Chicago hope: A welcome gun ruling affirms the Second Amendment
Ruling that Chicago's ban on licensed retail gun shops and private firearms transfers is unconstitutional, a federal judge has dealt a stinging, much-needed rebuke to an overreaching city government.
U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang stayed his decision to give Chicago — which last year led U.S. cities in homicides — time to mull an appeal. But there's no appealing the Second Amendment, which he cited in ruling that Chicago's duty to protect its citizens' safety is outweighed by its obligation to protect their constitutional rights.
It's not the first time that a court has curbed Chicago or Illinois gun-grabbing. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the city's gun ban in 2010. A federal appellate court forced Illinois — last holdout among the states — to finally allow concealed carry permits last year.
After a federal appellate court struck down the city's gun-range ban in 2012, Chicago used “zoning and other regulatory measures to make it difficult” for such law-abiding firearms businesses, according to the Chicago Tribune. Besides possibly appealing this latest ruling, the city might try such tactics again.
If it does, Chicago will confirm its anti-gun attitude's underlying tendency: wrongly blaming legal guns, legal firearms businesses and law-abiding gun owners for gun-related violent crime. The latter two should be thankful that this judge and others stand ready to uphold their Second Amendment rights.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- U.N. Watch: Chelsea’s words
- SECRET SERVICE SCANDAL
- The Kane case: Charges upon charges
- How to counter Putin in Syria
- The Box
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- Sunday pops
- Tower of babble
- Seattle’s gun violence tax: A 2nd Amendment potshot
- ‘80 by 50’?: This extreme climate proposal is a big zero
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances