But Herr Daley claims the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to cities.

“Chicago corporation counsel Mara Georges told aldermen Thursday the court's ruling applied to Washington, which is under federal jurisdiction, but not to cities. The court has not specifically determined the 2nd Amendment applies to states and municipalities, as it has with other provisions in the Bill of Rights, she said.”

Huh?????

Complete article:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-wi...ul25,0,5269638.story

Wilmette repeals town's handgun ban after high court ruling

Other villages take wait-and-see attitude

By Susan Kuczka and Hal Dardick
Chicago Tribune reporters
July 25, 2008

Wilmette may be the first, but it's unlikely to be the last Chicago suburb to repeal its handgun ban in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision last month to declare a similar measure unconstitutional.

Morton Grove, which approved the nation's first handgun ban in 1981, is set to repeal its anti-gun ordinance next week after the high court's June 26 ruling that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a person's right to possess a handgun in one's home for self-defense.

The National Rifle Association filed lawsuits against Morton Grove, Evanston, Oak Park and Chicago immediately after the high court's ruling, seeking repeal of the decades-old gun-ban ordinances.

On Thursday, members of the Chicago City Council urged the city's lawyers to "vigorously defend" its 1982 ordinance that froze handgun registrations.

Wilmette village officials believe the North Shore town escaped a lawsuit because it immediately suspended enforcement of its ban after the Supreme Court ruling.

It won't be easy, officials said, to adopt a substitute measure while the lawsuits against the other communities are pending.

"This certainly is not a battle we can win in Wilmette," said Trustee Lali Watt, echoing the sentiment of many suburban officials who acknowledge that, unlike Chicago, their towns lack the resources to take on the NRA.

Other communities like Oak Park are taking a wait-and-see approach before formally repealing their handgun bans.

Oak Park village attorney Ray Heise said he hasn't been convinced that the Supreme Court decision will apply to the village's ban on the possession of handguns.

"We take the handgun ban seriously and will not consider repealing it unless it's clearly established that state and local gun control is going to be impacted by the Supreme Court decision," Heise said. "There won't be a casual decision to repeal the handgun ban."

In Wilmette, the village's seven trustees voted unanimously Tuesday night to repeal the ban. Officials said alternate regulations for gun ownership would be studied while the court cases play out.

"It's going to take time to see how the courts interpret the [Supreme Court] decision in terms of what the new limitations are, and what local governments can and cannot do," said Tim Frenzer, Wilmette's corporation counsel.

In its 5-4 opinion striking down the gun ban of Washington, D.C., the Supreme Court left municipalities some wiggle room, declaring gun control measures permissible when they include restrictions that do not unduly infringe on gun ownership.

The opinion's author, Justice Antonin Scalia, also said in the high court's majority opinion that the ruling would not likely override existing bans on concealed weapons, laws that prohibit felons and the mentally ill from gun ownership or firearm bans in government buildings and schools.

Chicago corporation counsel Mara Georges told aldermen Thursday the court's ruling applied to Washington, which is under federal jurisdiction, but not to cities. The court has not specifically determined the 2nd Amendment applies to states and municipalities, as it has with other provisions in the Bill of Rights, she said.

Wilmette, which adopted its handgun ban in 1989, had not enforced the ordinance since 2004, when the Illinois General Assembly adopted legislation to bar the village from applying it against residents using handguns to protect their property.

State lawmakers took the unusual measure after Wilmette police ticketed a local man who shot an intruder in his home in December 2003. Cook County prosecutors refused to prosecute homeowner Hale DeMar, who was assessed a $750 fine by the village.

Village President Chris Canning said police had issued fewer than a dozen handgun violation tickets in nearly two decades.

"Ultimately, it was more symbolic" than anything else, he said.

Tribune reporter Richard Wronski and freelance reporter Victoria Pierce contributed to this report.

skuczka@tribune.com

hdardick@tribune.com

They'll waste more taxpayers money fighting it, then it'll be incorporated.

I'm glad that Wilmette dropped it, although I think it's for the wrong reasons.

I'd like to see them say "We remembered that our citizens have fundamental rights that should never be threatened" rather than " We would lose the lawsuit anyway" but I'll take what I can get.

quote:

Wilmette, which adopted its handgun ban in 1989, had not enforced the ordinance since 2004, when the Illinois General Assembly adopted legislation to bar the village from applying it against residents using handguns to protect their property.

I was not even aware that the IGA had done this. That's amusing. Chicago will be the last hold out.

I'm ever the pessimist... but it's encouraging to see this moving the other way.

So what are they trying to imply, that the court's intention was for the 2nd amendment to be an individual right only for people in Washington DC?

quote:

Originally posted by Will938:
So what are they trying to imply, that the court's intention was for the 2nd amendment to be an individual right only for people in Washington DC?

Yup. Herr Daley will fight it all the way, with the taxpayers footing the bill.

http://www.chitowndailynews.org/Chicago_news/Chicago_la...legal_strategy,15284

Chicago lays out handgun legal strategy

BY JENNIFER SLOSAR
July 25, 2008 | 5:01 PM

The City of Chicago is planning to defend its handgun ban with a highly technical legal argument that some law scholars say isn't likely to fly.

Mara Georges, the city's chief lawyer, appeared before aldermen yesterday pledging to "vigorously" defend Chicago's 1982 handgun prohibition.

The city is currently facing two suits in district court challenging that ban in the aftermath of a June 26 Supreme Court decision that threw out a handgun ban in Washington, D.C.

In that case, the court ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment provides a right for individuals to bear arms.

Georges says the city is likely to argue that the court's decision applies only in Washington, a federal territory, and not to the states.

"The opinion does not say that the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms applies to states or municipalities," says Georges.

Some experts say that argument will face tough scrutiny in court.

"If I were making policy recommendations to the City of Chicago, it would be back off this real fast, and just get rid of it before it gets into court," says Harry Wilson, a political science professor at Roanoke College in Virginia, and author of Guns, Gun Control and Elections.

Wilson says if the city followed that path, officials could replace the current comprehensive ban with limited gun restrictions that would pass muster in court.

"There are lots of less extreme restrictions on ownership and possession that would be upheld," he says.

University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone also says the city's argument may run into trouble.

"It's more likely than not that the Court will end up saying that the Second Amendment governs the states," he says.

When the Bill of Rights was first created, the intention was to provide people with rights only against the federal government, Stone says.

Over the years, those protections have been extended to the states under a legal theory known as the doctrine of incorporation.

Georges says the city is on strong legal ground in defending its ban, citing three Supreme Court decisions holding that the Second Amendment is not incorporated.

Stone says there are plausible reasons why the court might not extend Second Amendment rights to states and cities.

It's possible, he says that the court might not find the right to bear arms equal in importance to the right to freedom of religion or the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

However, most of the rights found in the first ten amendments have been extended to states and cities.

Georges allows that the same could eventually happen with the right to bear arms.

"I anticipate that at some time this could have an impact on our gun control laws," says Georges. "But that would not be, at least in my legal opinion, for a while."

Meanwhile, she says, the city is prepared to take its case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

"We would like to be the test case to be able to present our argument," she says.

Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, says he expects the city's strategy to fall short.

"The Supreme Court does say it [gun ownership] is an individual right," says Pearson. "Regardless of whether that individual is in an area governed by the federal government or a municipality, it is still an individual right."

The city of Chicago joined several others in an amicus brief filed in the Heller case. The brief was filled with Illinois case law and every overextended citation in the library. I would hope that renders that particular argument and its contents moot - considered and rejected by the Supreme Court.

I have no objection if Hizzoner Daley takes the case to the Supreme Court. I smiled a bit when the Heller case was appealed. You can cite a circuit court of appeals decision in another district and hope for the best but the SCOTUS decision has the force of law.

I recall a story about a rabbit and a briar patch. "Don't throw me there, Mr. Mayor."

Council for Chicago will argue that the question is already settled by precedent. They ignore this portion in [Heller]...

