* It seems pretty clear that the US Supreme Court ruling striking down Chicago’s gun ban will result in lots more lawsuits. The ruling, along with its DC gun ban ruling, claims that “reasonable” gun ownership restrictions are allowed.
“Reasonable,” of course, is in the eye of the beholder. In Chicago, reasonable means this…
Chicago may severely limit the number of handguns that can be kept in a single home and ban gun dealers within city limits in the wake of Monday’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that gutted the city’s handgun ban, City Hall’s top attorney said [yesterday].
The court’s ruling “did not say that a person is entitled to more than one handgun, and one handgun is sufficient for self defense,” Corporation Counsel Mara Georges told aldermen at a City Council committee meeting. “We believe that a limitation on the number of handguns to one per person per residence would be consistent with the Supreme Court’s decisions.”
Earlier [yesterday], Georges said a requirement that handguns must be registered in the city will definitely be in the new ordinance. The city also is considering requirements that gun owners undergo training, submit to a criminal-background check and obtain liability insurance, she said.
Also under consideration are ballistics testing or “stamping” of each weapon so spent ammunition can be traced back to a specific gun. “We’ve looked at an assault weapons ban, that’s something our current ordinance contains,” she added. “I think it makes sense to continue an assault weapons ban, to continue allowing only certain kinds of weapons and prohibiting others, prohibiting certain kinds of ammunition.”
Washington requires gun owners to get five hours of safety training, register their firearms every three years and face criminal background checks every six years.
Gun owners there are further required to submit fingerprints and allow police to perform ballistic tests. They must keep revolvers unloaded and either disassembled or secured with trigger locks unless they have reason to fear a home intruder.
Those provisions apparently don’t go far enough for Daley, who hinted strongly at an insurance component to protect public safety workers and taxpayers.
* On the other hand…
But one gun rights supporter said many of Georges’ suggestions all but assure a legal battle, calling them “preposterous” and a violation of gun owners’ civil rights.
Owning a gun, said David Workman of the Bellevue, Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation, “is a civil right and you can’t limit a civil right.” He also said it would be illegal to single out gun shops just because the merchandise they sell might poise a danger to residents.
From a Southern Illinoisan editorial…
In addition to bolstering our right to possess firearms for self-defense purposes in our homes, the ruling by the Supreme Court offers hope for additional sanity in the ever-ongoing firearms debate. It was a decision hailed by lawmakers from the region, Sen. Gary Forby, D-Benton, Rep. Mike Bost, R-Murphysboro, Rep. John Bradley, D-Marion and Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg.
Bost suggested the ruling will give new weight to the argument for a concealed carry law in Illinois, which he supports. Such laws are on the books in 48 states, excluding Illinois and Wisconsin, and have been equated with declines in gun crimes elsewhere. Thugs are reluctant to strike those who might shoot back.
It might be an uphill fight, but the concealed carry goal is worth pursuing for law-abiding, thoroughly trained citizens, if only to ensure there is no erosion in the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding our Second Amendment rights. We can’t be confident of keeping a 5-4 ideological split on the nation’s high court, and there always be lawyers willing to pursue new firearm restrictions - and well-heeled clients willing to pay for such limitations.
* So, what’s your definition of reasonable?