Man takes Chicago to Supreme Court over handgun ban

G

Gotholic

Well-Known Member
Man takes Chicago to Supreme Court over handgun ban

Paul Meincke
More: Bio, News Team

February 24, 2010 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- A grandfather is taking his 2nd Amendment fight to the U.S. Supreme Court in what is expected to be a landmark case. Otis McDonald, 76, is suing the city of Chicago over its handgun ban.

McDonald says he wants the right to protect himself from gang members who threaten the Morgan Park neighborhood where he lives.

McDonald's case will be argued before the nation's high court next week. ABC 7's Paul Meincke talked with McDonald.

McDonald is a retired maintenance engineer who moved to Chicago in the early 1950s with $18 in his pocket. At this point in his life, he says, he surely didn't set out to make history, but that's clearly where he finds himself.

"I have a strong drive to do what I can to right what I see is wrong," said McDonald.

For the better part of four decades, McDonald has lived in Morgan Park. He and his wife raised their family here. Ten years after they first moved in, Chicago enacted its handgun ban, an idea McDonald -- at the time -- applauded.

But, in the years that have followed, McDonald says his neighborhood has changed. More crime. He has been broken into three times, and he has long since concluded that the gun ban is a bust.

"It doesn't work," McDonald said. "It doesn't work simply, because the senior citizens, the law-abiding citizens like myself, is being victimized by saying you can't have a handgun in your own home. Why? Tell me what I can't have in my own home. I'm not out robbing nobody."

After attending an NRA rally four years ago, McDonald was recruited by gun rights activists to serve as a possible plaintiff in legal action against the city.

"I was skeptical at first. You know. I'm thinking, 'Wait a minute here - little ol' me.' Hey, I'm all up in here with lawyers and things," said McDonald.

McDonald joked with the lawyers that his color must have a bearing on his selection, but he ultimately decided that race and politics were secondary to a cause he believes in. So, he agreed to be the lead plaintiff, "McDonald v. the City of Chicago and Mayor Richard M. Daley."

"Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society? If they think that's the answer they're greatly mistaken. Then, why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West where you have a gun and I have a gun and we settle it in the streets?" said Mayor Daley.

"I don't think anybody involved in this case -- certainly no one I've met -- is hoping for the right to own a handgun in Chicago so they can say, 'Wow, finally I can go knock over that 7-11'," said David Sigale, attorney for McDonald.

When the case is argued next Tuesday before the Supreme court, Otis McDonald will be in the audience, mindful that whatever the legal outcome his name is now etched in history.

"I didn't think too much about that. I just find myself here and I pray every night, and let the lord give me the strength to endure," McDonald said.

Otis McDonald presents a public face on the debate different than the more traditional white, rural gun rights advocate. That aside, the question before the Supreme Court next week is whether its decision in the summer of 2008 to strike down the Washington, DC, handgun ban can apply equally to Chicago and beyond.

(Copyright ©2010 WLS-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)
Click to expand...

Source

:headbang:
 
yeah the chicago ban is balls. i'll post my friend's chicago story tomorrow... when i'm sober....:drink2:
 
This should throw a wrench into the mix.

WA SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RICHARD SANDERS
AUTHORS SIGNIFICANT GUN RIGHTS RULING

By Alan M. Gottlieb

Executive Vice President

Second Amendment Foundation

The Washington State Supreme Court has issued a precedent-setting opinion in the case of State v. Christopher William Sieyes which holds that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights "applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment"

This outstanding opinion was authored by Justice Richard B. Sanders, a Supreme Court veteran who clearly understands the history of both the state and federal constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Perhaps what makes the Sanders opinion so remarkable is that it places the Washington Supreme Court ahead of the United States Supreme Court in recognition that the U.S. Constitution's recognition of the right to keep and bear arms applies to all citizens, and should also place limits on state and local governments, as it does on Congress.

Quoting Justice Sanders, "Lower courts need not wait for the Supreme Court the Constitution is the rule of all courts both state and federal judiciaries wield power to strike down unconstitutional government acts."

The Sanders opinion was issued February 18, 2010 and its significance quickly registered with gun rights organizations and activists across the map. For example, the National Shooting Sports Foundation hailed the ruling. NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane called it "a welcome development and victory for the rights of law-abiding firearms owners."

This state high court opinion, among other things, effectively "puts on notice" anti-gun groups in the Evergreen State that their continued efforts to impair the rights of legally-armed citizens will face not only growing legislative resistance, but intense legal scrutiny. Though not binding on other states, it clears a path for other state supreme courts to follow.

Despite its brevity at only 24 pages, Justice Sanders' opinion - which was co-signed by five of his colleagues, including Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen - thoroughly and proactively debunks any suggestion that the authors of Article 1, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution did not mean specifically what they wrote: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

Perhaps Justice Sanders put it best when he noted, "This right is necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty and fundamental to the American scheme of justice."


The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
Click to expand...
 
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
i won't move to chicago while the law stays the way it is. and i could make a lot of money in that town. it's one of the few places where i would actually feel the need to have a loaded firearm around.

so my friend was walking in front of her house. (keep in mind she's a big shooter and this is a pricey neighborhood in the city of chicago.) her neighbor's dog, a pit bull, jumps at her and clamps its jaw down on her laptop bag, which was kevlar (she's a fabrics/materials fashionista) and kept doggie busy, thankfully. she screams. the owner comes over and yells at her for bothering his dog. (oh, yeah, winky, i think he was some sort of mexican.) he finally pries the dog off. she goes home and calls the police. the cops come to see her later, and offer...

"well, it's gonna be your word against his. you can file a complaint, but i gotta tell ya, if you do... you don't know who this guy is... at least your house will be robbed."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top