June 4th, 2009
06:00 PM ET

Should cities like Chicago be allowed to ban handguns?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

A Chicago law banning handguns and automatic weapons within city limits has been upheld. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge by the National Rifle Association. This will probably set the stage for a Supreme Court battle over whether the Second Amendment's protections for gun owners extend to state and city laws.

Last year, the Supreme Court said the right to keep and bear arms protects an individual's right to have a gun for self-defense. Before then, many judges had said the amendment only protected the right of states to have a militia. At the time, the high court's ruling struck down a handgun ban in D.C. But the justices didn't say whether the same rules applied to the rest of the country.

Chicago's law, which has been in effect since 1982, allows ownership of rifles, but they must be registered every year with the police. Concealed weapons, semi-automatic and automatic weapons aren't allowed. There are some exceptions for members of the military and law enforcement agencies.

Gun rights advocates say the next step is an appeal to the Supreme Court, while the city of Chicago says it's prepared to defend its ordinance.

Meanwhile, the high court won't consider an appeal until the fall. By then, Sonia Sotomayor might be one of the justices considering the case. In January, she joined a three-judge panel in New York that came to the same conclusion as the Chicago case.

Here’s my question to you: Should cities like Chicago be allowed to ban handguns?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Steve from New York writes:
No, they should not. In Washington, DC - which did not allow handguns - the murder rate from handguns was the highest in the nation. The reason was that the victims could not protect themselves. It's always the criminals who disobey the law and get all the handguns they want, while the average citizen obeys the law and gets murdered.

Conor from Chicago writes:
The problem is illegal guns, not legal ones.

Ashante from Chicago writes:
As a resident of Chicago, I ask those gun rights advocates who are standing up for the NRA: what about all the kids we lost so far? Chicago leads the nation in children deaths due to violence. The NRA should be helping in this effort, not hindering. I applaud Mayor Daley continuing the fight for the residents of Chicago.

Christopher writes:
Jack, What a bad idea. I wonder if the gangs in Chicago are going to comply with this law?

Dennis from Columbus, Ohio writes:
Not unless there is a constitutional amendment that reverses or modifies the 2nd Amendment. Not that I am for or against banning handguns, but the law is the law. That said, I believe banning hand guns anywhere or everywhere will have little effect on crime. It is a fact that where concealed carry is legal, crime rate drops. Where guns are banned crime increases.

BJ from Columbus, Georgia writes:
No apology here, I'm an extremist I guess. I think every city should ban handguns!

Joe from Delray Beach, Florida writes:
Handguns and automatic rifles are absolutely needed within Chicago's city limits. How else can you shoot the deer which are tearing apart the city?

Filed under: Crime and Punishment
soundoff (276 Responses)
  1. Doug Alder

    Absolutely – you guys south of the border are gun crazy and you should just ban everything but long rifles and shotguns federally. even if it requires changing your constitution.

    June 4, 2009 at 12:41 pm |
  2. Melissa

    YES!! Emphatically YES! Its about time. Gun regulation is not the enemy, and will save lives.

    June 4, 2009 at 12:43 pm |
  3. Rodney from Little Rock, Arkansas

    Should they ban guns in a city riddled with gun crime? Not yes but Hell yes. I've never seen the logic behind the "more guns equals more safety" argument.

    June 4, 2009 at 12:44 pm |
  4. Larry


    The right to bear arms is in the Constitution.

    Besides, it's true....You can ban guns, but criminals will always get them. Look what's happening on the Mexican border.

    Cincinnati, OH

    June 4, 2009 at 12:49 pm |
  5. cy gardner

    Why should hysterical hunters in the hinterlands make rules that affect public safety in urban areas like Chicago and Washington, DC. People are dying in DC. Innocent children get gunned down because of the proliferation of guns. The fact that duck hunters and the NRA think their "right" to unlimited firepower trumps human life in the inner cities of America seems callous and racist to me. cy gardner, arllington, va

    June 4, 2009 at 1:06 pm |
  6. Kevin in Dallas, TX

    The vast majority of crimes committed with handguns involve illegal handguns. Those people are going to have their guns anyway. So overriding the second amendment due to the crimes committed with legal handguns is the equivalent of doing away with the freedom of the press because of Fox News.

    June 4, 2009 at 1:08 pm |
  7. Cat H.

