Since the Supreme Court upheld the individual right to own guns last
summer, one municipality after another with handgun bans has faced
reality. Washington, D.C., which lost the case, changed its law. Morton
Grove, Ill., repealed its ban. So did neighboring Wilmette. Likewise
for Evanston. Last week, Winnetka followed suit.
Then there is Chicago, which is being sued for violating the Second
Amendment but refuses to confront the possibility that what the Supreme
Court said may apply on this side of the Appalachians.
When it comes to firearms, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is no slave to
rationality. "Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society?"
he demanded after the ruling came down. "Then why don't we do away with
the court system and go back to the Old West, where you have a gun and
I have a gun and we'll settle it in the streets?"
From listening to him, you might assume that the only places in North
America that don't have firefights on a daily basis are cities that
outlaw handguns. You might also assume that Chicago is an oasis of
concord, rather than the site of 443 homicides last year.
So it's no surprise that Daley refuses to make the slightest change in
the handgun ordinance, preferring to fight the lawsuits filed by the
National Rifle Association. He is not impressed that 1) the law almost
certainly violates the Constitution, which elected officials are
supposed to uphold, and 2) it will cost taxpayers a lot of money to
fight lawsuits the city is bound to lose.
The Chicago ban dates back to 1983 -- a time when no one had to worry
about the forgotten Second Amendment. The ordinance prohibited the
possession of all handguns (except those acquired before the law took
effect).
It had no obvious benefits: Homicides climbed in the ensuing years and
by 1992 were 41 percent higher than before. But the policy rested
undisturbed until last summer, when the Supreme Court ruled that
Washington's complete ban on handguns violated the individual right to
use arms for self-defense in the home.
If that logic applies to the D.C. statute, it very likely applies to
Chicago's law. The city, however, notes that the nation's capital is a
federal enclave, and that the court did not say that states must
respect the Second Amendment. That's true. The court's ruling also did
not say that China is in Asia, which doesn't make it part of South
America.
Once upon a time, the Bill of Rights restricted only what the federal
government could do: States were free to restrict free speech, conduct
unreasonable searches and impose cruel and unusual punishments. But
nowadays, the court says that because of the 14th Amendment, passed
after the Civil War, states must respect virtually all the rights set
out in the Constitution.
There is no reason to think the justices would exempt the Second
Amendment from that rule. Ronald Rotunda, a constitutional scholar at
Chapman University law school, thinks the Chicago ban has no more than
a one in five chance of surviving court review.
That might be worth the gamble except for all the money the city is
asking to be relieved of. The losing side would not only have to cover
the costs of its own lawyers but also pay the winning attorneys. In the
D.C. case, the amount has not been settled, but the lawyers who handled
the suit asked the court for nearly $3.6 million, while Washington
offered some $800,000. So if Daley insists on fighting all the way to
the Supreme Court, the total tab will probably run into multiple
millions.
The city says this is not necessarily money that can be saved, since
even a revised ordinance could face a court challenge. But sensible
changes might deter opponents from pursuing a lawsuit, and if not, at
least the new version would stand a good chance of being upheld.
Judging from its lawsuit, the NRA is aiming only at eliminating the
city's total ban on handguns -- which is what the Supreme Court will
almost surely demand anyway.
Daley's recalcitrance may be viscerally satisfying to him and some
others, but it doesn't change the choice the city faces. It can change
the law now or it can change it later. Later will be a lot more
expensive.
