Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2009

RSS |

Twitter

Texas Accidentally Bans Straight Marriage

Law designed to forbid gay civil unions actually bars any unions

Nov 19, 09 7:28 AM CST
The Decade's Best Quotes

Nov 21, 09 5:48 AM CST
College Threatens to Fail Students for Obesity

Twenty-five seniors must prove they've lost weight to graduate

Nov 21, 09 11:25 AM CST
who let the paranoids out?

46 Years After Kennedy, the Virus of Hate Is Back

Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert panders to dangerous paranoids

Nov 21, 09 9:08 AM CST
Suck it, Plymouth

Provincetown: Pilgrims
Landed Here First

Plymouth rivalry heats up as P-town seeks rightful place in history

Nov 22, 09 12:26 PM CST
Judge Orders
Hasan Held 'Til
Court Martial

Ft. Hood suspect likely to move from hospital to jail

Nov 22, 09 6:34 AM CST
Billboard Links Obama to Jihad

Colo. car dealership wants this opinion heard

Nov 20, 09 8:42 PM CST
Fla. Man to Smoke
115,000th Joint

Feat earns him world record for cannabis consumption

Nov 20, 09 10:32 AM CST
US Backs
Afghan Militias
Against Taliban

Supporting local resistance, as in Iraq, is a delicate equation

Nov 22, 09 9:38 AM CST
Shaniya Raped, Killed on Day of Abduction: Cops

NC 5-year-old was asphyxiated, arrest warrant says

Nov 20, 09 5:04 PM CST
Orbiting Astronaut a New Dad

Bresnik takes first spacewalk as wife delivers baby No. 2 at home

Nov 22, 09 9:14 AM CST
BIG BROTHER

Cops Use Facebook to Bust Underage Drinkers

Phony 'friend' gains access to drinking photos

Nov 19, 09 6:19 PM CST
Iraqi Prisoners Taunt Wis. Soldiers Over Favre Defection

Detainees get into the Packers-Vikings rivalry

Nov 20, 09 9:30 PM CST

|NEXT STORY »

Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge to Local Gun Laws

Challenge to Chicago handgun ban could neuter local gun control measures

By Harry Kimball| Posted Sep 30, 09 11:40 AM CDT|

(Newser) – The Supreme Court will take up a case that could radically alter legal precedent regarding gun ownership and Second Amendment rights. The case is an appeal brought by Chicago-area gun owners who challenged the city’s ban on handguns. The high court overturned such a ban last year in Washington, DC, but didn't make clear whether it applied to cities and states, notes the Los Angeles Times. The ruling, due next summer, could lead to challenges of gun-control measures across the nation.

[Images (2)]

[Quotes (1)]

A handgun. (AP Photo)

The steps of the US Supreme Court building. (AP Photo)

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

Lawyers for the city proposed that if the justices take up the issue, they rule only on whether the ordinance can be challenged under the 2nd Amendment, and then send the dispute back to Chicago for a trial. - Los Angeles Times

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

11.20.09

The Health-Care Wars Have Just Begun

11.19.09

Sarah Palin Deserves Some More Attention

64 comments

VIEWING:

DJM420
Sep 30, 09 11:52 AM CDT

oh hell... Reply

IN RESPONSE:

dontlikeyou
Sep 30, 09 9:48 PM CDT

The people will win, not the crooked politicians.

-1

| 0 minutes ago

BlahBlahBlah
Sep 30, 09 12:09 PM CDT

That is the ever present problem with gun laws. Gun laws do not apply to those who do not follow the law. All you are doing is taking guns out of the hands of law biding citizens. Those who commit crimes on a regular basis will still get guns and still use guns. Controlling illegal gun trade and the black market for firearms should be more at the forefront of this issue. Reply

+24

IN RESPONSE:

myvoice
Sep 30, 09 12:39 PM CDT

so should law abiding citizens have pipe bombs, AK 47's, and nuclear devices to protect them from gang members, terrorists, crazy person stealing a tank etc etc?

-1

IN RESPONSE:

concernedcitizen027
Sep 30, 09 12:53 PM CDT

your comments really have nothing to do with this article.

IN RESPONSE:

myvoice
Sep 30, 09 1:14 PM CDT

its not a comment its a philosophical question for blah and all the readers. I dont think blah's argument is good for the prevention of gun control laws. Because as in my post below 56 percent of gun deaths are suicides and 2 out of 3 gun deaths or from drugs and suicide. I am not anti-guns but anti killing and we need to fix these problems and stop just creating laws an dwasting money guns laws.

IN RESPONSE:

Reader64481089
Sep 30, 09 1:31 PM CDT

@ myvoice, if you are a "Law Abiding Citizen" you would have no need nor use for such devices, a law abiding citizen who does select to ow a gun or guns use them to hunt, perhaps personal protection of their home where if something bad happens and you call the police it can take a very long time for them to arrive, in some areas you may well indeed wait hours depending on what else is happening and the mood of the 911 operator and how well they pay attention. Anyone can purchase a gun from the black market and in many cases buy them much cheaper than going the conventional rote. If indeed the attempt to continue to suppress gun ownership you will see a very huge spike in the purchase of Black Market weapons and that in itself will be a very bad thing to have happen.

IN RESPONSE:

jamerican
Sep 30, 09 6:11 PM CDT

Wait till a liberal gets robbed at gunpoint, their home broken into and maybe one of their family members shot, raped or kidnapped and all they have to protect themselves with is their mouth. We will have another convert for gun ownership when the dim lightbulb of the liberal goes on and they realize that the bad guys will always have a gun.

IN RESPONSE:

DJM420
Oct 3, 09 3:35 PM CDT

sure jam...'libs' never have that stuff happen... and @anonymous reader...'law-abiding' citizens dont need AR-15's, etc... and back at jam...a lot easier for a criminal to get a gun if he can buy legal ones off 'law-abiding' citizens...happens every day..oh yeah, so does stealing them...

| 0 minutes ago

United_States_of_Entertainment
Sep 30, 09 12:30 PM CDT

Wake the fuck up Chicago! Why would you want to ban guns? How was that innocent honor roll student killed a few days ago? With a gun? NO!!! He was killed by the hands and feet of a group of IGNORANT teens!! Wake up all of you sheep! Grab your balls and your guns!! Reply

-3

IN RESPONSE:

Yourself
Sep 30, 09 1:08 PM CDT

imagine if guns weren't banned, they would have shot the kid instead of kicking him to death...

IN RESPONSE:

WallyEFunk
Sep 30, 09 1:11 PM CDT

Oh I can see how this is the same. Yes, they all would of had one.And nothing would of happened.Yes wake up PPL. Makes sense. thumbs up on all these comment.

| 0 minutes ago

Krystle
Sep 30, 09 12:32 PM CDT

Make all the laws you want, criminals will still get their hands on guns. Reply

+11

IN RESPONSE:

WallyEFunk
Sep 30, 09 1:08 PM CDT

IF only taking about hand guns like the article.Only from countries with lax hand gun control laws. We do get a problem with them. You can't steal or use a hand gun against a person .If there not that many around. That's called common sense.And with so many out there. YES, it will take years ,adding more only can add more problems. Google hand gun shooting in Italy, England,Canada ETC. try USA. a big and sad difference.

IN RESPONSE:

Krystle
Sep 30, 09 1:21 PM CDT

There would just be an increase of gun sales in some other country and then they would be smuggled into the United States. It's just like the war on drugs, you cannot stop criminals from getting a hold of items when there is a demand for them. They will find a way no matter what the legislation because they do not care about laws.

IN RESPONSE:

WallyEFunk
Sep 30, 09 1:34 PM CDT

Why would the US be different ?

IN RESPONSE:

dontlikenobody
Sep 30, 09 1:48 PM CDT

Good point, Wally. At heart are we just plain more criminally inclined than Canada? Or do we just have MANY MANY more guns? Or maybe Caadians don't want to shoot each other because they're afraid their Government-run medical system won't treat them right? ... Nah.

| 0 minutes ago

divetrader
Sep 30, 09 12:35 PM CDT

We might as well be in Texas. Next thing you know those morons will want to move to Chicago and we'll actually need our guns to get rid of them. Reply

-3

| 0 minutes ago

thejoint00
Sep 30, 09 12:38 PM CDT

the right to bear arms with no distinction of type and or caliber. Reply

-1

IN RESPONSE:

WallyEFunk
Sep 30, 09 1:16 PM CDT

And all PPl created equal. Unless you are a slave. Every one can vote . unless you have a Vajajay. Etc Etc. It was only a frame work. nothing was to be carved in stone.

| 0 minutes ago

JoeQ
Sep 30, 09 12:43 PM CDT

They can have my heat-seeking surface-to-air missile when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. Besides, its for hunting. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Timinator2K
Sep 30, 09 12:46 PM CDT

I would like to finally see The People's Republic of Chicago take a hard right cross to the chin by the constitution...and all the other constitutional powers usurpers as well. Reply

-5

IN RESPONSE:

concernedcitizen027
Sep 30, 09 12:55 PM CDT

I'm pretty sure you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Could you please tell me where the constitution provides for a individual right to handguns for non-militiamen? Oh yeah, its not there.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

osu1067
Sep 30, 09 1:26 PM CDT

@concernedcitizen027: I think you overlooked it. I found it. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Now focus carefully. The founders were saying that since a militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It doesn't say the right of the Militia. The founders did not say that a militia is a pre-requisite to bear arms. Rather, the PEOPLE have a right to bear arms, in order to for a well regulated militia.

IN RESPONSE:

dax
Sep 30, 09 1:32 PM CDT

Yes. You're right, let's adhere to the Constitution.--- Well regulated militias having flintlock muskets only.

IN RESPONSE:

WallyEFunk
Sep 30, 09 1:33 PM CDT

I could be wrong on this .can't find a link, but have to disagree, doesn't it say...Things not listed shall be considered in the affirmative. So if it not saying, against something ,you have to say you can ? Help on this one please.

IN RESPONSE:

osu1067
Sep 30, 09 1:50 PM CDT

@dax: your reply is incorrect. the 2nd amendment states that the PEOPLE have a right bear arms. It does not specify what the arms must be. @WallyEFunk: I'm not sure what your referring to. Sort of sounds like your describing the 9th or 10th amendment, but I cannot not tell for sure based on what you've written.

IN RESPONSE:

WallyEFunk
Sep 30, 09 4:32 PM CDT

Tks U osu... I don't know if it fits .I'm not a constatution lawyer.The 9th Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people") essentially means that the rights listed in preceding amendments (e.g., speech, religion, fair trial) are not the only rights the people have; it recognizes that there are rights that were simply not mentioned and that unenumerated rights are no less important than enumerated ones.

| 0 minutes ago

piyrwq
Sep 30, 09 12:46 PM CDT

Handguns are deigned to kill people. We should ban their production and get rid of every f-ing one. You want to protect yourself from harm, to buy a f-ing taser or mace. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

myvoice
Sep 30, 09 12:55 PM CDT

In 1999 there were 1776 gun deaths in the 0 through 17 age group and 3385 gun deaths in the 0 through 19 age group. By subtraction we find that there were a whopping 1609 gun deaths in just the 18 through 19 age group. Historically the 18 through 24 age group is the highest crime-committing group. At age 18 part-time drug dealers leave school and become full-time drug dealers. Despite the propaganda from the gun control lobby, criminals in general and drug dealers in particular are the group of so-called children most likely to be shot by their fellow criminals. You can verify this by reading the local gun death news stories in any city newspaper. School shootings are so rare that every one gets national television coverage, but drug dealers are shot so often that they are barely mentioned in their local newspaper. Older people's gun deaths are most likely to be suicides. Suicides typically make up 56.5% of all gun deaths according to the Bureau Of Justice Statistics. In fact, drugs and suicides account for more than 2 out of every 3 gun deaths in the USA. The best way to prevent gun deaths is to treat depression and other mental illness, teach children not to sell or use illegal drugs, treat drug addiction, and have police concentrate on enforcing drug laws. However, the gun control lobby says that we should spend billions of dollars on gun registration and gun licensing instead of using the money to treat depression and combat drugs

IN RESPONSE:

Timinator2K
Sep 30, 09 1:09 PM CDT

Its the liberal tradition, treat the symptoms in a half-ass manner and deliberately ignore the root cause...because they don't won't to offend the sheep that elect them.

-3

IN RESPONSE:

dax
Sep 30, 09 1:36 PM CDT

@Timinator (wrote) :"Its the liberal tradition, treat the symptoms in a half-ass manner and deliberately ignore the root cause" ------ You mean like the invasion of Iraq to deal with Al Qaeda and terrorism ????

IN RESPONSE:

piyrwq
Sep 30, 09 1:52 PM CDT

You'll notice every statistic indicates that guns kill people. Get rid of all them (but start with handguns).

IN RESPONSE:

osu1067
Sep 30, 09 1:58 PM CDT

@piyrwq: the problem with people getting killed is not guns. It's people. The video from the south side of Chicago that we've seen over the past few days can attest to that.

IN RESPONSE:

piyrwq
Sep 30, 09 2:15 PM CDT

These chicagoan thugs wouldn't have even made the news has they used a gun.

IN RESPONSE:

osu1067
Sep 30, 09 2:33 PM CDT

@piyrwq: They wouldn't have made news if they had used a gun? your conclusion is erroneous. The fact that the murder was recorded is why it made the news.

IN RESPONSE:

piyrwq
Sep 30, 09 2:44 PM CDT

Maybe. Still- fist can kill people, but guns are much more effective. They serve no societal benefit, unless you think killing people is good thing.

IN RESPONSE:

osu1067
Sep 30, 09 3:41 PM CDT

@piyrwq: Again, your arguments are erroneous. Guns serve no societal benefit? It's a matter of perspective. You see guns as only a weapon of aggression because they can be used to deny the inherent right to life of an individual. You fail to consider them as a weapon of defense. The right to bear arms is the right to defend your right to life, not deny it to others.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

piyrwq
Sep 30, 09 4:19 PM CDT

There are other ways to defend yourself that are not so lethal. Maybe tasers, mace, baseball bats, but I think the best way would be to remove guns from existence. Contrary to a popular twitter-worthy motto, guns do kill people - lot's of them and very effectively.

IN RESPONSE:

piyrwq
Sep 30, 09 5:25 PM CDT

Hell, even go buy a shotgun. But handguns serve no purpose, unless maybe you're dealing drugs.

| 0 minutes ago

Unaffiliated
Sep 30, 09 1:06 PM CDT

While I don't believe that gun control laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals, I also don't believe the writers of the Constitution could ever have imagined the weaponry that is available for sale now. In the early years of our country, no guns had magazine clips, they were all single shot (at least per barrel). Additionally, they assumed private militias would have access to the same weapons as the military, which they viewed as a protection of private citizens from an oppressive government (considering what they had just experienced in the waning years of British rule). The 2nd amendment is EXTREMELY outdated and must be revoked and a new amendment added to the Constitution that outlines the purpose of weapons and who may own them. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Timinator2K
Sep 30, 09 1:13 PM CDT

"...that outlines the purpose of weapons and who may own them." No way that could ever be skewed by partisanship, eh? This whacko liberal notion of demanding Big Brother control everybody else's lives( but certainly not theirs!) is a pure mental illness and evil.

-3

IN RESPONSE:

Unaffiliated
Sep 30, 09 1:43 PM CDT

So you would prefer it that people be allowed to build their own private militias without limit? They can buy all the armor piercing rounds they want? That Lockheed be allowed to sell F-22s to these militias? How about nukes?

IN RESPONSE:

osu1067
Sep 30, 09 1:45 PM CDT

@Unaffiliated: I agree with your point that the founders couldn't have fathomed the progression in firearms technology. It is a legitimate question to ask to what extent may a person protect himself. But to say the 2nd amendment is outdated is a dangerous statement. Remember, the Bill of Rights (which includes the 2nd amendment obviously) was a list of what our founders considered to be inherent, natural rights that no government may infringe upon. They weren't rights conferred to the PEOPLE by the government. They were natural rights spelled out to explicitly limit the laws that government could create. To say that one of these rights is outdated and that we need to pick and choose who has a right to bear arms and who doesn't, strays dangerously from the founders beliefs in natural rights. To follow what you are suggesting, we could also determine, who has the right to speak freely and who doesn't. Who has the right to due process and who does not. Your suggestion, which questions the necessity or logic of one natural right, can easily lead Americans to question the legitimacy of any one or all of the natural rights listed in the Bill of Rights. I agree with you that we need to analyze the second amendment in light of the ever growing lethality of firearms, but to say the only solution is to deny us a natural right is wrong.

