safe from outright violation than no other amendment is safe.
My understanding of the decision (based on a conversation between a radio talker & WI’s attorney general) is there was a fair amount of leeway to regulate, e.g. licensing schemes and such, no gun zones in schools & government buildings etc, but explicit and total bans are unconstitutional.
Jun 27, 2008 - 7:11 am 26. RWE:I recall reading a while back that a rather Left leaning constitutional law analyst admitted that if we interpreted the 2nd Amendment in the same way the Left likes to interpret the rest of the Bill of Rights, then gun ownership would be REQUIRED.
Similarly, if the 2nd Amendment applied only to members of an organized military as claimed in the dissent, then Air Force pilots would be given their F-15’s and B-52’s to take home with them.
Jun 27, 2008 - 7:48 am 27. Panday:Richard,
It might be argued that certain types of land use or population densities, such as airports, are inherently places where guns cannot be allowed. Whether the argument can be made for an entire city like Chicago is something that lawyers will have to debate. Be interesting to watch though.
This is a good examples of how Gun Free Zones work.
Jun 27, 2008 - 9:41 am 28. jerry:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0vyxgJLJVA
The “Right to Bare Arms” enshrined in the Bill of Rights should be placed in proper historical context. At the time the Bill of Rights was passed military hardware was classified into either arms or ordinance. Arms were defined as personal weapons that each citizen would bring upon being called up to serve in the militia. Ordinance, i.e., things like cannon, was provided by the State. The founding fathers believed that a free citizenry was an armed citizenry zealous to protect their rights and common security of the community and the nation. So the next time some anti-gun nut asks you if the right to bare arms allows a citizen to own a machine gun or rocket launcher tell him that those fall under the category of Ordinance and are not subject to the second amendment.
Jun 27, 2008 - 10:11 am 29. Fat Man:Gun rights advocates need to recognize that there is a tension between using the courts to expand gun rights and keeping the courts out of mischief.
If the courts apply the 2nd Amendment to the States by way of incorporation, how can it be argued that they should not do the same thing with the 8th Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment?
Be careful what you wish for.
Jun 27, 2008 - 1:30 pm 30. Wolf Pangloss:The Supreme dictators of America were in full socialist constitutional convention mode this last week, until they pulled off a final decision that actually was based on the constitution. And what a good decision it was. All those who watched the Supremes unlock the jailhouse door for imprisoned enemy terrorists and forbid the execution of child rapists must have called out to God for a gun to protect them. And then the Supreme Court reappeared, coming through with what was needed, and the dictators could only dissent.
Jun 27, 2008 - 1:53 pm 31. luagha:fred, no one seems to have mentioned the Fourteenth Amendment yet. The reason this Supreme Court decision is not immediately binding on the states is because the case was specifically crafted to avoid that question. It took place in the District of Columbia which is a federal enclave and only federal laws apply – no state’s laws nor state’s constitutions confuse the issue.
Now that this case has answered some basic questions – the Second Amendment grants an individual right where some restrictions are reasonable but an absolute handgun ban certainly is not – we can proceed to the next issue.
The next issue is ‘incorporation’ of the right to keep and bear arms under the Fourteenth Amendment so that it applies to the states as well – the same way that the right to free speech is ‘incorporated’ so that individual states cannot, say, pass a law against flag-burning and have it stand.
Jun 27, 2008 - 2:21 pm 32. wjr:Just a note on the Chicago police. If any city in this country deserves to allow its’ citizens to carry it is Chicago as the local police have been deeply corrupt from at least from the time of Al Capone.
Cronyism, payoffs, over reaction and the “long blue line” culture do take a toll on a citizens trust of “authority”. I really don’t know who is more dangerous to the average law abiding person — thugs from the South Side or the cops.
When things go bad, never, ever trust the police. Only trust Mr. S&W.
Best,
Jun 27, 2008 - 4:34 pm 33. NahnCee:wjr
When LAPD gets through with its federal overseers (put in place for being too mean to the Messicans), shall we send them to Chicago to oversee the police there?
BTW, W the Rat – what is the difference between when you post as Wretchard and when you post as Richard Fernandez? Is one a dashing nom de plume, and the other a pontificating Harvard grad, or is it just another instance of site-settlement?
Jun 27, 2008 - 5:58 pm 34. exdem13:It’s nice to see how Ms. Hoyle and Mayor Daley are so effin’ scared and threatened of Joe/Jane Average obtaining a measly .380 for scaring off muggers & burglars. Next, we dangerous Morlocks and Hillbillies might get hold of a Colt .45 or a shotgun and REALLY become dangerous! It still wouldn’t burn me so much if I hadn’t got to the bottom of the post & seen where the Chicago PD wants to make like the 10th Cav in patrolling the South Side. Yeah, the normal law-abiding folks can’t have handguns-or ANY guns, for that matter-to protect themselves. But, the Chicago police can bristle with firepower, body armor, and other quasi-military stuff so they can go all Waco on people the Chicago pols think are bad for the city’s image. (Maybe the Chicago police ought to ask for a few ED 209 units so they can do a more efficient job of keeping the peace?)
Yeah, right. That’s the leftards for you, “all rights for me, but none for thee, for thou art WRONG”. My friend Cotn Charles has a bumper sticker that reads “CRIMINALS PREFER UNARMED VICTIMS. POLITICIANS PREFER UNARMED PEASANTS.” I think we know where Mayor Daley and his political buddies fit in with that slogan.
Jun 27, 2008 - 6:20 pm 35. Richard Fernandez:what is the difference between when you post as Wretchard and when you post as Richard Fernandez? … or is it just another instance of site-settlement
I haven’t figured out why yet.
Jun 27, 2008 - 8:19 pm 36. Kirk Parker:Jerry,
It would help your explanation somewhat if you would spell things “bear” and “ordnance”.
Just sayin’.
Jun 27, 2008 - 11:14 pm 37. Doug Loss:exdem13:
It seems to me that Daley and his buddies fit both sides of the slogan…
Jun 28, 2008 - 5:20 am 38. NahnCee:I dunno. I was thinkikng the “right to bare arms” means you don’t have to have a concealed weapons permit which sounds like a good Constitutional amendment to me.
Jun 28, 2008 - 9:42 am 39. Doug Loss:No, the “right to bare arms” means the right to rip the sleeves off your BDUs when you carry openly. More studly, don’t you know…
Jun 28, 2008 - 2:55 pm 40. NahnCee:muscle shirt
Jun 28, 2008 - 3:47 pm 41. NahnCee:how French
Jun 28, 2008 - 3:47 pmSorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.