Daily Archives: June 26, 2008

City of Peoria

Chicago, Peoria reaction to court decision widely divergent

16 Comments

The Chicago Tribune reports that Mayor Daley is “angry” over the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. He

called the Supreme Court’s overturning of the Washington D.C. gun ban “a very frightening decision” and vowed to fight vigorously any challenges to Chicago’s ban.

The mayor, speaking at a Navy Pier event, said he was sure mayors nationwide, who carry the burden of keeping cities safe, will be outraged by the decision.

The mayor of Peoria isn’t outraged. I asked Mayor Jim Ardis via e-mail today what he thought of the ruling and Mayor Daley’s comments, and he had this to say:

I’m glad they made the decision they did…. It’s too bad the Supreme Court decision was as close as it was. It should’ve been unanimous.

I’m looking forward to Mayor Daley coming here next month and I’m very anxious to meet him. I couldn’t disagree with him more on this issue though. Personally, I would be very supportive of conceal carry in Illinois. We’re one of only a few states that don’t allow it and Conceal Carry has had a positive impact on crime reduction in the State’s that allow it. Having criminals look down the barrel of a gun held by a law-abiding, trained gun owner would make some of these punks think about moving somewhere else. Perhaps if our State Legislators don’t have the guts to allow it state-wide, they’ll allow Peoria County to be a test case for it? I’m pretty sure that both our police chief and sheriff support it.

I haven’t talked to the sheriff, but I did ask Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard what his reaction was. As with Ardis, I also asked how he felt about Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis’s statement, quoted in the Tribune, that “From a law enforcement perspective, this [the Supreme Court decision] will no doubt make a police officer’s job more challenging than it already is … particularly since a firearm is used in 75 percent of all murders committed in the city of Chicago.”

Settingsgaard responded:

I applaud the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe wholeheartedly in a private citizen’s right to own a firearm and to protect themselves when necessary. I disagree that this makes law enforcement more difficult. Law abiding citizens who have clean criminal records and who have no history of mental illness are not the threats our officers and our citizens face every day. I am hopeful that someday Illinois will join the vast, vast, majority of States that have already legalized concealed carry. Want to know what truly can make police work more safe? It is not fewer honest citizens with guns. It is fewer defenseless victims. If these predatory criminals had more cause for concern that a citizen just might be up to the task of defending themselves, if more of these predators found themselves staring down the barrel of a gun when they thought they had found an easy mark, THEN law enforcement’s job would be easier. We have enough laws to demonstrate legislation won’t stop some wolves from being wolves. We need fewer sheep.

Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states that completely disallow conceal carry.

General News

Yes, Americans have an individual right to bear arms

17 Comments

From the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 5-4 ruling handed down today:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s [District of Columbia, where this suit originated] total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

I’m surprised the vote was so close, but I suppose I shouldn’t have been. It’s just that, to me, a plain reading of the Second Amendment to the Constitution shows that the right to bear arms is an individual right:

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.

It’s nice to see that the Supreme Court agrees. And if you’re looking for a gun that is perfect for concealed carry, check out https://ballachy.com/glock-37-review/