Sangamon County Rifle Association
Right Reason on Second Amendment Rights
Springfield, Illinois


Jim Butler



McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Gun Case

by Jim Butler, President SCRA
March 2010 GunNews







The Chicago 1982 handgun case McDonald v. City of Chicago, will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 2, 2010.  The ban is being challenged by the Illinois State Rifle Association and  the Second Amendment Foundation along with four individual plaintiffs.

The City of Chicago in its brief to the Supreme Court said its ban should be allowed in order to maintain what it calls "a system of ordered liberty."  Whatever that means.

This phrase is used often in their brief.  My guess is that it means that in their infinite wisdom the elite leaders of Chicago will allow ordinary people a limited amount of liberty as they see fit.

All this largess, in their minds at least, from one of the most corrupt city administrations in the United States.  With many of its former members either in prison, going to prison, have already served time for their misdeeds, and either under investigation or already indicted at this time.  One thing they have in common is their Chicago motto "where's mine."  They act like a bunch of hogs around a trough at feeding time.

Chicago at this time has a severe shortage of revenue to finance vital city services.  This is due in part to many of its corrupt officials, and their voracious friends.  In spite of this shortage of revenue, Mayor Daley is still wasting money on the 1982 handgun ban that has been a proven failure.

Does "a system of ordered liberty" apply to the Bill of Rights in the Constitution as Chicago claims?  I think not.

"All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

Chicago also contends that "the scope of the Second Amendment right also reflects the purpose to protect the militia rather than to further a fundamental aspect of personal liberty.  It seems clear that they have never read the Federalist Papers.

Incredibly Chicago seems to be rearguing the issues in the Heller Washington, D.C. case in an attempt to salvage their handgun ban!  The Supreme Court in the Heller case ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right not a collective right as Chicago is now claiming.

The most commonly cited reason for owning a handgun is for preserving life and discouraging acts of criminal violence.  For far too long the people of Chicago have been denied by a corrupt political system the most basic right of human beings -- The right of self-defense.

A handgun can be compared to insurance.  You hope that you never need it but it's there in an emergency if you do.

Alan Gura the lead attorney for the lawsuit against Chicago said striking down the ban will bring with it the incorporation of the Second Amendment to the states, through the 14th Amendment.  This would limit state and local governments anti-gun measures, and the Chicago lawsuit provides that mechanism to do so.

For further information on the McDonald v. Chicago case follow the postings on chicagoguncase.com


Jim Butler's Commentaries

Sangamon County Rifle Association Home Page