Chicago, like Washington, D.C., has a stringent gun ban. So naturally the move by the District to defend the ban before the Supreme Court will be big news in the Windy City. Yet that doesn't excuse the Chicago Tribune's James Oliphant for breezing over gun rights advocates in his article, "D.C. gun case may hit Chicago."
Oliphant began by telling his readers that gun rights advocates would come gunning for Chicago's gun ban if they succeed before the high Court.:
WASHINGTON - Those who would do away with Washington's near-total ban on handguns will tell you point-blank their next target: Chicago.
Gun-rights advocates scored a stunning success earlier this year when a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court in Washington swept aside the District of Columbia's ban on owning handguns, which had been in place since 1976.
On Tuesday, the district government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. If the court takes the case, as many observers believe it will, it could place Chicago's handgun ban, as well as similar laws nationwide, in jeopardy.
"There is reason to be concerned at this point," said Thomas Mannard, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.
"Chicago would be the logical follow-up," said Robert Levy, a libertarian activist who filed the case against the D.C. ban. Levy, too, wants the Supreme Court to take the case, making this a rare instance when both sides in a dispute hope an appeal goes forward.
And those six words are all Trib readers get from pro-gun rights advocates in Oliphant's article. Mannard is also not quoted in the rest of the story but gun control advocates from D.C. Mayor Andrian Fenty to Brady Center's Dennis Henigan get considerable ink.
Indeed, gun control advocates get 15 times as many words in Oliphant's article, commenter Bruce complained on the Trib's "The Swamp" Web log:
The article in today's Trib, linked above, is fully up (or more precisely, down) to Swamp standards.
The headline is all about the gun-law challenge. But the reporter, Mr. Oliphant, doesn't bother to actually talk to the people and groups who brought the challenge.
Only one "gun-rights" advocate, Robert Levy, is quoted, a total of 7 [sic] words. By contrast, six "gun-rights" opponents are quoted a total of 90 words.
And the issue is framed as a matter of "pro-gun" groups versus "gun ban" groups, a wording and framing that (to say the least) is exactly the way haters of 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights would like to frame the issue.
This is "balanced reporting", Tribune style.
Related NewsBusters post: "WaPo Skews Supreme Court Gun Story in Favor of Gun Ban Defenders."
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
We can only hope that
September 5, 2007 - 17:16 ET by wwsmithWe can only hope that this is just the beginning of the SCOTUS returning our Nations Citizens 2nd Amendment rights to what they were originally intended to be...
I can see it now........
September 5, 2007 - 17:39 ET by SoftRightI can see it now........ and it's a dream come true.....finally.
A SCOTUS staff researcher comes running into Ginsburg's office, horribly distraught....
"See!!!! It say right here, "...shall not be infringed." that's seem pretty irrefutable, don't you think?"
Camera pans around at the looks of dismay as the screen goes dark.....
THE END
(It's about frickin' time the Supremes ruled on what the 2nd Amendment means.)
There is a great deal of
September 5, 2007 - 17:57 ET by buddycThere is a great deal of views of the second amendment that are mistaken on the right and left. DC is federal and I would think be governed by the Constitution. Chicago is governed by the Ill constitution. I believe the 2nd Amendment should be made applicable to states but I believe prior gun cases have not done so. Therefore I am not so sure that the case means much to Chicago.
I would defer to any legal experts out there.
Buddy, the U.S.
September 5, 2007 - 20:42 ET by MikeBBuddy, the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and trumps the various state constitutions every time. If there is conflict between the two, the U.S. Constitution wins. After the dependent phrase, the second amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The people are guaranteed the the right to keep and bear arms by the U.S. Constitution. If a state constitution denies or abrogates that right, the state constitution has to be changed to come into alignment with the U.S. Constitution.
The laws in D.C., Chicago, and other places should have been struck down long ago. Unfortunately, only now, after so much damage has been done, do we have a mostly originalist Supreme Court to adjudicate these matters. So, it is my hope that the Supreme Court can quickly overturn these bad laws. If they can't move quickly on the matter, I hope that a Republican is elected President so as to appoint another strict constructionist at the next opening on the Court. God help us all if Comrade Hillary or any other Liberal is elected President.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
I think you have expressed
September 5, 2007 - 21:24 ET by buddycI think you have expressed one of the errors. The cases do not support you contention that the 2nd Amendment has been extended from forbidding the feds from taking away guns to forbidding the states from doing so. There is a great web page on gun control that talks about this. The DC case won't clear this up because DC is not a state! The 2nd amendment has not been extended to the States. That is why so many cases have upheld gun control when the particular state constitution does not protect it. I believe about 44 state constitutions protect gun rights.
