Another one bites the dust: One day after USSC ruling, Wilmette IL suspends gun ban

Little-Acorn

Little-Acorn

New member
Remember when the U.S. Armed Forces blew away the Taliban in Afghanistan for harboring bin Laden? And quickly afterward Moammar Qaddafi of Libya decided he'd be a nice guy and quit supporting terrorists, in hopes that his posterior would not be next in line?

That motivation sems to work in local U.S. politics, too. Looks like these folks KNEW that what their constantr banning of guns would never pass Constitutional muster. And once the Supreme Court came down on the DC gun ban, they've decided that maybe obeying the Constitution was a GOOD thing to do. For a change.

Wisdom comes to us all, eventually.

P.S. Mayor Daley of nearby Chicago, may think he's pissed now. He hasn't SEEN "pissed". But it's coming.

--------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nbc5.com/news/16729972/detail.html

Wilmette Suspends Local Handgun Ban

POSTED: 2:47 pm CDT June 27, 2008

WILMETTE, Ill. -- Wilmette has suspended enforcement of its 19-year-old ordinance banning handgun possession in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that appears to invalidate such bans.

In a 5-4 decision, the court struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns, a prohibition similar to those used in several major cities, including Chicago, and a handful of suburbs including Wilmette, Evanston, Winnetka and Oak Park.

"The Law Department and the Police Department have suspended enforcement of the ordinance pending further review by the Village Board," Wilmette village attorney Tim Frenzer said Thursday. "Based on the decision today, at a minimum it calls into serious question the continued viability of the ordinance."

Frenzer said questions remain about how directly the court's decision will impact local gun laws in Wilmette and other parts of the country. Washington is not a state, and each state has its own legal language governing the right to bear arms.

"That aside, the opinion will require further review and discussion by the Village Board, but it's prudent at this point to suspend enforcement of it," Frenzer said.

Wilmette's law, enacted in 1989, levied fines of up to $750 for handgun possession and allowed the village to seek a judge's order to have seized weapons destroyed.

Frenzer said he did not know exactly how many times the law has been invoked, but said its use is rare.

The last case he recalls involved a 2003 incident in which a resident, Hale DeMar, was cited after using a handgun to shoot and wound a burglar in his home. The case mobilized state gun right groups and led to the passage of a law that gave gun owners a defense to local prohibitions if the weapon was used in self-defense.

Wilmette's charges against DeMar were eventually dropped. He could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Wilmette Police Chief George Carpenter declined to comment on the high court's ruling, saying he had not yet had a chance to read the decision or review it with village staff.
 
I pointed out earlier that one of the most important points made in the decision, is that the first phrase of the 2nd amendment doesn't modify or condition the command that the RPKBA cannot be restricted or taken away. The 2nd amendment straightforwardly means that government cannot restrict the right, period. And the reason is because an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom.

But another important point the Court made, was in deciding that the 2nd amendment supercedes a city law; and that a city law that conflicts with the 2nd must yield. Many anti-gun-rights people have tried to argue that the 2nd affects only the Federal government, and that states and local jurisdictions can restrict guns all they want. This decision puts that fable to rest at last.

The repercussions of DC v. Heller have only begun to be felt. With further cases brought before the courts, the effects will become more widespread for years.
 
Well gee, they must be scared that the army will come.

At least they obey constitutional rulings, unlike conservatives who keep schools segregated decades after it's been declared unconstitional.
 
Little-Acorn said:
I pointed out earlier that one of the most important points made in the decision, is that the first phrase of the 2nd amendment doesn't modify or condition the command that the RPKBA cannot be restricted or taken away. The 2nd amendment straightforwardly means that government cannot restrict the right, period. And the reason is because an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom.

But another important point the Court made, was in deciding that the 2nd amendment supercedes a city law; and that a city law that conflicts with the 2nd must yield. Many anti-gun-rights people have tried to argue that the 2nd affects only the Federal government, and that states and local jurisdictions can restrict guns all they want. This decision puts that fable to rest at last.

The repercussions of DC v. Heller have only begun to be felt. With further cases brought before the courts, the effects will become more widespread for years.
Click to expand...



For someone who presents himself as an avid gun owner and something of a legal beagle, you have very little understanding of gun laws and the court's decision in Heller.

You should read some neutral articles written by legal scholars on the decision, specifically, what the court decided, the scope of its holding, whether the decision applies to state and local governments, etc. . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top