Jun
26
McDonald v. Chicago: Gun Rights Lawsuit Brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and Illinois State Rifle Association in the Wake of D.C. v. Heller
ByIn the wake of the landmark D.C. vs Heller case, the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a lawsuit against the city of Chicago. Chicago, which has draconian anti-gun laws, currently bans handguns and requires onerous registration procedures on other firearms.
“Chicago’s handgun ban has failed to stop violent crime,” SAF founder Alan Gottlieb stated. “It’s time to give the Constitution a chance.”
You can follow the progress of this case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, at a special website set up by the Second Amendment Foundation: ChicagoGunCase.com.
16 Comments
June 27th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Hopefully, the first of many…
June 30th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
While watching ABC News in Moline, IL the evening of 26 Jun 08, I watched a clip of Mayor Daley reacting to the news of the lawsuit, almost frothing at the mouth. I was reminded of Gov. Wallace’s “Segregation Now, Segregation Forever” speech. Gun control is just as much a denial of our civil rights as segregation was 50 years ago.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:13 am
That has to be one of the most misguided understandings of civil rights I’ve ever encountered. Gun ownership, like most other rights, as Justice Scalia aptly asserted, is not absolute. Comparing your ability to own an assault rifle with the inability of a black man to vote is laughable.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Peter,
Thanks for stopping by.
Please clarify a few things for me:
1. What is your definition of an “assault rifle”?
2. What is your definition of a “civil right”?
Once I understand what your understanding of these two terms, I would be very happy to further discuss this topic with you.
–Richard
February 21st, 2009 at 12:15 am
Admin,
Gun rights are not the same a civil rights. The inability to vote, eat where you like, marry who you like and learn where you like, etc. because of your skin color is not the same as gun rights. Gun rights are a positive freedom (freedom to do) granted to all, where as segrigation was directed at a minority and thus civil rights were in favor of a negative freedom (freedom to not have done to you). It is simply not the same from a legal or logical perspective.
I am in full support of gun rights, perhaps more so then you as I don’t stop till I reach past light artillery, and even then I don’t like stopping there, but even i have a line. Also when I said gun rights should be a positive freedom for all I include convicted felons.
However, you are doing a disservice to the cause by frankly being insensitive to the events of the civil rights era. Also you are coming off as a pompous ass, please don’t make us all look like this. A more apt way to integrate these two things (gun rights and civil rights) together would be to point to events like Stonewall, where a gay bar/establishment was being harassed and raided. The patrons took it upon themselves to attack police flip over cops cars, throw Molotov cocktails at cops and trap a few cops inside a bar and attempt to burn them alive. This was the first time where cops retreated. Moral of the story don’t piss off a drag queen with a brick in her hand and 5 inch heels. Also why not bring up the Black Panthers they threw the racist police out of Oakland and took control of it for a while using guns.
These are ways to show how gun rights and civil rights go hand in hand, because they work off each other. Its stupid to compare them because you lose all the nuance and miss the point completly.
February 21st, 2009 at 1:15 am
Brian,
Thanks for stopping by and sharing your view. I’ll try not to call your viewpoints “stupid” or refer to you as a “pompous ass” just because you do not agree with me.
Frankly, by separating rights as you suggest, is to assert that some rights are more important than others. The fact of the matter is that there are inalienable rights endowed to all people by the Creator that both pre-date and supercede the authority granted by the people to any government.
The rights to keep and bear arms is merely codified in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, not granted by it. Likewise the freedom to pursue happiness, such as eating where you want or marrying who you want, is also a right given to people by the Creator, not by the government.
To suggest that the right to defend oneself is not the same as the right to pursue happiness doesn’t make sense to me. Segregation laws in the US were aimed at ethnic minorities to prevent their pursuit of happiness and expression of liberty, as were the early gun control laws. So, I guess the old time racists understood the two went hand-in-hand, as did the founders of the USA. After all, a man unable to defend himself from oppression is neither free nor able to pursue his idea of the “American Dream.”
If on the other hand you feel that skin color is the only basis for determining what is a “civil right,” I can’t help you. The “civil rights era” wasn’t about skin color, it was about freedom, liberty, and justice for all…a dream of when a man could be judged by the content of his character. Those who make it about race miss the point, I think.
–Richard
March 25th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
First, off I am an Atheist and believe in no creator or rights that are given from any higher authority. We have to assert our rights, by force if necessary.
Also how was I saying “skin color” was a basis for a civil right, gays are not all one color mind you. You seem to have missed much of my post on civil rights being not race but negative freedoms. I see a civil right as a negative freedom, a freedom not to have something done to you. Negative in this context is not “bad” it is just a freedom negating the power someone else wants to hold over you. Gun rights are then a positive freedom a freedom to defend yourself, but that you cannot have one without the other. They are interrelated but not the same.
I was merely expanding and adding nuance. I did not make it about race at all I made it about an understanding of philosophical grounds of freedoms as positive and negative. I was making the argument that positive freedoms are there to defend negative freedoms. Or more to the point gun freedoms protecting civil freedoms.
We should remain vigilant and exercise our positive freedoms in order to defend against the government who may wish to encroach upon them. A positive freedom cannot be granted it must be taken and a negative freedom must always be defended.
“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive.”
- Thomas Jefferson
March 25th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Brian,
Thanks for stopping back by.
Regarding “how was I saying “skin color” was a basis for a civil right,” I refer you to the very beginning of your original post where you stated “Gun rights are not the same a civil rights. The inability to vote, eat where you like, marry who you like and learn where you like, etc. because of your skin color is not the same as gun rights.” So, at the very start of your post, you juxtapose gun rights with discrimination based on skin color.
If this was not your intent, fine, but then you continued “However, you are doing a disservice to the cause by frankly being insensitive to the events of the civil rights era. Also you are coming off as a pompous ass, please don’t make us all look like this.”
By referring to the civil rights era, most people would believe you refer to a time in the United States which was about ending segregation and other injustices based on skin color.
If you wish to show up on my site and espouse your views on freedoms, I’m ok with that (within reason). But to call my viewpoints stupid because I don’t appreciate your level of nuance is just plain rude.
Additionally, to say that I am a pompous ass because I do not share your same views is the height of hubris. I, like many others, have worked long and hard to protect the freedoms of the people of this country for many years. I’ve certainly earned the right to espouse whatever view I wish on my own site. Feel free to start your own.
That being said, I suspect we share similar views on gun rights. I’d rather you work with me toward a common goal than to spend time and energy tearing down the views of others that differ slightly from your own.
–Richard
July 9th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Lets put it this way, if you deny me my right to defend myself, you are violating my civil rights. If you legislate that conceal carry is illigal and my wife cannot defend herself, then you are violating her rights as well. I have a civil and moral right to have the ability to stop an attack that will cause grave bodily harm and or death. Yes, CIVIL and MORAL right, thank you.
September 30th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Why would gun control be a Local or State issue?
It’s in the Constitution and to me it seems like a National Guarantee.
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms; “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
September 30th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
I was born, raised in Chicago and lived there for thirty five years. I relocated to Indiana where I have resided for about twenty two years. I not only believe Chicago should do away with it’s hand gun ban but do as Indiana does and grant concealed carry permits to people with out a felony record. I would think that the perpetrator of a crime against you might just think twice if there were the possibility you were carrying a gun legally. Thank You
October 4th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
It always seems to me that city’s with strict “gun control” have MUCH higher crime rates than city’s that don’t.
I agree with Jonesy. Wouldn’t a criminal much prefer to rob, or break into a house where they know the residents are unarmed?
I hope we can undo these laws. I don’t see how it could be any clearer. “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
-Simple as that. Or at least it should be. IMO
Thanks
October 9th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Can’t wait until this case is over. It is pretty obvious that states and cities have no authority to negate portions of the Constitution. It’s very simple. Bloomberg, just like Daley, dislikes guns in the hands of private citizens. They’re all about a “ruling elite” and seriously think that we plebeians have no brains and therefore cannot be trusted in their big city with firearms. Ha! Hell, I’ll trust a CCW holder over a governor/mayor/congressman any day. I bet half of them couldn’t obtain security clearances if you looked into their corrupt backgrounds. Pathetic, really.
Chicago’s laws are invalid and are going down. Hopefully they’ll take on the bullshit over in NYC next. This is America and LA, Boston, NY, Chicago, etc. should be forced by the feds to comply with the Constitution and stop acting like city-states.
October 9th, 2009 at 12:10 am
Because with the TOTAL and COMPLETE lack of violent crime in cesspits like Chicago there is no reason to own a gun. Oh wait…
October 9th, 2009 at 12:25 am
And by the way, know thy guns. An “ASSAULT WEAPON” is a manufactured term made up by politicians to ban certain features on guns. Frankly, crime has nothing to do with banning features like high capacity magazines. It’s all about background checks, getting rid of street gangs, and stopping straw purchases (which are already illegal). I don’t need a 10 shot (or less) pistol, I need a 15+ shot pistol and who are you to tell me I can’t have one. Arguably an ‘assault weapon’ is the ONLY weapon the Constitution protects…it’s not about hunting. The 2nd Amendment is about arms used for fighting, i.e. tactical weaponry. In the 18th century that was a musket, in the modern world that’d be an AK-47…I love mine.
October 10th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
The second amendment is the teeth by which all the other rights are preserved. This is what most of you “anti” folks don’t get - That the Bill of Rights does not “grant” you rights, rather it enumerates “Natural Rights” that we are all born with and that the government cannot take away…
Freedom of thought, i.e. Freedom of Speech, Press and to believe as you will…Freedom to gather (assemble) with other folks for any “lawful” purpose.
Freedom from governmental intrusion into our homes and businesses
Freedom to defend yourself and others. whether it be from a criminal element or a government run amok…i.e. Tyrannical - That abridges and offends our “Natural Rights” Even a wild animal has a natural right to protect itself and its young.
Notice what is NOT listed as a “Natural Right” - Health Care, Energy policies, and all the other crap that modern Americans seem to “expect” the government to provide. Sorry you do NOT have a Natural Right to Health Care, Gas for your car, money to pay your mortgage etc…
Basically the Constitution’s Bill of Rights spells out the freedoms that all humans are born in possession of and yet so many governments (including our own) want to abridge…