PipeDaddy
02-28-2010, 11:28 AM
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-court-guns28-2010feb28,0,1693697.story
When the Supreme Court takes up a challenge this week to Chicago's strict ban on handguns, it will hear two contrasting visions of how to make the city safer and to protect its residents from gun violence.
On one side are the law-abiding city dwellers who say they need guns to protect themselves from armed thugs. Among them is Otis McDonald, who says he is worried about the armed drug dealers on the streets in his Morgan Park neighborhood.
"I only want a handgun in my home for my protection," said McDonald, 76.
On the other side are prosecutors and police who say the city's ban on handguns gives them a legal basis for confronting gang members and drug dealers.
"If an officer sees a bulge in a pocket, he can stop and frisk that person," said Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez.
In Chicago, New York and elsewhere, police say these stop-and-frisk searches make the streets safer by disarming thugs. "If this [ban] is overturned, we think there would be an increase in violence," Alvarez said.
Regardless of who prevails, the case of McDonald vs. Chicago figures to be a landmark in the history of the 2nd Amendment and its "right to keep and bear arms." It will decide whether the 2nd Amendment applies only to federal gun laws or if it can be used across the nation to strike down state and local gun restrictions.
First, Loog would be in trouble walking the streets of Chicago given the current law.
Second (and on a more serious note), it is this sort of case that intrigues me. Does the US Constitution apply on all levels? And what about cases where two different Amendments seem to be somewhat contradictory?
This should be a good one.
Being the legal scholar that I am, I'd lean toward strict possession laws being struck down, but actual carrying laws being pretty much left to state/local regulation.
When the Supreme Court takes up a challenge this week to Chicago's strict ban on handguns, it will hear two contrasting visions of how to make the city safer and to protect its residents from gun violence.
On one side are the law-abiding city dwellers who say they need guns to protect themselves from armed thugs. Among them is Otis McDonald, who says he is worried about the armed drug dealers on the streets in his Morgan Park neighborhood.
"I only want a handgun in my home for my protection," said McDonald, 76.
On the other side are prosecutors and police who say the city's ban on handguns gives them a legal basis for confronting gang members and drug dealers.
"If an officer sees a bulge in a pocket, he can stop and frisk that person," said Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez.
In Chicago, New York and elsewhere, police say these stop-and-frisk searches make the streets safer by disarming thugs. "If this [ban] is overturned, we think there would be an increase in violence," Alvarez said.
Regardless of who prevails, the case of McDonald vs. Chicago figures to be a landmark in the history of the 2nd Amendment and its "right to keep and bear arms." It will decide whether the 2nd Amendment applies only to federal gun laws or if it can be used across the nation to strike down state and local gun restrictions.
First, Loog would be in trouble walking the streets of Chicago given the current law.
Second (and on a more serious note), it is this sort of case that intrigues me. Does the US Constitution apply on all levels? And what about cases where two different Amendments seem to be somewhat contradictory?
This should be a good one.
Being the legal scholar that I am, I'd lean toward strict possession laws being struck down, but actual carrying laws being pretty much left to state/local regulation.