--- For most of our history, the Bill of Rights was thought not applicable to the states. ----- It is demonstrable not true as JUSTICE STEVENS claims. post at 41--41, 'for most of our history the invalidity of Second-Amendment- based objections to firearms regulations has been well settled and uncontroversial'. For most of our history, the question did not present itself. ---

Chicago will ignore further, that most Federal District Courts just got 'bitch slapped' by the high court for wrongly reading [Miller] for half a century. Chicago will believe its case well rooted in United States v. Cruickshank, which [Heller] does reference...

--- The Second Amendment... means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. States we said, were free to restrict or protect the right under their police powers. ---

It will not occur to council for Chicago that a police power to [restrict] or [protect] does not mean a power to 'ban' or 'make extinct'. They will ignore this portion in [Heller]...

--- ...but what is not debatable, is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. ---

quote:

So what are they trying to imply, that the court's intention was for the 2nd amendment to be an individual right only for people in Washington DC?

Yeah. It's kind of a technical argument since the Bill of Rights absent the 14th Amendment originally only applied to federal government (DC is not a state, recall, and is administered by the feds).

So, the question becomes one of whether the 2A is incorporated in the 14th (which expressly applies to the states) and thereby become applicable to the states (and by extension cities or local authorities).

Interestingly, what Daley is saying is basically the same argument that some right wing types like Robert Bork used to criticize Brown v. Board of Education, the famous school desegregation case.

The thing is that Heller clearly frames the right to self defense as fundamental which I would like to think makes it hard for the states to successfully argue that the 2nd Amend. isn't incorporated.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Nasty:

quote:

So what are they trying to imply, that the court's intention was for the 2nd amendment to be an individual right only for people in Washington DC?

Yeah. It's kind of a technical argument since the Bill of Rights absent the 14th Amendment originally only applied to federal government (DC is not a state, recall, and is administered by the feds).

So, the question becomes one of whether the 2A is incorporated in the 14th (which expressly applies to the states) and thereby become applicable to the states (and by extension cities or local authorities).

Interestingly, what Daley is saying is basically the same argument that some right wing types like Robert Bork used to criticize Brown v. Board of Education, the famous school desegregation case.

The thing is that Heller clearly frames the right to self defense as fundamental which I would like to think makes it hard for the states to successfully argue that the 2nd Amend. isn't incorporated.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. It wouldn't make any sense for it not to be incorporated. How can they say with a straight face that an amendment applies to some people but not others? As if the founders or the supreme court meant that 2A was a gift for the people of DC

The Illinois Constitution has a 2nd Amendment which follows the US Constitution, but goes further in protecting individual rights. The Home Rule section, also in the ILLCON, makes a joke of the rest of that document as well as of state law in general by making it very difficult (2/3rds majority) to preempt local laws.

In a state where three Illinois Supreme Court justices have gone to jail since I started voting, changes for the better are not likely. On the other hand, a loss before the US Supreme Court would seem to establish incorporation. Likely? No judge (or cop) tolerates being told he doesn't have the authority very well.

quote:

"Ultimately, it was more symbolic" than anything else, he said.

Yeah it's symbolic of tyranny.

Another IL city complies with the SCOTUS ruling. No, it's not Chicago...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-mo...ul29,0,5742213.story

Morton Grove repeals 27-year-old gun ban

By Robert Channick
Special to the Chicago Tribune
11:07 PM CDT, July 28, 2008

Morton Grove's landmark handgun ban, imposed 27 years ago, died quietly Monday night, as the suburb's Village Board bowed to a new legal reality and repealed the ordinance.

The board's 5-1 vote came in response to last month's ruling by a divided U.S. Supreme Court that struck down a similar ban. The high court ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects a person's right to own a firearm for self-defense.

Fighting in court to try to keep the law would cost money the village does not have, officials said.

"I appreciate the courage the board [showed] in 1981 in a noble experiment," Trustee Dan Staackmann said. "[But] we don't have the resources to fight this all the way."



