Home > constitution > McDonald v. City of Chicago — SCOTUS finds Chicago gun ban unconstitutional

McDonald v. City of Chicago — SCOTUS finds Chicago gun ban unconstitutional

I can hear it now…”activist judges…radicals in robes…blah, blah, blah.”   The Supreme Court this morning ruled that Chicago’s gun ban, the strictest in the nation, is unconstitutional.  Many, including myself, considered this to be inevitable following the Supremes striking down Washington D.C.’s gun ban.  The only issue was whether the Second Amendment would be applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, like every other right set forth in the Bill of Rights has been.  While a no-brainer after the Washington D.C. case created the necessary precedent, the vote was nonetheless 5-4.

I’m sure Mayor Daley is in his office right now, with his bottle of Jameson’s and tears streaming down his cheeks.  He loved his gun ban.  I’ve never been real sure why–maybe a deal with the mob.  In recent years though, his position has become simply unsupportable given the number of shootings that have been occurring on the city’s outskirts daily.  If the thugs have the guns, why can’t we?

Gangs are over-running neighborhoods in the city and shooting anything and everything that moves.  That might be o.k. if Chicago was suffering from a bear problem; but when the bears are actually six year-olds playing outside at noon…or 2 a.m. (parents?), it usually turns out badly.  It might also be o.k. if the nanny-state was actually good at protecting its citizens, instead of simply cleaning up the mess.  Of course, the cops know who the gang-bangers are, but they aren’t allowed to go crack some heads like they used to do.  Now, maybe the law-abiding citizens can defend themselves…or at least create the illusion of doing so.


Now if the Supreme Court would just rule that Illinois’ ban on me buying fun fireworks is unconstitutional due to it depriving me of happiness, I wouldn’t have to spend my entire Fourth of July figuring out how many snappers I had to tie together to  blow up a styrofoam cup.

  1. Mary
    June 28, 2010 at 1:39 PM

    giggle. Can’t wait for the 4th. As Mayor Daley has already declared his intention to re-impose the gun ban in Chicago and, as Mayor Bloomberg has declared there will be no change to the Sullivan Law (NY’s gun ban), nothing will change. Because, seriously, someone in the Justice Dept (oxymoron?) would have to sue the various municipalities for violation of the law. Can you really see Eric Holder doing anything other than high-fiving Daley & Bloomberg?

  2. Mary
    June 28, 2010 at 1:51 PM

    As an aside, the Sullivan Act was sponsored by Timothy Sullivan, an infamous participant of the Tammany Hall group in NYC in the early 1900’s. The law passed in 1911 and Sullivan died about a year later after escaping from a looney bin. Seems he had advanced syphillus and suffered from parnoid delusions. He wanted the law so that gangs which opposed his gang (members of his gang, of course, were issued permits) wouldn’t be armed (no guns, brass knuckles, clubs, knives or any other weapon). His rationale for the weapons ban was much like the rationale behind the Founding Father’s inclusion of the right to bear arms in the Constitution. Just opposing sides of the same coin. Much easier to control those who disagree with you when you are the only one with a gun.

    Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

  1. July 3, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: