The Supreme Court reversed a ruling upholding Chicago’s ban today and extended the reach of the 2nd Amendment as a nationwide protection against laws that infringe the “right to keep and bear arms.”
The 5-4 decision appears to void the 1982 ordinance, one of the nation’s strictest, which barred city residents from having handguns for their own use, even at home.
Gun-rights advocates have been closely following the Chicago case. They said a victory for the 2nd Amendment would clear the way for constitutional challenges to restrictions on firearms to be heard in federal courts nationwide.
The ruling against Chicago’s ban had been widely anticipated.
(Source: Chicago Tribune)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
11 Responses
New York is the WORST in this regard!
Call the police in an emergency and it takes an hour (at least) until they come.
But…
Will they let us protect OURSELVES? – NO!!!
Can you get a gun carry permit in NY – almost impossible!
Can you even carry Mace – No!
And to all you anti-gun people out there… Two questions:
1) Do you think ANY gun law stops CRIMINALS from getting guns?!?
2) When, chalila, you hear someone breaking into your house in the middle of the night, to rob and do who knows what to your family, do you really think there is ANY CHANCE AT ALL that the police will get there in time to prevent it?
Every Yid should have a permit for (at least) a gun in his home that he knows how to safely keep and efficiently and accurately USE!
As Rav Kahane ztzvk”l used to say “Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it!”
In many out-of-town frum communities Yidden cary hand guns for self-defense. Hopefully this will pave the way for repealing laws in the east coast as well.
AinOhdMilvado,
I’ll take New York over the lawless cities in places like Florida and Texas with their much higher crime rates.
@charliehall: Right, Like Illinois with their low murder rate
#3 – It is a proven fact that cities that allow law-abiding citizens weapons permits have LOWER crime rates.
–Frequently, the citizen having a gun doesn’t have to use it to avoid being a crime victim, just showing it makes the criminal flee.
This happened to me about two years ago. One night I heard someone trying to jimmy my back door. I pulled aside the curtain slightly on the window of the door, and just tapped my gun barrel on the window. I never saw anyone run that fast in my life!
$1000 i will donate, to a charity of your choice if you can name me one gun law state or federal which prevents crime, there is not one useful gun law, the absence of any gun law will never make us more unsafe its a fact which cant be argued with but if you want to take a try my offer still stands
#6 eric55 – you are 100% correct!
If the gun-fearing anti-gun people would just stop and think LOGICALLY…
Would ANY violent criminal, a murderer, a robber, a drug pusher, EVER EVER EVER say or think “Well, yes, I do rob and kill people, I do push drugs, etc., etc., – but I don’t carry a gun because THAT would be ILLEGAL”.
So, what DO the gun laws DO?
They keep law-abiding citizens from being able to get a gun to be able to defend themselves and their families!
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
To:locknload–
Very well expressed.
I have yet to see anyone from the anti-gun crowd articulate a logical argument for their views.
The anti-gun view is based totally on emotion, and is totally ILlogical.
The anti-gun (pro-gun law) people are, in effect aiding and abetting the criminal elements in this country (and specifically in this city) and endangering themselves and the law-abiding majority by creating a society were ONLY criminals have guns.
I personally do agree with the right to ‘Keep and Bear Arms’, but I still want to respond to some of the points made above by AinOhdMilvado and others.
First, there is a difference (I mean in the perspective of the Law) between owning a gun that you keep at home, and carrying one around in public. To take this even a step further, there are even some states where you can carry your gun in public, as long as it is not concealed. Please realize that this article is discussion a ban on home-owned guns. Even NYC with it’s ‘tough’ gun laws does not ban guns at own.
Second, no intelligent person actually thinks that criminals won’t buy guns just because it is illegal. BUT the same intelligent person should not jump to conclusions and think it through for a moment. Where guns are illegal, while of course law-abiding citizens cannot buy guns, but it also makes it much harder for criminals to obtain guns. They cannot just walk into a store and give a phony name. They cannot just find them laying around anyone’s homes during a burglary. They cannot find them in glove compartments or under the seats in cars that they are stealing. And then on top of that, the police are always looking for the illegal guns, so that criminals can get arrested for merely possessing or carrying the guns, before they get to use them. For sure, if guns were LEGAL, it would not stop criminals from using them!! And to take things in the correct context, sure, dangerous criminals like drug lords and gang leaders have guns kill people all the time. But ordinary car thieves and robbers tend to not carry guns as often.
If all you are worried about is protecting your home, you can still – even in NYC – apply for the proper permits and get a gun.
That was just a factual analysis. My personal complaint against the system in NYC is:
1 – I have this paranoid fear that applying for a permit announces to the law enforcement that I am a dangerous person. If (or when) CH”V the government should ever turn against the Jews in America, I fear that I would be on a list to be among the first to be taken away in middle of the night. So it might be better to either no have a gun at home, or maybe to not have a permit for the gun you have at home.
2 – The law in NYC states that after applying and receiving a permit to own a gun at home, you can then purchase a gun from a retail gun store within NYC or from a retired NYC Police Officer. That is the only choices you have. What intelligent person wants to pay retail for anything? Outside of NY the prices are a tenth what they are in the city. You cannot buy one from a flea market or classified ad, etc… It is also illegal to bring one across State lines. If you inherited one from your grandfather, I don’t see any provision in the law for keeping it legally. Unless perhaps if you give it as a gift to a retired Policeman, and then buy it back from him!!!
Typo correction – I meant to write that NYC does not ban guns at HOME. It is illegal (except with a special permit) to carry a weapon in public, concealed or exposed.