The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to Chicago’s ban on handguns.
Can a local or state law be considered unconstitutional if it violates a citizen’s right to “keep and bear arms”?
The debate gained momentum last year. From the LA Times:
Last year, the court in a 5-4 decision breathed new life into the amendment by ruling that it protected an individual’s right to have a handgun at home for self-defense. The decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller struck down a local ban on handguns.
But since the nation’s capital is a federal enclave, the court did not reconsider its 19th century rulings that said the 2nd Amendment applied only to federal laws and restrictions.
Now for my personal opinion. The Chicago ordinance reminds me of the old bumper sticker “If guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns”. An individual willing to commit armed robbery or murder is not going to be deterred by a law against weapons possession. Without seeing statistics, I feel reasonably safe in stating that this law did not result in a sharp drop in gun related crimes. And I do not think that a ruling against the ordinance will result in massive orgy of handgun purchases.
I do not own a handgun. I do not plan on purchasing one. But I do not see any reason why a law abiding citizen should have his rights taken away because of the actions of the lawless. Want to create a law to stop the violence? How about hard time and no plea bargains for weapons related crimes. How about no parole. How about punishing the offender instead of the honest citizen?
Paul, doncha’ know? If a conservative doesn’t like guns, they don’t buy one. But, if a liberal doesn’t like guns, then no one should have one.