Comments (45) | Add a comment
EDITORIAL
Under the gun
Tools
The U.S. Supreme Court followed up on its 2008 Heller decision -- which threw out the blanket ban on private handgun ownership in Washington, D.C. -- by ruling 5-4 on Monday that Chicago, as well, violated the Constitution by imposing an effective ban on private handgun ownership.
The court's four left-wing justices found no constitutional grounds to toss out Chicago's handgun ban, despite the Second Amendment's edict that, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Notable was the vote by newest Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who swore in Senate hearings last year that she understood gun ownership was an individual right. Justice Sotomayor voted Monday that Chicago's complete ban on private handgun ownership was just fine with her.
Despite the victory for gun rights advocates, the majority did indicate a willingness to accept some gun regulations. The problem in Chicago was the broad reach of the city's universal handgun ban -- but "less broad" restrictions might pass muster, the justices held.
No doubt this will lead to years of additional litigation, as those who wish to prevent Americans from effectively exercising this basic constitutional right work to see how much they can get away with.
Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago, for example, promptly promised to adopt all the regulations that Washington, D.C., adopted in 2008 after its gun ban was struck down, as well as some additional ones. The Washington Post recently sent a reporter with a spotless record to obtain a D.C. handgun permit, determining that the quest involved paying fees amounting to more than $550, making four distinct trips to the police station, and taking two different tests.
Chicago officials announced they plan to do the same, while adding a requirement that gun owners buy insurance to cover any incidents that might arise from use of the weapon.
Imagine any mayor in the United States saying he intends to impose $550 in fees and other procedural roadblocks before residents can purchase a "freedom of religion permit," so they might attend the church of their choice.
The court on Monday certainly moved in the right direction. But as GOP Rep. Tom Price of Georgia warned, "The small margin by which this decision was reached also highlights the need for Supreme Court justices who fully appreciate the basic rights ensured by the Constitution. Solicitor General Elena Kagan's previous work to push the Clinton administration's anti-Second Amendment agenda does not inspire confidence that she would use a seat on our highest court to protect the rights of the American people."
Oh, Ms. Kagan -- now undergoing Senate hearings on her Supreme Court nomination -- will doubtless now assure us she stands by the entire Bill of Rights ... just as Sonia Sotomayor did.
Trending topics:
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Believing they have the right intervene in some one else's life is at the very least hubris, Winston. The desire to control others stem from fear of others. The movers and shakers of the progressives fully understand their main motivation. That being hatred. Just look at the history of Planned Parenthood. The whole program was setup to reduce birth rates of blacks. It was packaged with good intentions and sold as such to the public but the founders are on record as that being the goal. Every progressive program in existence is riddled with a history of such hatred. Another good example is the minimum wage. Designed to hold black people down by narrowing the field of entry to gainful employment. The progressive leaders are not stupid, they know the end results of their programs.
David I would disagree. I don't believe progressives hate people, that is too much of a generalization. From my experience, most progressives want to help others by having government intervene, but they don't realize that that actually causes dependency, that often goes on for generations. Most socialist programs were designed by tyrants to keep sheep in line, one way or another. And neither party is immune from using the power of government to force their beliefs upon others.
@steven.alexander You may want to consider some couch time. It might help with the voices.
@ Steven Alexander, I never mentioned God as that just confuses things. Rights that are inalienable are those that you are born with. Such as, speech, travel and self preservation. Everyone can communicate, everyone can get around and I doubt anyone would argue that people should not be allowed to defend themselves from violence. These exist with or without government. Maxximus is close to the jist of progressive thought. The truth is progressives have an extremely low opinion of people. Which is why they see the need to control them, it all stems from the fear. They are actually people haters. No other explanation fits for their behavior. It is the reason why they should be shunned in a community. Their hatred and fear is extremely dangerous to a civil society.
God did not grant any rights HE deemed inalienable; after all God ordered his chosen people to kill didn't he? I mean, if there is a right that should be supreme amongst all others it should be the right to life, if that is true, then how could life be deemed inalienable when God himself ordered that it be extinguished at times?
The demon, all progressives harbor within them, lacks the morale discipline to own a gun, thus they fear that inanimate object…the gun, and try to enforce their lack of integrity on those that have the light within themselves to have the integrity and discipline to lawfully posses a firearm.
"5/24/10 - At least 9 shot on hot night in Chicago; 1 dead"
"6/21/10 - At least 50 shot & 10 dead across city of Chicago over weekend - WOW!"
6/27/10 - In Chicago, at least 3 dead in weekend shootings. Father of three is among dead, and 26 are shot over the weekend in Chicago"
I just don't understand this...I thought guns were illegal in Chicago. How is this possible?
@Winston.Smith,
I vote sheep.He has proven to be gullible and easily led in the past.
@ionfield,
Point taken. The problem you face is that most anti-freedom advocates are indeed liberals.Though they claim to be pro-choice, they are anything but except when it comes to abortion. They cower in fear that lawful gun owners are after them.They irrationally FEEL that if the lawful gun owner is deprived of his rights, the criminal will like-wise lay down his gun. They are dangerous and delusional. They seek the warmth of mediocrity and safety at the expense of freedom and liberty. Mark is a prime example.
Absolutely true Green Dragon. There have been studies done by those that started out with a negative view of guns that found the safest places to live are those with the highest amount of guns per capita. Science does not lie, but anti freedom people sure do. Guns keep people safe, that is a fact. For MsSchaffer, I do not live in fear because of my guns. I know I can defend myself and my family if need be. That is a very secure feeling, the opposite of fear.