Chicago, Like Washington DC, Is Trying To Circumvent The Court

By Douglas V. Gibbs

I have voiced my opinion that I am uneasy with the Supreme Court dictating to cities and States that they "have" to do what the federal government says, even when it comes to protecting gun rights as per the recent Supreme Court ruling in the McDonald v. Chicago case regarding Chicago's handgun ban. The Tenth Amendment says that if it is not a federal authority, or prohibited to the States, it is a State issue (meaning a State decision). Gun rights, as per the 2nd Amendment, is not a federal authority. It is a prohibitive clause that disallows the federal government from infringing upon an individual's gun rights in any way shape or form. However, nowhere in the Constitution is that same prohibition pointed at the States. In other words, it is the State's decision. Though I am a gun owner, and a firm supporter of gun rights, it is up to the people to make sure Chicago allows gun rights, not the federal government.

However, let's set aside my argument for a moment and look at the ruling, and this entire issue surrounding the Chicago handgun ban, from the point of view of other folks who believe in that "federal government is supreme over States regardless of the issue" attitude.

Considering the fact that most folks, especially liberals, believe the federal government has the final say on everything, why is it then that when the federal government, via the Supreme Court, makes a decision, unless it is in line with liberal marching orders, they do whatever they can to subvert those decisions, and circumvent what they ought to be believing is the law?

In Chicago, now that the Supreme Court has determined that infringing on gun rights in cities and States is unconstitutional, Chicago (like Washington DC did) is looking for any way they can to get around it. So. . .

. . . Within 100 days, anyone who wants to keep a gun in the city will have to register, get their training and pay the fees. Also within 100 days, any of the estimated 10,000 Chicagoans convicted of a gun offense will have to register at their local police station like sex offenders. . .

So, since the Supreme Court says guns must be allowed, Chicago has decided that guns are okay if you pay a fee. But if they have been so concerned about the violence caused by firearms, then affixing fees suddenly makes everything less violent? Suddenly, after squeezing more money out of the populace, the gun violence worry by the liberals is no longer a concern?

Okay, Chicago. Just a simple question. Whose gonna enforce the 10,000 who aren't about to register their guns?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Chicago approves new handgun restrictions; 45-0 vote comes after Supreme Court hits city on gun ban - Chicago Sun Times