Quoted:
Original NPR article here.
NRA Eyes More Targets After D.C. Gun-Ban Win
by Libby Lewis
Correction: When first published, the following Web text contained an incorrect spelling for Stephen Halbrook, which has since been corrected.
Weekend Edition Sunday, June 29, 2008 · Five cities and suburbs are facing lawsuits challenging their bans on handguns. When the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark June 26 decision, rejecting Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns, gun-rights lawyers swung into action.
As a result, the legal landscape for gun laws could face dramatic changes.
The village of Morton Grove, Ill., just north of Chicago, has one of the oldest handgun bans in the nation on its books. It's also the target of one of the five lawsuits filed by the National Rifle Association.
Village Manager Joe Wade says Morton Grove isn't going to wait for a court battle. It's going to act.
"The village of Morton Grove has every intention to comply with [the Supreme Court ruling]," Wade says. "We're going to propose an ordinance that would eliminate the possession-of-handgun ban within the village."
The attitude is different in Oak Park, a suburb on Chicago's West Side that has become another target of NRA lawyers.
"It's just completely befuddling that our Supreme Court would be in alliance with the gangbangers," says Tom Barwin, the village manager in Oak Park.
Barwin used to be a police officer near Detroit. He said he's hoping Oak Park pushes back against the high court ruling. But that might not be easy.
Barwin says e-mail is already coming in from people interested in owning handguns.
He says he expects the village to meet with other communities that might want to fight to continue their bans, in order to figure out where to go next.
Where the NRA is going next is Chicago. The city has a handgun ban nearly identical to the D.C. law struck down by the Supreme Court.
The NRA lawsuit in San Francisco challenges a local ordinance that bars possession of handguns by public housing residents.
How far will the legal challenges go?
Stephen Halbrook, an outside counsel for the NRA, believes it won't be a free-for-all.
"Most laws will stay on the books," Halbrook says. "But that's because they're regulations and not outright bans."
At the same time, Halbrook says there is fertile ground for future challenges, whether by lawsuit or other means.
For instance, he said, Washington, D.C., officials suggested after the ruling that residents wouldn't be able to legally own semiautomatic handguns.
That's not acceptable, Halbrook says.
"The Supreme Court decision refers to handguns generally — not just revolvers," he points out. He says that means it applies to semiautomatic handguns as well, adding that there may be more semiautomatic handguns in use right now in the U.S. than there are revolvers.
And he predicts that if Washington, D.C., tries to use its zoning powers to keep handgun dealers out, that won't work either.
"It would be like if they banned books in D.C. and they told them they couldn't do that, so they banned bookstores," he says.
Still, Halbrook does think many gun regulations will stand.
But David Kairys, who teaches law at Temple University in Philadelphia, thinks differently.
He's a gun-control advocate, and he's an expert on gun laws.
He says the Supreme Court ruling doesn't provide a principle or a theory to help judges or lawmakers figure out what's constitutional and what's not.
Kairys says if he were "thinking as an NRA lawyer" he would conclude that the ruling "throws into question almost every regulation of guns."
Kairys isn't an NRA lawyer. But if he were, he says he would challenge just about every regulation now on the books with two words: self defense. |
Sending Barwin this e-mail:
Dear Mr. Barwin:
While I believe it may have been taken out of context, I have to ask you about the quote attributed to you on National Public Radio:
"It's just completely befuddling that our Supreme Court would be in alliance with the gangbangers."
They cite you as Village Manager, and also as a former Police Officer "near Detroit". As a law abiding gun owner and a sworn officer myself, I must ask you a few things before "jumping on the bandwagon" in either direction.
Your profile on the Village website ( http://www.oak-park.us/Village_Manager/Village_Manager.html# ) mentions most of your previous employment in the State of Michigan, but fails to mention that you ever served in the capacity of a Police Officer. May I inquire in that direction and ask in what community you served, and for how long?
Secondly, I realize that laws change, but all the way back to when my Grandfather wore a badge it has been illegal for criminals in most states - like the "gangbangers" you mention - to possess firearms, and illegal for felons on a federal level since 1968. My next question is when did you work as a Police Officer? Perhaps the laws were different then.
Since the Code of Hammurabi, there have been written rules for co-existence within a state or culture. And since before that time there have been people who would willingly disobey or disregard those rules, whether written or traditional. They are the ones we refer to as "criminals", and the criminal use of firearms - usually by criminals towards criminals - is the leading cause for most of the injuries and fatalities with them.
Given the fact that criminals already disregard the laws enacted by our society, isn't it ironic that we citizens who obey the laws are the ones most effected by the various bans supposedly enacted to combat crime?
Additionally, I find it interesting when public officials who seek to keep their citizens defenseless complain about the Heller decision; these same communities would shield themselves behind other SCOTUS decisions like the "no affirmative duty" clause found in South v. Maryland if they were ever sued concerning someone who was injured or killed after being disarmed by a gun ban, no matter how well intended.
My last question is this: are you aware there is a distinct difference between a law-abiding citizen wishing to protect his or her self - like Mr. Heller - and those "gangbangers" who prey on those same citizens?
I hope you will answer me concerning this issue.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Tango7 |
|
Very well done!
A cold beer says you won't get an answer back.
|
