Chicago’s 2nd Amendment challenge before the Supreme Court
MCDONALD V. CHICAGO
"I am a man of my convictions," Otis McDonald, 76, explains at his Morgan Park home. (John J. Kim/Sun-Times)
This is a story that has failed to catch the attention of a lot of Americans. That is understandable, given the debate over health care reform and the other political news of the day, but it is important, nonetheless. In 2008, the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. came before the Supreme Court and was declared unconstitutional, by a 5-4 vote. 2nd Amendment advocates, myself included, rejoiced in the decision. We felt the vote established the fact that the 2nd Amendment applied to individuals, instead of just to the military. However, there are challenges still ahead and one of those challenges is the ban on handguns in Chicago, IL.
I have already written about Chicago’s handgun ban, but as it is to be argued before the Supreme Court today, I thought it would be fitting to mention it again. Needless to say, the ramifications of this case are even greater than those from the Supreme Court’s ruling on the ban in Washington, D.C.
Mayor Richard Daley is one of the most outspoken critics of the right to bear arms in America. Admittedly, he has to deal with one of the most violent cities in our country, but he has made the mistake of believing that banning law abiding citizens from owning a handgun in his city will alleviate that violence. I do not wish to make Daley’s stance the focus of this article, so suffice it to say that taking the tact he has taken does nothing except restrict the rights of the citizens in his city who are already obeying the law. From the Chicago Sun-Times, here is what the lead plaintiff in the case against the handgun ban has to say about why he is challenging the law. It was very eye-opening for me.
Otis McDonald doesn’t care what you think.
You can accuse the black inner-city grandfather of betraying Chicago neighborhoods overrun by thugs with guns.
Go ahead, call him a pawn of wealthy, white gun-nuts suing to lift the city’s handgun ban.
But the 76-year-old Morgan Park man who has become the face of one of the most important Second Amendment lawsuits in history wants you to know this: He is not a ”showpiece” for the pro-gun lobby in the landmark case that could overturn Chicago’s handgun ban. The case is set to come before the U.S. Supreme Court today.
”It doesn’t matter what anyone’s motives were for picking me for this,” McDonald said. ”I have my own motives, and they are so compelling and so heavy that to me this is worthy of my effort.”
The liberal South Side Democrat said he put himself in the spotlight over the right to pack a pistol because he’s living on a block where the bad guys with guns have him outnumbered and overpowered.
”If this handgun ban was working, I would say, ‘OK, no problem,’ even though it’s against my constitutional rights. But it’s not working,” McDonald said. ”If law-abiding citizens could have handguns, a robber in the streets will have something to think about when he get ready to do one of these numbers on somebody. He don’t know who might have one.”
According to NPR, here is the argument Paul Clement will make today on behalf of the National Rifle Association.
Gun rights advocates contend that the Chicago handgun ban is unconstitutional, that the Supreme Court already has held that the right to bear arms is an individual and fundamental right, and that the Second Amendment limits apply to every jurisdiction in the nation.
From the same NPR article, here is what Jim Feldman will argue, representing Chicago.
“The question,” he said, “is whether Chicago is going to be completely unlimited by the federal Constitution.”
“If there were a free-floating right of self-defense,” he said, “then you would have the right to a machine gun, or a bazooka, or who knows what else. If the claim is that your right to self-defense gives you the right to choose what kind of weapon you want to use, there would be no stopping point.”
With all due respect to Mr. Feldman, this case is not about the city of Chicago being limited by the
federal Constitution and it certainly is not about machine guns or bazookas. It is about a specific and total ban on handguns, not a limit. It has already been established that there can and should be some limits on what kinds of weapons American citizens should be allowed to own, but Chicago’s ban goes entirely too far. I fail to see how it could be considered anything but unconstitutional.
When the Supreme Court struck down the Washington, D.C. handgun ban, many people may have thought that was the end of the story. Their reasoning was that the precedent would be set across the country, but that was not the case. Even though both cities had banned handguns, there is one significant difference. Washington, D.C. is a federal enclave and Chicago, IL is not, so the earlier ruling by the Supreme Court applied only to federal laws. That difference is now the focus of the arguments before the Supreme Court and the justices will have to decide if the 2nd Amendment also applies to state and local laws. As I have already mentioned, their ruling will have far greater ramifications than did the earlier ruling on the Washington, D.C. handgun ban.
“If there were a free-floating right of self-defense,” he said, “then you would have the right to a machine gun, or a bazooka, or who knows what else. If the claim is that your right to self-defense gives you the right to choose what kind of weapon you want to use, there would be no stopping point.”
This is illogical thinking and is a slipper-slope argument. Just because law abiding citizens have the right to own guns does not mean that they will purchase machine guns, bazookas or whatever. Also, the non existent stopping point does exist even if one bought all of the above guns. It is called the LAW and JUSTICE. Once people are held accountable for their own actions and punished accordingly, then it will dramatically reduce crime as we have seen over and over in states that have enforced the 2nd amendment rights as well as punish the offenders.
This kind of thinking is dangerous because everyone gets ‘punished’ for the choices of a few. That is not what our country is about. It is time to right the system and punish the guilty and allow law abiding citizens to have access to all their liberties.
Dominique´s last blog ..Am I MASKING?
Dominique, are you arguing for the right of ordinary citizens to purchase hand grenades, bazookas, machine guns, etc? Do you believe that right is covered by the Second Amendment?
I can’t say for sure, but I don’t think that’s what Dominique was meaning to imply. Obviously, ordinary American citizens have no reason to have such items, except in very controlled circumstances and there are laws already on the books to prevent that from happening.
I’m not sure either, that’s why I asked.
This was a good post Larry. I will be absolutely shocked if the decision on this case doesn’t mirror the DC case and thereby extend the individual right to own a gun to the states. But the DC law included the right to establish reasonable limits and the future cases will deal with those “reasonable” limits. Registration, the gun show “loophole”, purchase limits, waiting periods, etc. This will just get more interesting in the years to come.
I have to beleive that the Supreme Court will come down on the side of McDonald after their ruling in the Heller case. Needless to say, I hope that McDonald wins this case as the SC ruled in Heller that individuals have the right to defend themselves, this would just be an extention to the previous ruling.