| « Pete's Market and Workers Rights | Big Bill Thompson, Clout Lists, and Local Control » |
Law Tue Mar 23 2010
Supreme Court Taking a Shot at Chicago's Gun Ban
Earlier this month, Chicago's nearly 30-year-old gun ban was taken before the supreme court. In the wake of the court's 2008 decision to strike down Washington D.C.'s similar ban, Chicagoans hoping to get their hands on a hand-cannon have reason to be optimistic. Four Chicagoans, David and Colleen Lawson, Otis McDonald and Adam Orlov, are the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, none of whom are necessarily the kind of person you may imagine would file this lawsuit. To quote an article on the subject from MSNBC:
"Some people want to stereotype advocates in any case, to make them look like a bunch of crazies," said Alan Gura, a Virginia attorney who will argue the case. "But these are plaintiffs who reflect the city in which they live."
The case provides a unique legal situation. The District of Columbia is technically governed federally, so in this situation the court must consider whether or not cities or states have to right to restrict firearm ownership to the degree of an all-out ban.
What do you, Chicagoans, really think about the ban? Of course Chicago typically leans left politically, but not everyone blindly adheres to whatever their political party preaches. Do you think the gun ban has been effective in reducing gun related crime? Why, or why not? Perhaps more interestingly, would you buy a gun if the ban is overturned?
Dave Zawislak / March 24, 2010 10:48 AM
Look at the history of the dealings that went with Mayor Byrne and how it was meant to be victim disarmament to make them easier prey for the criminal elements in the city.