Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Supreme Court Handgun Ban Ruling Stirs Up Controversy

July 2, 2010 by  

Supreme Court handgun ban ruling stirs up controversy In the days since the Supreme Court ruled against the long-standing Chicago gun ban, the decision has filled the nation with an impassioned debate.

Representatives from the Second Amendment Foundation, for example, have called the ruling "our call to action," and promised to take on other restrictive gun laws across the nation.

This sentiment was echoed by Richard A. Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, who said that the decision was in accordance with "the timeless vision" of the Founding Fathers and the spirit of the Bill of Rights.

However, others were less impressed with the ruling that overturns the nearly 30-year-old law, with some saying that "people will die because of this decision."

Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, said that the only winners are the gun lobby and the firearms industry.

Proponents of stricter gun laws have also expressed their concern that a rush of lawsuits across the country will force localities to defend longstanding laws.

The Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence have meanwhile expressed satisfaction with the court’s reaffirmation that "the Second Amendment right to possess guns in the home for self-defense does not prevent our elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect our communities from gun violence."ADNFCR-1961-ID-19864381-ADNFCR

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Supreme Court Handgun Ban Ruling Stirs Up Controversy”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • John Morris

    I am so sick and tired of hearing about common-sense laws, common-sense reform, why can’t they just say that we want to take away your constitutional rights? The point in the lawsuit is that it is unconstitutional to ban guns in any city in the U.S. I think that gun laws are too abbrasive anyway when i should be able to carry the second ammendment in my wallet as my conceiled weapons permit.

    • Nina

      Because if they did say that, they would never be elected. They have
      to sugar coat it to make it even remotely appealing when they are running for office. Why didn’t Barack Obama present himself as a
      Socialist when he was running for office?? Why did he represent himself as a Christian instead of a muslem?? Because he would have
      never been elected.

  • Gary

    The Supreme Court ruled several years ago that everyone is responsible for their own safety that the police have no responsiblity to an individual only to society at large. It is both morally wrong as well as irresponsibe to deprive the citizens of the best and in many cases the only means of self defence– a handgun. Those that scream the loudest for civilian disarmnent are almost always protected by a large contingent of taxpayer funded bodyguards and usually have multiple layers of scurity around them. They are being arrogenty irresponsible with our money. If these arrogent clowns had to live like the rest of us at the mercy of the crminal class they would be carrying guns to. Never forget that while mayor of San Fran. CA Diane Finestein one of the worst gun grabbers in the US Senate had an almost impossible to get carry permit and packed a 38Spc in her purse.

    • independant thinker

      If I remember correctly at one time she made a big show about turning in her handgun. She just “forgot” to mention she had another that she had the above mentioned license to carry.

  • Al Sieber

    Why are people so afraid to protect themselves? people will die with or without this decision.

    • J.M.R.


  • Jim H.

    Chicago tried a handgun ban, didn’t work. Criminals used handguns to commit murder anyway. Only law abiding people were victims. If you chose to ignore the ban and protect yourself from a criminal, you then became a felon. Is that common sense gun law? These gun control people would recognize “common sense” if it came up and introduced itself. Quit treating the victims like criminals and the criminals like victims.

    • DaveH

      That’s the Liberal way.

    • Harold Olsen

      Now Richard Daley has gotten passed a law that is a double edged sword. You can own a handgun but you must get certified in its use. I have no problem with that. You must go to an approved range to do this. However, his new law also says that you can not take your gun out of your home–not even as far as your front porch. If you do you will be arrested. That means that any gun owner who takes his gun to a range to get certified in its use will be breaking the law and can be arrested. Daley, like other liberals, isn’t going to let the Supreme Court stop him from violating peoples’ constitutional rights. They always find a way around the Constitution, which they consider to be an illegal document.

