Supreme Court to hear challenge to Chicago gun law

Otis McDonald, 76, who is suing the city of Chicago over its handgun ban, describes how he was threatened at gunpoint in his neighborhood. (Abel Uribe/Chicago Tribune)

Supreme Court to hear challenge to Chicago gun law
Chicago Breaking News Center
The Supreme Court set the stage for a historic ruling on gun rights and the 2nd Amendment by agreeing today to hear a challenge to Chicago’s ban on handguns.
At issue is whether state and local gun-control ordinances can be struck down as violating the “right to keep and bear arms” in the 2nd Amendment.
A ruling on the issue, due by next summer, could open the door to legal challenges to various gun control measures in cities and states across the nation.
The case also will decide whether the 2nd Amendment protects a broad constitutional right, similar to the 1st Amendment’s right to free speech or the 4th Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
In the past, the Supreme Court had given short shrift to the 2nd Amendment by saying it applied only to national laws and that its aim was to preserve “well-regulated militias.”
With the court’s action today, Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said his organization has a good chance at reversing the city’s ban. The rifle association is a party to the McDonald suit.

“All the ban does is prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves,” Pearson said. “It has no affect on the criminals at all.”

If anything, not allowing citizens to carry guns puts criminals at an advantage, Pearson said.

Chicago’s Law Department said it was not surprised by today’s development and added: “The city of Chicago remains committed to its handgun ordinance, which was enacted to respond to the problem of gun violence in large urban centers.”

But Otis McDonald, 76, who is suing the city over its gun ban, says he keeps a 20-gauge shotgun at home to protect himself from gangs that plague his Morgan Park neighborhood.

“The people that want to control me, my family, my property, these are the people that I want to protect myself from,” McDonald said earlier today.

The same children who used to play basketball in McDonald’s backyard now threaten his life, he said.

“The plaintiffs in this case … are good people,” said David Sigale, a co-attorney on the McDonald lawsuit. “They’re law-abiding. They want to protect themselves. They want to protect their homes. They want to protect their families. They’re not the crime problem in Chicago. They never have been.”

The Supreme Court’s traditionally narrow view of the 2nd Amendment conflicts with the views of most Americans, according to opinion polls.
Last year, the court in a 5-4 decision breathed new life into the amendment by ruling that it protected an individual’s right to have a handgun at home for self-defense. The decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller struck down a local ban on handguns.
But since the nation’s capital is a federal enclave, the court did not reconsider its 19th century rulings that said the 2nd Amendment applied only to federal laws and restrictions.
Since then, several gun owners have filed new constitutional challenges in several cities, including Chicago and Oak Park. They lost when judges there said they were bound by the high court’s earlier rulings.
But the Supreme Court Wednesday said it had voted to hear the appeals from gun owners in Chicago and Oak Park and to decide whether the 2nd Amendment restricts local and state laws as well as national measures.
Lawyers for the gun owners argued that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” set out in the 2nd Amendment is “incorporated” into the 14th Amendment and thereby applies to states and localities.
Lawyers on both sides of the dispute say the gun-rights case revives a once-fierce debate over how to read the Bill of Rights.
Since the 1st Amendment begins with the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting” such matters as an “establishment of religion” or “abridging the freedom of speech,” it was understood originally to limit only Congress and the national government. The same was true of the other parts of Bill of Rights.
After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution, and it says a state may not “abridge the privileges and immunities” of citizens nor deprive any person of “liberty . . . without due process of law.”
In the mid-20th century, the Supreme Court decided, in a step-by-process, that such fundamental rights as the freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion and the freedom from “unreasonable searches” are part of the “liberty” protected by 14th Amendment. These rulings permit constitutional challenges to state and local laws.
The 2nd Amendment was all but ignored by the Court until recently. In their appeal, lawyers for the gun owners say the court should rule either that the right “to keep and bear arms” is a “privilege” of citizenship or is part of the “liberty” protected by the 14th Amendment.
Lawyers for Chicago had urged the court to reject the appeal. They said that easily concealed handguns pose a special danger in cities. “Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns,” they said, citing a Justice Department study. The city also said that while nearly all handguns are illegal, residents are permitted to have rifles or shotguns at home for self-defense.
It is not clear whether the court will rule squarely on whether the Chicago ordinance is constitutional. Lawyers for the city proposed that if the justices take up the issue, they rule only on whether the ordinance can be challenged under the 2nd Amendment, and then send the dispute back to Chicago for a trial.
The court said it will set arguments in the Chicago cases for January or February. The case is McDonald vs. Chicago.

Wild Thing’s comment……..
Praying they uphold our Constitution. Gun Control in Chicago has done NOTHING to stop the murderous gangs and criminals. If law-abiding citizens were able to defend themselves crime would go DOWN, not UP!
Of course, the gang bangers will still target each other, but that hasn’t changed in DECADES – with guns legal or without!
A communist, racist judge like Sotomayor will hardly be looking out for the rights of Americans who want to defend themselves against criminals. Justice Thomas has been an influential member and an interesting book has been written how he has helped shape other Jurors thoughts. Perhaps he can impart some common sense on her