Supreme Court: Chicago gun ban targeted

What a joke !! What handgun ban ? Kids are getting gunned down weekly and the
Supreme Court is worrying about a supposed gun ban. Would some one please wake The Nine up !!? 30-40,000 Americans are killed each year, by some form of bureaucratic roulette, being played by the Healthcare Corps and the Supreme Court doesn't concern itself with that national tragedy. Can someone wake-up The Nine and let them know about the Healthcare tragedy, going on, out here in America !!?
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

This will open up a huge can of worms. However, most states haven't taken drastic steps toward illegal immigration because the ACLU and La Raza have argued that its a Federal issue. So this decision will allow states to rule on cases and render their argument moot.
We will see the abolishment of the Constitution, as states will be able to create their own laws contrary to it.

Guns owners are disrespectful of authority. A failure to rely on authorities is an invariable sign of improper and overly independent attitudes. The mere fact that they gather together to talk about guns at gun shops, gun shows, and shooting ranges means that they have some plot going against us normal people. A gun owner has no right to associate with another gun owner.

Therefore, to help ensure our right to happiness and safety we must ban and seize all guns from private hands, and forbid NRA-based criticism towards people who are only trying to help. Searching the homes of all NRA members and seizing their guns will go a long way towards reducing crime.

If we need help doing this we can invite people like the Australians and Norweigans to help rummage through people's property.

People who don't like this prove they are on the side of the killers with the guns and should be put in jail along side all the gangbangers and other gun nuts. Letting them sit in jail for a few years before they are charged will give the government plenty of time to find something wrong in their lives. Anything they say, write, or express should be held against them to prove their guilt.

Common sense requires only uniformed soldiers, police, and other agents of the state have access to firearms and no person should be able to challenge this by writing to Congress or the President. If they do they should be forced in court to admit to it and then fined a hundred million dollars for each time. Subjecting them to torture will probably change their minds.

No woman needs to protect herself from rape, assault or murder and should just leave crime prevention to the Police who are properly equipped to investigate following the crime's completion. Women using a gun in self-defense interferes with and makes the attempted crime a "non-event," which unnecessarily complicates the Police investigation. Any woman who does this should be put in jail for interfering with an investigation.

If someone still really, really thinks they have a need for a gun in their home for protection then the Army should just force them to host and feed some armed soldiers.

Those who claim that the 2nd amendment was given to because we might someday need guns to use against an oppressive government forget that Constitution has strong internal safeguards to protect our freedoms. So there!

Long live our Constitution!

One definition of a militia is '...an army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional," which is most likely what the founders had in mind. Considering the political climate of the time, their concern was assuring the citizens would have the arms to protect themselves...from their government; executive, legislative and/or judicial. I would think that this would render academic any contrary Supreme Court ruling.

If this passes, look for Texas to end the ban on assault weapons in the state. Remember the notion of seceding?

All guns should be melted down and used to enslave gun owners for crimes against the dignity of Gaea! THIS MADNESS MUST CEASE if we are ever to be free of white male oppression!

only LAW ABIDING citizens are prohibited from posessing guns under these laws.. the bad guys don't follow the law.

How well is that handgun ban working for you Chicago? D.C.?

Only criminals have guns when you outlaw them. And they don't respect your ban do they?

Mr. Fitsgerald, I must respectfully disagree with the gist of your comment. I would suggest you consider whether or not gun bans indeed make people safer, as you seem to imply. I believe that if you look into the facts, Sir, you will see that the most dangerous places in the nation, where most of those 30-40K gun deaths occur every year, are in large metro areas where the most strict gun laws are actually already in place. I tend to refer to them as "victim disarmament zones".

Criminals do not care about our gun laws, Sir. I think some needs to wake YOU up to the fact that forcing potential victims, namely law abiding citizens, to disarm themselves and make themselves ready targets for the predators in our society, is actually the less passionate approach and results in more deaths. It has been shown again and again that allowing law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons actually causes overall crime rates to go down. Check the facts yourself.

Don Fitzgerald,

Do you even have the faintest idea of how the judicial system works, and it's role as one of the three branches of government?

Well, Mr. Del Shannon, it looks like you played the jukebox and got the wrong song. The deaths I was referring to were the deaths that are occurring every year, due to the Corporate roulette, the Healthcare Corps are playing on the citizens of this country. As for the gun issue, you like them so much, why aren't you in Afghanistan, playing with your guns, to your heart's content !! Put your mouth where your gun is !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Mr Fitzgerald, if you feel so strongly, why aren't you on the Southside confiscating guns? Or in medical school learning to be a doctor so you can provide free health care to the poor?

Let's not let the facts get in the way of propaganda. There are only 13,000 handgun deathes that are homicides not 30,000. The remaining handgun deathes are from suicide (17,000) and from accidental shotings. More people die in accidents from falling down the steps and from auto accidents (40,000). So lets just outlaw stairs and cars and that will solve all our problems.

The idea that we have a right to keep and bear arms as US citizens, but just can't do it anywhere IN the US, by state law is insane.

Umm, where exactly would I have this right?

When I leave my house I retain my right to free speech. Am I only to retain my right to free speech in my home, or do my rights go with me anywhere I go?

I have never understood gun banners. When England took it's citizen's guns in the late 90's they saw, and continue to have HIGHER rates of murder by firearm NOW - because peole cannot protect themselves.

I have wondered at times if high achieving African-American kids are targeted more by other African-American kids. Not my thought, but some A-A kids view academic achievement as "acting white". That is a whole other can of worms to be working on. However, in the mean time, perhaps magnet schools for, not only the arts, but academics could protect some of the students in Chicago or other districts. Sooner intervention would probably be better than later.

It's a no brainer. You can't have the constitution upholding your right against unlaeful search and siezure or freedom of speech but not your right to bear arms. By the way, have you ever heard of a murder or an armed robbery at a shooting range? I didn't think so!

Others before me here have already said what's worth saying.
I will stress again on what they said:
Those who cannot protect themselves depend upon others to do so.
Those others do not always have the victim's best interests in mind.

So, the City of Chicago is worried the Supreme Court might rule that its citizens have the right to own a gun and protect themselves? Why not? After watching those high school students bludgeon an honor student to death using a handgun would have been more merciful and he'd be just as dead. Then again, if he'd have had a gun, he could have shot the man with the board before he got hit.

It will be fun to watch the liberals contort all logic to try and stop the court from ruling people have rights, even in Chicago, contrary to what Mayor Dailey wants. I'll bet Mayor Dailey has some bodyguards who have guns.

People with guns have personal autonomy, liberty, and security. They don't need some bureaucrat to protect and coddle them. But if you are the bureaucrat you're terrified by these people who don't need you, so of course you have to outlaw their behavior. A powerful government needs a weak people. Were a single founding father to return and see what we have done with their sacrifice I suspect we would disgust them. What fools that we have voted away our freedoms for government largess.

Place: Chicago
Right to own a handgun: Legal
Year: 1974
Murders: 970
Murder Rate: 29

Place: Chicago
Right to own a handgun: ILLEGAL
Year: 2007
Murders: 442
Murder Rate: 15.6

Gee you Gun Loving-Let's all carry guns advocates are correct. The right to own a handgun results in less murders...if you ignore the evidence above.

I don't own a firearm; but the US Constitution gives me that right to choose. Similarly, the firearms that are used in the commission of crimes are overwhelmingly illegally obtained (stolen, etc) and not relevant to the debate.

Legalize firearms for law-abiding citizens and watch crime go down even in Chicago...

Illinois and Wisconsin are living in
never never land. How, learned people can be against gun ownership, and the right to transport and carry are beyond me. Every other state in the union allows the afore mention. Daley and his predecessors are the real reason for the murder and mayhem in the streets of Chicago!. The gang problem has been on going for decades. So, please don't blame honest citizens who choose to own guns. Its time for the people of Illinois and Wisconsin to hold the government officials accountable. They recently voted against allowing honest citizens the right to transport guns across state lines. For two midwestern states to be so backward,I find it to be inexcusable.
So lets all hope the Supreme Court follows the Constitution and puts this matter to rest once and for all.

Why do I carry a gun? Because cops are too heavy.

When seconds count, police are just minutes away.

Gun free zones are free fire zones for bad guys.

Don Fitzgerald, IL
"What a joke !! What handgun ban ? Kids are getting gunned down weekly and the Supreme Court is worrying about a supposed gun ban."

I hope Mr Fitz, that you don't ever need help living where you do.
Hey all you gun toting crazies, Don Fitzgerald doesn't want your help if the thugs are at his door. He'd rather wait for the cops to finish with the other dirtbags first.

