Heller aftermath: Morton Grove surrenders

mrreynolds · June 28th, 2008, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Suburbs with gun bans split over impact of court ruling

Local officials study the potential impact of the federal decision overturning Washington's law

Some Chicago suburbs that have passed handgun bans in the past weren't sure if those laws could be jeopardized by Thursday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Others didn't think it would matter either way.

In the years since Morton Grove passed the first handgun ban in the nation in 1981, Evanston, Oak Park, Winnetka and Wilmette also outlawed handguns. Because of the high court's ruling that Washington, D.C., cannot ban people from owning guns, all five suburban bans could now be declared unconstitutional.

Though Chicago officials Thursday vowed to fight any challenges to its 1982 handgun ban, suburban officials said it was too soon to say whether the ruling applied to them. Some felt that overturning their bans wouldn't be a big deal. Still others were outraged, such as Oak Park Village President David Pope, who said the ruling would threaten safety in his near west suburb, which banned gun ownership in 1984.

"The ruling puts [Justice Antonin] Scalia and the four other conservative justices squarely on the side of the gang-bangers who terrorize far too many of urban American neighborhoods today," he said.

Wilmette will suspend enforcement of the ban while attorneys decide whether the ruling applies to them, said Village President Chris Canning.

Winnetka banned handguns in 1989, a year after Laurie Dann, 20, opened fire with three handguns inside an elementary school, killing an 8-year-old boy and injuring five others. Village President Ed Woodbury said Thursday that Winnetka doesn't have much gun-related crime and called the ban "an expression of the kind of community we want to be."

Morton Grove Mayor Richard Krier said the village would comply with the law.

"We are a small suburban town," he said of the north suburb, which banned the possession or sale of handguns 27 years ago. "We've never had any real handgun violence before then or since then."

Suburban gun owners and merchants hailed the Supreme Court ruling.

Hale DeMar of Wilmette gained notoriety four years ago when he shot a burglar in his home and was cited with violating the village's gun ownership ban. The case was resolved when the state passed a law enabling courts to ignore local gun ordinances in cases where the weapon was used in self-defense.

"I understand the politics of it, but as a parent of two small children who was faced with that situation, I was glad to have the handgun in my house. I would do it again," DeMar said Thursday. The burglar "weighed more than 200 pounds. I'm a 60-year-old guy and I weigh 140 pounds. What am I going to do? Argue with the guy?"

ARTICLE

dukalmighty · June 28th, 2008, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Hale DeMar of Wilmette gained notoriety four years ago when he shot a burglar in his home and was cited with violating the village's gun ownership ban. The case was resolved when the state passed a law enabling courts to ignore local gun ordinances in cases where the weapon was used in self-defense.

"I understand the politics of it, but as a parent of two small children who was faced with that situation, I was glad to have the handgun in my house. I would do it again," DeMar said Thursday. The burglar "weighed more than 200 pounds. I'm a 60-year-old guy and I weigh 140 pounds. What am I going to do? Argue with the guy?"

This is why people carry,so that even a 100 pound 80 year old woman can prevent being the victim of somebody thats 18 and weighs 240 pounds.I'm glad these cities are rescinding their laws without having lawsuits filed.what would be even better is when they adopt a concealed carry law for concealed carry

ExactlyMyPoint · June 28th, 2008, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrreynolds

Hale DeMar of Wilmette gained notoriety four years ago when he shot a burglar in his home and was cited with violating the village's gun ownership ban. The case was resolved when the state passed a law enabling courts to ignore local gun ordinances in cases where the weapon was used in self-defense.

So I am confused. You can't own a handgun, but if you shoot someone in self defense, you can own a handgun. How does that work again?

SixBravo · June 28th, 2008, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by exactlymypoint

So I am confused. You can't own a handgun, but if you shoot someone in self defense, you can own a handgun. How does that work again?

Right. See, its Illinois. That's yer problem right thar! LOL If you want sensible legislation then I think you may want to look elsewhere.. but don't ask me where exactly. Certainly not Kalifornia either.

airslot · June 28th, 2008, 10:48 PM

Quote:

"The ruling puts [Justice Antonin] Scalia and the four other conservative justices squarely on the side of the gang-bangers who terrorize far too many of urban American neighborhoods today," he said.

NOT It puts them on the side of those that the miscreants are terrorizing.
The BLIND STUPIDITY of these people never ceases to amaze me.

bluelineman · June 28th, 2008, 10:48 PM

If anyone has been murdered in those towns since the bans were enacted, then they aren't working.

Murder is already illegal, yet people still get killed every day.

artemis28 · June 28th, 2008, 11:41 PM

My stepdaughter just moved to Chicago a few months ago. I really hope the Heller ruling makes the gun her Dad gave her when she left legal. That would eliminate the least of our worries about her moving there.

ccw9mm · June 29th, 2008, 01:16 AM

From a Financial Times article:

Quote:

Mr Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, acknowledged the court's decision that the ban "went too far", but said the ruling made clear that states and cities were allowed to impose "reasonable regulations" on gun ownership.

This type of thinking is exactly where things are going. Morton Grove and other places may well give up the ghost early but, mark my words, many will not. There will be plenty of unreasonable claims about "reasonableness" over the next 10yrs unless and until SCOTUS decides on the plain meaning of "shall not be infringed." Until then, it's no holds barred.

KenInColo · June 29th, 2008, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Mr Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, acknowledged the court's decision that the ban "went too far", but said the ruling made clear that states and cities were allowed to impose "reasonable regulations" on gun ownership.

That is the greatest example of fence sitting I've ever heard. I hope that his statement was caught by more than just us gun owners.

SatCong · June 29th, 2008, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenInColo

That is the greatest example of fence sitting I've ever heard. I hope that his statement was caught by more than just us gun owners.

It just depends on what group of people he is speaking to.

June 28th, 2008, 10:48 PM	#6
bluelineman Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 832	If anyone has been murdered in those towns since the bans were enacted, then they aren't working. Murder is already illegal, yet people still get killed every day. __________________ Support the Wounded Troops Medal of Honor Recipients, Iraq

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

June 28th, 2008, 11:41 PM	#7
artemis28 Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Posts: 125	My stepdaughter just moved to Chicago a few months ago. I really hope the Heller ruling makes the gun her Dad gave her when she left legal. That would eliminate the least of our worries about her moving there.