IN RESPONSE:

Unaffiliated
Sep 30, 09 2:07 PM CDT

@osu, you bring up very important points. I haven't thought of this in that light. Still, I maintain that the arms world of today is one that the founders could never have even imagined, and given that, how could they have written the 2nd amendment to apply in this situation? There was a reason they allowed for amendments to the Constitution, because they realized they could not possibly predict every future situation, and thus needed to give future generations a way to change the Constitution to account for progress.

IN RESPONSE:

dontlikenobody
Sep 30, 09 2:13 PM CDT

@osu - I understand that, for you, what a group of earnest, well-meaning 18th-century politicians wrote is inerrant gospel burned into a stone tablet, but, really, a "natural' right to carry a deadly weapon? I'd much prefer a natural right to food, or health, or breathing, or life - but a weapon? Tain't natural, tain't God-given, it's human law we're dealing with here - and human law damn well better be responsive to what's going on around us, or we just plain won't survive as a society. Oh, perhaps as well-armed individuals roaming a post-apocalyptic landscape, but not as a society.

IN RESPONSE:

my-name-here
Sep 30, 09 2:17 PM CDT

@osu, Nice post. Additionally, it should be emphasized that the Bill of Rights is NOT subject to change as the rest of the amendments are. Whether we as a people feel it is dated or not doesn't matter, or the rest must be re-examined as well. And that the 2nd amendment was included not so we, as citizens, could protect ourselves from each other or even for hunting, and the muskets and cannon of the day were the state of the art in killing technology. No, the 2nd amendment is in place for the simple reason that our founders knew that the day COULD come when the people might have to rise up and protect themselves from from the potential tyranny of the government itself. Has that time arrived? Not in my opinion. Will it? I hope not. Could it? Only a fool ignores history. The problems we have with guns seem to be, unfortunately, part of the price we pay for the land and the liberties we enjoy. I do not condone it, nor do I like it, but we are a country born of violence and passion. Two things which seem difficult at best, to separate.

IN RESPONSE:

osu1067
Sep 30, 09 2:41 PM CDT

@logothete: I think you wrote your reply incorrectly. I think what you meant to write was, "I reject your reality and substitute my own". The problem with your "reality" is if you reject one of the inherent rights listed by those "well-meaning 18th-century politicians", than you cannot argue that we have any rights at all. That means, we have no right to "food, or health, or breathing, or life". The founders said we have inherent rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, free speech, freedom to associate, freedom of the press, etc. They also said we have a right to defend our individual rights of life and property by....bearing arms! You cannot cheery pick your rights to fit your reality.

IN RESPONSE:

WallyEFunk
Sep 30, 09 4:44 PM CDT

any one know if my-name 0here is right about "Additionally, it should be emphasized that the Bill of Rights is NOT subject to change as the rest of the amendments are. "

IN RESPONSE:

osu1067
Sep 30, 09 5:26 PM CDT

@WallyEFunk: I don't think he is right on that. It's always a possibility that one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights can be overturned through the proscribed measures. But there in lies the problem. If we overturn one of the first 10 amendments, we are essentially saying natural rights are not "inherent" because they are subject to change. If that is true, than the Constitution ceases to be our governing document because the Constitution was created to protect our inherent individual rights. I can only guess that what my-name-here meant was that the Bill of Rights are not subject to change if you want to keep the Constitution.

IN RESPONSE:

my-name-here
Sep 30, 09 6:38 PM CDT

@wally, osu, Thank you for questioning amending the Bill of Rights. I had to go back and check that one. I stand corrected. You are apparently right. Though unlikely in the extreme, it appears that even the Bill of rights is subject to being amended.

IN RESPONSE:

WallyEFunk
Sep 30, 09 7:33 PM CDT

GOOD POINT osu, Its bad about making such changes possible. being able to restrict one bill, then others could follow as well. A slippery slope once started,A not easily solved problem then.

IN RESPONSE:

H Kimball
Oct 1, 09 12:32 AM CDT

Sorry to break the fourth wall, as it were, but I have to weigh in. I think it's very important to note that when we talk about the 1st or 2nd Amendment--or the 14th, which could play a big a part in this case, and is discussed in the source article, which you all should read if you haven't--we should remember what the thing we're talking about is called. Lost you? It's "amendment." The Bill of Rights is composed entirely of amendments, some of which have stood since the Constitution was ratified, and some, well, not so much. My personal opinion is that, since our nation no longer tolerates militias, it need not afford individuals the right to bear the arms necessary to form those militias. I'm not anti-gun--I just don't think gun owners should use a 200-year-old document as a crutch. What's wrong with making the point in a modern context? And for serious, read up on the fascinating constitutional questions in play.

| 0 minutes ago

serfinWI
Sep 30, 09 1:45 PM CDT

And when they wrote the 2nd amendment, there was no welfare. No crime ridden, welfare dependent, uneducated, no morals, drug abusing, entitled, bastard filled inner cities. Get rid of welfare and we won't have a death by gun problem. Probably some riots though. Oh, that's why we continue paying them off with massive welfare checks. So they can just kill each other rather than coming to a peaceful village near you. Reply

-1

IN RESPONSE:

dontlikenobody
Sep 30, 09 1:55 PM CDT

I suggest that you, personally, steer clear of my peaceful little village.

IN RESPONSE:

Unaffiliated
Sep 30, 09 2:00 PM CDT

You're right that there was no welfare, but there sure as hell were poor, and poor-on-poor violence. Getting rid of welfare will not get rid of the poor, and will not get rid of the poor-on-poor violence you rail against. BTW, there are plenty of welfare dependent, uneducated, no morals, drug abusing, entitled bastards in out in Podunkville, too.

IN RESPONSE:

dontlikenobody
Sep 30, 09 2:16 PM CDT

Massive welfare checks? Where have you been since 1992? Under a rock?

| 0 minutes ago

dontlikenobody
Sep 30, 09 1:54 PM CDT

You know, we might have to have weapons to defend ourselves sooner than we think. Try this scary little item: http://tinyurl.com/y8u3tyo If that happens, they'll really have to pry the AK47 out of my cold dead hands. I used to really like the idea of gun control, too. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

piyrwq
Sep 30, 09 2:22 PM CDT

The country would be paralyzed by general strike in such an event.

| 0 minutes ago

Dr.Gonzo
Sep 30, 09 2:29 PM CDT

Gun control is much like drug control. Drugs are illegal and you dont see people on the streets with drugs do you? hmmm Reply

IN RESPONSE:

piyrwq
Sep 30, 09 2:36 PM CDT

I like this argument. As such, we should make it illegal to sell handguns, and treat the users as we would those with a deadly disease. They need help.

IN RESPONSE:

WallyEFunk
Sep 30, 09 2:50 PM CDT

No there not,We have LOTS of drug problems. but no hand gun problems like allot of other countries. Google search yourselves.Mmmm. think, read, educate yourself.Ok say yes crime is just as bad.Has hand guns stopping violent crimes. NO ..Just more deaths.A taking of a life is to permanent.Shooting first, robbing second....Accidental death...The "attempt" at suicide. guns take away the attempt part, of which it's just a cry for help...Infant collateral damage. some PPL sleep on floors for fear of bullets coming threw windows...Gun used against the owner. Etc. Etc.Keep the rifles... . Hand guns like I said before gives PPL the feel of power, smugness.arrogance and easy to hide. Etc.

| 0 minutes ago

JimW
Sep 30, 09 3:40 PM CDT

Legalize guns and drugs. Lotta money to be made in taxes on them, and if someone is going to kill someone, use drugs, overdose, shoot themselves, etc. they will just find another way. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

hughchi
Sep 30, 09 10:03 PM CDT

Ah...America. The world's greatest democracy or is it democrazy. I think paranoidocracy says it best. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

View all 64 comments »

Chicago • US Constitution • Second Amendment • US Supreme Court • constitutionality • handgun • handgun ban • Fourteenth Amendment

from our news partners

Taylor Swift Grabs AMA Artist of the Year from Michael...
(Nov 22, 09 9:59 PM CST)
Michael Jackson Sets AMA Record With 2009 Wins
(Nov 22, 09 8:15 PM CST)
'New Moon' Sinks Teeth Into $140.7 Opening Weekend
(Nov 22, 09 3:41 PM CST)
Jenna Fischer Knows As Much About Her 'Office' Baby As...
(Nov 22, 09 12:00 PM CST)