Bet the parents of that honor student killed by a gaggle of dirtbags wishes some good citizen had had a handgun, while the police were calling for back-up. And then you have the moron videotaping the whole thing instead of calling 911. DAMN! With citizens of that type, you better be packin'.

Posted by: Jimmy T. | September 30, 2009 1:45 PM
;
Teenagers should be allowed to carry guns to school???

My, tank, you're cherry picking you stats - don't forget that the population has declined since 1974. A lot. And that the murder rate peaked again in 1992 to 943, long after the 1983 handgun ban. BTW, here are the full stats:
1990: 851
1991: 927
1992: 943
1993: 931
1994: 929
1995: 827
1996: 789
1997: 759
1998: 704
1999: 641
2000: 628
2001: 666
2002: 647
2003: 598
2004: 448
2005: 449
2006: 467
2007: 442
2008: 510

Posted by: R.U. Stupid? | September 30, 2009 2:32 PM
;
Actually a founding father would laugh in your face and say, "You suspect you can fight back against a government military that has laser guided missiles, Stealth Bombers, EMPs, rocket launchers, tanks, armored personnel carriers, aircraft carriers, unmanned vehicles and robots at their disposal with your hunting rifles and handguns? Bwhahahahaha!!!"

By the way, have you ever heard of a murder or an armed robbery at a shooting range? I didn't think so!
;
Posted by: TrickyDick | September 30, 2009 1:34 PM
;
http://news.aol.com/article/woman-kills-son-at-shooting-range/418055
;
No I haven't that is a Grrrrrreat point! Rube

Chicago is the hub for Amtrack. Amtrack is now allowing ticket holders to board the trains with concealed guns. The US Senate voted this into law. Sweet lunacy. They don't want to spend more on security, so they put 'security' in the hands of possible vigilante citizens. Sorry, but this law makes me want to do A LOT of my own profiling when I board a train--or else it makes me not want to ride a train. When Amtrack should be putting in metal detectors, they advocate concealed guns for riders. People are also allowed to carry on coolers of beer--or whatever they don't want to buy in the club car. Guns and alcohol. Nice mix. Does Amtrack request to see the gun permit papers? Or, are we forced to trust some unstable, or out-for-destruction person who could have picked something up at a gun show or on the illegal market? I'm wondering why the extreme differences in security measures for US trains and US planes.

The NRA stooges are all over this silliness. Why don't they all just join the military, then they can play with their guns, all they want !! Better yet, why don't we dismantle the Military Complex and have this " well-regulated " militia go to war, whenever we need them, to go !! I am sure, all of them, are tripping all over each other, trying to get in line !! Thanks, " Vivian ", for that important piece of news. I will see what I can do, to get that stupid law rescinded. Clowns should be allowed on Amtrack, but not clowns with firearms !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

I refuse to let it happen..

Hey Vivian, the Senate voted to allow passengers to carry gun in THEIR CHECKED LUGGAGE. People who feel the way that you do should quit worrying about LAW ABIDING citizens carrying guns. Stop and think for a second - if you are somewhere that a CRIMINAL starts shooting people randomly, don't you think it would be nice if SOMEONE had a gun handy to try to stop them? Or would it be better to just wait until they run out of ammo or just decide they are done and shoot themselves? As for me, if anyone ever threatens my life with a gun or is an active shooter, I'm going to exercise my right of self defense. If you don't want to defend yourself, that's your decision. But you don't have the right to decide that I can't defend myself.

John Lott did a study of every county in the U.S. and the effect of gun laws on crime. In EVERY instance when carry laws were passed, violent crime went DOWN.

Posted by: Al | September 30, 2009 3:19 PM
;
My point was that the handgun ban did not cause the number of murders to rise above the 970 that was achieved in 1974. In fact, as you've shown the number of murders since 1990 has declined. Looks to me like the city was becoming safer at the same time that handguns were banned. I can't believe I had to hold your hand and walk you thru that.

Criminally Stupid 2 3:22: Before you go thinking that "...laser guided missiles, Stealth Bombers, EMPs, rocket launchers, tanks, armored personnel carriers, aircraft carriers, unmanned vehicles and robots.." are invincible, let me point out that these things do not seem to be helping forces in Afghanistan. They didn't help the Russians there, either. And are you too young to remember Vietnam, where STICKS dipped in poop were among the most feared weapons? Do not for a second underestimate the power of people under duress.

