Chicago Handgun Laws Pros And Cons
On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court issued its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, ensuring our federally protected right to keep and bear arms in all 50 states. The ruling states that the right to "keep and bear arms" is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. No longer will State or local governments be allowed to ban most Americans from owning most types of handguns. The ruling effectively strikes down Chicago's handgun ban, not unlike the Washington D.C. law that was already ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court two years ago in D.C. v. Heller. Gun Rights Advocates hailed the decision across the Country as a major victory before the "conservative" majority
…show more content…
v. Heller in 2008, Alan Gura, also represented Otis McDonald in this case, McDonald v. Chicago. He claimed that Chicago's handgun ban fails to allow him to adequately protect himself. Gura litigated that the Second Amendment, in addition to federal jurisdictions, should also be applied against state and local governments. He argued before the Court that, "In 1868, our Nation made a promise to the McDonald family that they and their descendants would henceforth be American citizens, and with American citizenship came the guarantee, enshrined in our Constitution, that no State could make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of American citizenship." James Feldman, lawyer for the City of Chicago, responded by saying, "States and local governments have been the primary focus of firearms regulation in this Country for the last 220 years. Firearms, unlike anything else that is the subject of provision in the Bill of Rights, are designed to injure and kill."
The ruling in McDonald v. Chicago had the same outcome as D.C. v. Heller, a 5-4 decision with all Justices voting the same way. Ironically, Chicago's Mayor, Richard Daley predicted mass chaos and death when the D.C. handgun ban was struck down in 2008. Obviously, his prediction never came to fruition as Washington's murder rate plummeted over 25% in 2009 alone. The drop compares with only a 7% drop nationally. Additionally, robberies involving guns fell over 14% and assaults with guns fell over 20% during that time same time
v. Heller in 2008, Alan Gura, also represented Otis McDonald in this case, McDonald v. Chicago. He claimed that Chicago's handgun ban fails to allow him to adequately protect himself. Gura litigated that the Second Amendment, in addition to federal jurisdictions, should also be applied against state and local governments. He argued before the Court that, "In 1868, our Nation made a promise to the McDonald family that they and their descendants would henceforth be American citizens, and with American citizenship came the guarantee, enshrined in our Constitution, that no State could make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of American citizenship." James Feldman, lawyer for the City of Chicago, responded by saying, "States and local governments have been the primary focus of firearms regulation in this Country for the last 220 years. Firearms, unlike anything else that is the subject of provision in the Bill of Rights, are designed to injure and kill."
The ruling in McDonald v. Chicago had the same outcome as D.C. v. Heller, a 5-4 decision with all Justices voting the same way. Ironically, Chicago's Mayor, Richard Daley predicted mass chaos and death when the D.C. handgun ban was struck down in 2008. Obviously, his prediction never came to fruition as Washington's murder rate plummeted over 25% in 2009 alone. The drop compares with only a 7% drop nationally. Additionally, robberies involving guns fell over 14% and assaults with guns fell over 20% during that time same time