Trustee Georgianne Brunner cast the lone vote against the repeal. "We may be acting a little bit in haste," she said. "I'm just grateful for what they did in 1981, and I wish we could just take a step back and wait it out."

Morton Grove adopted the nation's first ordinance banning the possession of handguns in 1981, triggering a storm of publicity and a nationwide debate over the merits of using local ordinances to control gun ownership. The ordinance was upheld in 1984 by the Illinois Supreme Court.

The move to repeal the ban attracted little controversy, Village Administrator Joe Wade said. Only a few residents came to a meeting earlier this month, when the repeal was first on the agenda. The opinions were fairly evenly split, Wade said.

"Really, there hasn't been too much interest in the community," Wade said.

Morton Grove was among Illinois communities sued by the National Rifle Association the day after the Supreme Court decision was announced. Officials said the impetus for the repeal was the court's decision, not the suit.

At the Morton Grove meeting, Peggy Friewer, 56, who said her father was mayor when the ban was enacted, told the board that she was "very saddened that you would even consider amending the ordinance.

Tribune reporter Kristen Kridel contributed to this report.

Please, PLEASE repeal the gun bans in Chicago. I miss that city.

I hope King Daley gets his ass handed to him in court. AGAIN.

(If you don't know what I'm talking about with the AGAIN bit, google Miegs Field).

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Decker:
....
(If you don't know what I'm talking about with the AGAIN bit, google Miegs Field).

This link will save some time. Scroll down to 2003 and see what Herr Daley did to this airport:

http://www.airfields-freeman.com/IL/Airfields_IL_Chicago_C.htm#meigs

Another city complies with SCOTUS.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-ev...ug12,0,7386423.story

Evanston amends its gun-ban law

By Brian Cox and Deborah Horan
Chicago Tribune
August 12, 2008

Following on the heels of a Supreme Court decision that held that a blanket ban on handguns violated 2nd Amendment rights, Evanston's City Council voted 7-1 Monday night to amend the North Shore suburb's weapons ordinance to conform to the landmark court ruling.

Council members believe the move will allow the city to avoid a potential court challenge.

"I find the Supreme Court decision repugnant," said Ald. Steve Bernstein (4th). "But because of it, it's the law. In the short term, we'll be better off getting [the ordinance] off the books."

Evanston's handgun law, one of the more progressive in the country, had banned not just handguns but any device that "is designed to expel a projectile," including BB guns and paintball guns with projectiles larger than .18-inches in diameter. Items such as collectors' guns were exempt from the ban.

City Council members said Monday they saw no alternative but to amend Evanston's law to bring it into line with the high-court ruling.

Wilmette and Morton Grove, which passed the nation's first gun-ban laws, have already modified their ordinances in light of the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling on June 26, and other towns are likely to follow suit, legal experts said. Washington, D.C., whose 32-year ban on owning handguns was struck down, has passed a new ordinance that requires gun owners to take tests and keep the weapon unloaded and either disassembled or locked.

Evanston's move to amend the law came after the National Rifle Association filed lawsuits against it, Morton Grove, Oak Park and Chicago immediately after the high court's ruling. Wilmette was not named in the lawsuit, apparently because city officials had already taken steps to suspend enforcement of its ban, city officials said.

In its opinion striking down the gun ban in Washington, the Supreme Court left municipalities some wiggle room, declaring gun-control measures permissible when they include restrictions that do not unduly infringe on gun ownership.

The opinion's author, Justice Antonin Scalia, also said in the high court's majority opinion that the ruling should not "cast doubt on long-standing 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."

Deborah Horan is a Tribune staff reporter; Brian Cox is a freelance reporter.

Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune

quote:

"I find the Supreme Court decision repugnant," said Ald. Steve Bernstein (4th). "But because of it, it's the law. In the short term, we'll be better off getting [the ordinance] off the books."

I find elected asshats like you, and the authoritian loving sheep that elect you repugnent.

I hope this is only the beginning of a new 2nd amendment enlightenment that is long over due in that blighted state.

The dam now has a hole in it, and the the water sit squirting through. A few more cases won, and the dam busts.