Sitting Duck Policy

The ruling struck down the Chicago handgun ban, thus opening the door to legal self-defense by Windy City residents. Alan M. Gottlieb joined attorney Alan Gura and Chicago resident Otis McDonald on the steps of the United States Supreme Court TODAY and heard the court’s ruling in the historic McDonald v. City of Chicago gun rights case filed by SAF, the Illinois State Rifle Association and four Chicago residents.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard the case to decide whether the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment protects Americans from overreaching state and local governments.

The Supreme Court case is of paramount importance to American citizens, to see that their constitutional rights are respected not only by the Congress, but by state and local governments.

Death Toll Mounts in Chicago

Fifty-two people shot, eight of them fatally in a single Chicago weekend, yet Mayor Richard Daley appears poised to go down screaming in his opposition to the Second Amendment Foundation’s lawsuit to overturn his city’s handgun ban.

Chicago has become a slaughterhouse where defenseless victims are terrorized by armed thugs who have taken full advantage of an unarmed populace. Daley and his predecessors who perpetuated this ban are wading knee-deep in the blood of hundreds of crime victims who should have had the means to defend themselves.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago’s handgun ban, so the city will likely do what Washington, D.C., did when its own ban was overturned two years ago: Put in place all sorts of restrictions to make it tougher to buy guns and easier for police to know who has them.

Prospective gun owners in D.C. now are required to take expensive training courses that include spending one hour on a firing range (there isn’t one in D.C.) and several hours in a classroom learning about so called gun safety. They also must pass a 20 question test based on D.C.’s highly restrictive firearm laws.

They also have to be fingerprinted, pay huge fees and jump many other hurdles.

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley says he’s encouraged by what he sees in D.C. and vows not go down without a fight.

Year after year the statistics have piled up yet Mayor Daley has stubbornly defended the city’s ban. While he has luxuriated at his vacation home with the safety of armed bodyguards, the bodies of Chicago crime victims have stacked up like cordwood.

Monday we should have a ruling from the Supreme Court that puts an end to this insanity, and gives the citizens of Chicago back their right to defend themselves. Daley thinks his constituents should be content to call 911 and wait for help to arrive while they’re being shot, stabbed, raped, robbed or beaten. Those crimes happen fast, and when seconds count, Chicago police are minutes away.

We took Daley to court because we trust his citizens more than he does with their self-defense rights. Chicago residents have endured the terror of public disarmament for almost three decades, and all they have to show for it is a body count. Mayor Daley should be ashamed.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) was delighted to bring this case in cooperation with the Illinois State Rifle Association and the four local plaintiffs. We are in this fight because a gun ban is no less onerous to civil rights in Chicago than it was in the District of Columbia. Such a law cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged.

We WON but protecting our gun rights is expensive and it’s impossible to put a price tag on. This time freedom will cost $250,000 to defend your Second Amendment rights in this challenge by Chicago to ban guns. SAF stands firmly committed to defend these rights and we are asking you to stand with us and we need your help to stop the anti-freedom extremists now!

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.SAF.org) is the nation’s 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.

For our projects to be successful, we must count on the voluntary financial support from individuals like you who care.

We need your financial support today to ensure we have the resources to beat back anti-gunners who will stop at nothing to take away our right and ability to defend ourselves and our families.

Please give your most generous contribution today. Help me defend your individual right to bear arms in this important Supreme Court case, today!

Your donation for just $10 will help so much. If you can afford to send $50 or $100 or more it would truly be a godsend.

Remember, protecting our freedom is not inexpensive. But then, it’s impossible to put a price tag on freedom.

Together, we can preserve the Constitutional rights our Founding Fathers intended our people to have forever.

Sincerely yours,

Alan M. Gottlieb
Founder
Second Amendment Foundation

On the heals of the SCOTUS Heller and McDonald decisions, one would imagine it would take some time for firearms restrictions laws to be changed by various state legislatures. The legislative process turns slowly.

However, what was completely unexpected was Jackson County Wisconsin’s District Attorney, Gerald R. Fox, who, in a recent press release, held that the Second Amendment’s protections apply against current state regulation, specifically five Wisconsin state statutes, which he found to be unconstitutional:

“I hereby declare that this office will no longer accept law enforcement referrals for violations of the following statutes:

• Section 167.31, prohibiting uncased or loaded firearms in vehicles;
• Section 941.23, prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, including firearms;
• Section 941.235, prohibiting the possession of firearms in public buildings;
• Section 941.237, prohibiting the possession of firearms in establishments where alcohol may be sold or served; and,
• Section 941.24, prohibiting the possession of knives that open with a button, or by gravity, or thrust, or movement.”

District Attorney Fox told the examiner.com that the US Supreme Court was clear: the right to bear arms is “fundamental,” and therefore state governments can only restrict these rights by way of regulations which are “narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.” Additionally, he stated that ”in Jackson County, [people] don’t risk prosecution” for violating these 5 statutes.

A recent article in The Examiner sums up Chicago Mayor Daley’s response to the landmark SCOTUS case:

In an afternoon press conference, Daley announced that the city would enact new ordinances making it as difficult as possible to purchase and own a gun in Chicago. During his rant, he promised to seek ways to attack the right to bear arms from the supply side, vowing to go after manufacturers and crack down on gun shops and gun shop owners. He also noted that only “responsible adults” would be allowed to purchase or possess guns and left open the extremely disturbing question of who gets to determine which citizens are responsible and therefore ’worthy‘ of civil rights.

The article eloquently concludes:

The problem in Chicago is not guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. It never was. The problem is crime … crime driven by poverty, and hopelessness, and drug abuse, and all the social ills that accompany them. And because Mayor Daley, in his 21 year tenure, has not been willing or able to address these very difficult problems, he seeks to blame gun owners.

This elitist defiance should not surprise those familiar with Chicago politics and the antics of the Daley administration but it should serve as a grim reminder to gun owners and civil libertarians that despite the victories in Heller and McDonald, the legislative and judicial battles are far from over.

The Supreme Court of the United States today handed down their landmark decision in the McDonald case. In short, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is, in fact, an individual Right, not one restricted to the Militia, nor one that only applies to the Federal Government.

This means that States, Counties, and Cities cannot have laws that prohibit the keeping or bearing of arms.

• http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
• http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m6d28-Substantive-victory-for-gun-owners?cid=exrss-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner