chicago

(I apologize for previously referring to the Privileges OR Immunities clause as "Privileges AND Immunities". I went to public-k skool. You'll see why I apologize later.)

Prior to the introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment brought about the idea of "incorporation" of the Bill of Rights against the States.

Purists, that is those who believe that the Fourteenth Amendment (and others) is an absurdity, argue that the Fourteenth Amendment itself is against the idea that the founding fathers had for our Constitution.

According to the McCarville Report, the City of Chicago's new gun ban is in defiance of the recent rulings in McDonald and Heller.

It permits people to have guns inside their homes but forbids them from taking their firearms outside, even onto the porch, into the yard or the garage.

It also calls for prospective gun owners to take a class and receive firearm training. Chicago residents must leave the city to buy guns because the ordinance prohibits gun sales in the city.

I have not read the ordinance, so I may change my position later.  But if these paragraphs from the post are true, then it does not necessarily defy the Supreme Court.

In what is being hailed by many gun owners as a major victory, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday in McDonald v. Chicago that the Second Amendment applies to the state and local governments via the Fourteenth Amendment.  However, four of the Justices concurred that incorporation should be done via the Due Process Clause, while Justice Clarence Thomas thought it should be done via the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

The Privileges or Immunities Clause provides that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Many Americans rightly cried "foul" when the city of Chicago imposed an outright ban on all handguns.  After all, this ban is not only a violation of individual freedom, but also the individual God-given right of self defense.  Many Second Amendment advocates cheered loudly when it looked like the Supreme Court might overturn the ban.  However, this is not something that they really should have been cheering for.

Now, those of you who know me might be saying "wait a minute, Brian!  How can you own firearms, love to shoot, and believe in a God-given right of self defense and be against a Supreme Court decision overturning a city-imposed handgun ban?"  Let me explain my position here a bit.