  • k1oik

    I think about what they would say if, for example, the courts just ruled that it was illegal to own a slave. “Proponents of slavery have also expressed their concern that a rush of lawsuits across the country will force localities to defend longstanding laws supporting slavery.” And “Risten Kand, legislative director of the Slavery Empowerment Center, said that the only winners are the anti-slavery lobby and the synthetic clothing industry.” You see, it doesn’t matter if we have gotten used to anti-rights laws that exist on the books. If they are wrong, they are wrong, and must be repealed. That’s what civil rights are all about. CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW…..

    • Jim H.

      K1oink, Are you really trying to compare gun ownership to slave ownership? Are you really that stupid, or do you think we are?

      • DaveH

        Why are you attacking him, Jim?

        Actually, Slavery is alive and well. We are slaves to the Government.

  • Cathy

    The liberals REFUSE to acknowledge the high crime rates in countries that have banned guns, choosing instead to ignore the statistics. (Check out the UK and Australia.) Maybe someone should also remind these idiots that the Japanese did not invade the US during WWII because they knew we had guns. And also check out Mexico, where guns are ILLEGAL. Duh…

    Most importantly…the Second Amendment was enacted by our founding fathers so we could protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, like the one we have now. In Germany, first they took away the guns. Get it?

    • JC

      Got it.

      Keep some guns and ammunition handy…and keep some hidden.

  • GenEarly

    The “controversy” is that 4 Supreme Justices cannot read or understand the Bill of Rights, 2nd Amendment.
    Our “rights” including any of the 1st 10 Amendments can be voted away by a bare majority of the “SUPREMES”,which was only 1 VOTE in this case!
    I’m too old to go to some camp for re-education or jail for protecting my GOD Given Rights.The cards are dealt.

  • s c

    This half-arsed administration of thugs, retards and closet fascists has so many immoral plans in the works that only someone who has no use for freedom would dare ignore the true significance of the 2nd Amendment. The handwriting has been on the wall(s) for many years.
    If you don’t know how to handle a weapon, learn. If you don’t have any weapons, get some. If you need advice on what to get, ask questions. And, remember there are many kinds of weapons. Some are just as deadly as any automatic assault rifle.
    You are an American. Defending yourself against a corrupt, evil government is your RIGHT. NO politician will EVER have ANY ‘right’ to deny your 2nd Amendment right(s).

    • JC

      You mean like this?

      North Carolina Confiscates and Bans Firearms

      The state of North Carolina crushed the Second Amendment putting law abiding citizens in danger during times of need. The unconstitutional “Emergency Powers Gun law” prohibits individuals from carrying firearms and blocks the sale of guns and ammunitions when the state chooses to declare an “emergency.” Firearms are our only means of self-defense in times of chaos, crime and the endangerment of our families. SAF is suing the state of North Carolina for destroying our Second Amendment rights and putting our lives and our families lives in danger.

      STOP “Emergency Powers Gun Law”
      Donate to Defend the Second
      Amendment NOW!

      During an emergency is when citizens need the Second Amendment most. We all saw what happened during hurricane Katrina. The government confiscated guns from law abiding Americans who only wanted to defend their homes and loved ones. Rampant crime and chaos erupted. Innocent people were murdered, raped and left for dead. Criminals grabbed guns, looted homes and terrorized families. Without guns regular Americans were left defenseless on the bayou. Ironically, our government told the residents of New Orleans they would be safer without guns. That is like telling them to carry a knife to a gun fight.

  • Kerry

    We already have the laws to prevent illegal use of guns in commiting crimes. The problem is, we do not demand their inforcement. We are the general public allow excuses to become reasons for someones actions. The question is did they or did they not commit the crime and if they did then they are guilty. Bleeding hearts and well intended christian ethics have done more damage to our legal system that all the lawyers combined. I am not defending the lawyers, but they do not bring in the jury decisions. They just play on our misplaced sence of right from wrong. The real crime is we allow it to happen and say nothing about it.

  • JeffH

    Obama’s Second Amendment Attack At UN Rejected

    CCRKBA’s Alan Gottlieb went to the UN as a Non Governmental Organization (NGO) delegate to fight for YOUR GUN RIGHTS. He was able to successfully argue against the UN Small Arms and Light Weapons Programme of Action that will create: A GLOBALIST GUN AGENDA TO GRAB YOUR GUNS AND YOUR RIGHT TO DEFEND YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY.