Atlantis astronaut celebrates the birth of his daughter 220 miles...
(51 minutes ago)
How do you take a not-so-serious crime to the next...
(1 hour, 42 minutes ago)
Can there rreally be too many places to buy beer...
(2 hours, 11 minutes ago)
Couple leaves their brand new dryer on the sidewalk, right...
(3 hours, 4 minutes ago)

New Moon's Chris Weitz Gets A New Project
(Nov 22, 09 11:24 PM CST)
Running of the Bulls Ruins Tom Cruise's Next Film
(Nov 22, 09 11:19 PM CST)
Werewolves Are Cool Now, Howling Getting Remade
(Nov 22, 09 11:13 PM CST)
50 Cent Convinces Val Kilmer To Star In His Movie Somehow
(Nov 22, 09 11:06 PM CST)

Associated Press

Authorities say Chicago school board president apparently shot self in head...
(Nov 16, 09 9:09 PM CST)
US Supreme Court will not stop release of Catholic church documents
(Nov 2, 09 9:20 AM CST)
Supreme Court to decide if two-person Labor Board can make decisions
(Nov 2, 09 9:17 AM CST)
2 Supreme Court justices taking stage in DC opera
(Oct 24, 09 2:09 PM CDT)

What is Newser?

Face it: there's too much news. At Newser, we choose the most important stories from hundreds of US and international sources and reduce them to a headline, picture, and two paragraphs. And we do it 24/7—you can come back morning, noon, night (and in between) for something new that matters. Read less, know more.

Learn more »

Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge to Local Gun Laws

Challenge to Chicago handgun ban could neuter local gun control measures

[Images (2)]

[Quotes (1)]

DC Delegate:
Ban Guns
Near Obama

Says pistol-packers too close; Secret Service says not an issue

MORE ABOUT:
Barack Obama • gun control • Secret Service • Second Amendment • political protest • handgun ban • guns • Eleanor Holmes Norton

Court Will Quash Key Voting Act Provision—Next Time

MORE ABOUT:
Congress • legislation • Voting Rights Act • US Supreme Court • constitutionality • opinion • racial discrimination • Section 5

Sotomayor's Nunchuks Ruling Worries Gun Groups

Gun rights advocates fear nominee may seek to undermine Second Amendment

MORE ABOUT:
weapon • Second Amendment • US Supreme Court • gun rights • Sonia Sotomayor

Chicago • US Constitution • Second Amendment • US Supreme Court • constitutionality • handgun • handgun ban • Fourteenth Amendment

MOST POPULAR STORIES

[ By Views ]

[ By Comments ]

from our news partners

Associated Press

About

Help

Tools

Site Maps

What is Newser?

Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge to Local Gun Laws

Challenge to Chicago handgun ban could neuter local gun control measures

[Images (2)]

[Quotes (1)]

Related Newser Stories

DC Delegate: Ban Guns Near Obama

Says pistol-packers too close; Secret Service says not an issue

MORE ABOUT: Barack Obama • gun control • Secret Service • Second Amendment • political protest • handgun ban • guns • Eleanor Holmes Norton

ANALYSIS

Court Will Quash Key Voting Act Provision—Next Time

MORE ABOUT: Congress • legislation • Voting Rights Act • US Supreme Court • constitutionality • opinion • racial discrimination • Section 5

Sotomayor's Nunchuks Ruling Worries Gun Groups

Gun rights advocates fear nominee may seek to undermine Second Amendment

MORE ABOUT: weapon • Second Amendment • US Supreme Court • gun rights • Sonia Sotomayor

Chicago • US Constitution • Second Amendment • US Supreme Court • constitutionality • handgun • handgun ban • Fourteenth Amendment

MOST POPULAR STORIES

[ By Views ]

[ By Comments ]

from our news partners

Associated Press

About

Help

Tools

Site Maps

What is Newser?

DC Delegate:
Ban Guns
Near Obama

MORE ABOUT:
Barack Obama • gun control • Secret Service • Second Amendment • political protest • handgun ban • guns • Eleanor Holmes Norton

MORE ABOUT:
Congress • legislation • Voting Rights Act • US Supreme Court • constitutionality • opinion • racial discrimination • Section 5

MORE ABOUT:
weapon • Second Amendment • US Supreme Court • gun rights • Sonia Sotomayor