Previous Post
Next Post

We’re going to have to rethink the expression “a New York minute.” Four days after the Supreme Court struck down Chicago’s handgun ban, Mayor Daley’s mob enacted the country’s toughest gun control legislation. Four days after that, The National Rifle Association (NRA) has joined an eight count complaint against the City, aiming to void Chicago’s new gun regs. [NRA press release and Snowflakes in Hell analysis after the jump.] To quote the union boss in My Favorite Year, the fightin’s in rounds. How appropriate is that?

The National Rifle Association is supporting a lawsuit against Mayor Richard Daley and the City of Chicago’s newly adopted gun control ordinance, which violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago. Last Friday, the City Council rushed through passage of this ordinance in response to the Court’s June 28th decision rendering Chicago’s draconian handgun ban unconstitutional.

“The Supreme Court has now said the Second Amendment is an individual freedom for all. And that must have meaning,” said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. “This decision cannot lead to different measures of freedom, depending on what part of the country you live in. City by city, person by person, this decision must be more than a philosophical victory. An individual right is no right at all if individuals can’t access it.”

Just four days after the Court struck down the nearly 30 year-long handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Mayor Daley and the City of Chicago enacted the most restrictive anti-gun ordinance in the United States. In the words of Corporation Counsel Mara Georges, the top attorney for the City: “We’ve gone farther than anyone else ever has.” The so-called “Responsible Gun Ownership Ordinance” provisions include: a prohibition on all gun sales inside the City; a prohibition on possession of firearms for self-defense outside the “home” — even on a patio or in an attached garage; a prohibition on more than one assembled and operable firearm in the home; and a training requirement to obtain a Chicago Firearm Permit. However, range training would be impossible since it will now be unlawful to operate a shooting range inside city limits.

“The Supreme Court told Mayor Daley and the City of Chicago that it has to respect the Second Amendment. By enacting this ordinance, their response is ‘Make Us’,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “The NRA will not rest until Chicago’s law-abiding residents can exercise the same freedoms that our Founding Fathers intended all Americans to have.”

Recent statements from some of Chicago’s city officials reflect their complete lack of respect for the Supreme Court decision. Alderman Daniel Solis stated, “the decision made by the Supreme Court is not really in the best interests of our citizens.” Alderman Sharon Denise Dixon denounced what she called the Court’s “blatant… misreading of the law.” And another city council member even went so far as to say, “[w]e’re here today because of their poor judgment.”

The case is Benson v. City of Chicago.

Snowflakes in Hell breaks it down.

Count one goes after the definition of home that’s defined so narrowly.
Count two goes after the requirement that they be 21 years of old, arguing it violates the constitutional rights of those adults over the age of 18 but under the age of 21 to keep and bear arms.
Count three goes after the ban on gun shops.
Count four goes after the ban on shooting ranges.
Count five goes after the ban on having more than one operable gun in the home.
Count six goes after the unsafe handgun roster that the Police are supposed to maintain under the new ordinance. The complaint argues that the “unbridled discretion” violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Count seven challenges the ban on laser sights.
Count eight actually goes after the prohibition on carry outside the home or fixed place of business.

Previous Post
Next Post


Comments are closed.