Property of ABC News

Last Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard the McDonald v Chicago case, in which the plaintiffs argued to lift the handgun ban the city of Chicago placed on its residents back in 1982. This case brings to light two countering sides to the debate – those that believe the handgun ban is necessary to further combat Chicago’s rampant violence and those that believe that owning a handgun within the city limits is their right as American citizens. The debate also calls into question the Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, and specifically brings to light the issue of whether or not state and local governments have the right to establish bans when the federal government doesn’t include such restrictions.

The plaintiffs in the McDonald v Chicago case come from a diversity of backgrounds and include Otis McDonald, an older, retired African-American man, Adam Orlov, a former police officer and current businessman, and David and Colleen Lawson, a mixed-race couple. Some believe that the balance of the plaintiffs’ diversity was intended to help the public relation’s image of the case, which may or may not be the case (especially given that a website was created on behalf of their case, which shows a concerted effort to promote the case and its plaintiffs).

One attorney handling the case, Alan Gura, is no stranger to the gun control debate as he fought on behalf of Washington D.C. residents to lift its handgun ban in 2007. The District of Columbia v. Heller case was the first to hold that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms for private use. Of course, because the ruling was determined with regards to the District of Columbia, a federal enclave, the decision did not extend to local and state governments. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Chicago residents/plaintiffs in the McDonald v. Chicago case, then this ruling has larger implications for other local and state governments to overturn restrictive hand-gun bans.

During the D.C. case, Gura, along with attorneys Robert A. Levy (who funded the case) and Clark M. Neily III, devised their strategy from civil rights attorney Thurgood Marshall’s approach of creating a diverse panel of plaintiffs to fight specific laws and restrictions that racially segregated education. The legal approach of including plaintiffs of diverse backgrounds is intended to show how the gun control restriction can and does affect a variety of Chicago residents who feel that the current ban violates their right to protect themselves and their home.

According to the Chicago Tribune, the justices are poised to overturn the Chicago gun ban:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. called it an “extremely important” right in the Constitution. Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. echoed the theme that the court had endorsed an individual, nationwide right in their decision two years ago. The fifth member of the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas, did not comment during the argument, but he has been a steady advocate of the Second Amendment.

If the Supreme Court’s decision, which should be delivered in several months, is in favor of the plaintiffs and strikes down Chicago’s hand-gun ban, then the ruling could challenge the constitutionality of other local or state gun regulations.  The decision would, of course, determine just how far the Justices’ guidance could extend — meaning if it would only include an allowance for hand-guns at home, or if it would also allow carrying hand-guns in public.

It is interesting that residents of Chicago, a city known for its gang violence, are calling to lift gun ban regulations, as one would imagine the regulations were put in place to deter the widespread usage of gun violence in the city. However, given that all four of the plaintiffs in the McDonald v Chicago court case argue for the right to bear/keep arms to further protect themselves, their family, and their home, one must wonder just how safe and protected Chicago residents feel with the current ban. The plaintiffs argument suggests that law abiding citizens are left essentially defenseless, with the Chicago police as their only protection against the ills of the city; whereas, the guns end up in the hands of deviants with intent to commit crimes.

Does this case highlight a larger breakdown of a city’s justice system? Could the plaintiffs’ concerns be a larger commentary about how criminals manage to stay armed and dangerous in Chicago and how law-abiding citizens feel near defenseless with only the reactive actions of the police as protection? If the laws and police are not able to keep the peace, then does that mean that a city has failed its residents?

Posted by Adrienne on March 10, 2010 at 2:35 pm.