The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments this morning as to just why a 79-year-old law-abiding citizen is unable to possess a handgun in his home in Chicago, Illinois for the purpose of protecting his home (which has been broken into numerous times) and his person (which has been threatened more than once).
As expected, King-Emperor-Mayor-for-Life Richard Daley, who coincidentally enjoys 24-hour protection wherever he goes from an army of police officers, stepped forth to put his two cents in:
"'We have the right for health and safety to pass reasonable laws dealing with the protection and health of the people of the city of Chicago,' Daley said."
Sorry, "Boss". The individual rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights trump whatever nebulous "health and safety rights" arguments you've pulled out of thin air, especially considering that the onerous bans you've saddled your peasants with, which are completely ineffective and have actually made them more unsafe, judging by the astronomical crime and murder rate your thoroughly corrupt burg has enjoyed since the ban was enacted in 1982. By way of comparison, if you and your toadies on the City Council decided that a free-speech ban was necessary for "health and safety", would that be tolerated? Of course not, and neither should this unconstitutional law.
By the way, what's so "reasonable" about a complete ban?
"[Daley] also said the rollback of the city's handgun ban could lead to further erosion of legislation having to do with guns."
Hopefully.
Fox News is reporting that Second Amendment Foundation attorney Alan Gura, who argued the plaintiff's case today and who previously successfully argued the Heller case, received "positive reactions" from the justices. That's a very good sign.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment