McDonald V. Chicago Handgun Ruling a 'Victory' for 2nd Amendment
The Supreme Court Ruled Chicago Illinois' Ban on Handgun Ownership 'Unconstitutional'
Otis McDonald first brought the case against Chicago to own a handgun so that he could protect himself and his family.
Otis McDonald told CNN outside his South Side home that he wants a handgun to protect himself and his family from the violence in his neighborhood. "That's all I want, is just a fighting chance," he said. "Give me the opportunity to at least make somebody think about something before they come in my house on me."
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Constitution allows individuals an equal or greater power than individual states to enforce limits on certain kinds of firearms meant for protection.
"It cannot be doubted that the right to bear arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as states legislated in an evenhanded manner," wrote Justice Samuel Alito.
Chicago has some of the toughest private weapons restrictions in the United States, but there has been much discussion as to whether the words of the 2nd Amendment addresses gun rights as an individual right or a collective one.
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Alan Gura, McDonald's attorney told The Foundry that now a victory for his client has been won, he intends to bring more cases in the days and weeks to come.
Mr. Chuck Fleischmann, a third District Congressional candidate told the Chattanoogan.com:
Today is a great day for everyone who chooses to exercise their Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court stuck to the Constitution and affirmed our Founders intent that the right to keep and bear arms extends to all individuals. In 2008 the Court took a big step in the right direction with their ruling in D.C. v. Heller, and now they have continued to uphold our Second Amendment rights by making sure they cannot be infringed upon by cities such as Chicago.
Gun control advocates are not too concerned at this point that this ruling will change too much:
There is nothing in today's decision that should prevent any state or local government from successfully defending, maintaining, or passing, sensible, strong gun laws," said Paul Helmke, of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.