    Alan Gottlieb successfully fought the socialist bureaucrats at the UN to veto language in the UN Small Arms and Light Weapons Programme of Action to defend the Second Amendment. The goal of the UN cronies was to steamroll the Small Arms and Light Weapons Programme of Action through a Committee hearing so it would be passed right under the noses of freedom loving patriots. Alan was able to prevent the act from going into the committee hearing. But Alan’s fight is far from over. Hilary and her accomplices can and will draft up a new version of the legislation and try to bulldoze it through future UN hearings.

    Hilary is sneaking an attack on the 2nd Amendment and hoping no one will notice. Obama and Hilary have taken great precautions to ensure law-abiding American citizens are kept in the dark about what they are really trying to do. They have ordered a total media blackout to prevent any debates or voting on gun rights.

    • JC

      GO Alan Gottlieb!

    • Tim Little

      It’s Every American’s right to own a gun if they want to according to our Constitution.
      In 1982, in Kennesaw, G.A. they passed a law that every home owner had to own a gun and ammo. The results were that crime dropped 82% and has stayed at the same low level for 16 years! Of course, some people were exempt: people whose religious views were against gun ownership, mentally handicapped people, felons, ect..
      I think that this is a good example of what gun ownership can do.
      A criminal will have a gun, illegal or not. But, he / she will think twice about breaking into a house knowing they have a gun!
      Responsible gun ownership is a Great thing! I encourage everyone to own one, and have at least a basic gun safety class!

  • ABinGA

    They didn’t wait long, did they? This is from NewsMax

    The Chicago City Council on Friday approved what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the nation, but not before lashing out at the Supreme Court ruling they contend makes the city more dangerous because it will put more guns in people’s hands.

    The new ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or in their garages, with a handgun. It becomes law in 10 days, Corporation Counsel Mara Georges said.

    The vote comes just four days after the high court ruled Americans have the right to have handguns anywhere for self-defense — a ruling that makes the city’s 28-year-old ban on such weapons unenforceable.

    “I wish that we weren’t in the position where we’re struggling to figure out a way in which we can limit the guns on our streets and still meet the test that our Supreme Court has set for us,” said Alderman Toni Preckwinkle, minutes before the council voted 45-0 to approve the ordinance.

    • DaveH

      45-0? Since when do 45 council members all vote the same on anything? Especially considering that they are essentially thumbing their noses at the Supremes. Something smells fishy there. Kind of reminds me of the Democratic payoffs made to secure votes on the Healthcare Bill.
      Who needs criminals when you have Chicago Politicians to keep you in distress?
      And talk about “infringement”:
      Applicants would need a Chicago firearm permit, costing $100 every three years, as well as an Illinois firearm owner’s ID card. They would be required to register all their guns with the city, at a cost of $15 per gun every three years.

      • DaveH

        And their violent crime rate is almost identical to that of Phoenix, Arizona, where they have easy accessibility to guns. And it’s so frickin hot in Phoenix during the summer that it’s a wonder there aren’t more violent encounters there.
        So much for gun control:

    • Harold Olsen

      Yeah, Richard Daley pushed this through. That is a name I have all of my life–I’m 61–associated with corruption. First his father and now him. I believe his father was always referred to as “Boss” Daley. You never argue with the town’s “Boss, especially in Chicago.” That could be fatal.

      • moe’

        Daley is a horses a$$,,and for damn sure he is not qualified to be a boss,,or his daddy either..He is a sick duck just sitting on the water paddling his feet and going nowhere..Chicago,,wake up and vote the horses a$$ out next election….

      • Flying Crow

        Olsen, you say that could be fatal. HaHaHa, Chicago needs to show him a thing or two. I think him and Obummer is sleeping together. They are both sick a$$ holes.

  • http://gmail i41

    Does any one hear a peep from all the socialist democraps in Congress over the upholding of the 2nd amendment. Now everyone of these socialist bastards, will do what ever the muslim racist says. Onumnut knows what he is doing and he has plenty of smucks who have been educated in the public schools and eleit collleges, the likes which Onumnuts has been educated in. I still am waiting for some libral jackass to show one sencable conservative democrat. There is not one democrat that is not a socialists liberal progressive. Every bastard democrat is for total government control and they think individuality is a scourge on agovernment agencies and eleit over educated asses.

    • chuck b


      we better not get too excited over this ruling, i think the court left the door open for further litigation that may be contrary to our health
      its hard to understand just what these commies in washington have planned. barry makes a speech every day so we know he has no idea whats happening, he just knows what the teleprompter tells him. blaming him is a waste of time, this guy is nothing but the messenger.

  • Colo43

    just because one owns a gun, does not make them a criminal. The real criminals can steal or purchase a gun any time they want.
    and the home owner needs to protect his life, family and home.
    If they don’t want a gun, then don’t own one, but don’t strip our rights, to go along with their agenda.

    • Vicki

      Liberals don’t mind owning guns. They just don’t want YOU owning guns. Just ask Diane Feinstein. :)

      • JC

        Or Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao, or Pol Pot, or Idi Amin…

        Absolutely, Mass Murderers Agree – Gun Control Works.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        Or good ole’ Rosie O’dummel. threw such a fit on her show that they changed the broadway song Annie Get Your Gun so it didn’t mention GUN and the very same week her bodyguard was photographed applying for a permit to carry and she didn’t say a thing about that when it came out. Just said you have to understand hollywood types need more protection than “normal” people did!!

        • JeffH

          Joe H., RO…reminds of when Tom Selleck put her in her place real hard a few years back over the gun issue, she slammed him and he fired back so hard she had to stuff her face for two week to gain back the weight from the sh*t that got scared outa her.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            LOL!!!!! Good one!!!

          • Flying Crow

            She evidently didn’t have any trouble gaining it back. You cant tell whether she is walking backwards or forwards. She is definitely full of $h!t. Just look at her face. It looks like $h!t.

  • Harold Olsen

    In some cities you are on your own when it comes to protecting yourself from criminals because the police won’t do it. Here in Seattle, where I live, you can not count on the police responding to your 911 call. I speak from personal experience. Most of my adult life I have worked as a security officer. For 14 of those years, in the Security Department of the state’s largest bank, in which part of my job was monitoring the alarms for our bank branches. When we would get an alarm for a Seattle branch and it was a confirmed robbery, the Seattle police would tell us they would not respond until we told them who robbed the bank and where they went. The only way to get them to respond was to remind them that our next call was to the FBI and we’d be informing them of SPD’s refusal to respond. Over the years, I’d say that about 90 percent of the time when I have had to call SPD for assistance on the job, they didn’t show up. When I called to find out why, I was told they had been there and had already cleared the scene. When I told them that no they had not shown up I was called a liar. So, in cities like Seattle, you need to fend for yourselves. Also, look at the rash of cases in which cops are the people committing the crimes and doing things like shooting and beating up on law abiding citizens who are minding their own business. I’m actually surprised that vigilante organizations have not been formed in some of our large cities to protect people. The government isn’t doing anything to protect us and neither are many police agencies. In fact, they are the danger.

    • Viktor Leben

      YOU WONDER WHY SOME PEOPLE ARE AGAINST THE 2nd AMMENDMENT. I propose that your neighborhood police are probably on some crime boss(es) payroll. So are these anti gun rights politicians. They are probably receiving “contributions” from indirectly thru multi national crime gangs. The contributions are sanitized and laundered thru various individuals and PACs ……

      Once the Americans are disarmed then the criminals will rule.

      One of the biggest crime organizations is the United Nations …..

  • bargal

    Am I wrong or was D.C and Chicago the two territories that had gun restictions (no ownership) and the highest death rate regarding death by gunshot.