Fact: 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they 68thought the victim might be armed.
Fact: Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.69
70Fact: 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are “hot burglaries” which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a “hot burglary” rate of only 13%.71
Fact: Washington D.C. has essentially banned gun ownership since 1976and has a murder rate of 56.9 per 100,000. Across the river in Arlington, Virginia, gun ownership is less restricted. There, the murder rate is just 1.6 per 100,000, less than three percent of the Washington, D.C. rate.72

99.99% of handguns used in crimes are used by people who couldn't care less about laws.
To take away the Rights of the honest Citizens is evil and criminal in itself.... we all have a Right to protect ourselves and our loved ones and property... only a government that is scared of it's citizens would deny firearms to it's citizens....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Careful review of this with consideration given to grammatical trends of the period will reveal the 2nd amendment grants: 1) States the right to maintain a well regulated militia necessary for the security of its freedom; 2) People the right to keep and bear arms; both without infringement.

The authors of this amendment understood the "good" associated with the means by arms to preserve national (specified elsewhere), state and individual security far outweighed any "bad" associated with infringing that right.

A simple illustration, who got picked on in school? The ones able to defend themselves or the ones perceived as vulnerable? The concept is deterrence, which seems lost in our justice system today. The ability of individuals or states (in addition to the federal militia) to keep and bear arms add monumentally to deterrence of crime. Some will not take thought of consequences, others may be to "stoned" to be able to take thought of consequences, but armed citizens will at least have the ability to preserve their security.

Taking away the choice to utilize this constitutional "right" for state and self preservation will result in revolution. Not necessarily violence, but as Newton would say, "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" Freedom lovers (true essence of being an American) will for sake of the freedom they treasure, react to maintain it. By voice, vote and if yet unheard, perhaps as our forefathers a literal battle for freedom.

"As for the gun issue, you like them so much, why aren't you in Afghanistan, playing with your guns, to your heart's content !! Put your mouth where your gun is !!" ~ Sir I did my time in uniform and combat... 3 tours in VN... (How much time in uniform did you serve) and I am a proud and safe gun owner who also believes we need to have our health system overhauled, BUT not at the expense of my daughter and her children paying for it forever.

Vivian, criminals have been carrying guns on Amtrak trains for YEARS! Are you worried about them drinking while toting, or just those who received state-approved training for their concealed carry permit?

I served in the USAF, an aircraft mechanic, in SAC, and I am four-square behind banning handguns. That nonsense about an individual's right to own handguns, is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. As far as our grandchildren paying for healthcare reform, is that before or after, they pay for that stupid Iraqi war and occupation, that was presented, by the moronic Duo, Bush&Cheney, to the American taxpayers !! At the least, try to be consistent !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

The scary thing, Bill, is that the Senate voted to approve all that you mentioned. And, still no metal detectors. Last time I rode Amtrack, I was not asked if I was carrying. They were not asking for permits--from anyone. The only interest by anyone, was in Albany, a border patrol agent walked through the train and asked everyone if they were citizens of the USA. He never asked to see IDs. I'd say that was just a CYA-going-through-the-motions deal. As the guy walked away, I said adios, amigo. He still didn't care to see any ID.

Mr. Tank,

New York has 8.2 million people and only 496 homicides in 2007. Phoenix has 1.5 million and around 200 homicides and is an open carry state and CCW state. The national trend has been a decrease in crime anyway, even before the Brady bill went into effect. Your point is simply skewed and not relevant. it is estimated that guns are used to prevent crime nationally about 2.5 million times and seldom a shot is ever fired!

Posted by: tank johnson | September 30, 2009 4:15 PM
Sorry, tank. The homicide rate didn't go down due to the handgun control. It has gone down because the trauma care is better now than in 1974. And better than in 1984. And better than in 1994. The use of handguns in crimes hasn't changed much over the years - just that the medical response is dramatically faster and the survivability of gunshot wounds has vastly improved.
See, no hand holding needed.

...from my cold, dead hands!