Tell me, buddy, are the
September 5, 2007 - 21:58 ET by MikeBTell me, buddy, are the first amendment rights valid in all the states and the district of columbia? Is it your argument that the states can abrogate Freedom of speech? Can a state establish a state religion? Can a state prevent you from espousing a religion? No, they cannot, unless the religion violates other constitutional provisions. For example, the Supreme Court has held that Mormons cannot practice polygamy. However, the SC has also held that the Native American Church can use Peyote in its ceremonies even though it violates U.S. and state drug laws. The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms to the people, not the states. Those states who violate the 2nd amendment are on thin legal ground, as are the various cities who do the same. As they are finding out more and more often. "A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
No, the Supreme court has
September 6, 2007 - 00:27 ET by buddycNo, the Supreme court has expressly extended the First Amendment to the States. Sorry if you think I am arguing anything. Personally I can't see why the Court would extend the First Amendment to states but not the 2nd but that is what they seem to have done. The DC case does not seem to give them the vehicle to correct this problem. You should note that in many states where their constitutions don't provide absolute protection for gun possession the Courts have upheld eliminating hand guns. I think the 10th Circuit upheld San Francisco's ban and the supreme court declined to review it. Again not a constitutional law expert and would be happy to defer to someone who is. There is a web site by pro gun people that will tell you the same things.
Supreme Court Trumps All
September 6, 2007 - 09:25 ET by Sergeant ROCK..the Supreme court has expressly extended the First Amendment to the States.
The Supreme Court dictates which state gets which Constitutional rights? I thought the Constitution did that?
The SCOTUS doesn't have to
September 6, 2007 - 09:40 ET by BeowulfThe SCOTUS doesn't have to "extend" any constitutional amendment to the states. The Constitution is already a blanket over the entire nation. States that abrogate any constitutional amendment is in violation of the Constitution. Period. It shouldn't take a SCOTUS ruling to "restore" any rights. Depending on one's interpretation, every single law abridging the 2nd Amendment is in direct violation of the Constitution, and is, therefore, already illegal in and of itself.
The issue here will be interpretation of the 2nd. If the arrogance of the DC elitist government forces this case to the SCOTUS and they decide the way many of us hope and expect they will, then that interpretation will remove any protection anti-gun states and cities hide behind to keep their unconstitutional laws in place. It doesn't matter that DC is not a state. This case will be a Supreme Court determination on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, which will apply across the nation. It will remove any argument on what the 2nd "really" means, which has been the basis of the entire pro-/anti-gun debate for decades.
And it was the 9th Circuit (the most overturned federal appeals court in the history of the US), and the San Fran ban was put on indefinite hold due to legal challenges on its constitutionality, which the San Fran weenies know would go against them. Hell, the state constitution is already against their city ordinance. There is no way they could win a federal appeal, and they knew it. Since they withdrew the bill before a decision could be reached on its legality, they can keep it in a drawer until more favorable conditions arise that would allow them to dust it off and try to enact it again.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Absolutely CORRECT!
September 6, 2007 - 09:43 ET by Sergeant ROCKAbsolutely CORRECT!
But...
September 5, 2007 - 20:58 ET by heldmywThis doesn't belong in the courts any more than Roe v. Wade does. That judicial fiat becomes the de facto 'law' is the wrong-way-round.
Just a thought... How about a free system of, oh, one citizen, one vote, and we'll sort this stuff out for ourselves?
You think law-abiding Washingtonians and Chicagoans wouldn't look at their personal safety, the safety of their neighborhoods and the fact that our hard-pressed law enforcement community is reactive *, is not going to influence their judgement?
*(meaning that they don't show up until AFTER someone's shot)
You can't do that! Then
September 6, 2007 - 12:34 ET by BeowulfYou can't do that! Then everyone would have an equal voice on issues that concern them. Criminals would actually once again fear the justice system. Politicians would have to answer to their constituents. The Dems couldn't dictate what is best for everyone anymore, and we could cut about 99% of our government since they would no longer be able to make even a feeble attempt at justifying their maggotism... uh, I mean, their jobs...
WE'RE TALKING TOTAL ANARCHY HERE!!! What, are you completely INSANE??? Sheesh! {sarc:off}
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Illinois Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms
September 20, 2007 - 16:26 ET by JRThe Illinois Constitution already guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/conent.htm
SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.