    If that is a true scenario and they lindeed banned guns in their area’s of responsibility, then how do they explain the death rate under their restrictive laws?? And by the way, don’t these two lawmakers have body guards and the entire Police departments at their disposal 24/7? Hmmm Interesting that they would think that their lives are more important then ours. I really don’t think or families would agree with that thinking and I ksnow my children wouldn’t

  • dad

    Can Daley really believe what he says?
    How well is HIS crappy Anti Crime thing not working?

    The high court’s decision made references to the city’s crappy murder rate and dictated to Daly that citizens who aren’t being protected by police should be allowed to protect themselves and Chicago will become a must issue place, to show how much Daly is supported by soon to be permit holders.

    Duhh! Gun owners keep crime down. In a store setting a gang member does not want to be shot at while he is robbing and killing! Gang boy has Daley helping him keep victims disarmed.

    After he robs and kills he is gone forever. The victims really need to vote this gang-assisted-suicide-specialist Daly out.

    What is he thinking? His new rules will soon be toast! Thankfully the NRA will now eat his lunch. Chew him up like a dogs breakfast.

    See ya in court Daly! We are all betting against you!

    The victims in waiting

  • bob pa

    the only way chicago and other cities are going to get stopped from ignoring the law is for the supreme court to issue an order to chicago that if the city of chicago violates the 2nd admendment again the city council, mayor and the chief of police will be held in contempt of court and sent to jail for 4 years and loss of rights to hold office.

    • http://?? Joe H.

      bob pa,
      sounds like a real winner to me!!! Might just shut them the hell up!!!

  • Illagitami non-carborumdom sunte

    Gun control laws make many ordinary law abiding people law breakers.
    Liberals are intellectually bankrupt, mentally constipated and lack fundamental reasoning capacity. Logic is not a concept they are capable of grasping. History is frought with example after example of their neandrathal thinking and policy. Time after time, this fourthworld thinking has failed. One would hope at least one would figure it out. The real problem is the hoards of sheeple that vote for this Liberal debris from the bottom of the gene pool.
    Liberals and Liberalism must be outlawed. The only way this country will survive and prosper is their irradacation. I guess GOD allows Liberals to keep reminding himself to pay attention to what he’s doing.

  • Stan

    I’d like to see a constitutional discussion here. Someone said earlier in this thread:
    “It’s Every American’s right to own a gun if they want to according to our Constitution.”
    Not necessarily. Let’s walk this back a bit. The federal government is a government of limited and delegated powers; “few and defined,” in the words of the father of the Constitution, James Madison. It has – had – only those powers granted to it by the Constitution; all other powers remained with ‘the States, or the people’. But to doubly make sure the federal government didn’t subsequently get up to shenanigans, enough states wanted a classic Bill of Rights added, spelling out just some of the powers that had not been ceded to the federal government – and then generalized the matter in the 9th and 10th Amendments. So the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, was a limitation put on the federal government. The States had their own constitutions covering their own matters/securing the rights of their citizens. An assumption has been made over the years, that has played into the hands of the centralists, that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to rule on all sorts of matters that do not properly fall under their jurisdiction. (Roe v. Wade was just one of them.)

    This is an important issue, that needs to be understood better in our day and age. Some well-intentioned people argue that the 14th Amendment changed the rule book – turned the Constitution on its head, and granted the federal government jurisdiction over all such matters, in a bit of legal mumbo jumbo called ‘incorporation’ – the notion (& that is all that it is) that all the rights and powers preserved to the States, by such as the Bill of Rights (as an example of others), now resided in the federal government, ultimately to be decided by Supreme Court decisions. Not so. The American people have never voted on an amendment that said: “All the powers formerly reserved to the States or the people shall now reside in the federal government.” So the Supreme Court has no rightful business ruling on this sort of matter, except to clarify that it is a states matter, to be dealt with on that level. And then it’s the business of the people to rein in their owns state governments; presumably easier to do, given that they are closer to the people than the potential Cookie Monster off in Washington.

    Anybody for a look at the 14th Amendment, which caused all this unclarity to creep in regarding jurisdictions??


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.