For those who believe that all guns must be confiscated....... Other than that idea being absolutely ludicrous, un-American and downright seditious, all you have to do is look at CORRECT stats from the USA vs stats from Australia where guns were confiscated. The evidence is clear, people are safer when they are allowed to have a gun. The crime rate in Australia went through the roof because only the criminals had the guns and they knew the people they were assaulting or robbing were not armed. If you gun control wing-nuts think that this would not happen here your delusional. I suppose your of the opinion that if you don't have a gun, the criminal won't either. Are you for real!?!?!? What are you going to be thinking when you get a cannon shoved in you or your loved ones face and because you are unarmed, you or your loved one is dead because YOU couldn't stop the attack. I suppose you also think that it is the job of the Police to take care of that business. Well, I got news for you all, that idea is so wrong it is non sequitur. I was a Police Officer for almost 30 years and I have to tell you all, rarely if EVER is Law Enforcement on hand when people are being attacked. So, if you gun control nuts want to throw your lifes away, I guess that's your business, but for me, you keep your ideals and mitts off my lawfully owned guns. I guess the best that you all can hope for if attacked is that a citizen who is lawfully armed may come to your rescue while you wait for the Cops to get there.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." –Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers

"I served in the USAF, an aircraft mechanic, in SAC, and I am four-square behind banning handguns. That nonsense about an individual's right to own handguns, is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution." ~ AH YES, a true combat vet... how many men did you hold off in combat with your screwdriver... LOL... Did you see us men on the ground wave to you when you flew over on a bombing run...
I find it amazing how many non combat vets don't support our troops overseas and just want to give up and run... I am not in favor of war either... but once committed... get it done right...
You are right there is no specific provision in the Constitution that mentions handguns... IT mentions all firearms... and that includes handguns whether you like them or not...

This pretty well sums it up!

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, then no one should have one.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a liberal is, he wants to ban all meat products for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly enjoys his life. If a liberal is homosexual, he loudly demands legislated respect.

If a black or Hispanic is conservative, he sees himself as independently successful. Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A liberal wants any mention of God or religion silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that his neighbors pay for his.

Mr. Burton do you have blood line ties to Hitler? Obviously you are not much of a history buff. Your comments are the roots to socialism and communist rule. Seriously a woman is supposed to let her self be attacked and raped just so the police can conduct a proper investigation? We all know the police can not be everywhere to stop every crime. We'll see how your tune changes once you become a victim of crime. All LEGAL gun owners are good people who just want to be left alone. The facts and stats prove that places were gun ownership and right to carry have lower crime rates because scum bag criminals have to think twice about getting shot for their crimes. Criminals and you are the only ones who have no place in our FREE society. Next time please decide to wait in the line that's handing out common sense.

TS,
I believe Mr Burton was being sarcastic.... I really really hope he was.... if he was not then I believe he is a truly troubled individual more dangerous than he believes any gun owner to be....

* * * * *
Posted by: TS | October 1, 2009 3:01 PM
.
Well, TS, I guess you’ve never heard of sarcasm. Burton wasn’t being serious. (This is why nobody but YOU answered him.) His post was like the “hidden pictures” page out of the children’s magazine “Highlights for Children” (like you see at the dentist’s office). Except, this time, it was “Spot all the constitutional violations.”
.
And, you know what else? I totally understand his sarcasm. It’s pretty hard to stay serious when reading posts from some of the real ravers around here.

I will not be a sheep in a world full of wolves. I hope the SC rules against Chicago's ordinance. Its a joke. Criminals dont follow the rules.

As harsh as this may sound, deal with it. For those who are against it, may someday something bad happen to you. So that you can wake up and say, "Sh*t, I wish I had a gun (or weapon) to defend myself." or "I hope the man witnessing this can shoot this guy."
For only then you will finally realize that we dont live in a peaceful world.

Dont be a sheep. Be a sheep-dog against a world of wolves.

Although I am not a citizen of Chicago I am happy that the Supreme Court will listen to their case regarding 2nd Amendment rights.
The Preamble of the Constitution says, “We the people of the United States…provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…”. That was written for you and me. In the Second Amendment the framers spelled it out. They wanted for the Government to form a “well regulated militia” AND ensure that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” I believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a right of every citizen of the United States of America. I believe that, as a Soldier in the US Army, my predecessors fought and died for the rights that the US Constitution preserved for the People as well as the State. Those rights were not for the Government; they were for the people, you and me.
Major Clay Pettit
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College

To R U Stupid, The Taliban is able to put up a pretty good fight against a superior Armed Force using firearms and homemade bombs against our technology. I think the American populace could hold an opressive gov't off quite well.

the 2nd ammendment says the right of the "people", not "members of said militia". it is a 2 part ammendment, clear as day. just try and change it and we will vote you all out of office.