National Rifle Association sued the City of Chicago, Illinois and Village of Oak Park, Illinois so citizens could protect themselves with handguns.
We lost. Gun ban won. The word came down June 2, 2009.
These two municipalities ban the possession of most handguns. But you are probably thinking we won in Washington, DC with the Heller case didn’t we? Didn’t that clear the right to own a handgun to protect yourself?
No. Here is why:
The courts felt that Washington, DC and the Heller case dealt with law enacted under the authority of the national government, while Chicago and Oak Park are subordinate bodies of state.
In short, courts are deciding the Constitution of the United States and the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to the entirety of the United States of America.
Beware:
| 1. | This decision will be used around the country to ban you owning a gun. |
| 2. | Courts will decide that the 2nd Amendment will only apply to long guns because they better serve the intent of the Founding Fathers in that guns are for a citizen militia and long guns serve that purpose. Therefore handguns are unnecessary to the security of a free State according to the language of the Amendment. |
| 3. | States will argue that they are independent of the federal government and can ignore the Bill of Rights, as they successfully did in Chicago. |
The case-law of this is accurate. Many states argue that the Bill of Rights affords rights to individuals in protection from the Federal government. This is why most states have a state constitution with identical or similar rights.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this intepretation but I'm not a lawyer so what do I know. Personally, the rights are afforded to each person, regardless of what state they live in.