    If there is a ban on handguns in Chicago, will that mean that all guns, including those held illegally by criminals, gangbangers and such, be collected? If not, then the ordinary, law-abiding citizen will not have a chance to protect himself, his home and his property. Unless all guns are removed, the citizens of that city might as well bend over, put their head between their knees, and kiss their backsides good-bye.

    I personally feel that as well as the right to bear arms, we should arm bears.

    June 4, 2009 at 1:08 pm |
  8. Kevin , FL

    Jack, I am a firm believer that the only people that should NOT have access to firearms are CRIMINALS. The problem with bans , is that no matter what , criminals will always have access to guns through street pushers and the black market. Banning guns just hurts Law Abiders......so the answer to your question is no! It is OUR Right as citizens to own Guns and defend our homes. Finally notice that in cities that have banned guns........the crime rate is actually alot higher than places that have not, Gee wonder why...making citizens easy prey?

    June 4, 2009 at 1:10 pm |
  9. John from Alabama

    Jack: I would like to ban handguns from many places, but the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution protects the rights of ownership of handguns anywhere. I do believe that all handguns need to be registered, and better background checks completed. Handguns kill more people every year than any type of weapon.

    June 4, 2009 at 1:11 pm |
  10. dorothy

    guns do not kill bullets do. start chargeing 100.00 per bullet across the board and crime will go down instance.

    June 4, 2009 at 1:13 pm |
  11. Steve C


    No city should be allowed to override our country's constitution!

    irvine, CA

    June 4, 2009 at 1:14 pm |
  12. bobwhite in Kansas

    Yes. Cities like Dodge City and Tombstone banned guns to protect both their cities and their citizens. It worked before. Towns must find some way to control all the gamblers, bank robbers, drunks and big landowners, i.e., bullies, who want to intimidate all our small-time settlers, craftsman, retailers, women and children.

    June 4, 2009 at 1:15 pm |
  13. Jason, Koloa, HI

    If the citizens of a particular part of our democracy vote to ban something, be it gay marriage, hand guns, banana cream pies, or what have you, then it should be banned. Isn't that how real democracy works?

    June 4, 2009 at 1:17 pm |
  14. george

    Guns only have one purpose, and that is too KILL. Have you ever had the fear that one would have by looking down the barrel of a gun, well I have, and my answer is YES, BAN ALL GUNS !!

    June 4, 2009 at 1:19 pm |
  15. Jim from Chicago

    Given the number of senseless murders by gangs in this city, and crimes arising from heated arguments where the mere convenient availability a handgun leads to death, the answer is yes, Jack. We are not talking about limiting the rights of sportsmen. In this case, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness supercedes the right to have your own Glock available to flash to your buddies.

    June 4, 2009 at 1:27 pm |
  16. David Alexandria, VA

    Thjey should be allowed to license, under reasonable conditions, but not ban handguns. Until the city is safe beyond safe, law-abiding citizens should be able to excercise their constitutional rights and have guns.

    June 4, 2009 at 1:29 pm |
  17. Lance Schumacher

    Absolutely not! The Constitution is the law of the United States of America and neither the states nor the cities should be allowed to overrule the Bill of Rights. We are guaranteed the right to bear arms by the Federal Government and unless the cities/states change the Constitution by amendments, they should be bound by that document.
    Lance, Ridgecrest, Ca

    June 4, 2009 at 1:31 pm |
  18. gerry In Toronto

    Of course they should, unless they're named a national park.

    June 4, 2009 at 1:31 pm |
  19. Mike – Denver, CO

    Jack, when was the last time a violent criminal voluntarily turned in a firearm? Desperately grasping for impossible solutions is not the answer.

    June 4, 2009 at 1:37 pm |
  20. Paul Austin, Texas

    Yes, and if a person other than law enforcement needs a handgun because of there job or personal threat level then let them get a permit. The only thing is a ban on handguns does not really work because the bad guys can always find a way to get any gun or weapon they want. All it does is prevent guns being stolen in a robbery or burglary. Did it stop gun crime in Boston?

    June 4, 2009 at 1:39 pm |
  21. toni boutwell, myrtle beach, SC

    YES! any state, county or city should have the right to protect thier citizens from handguns.
    Have you noticed, those who spout off about states rights are the first ones to attack any state that exersizes the right to protect thier people.

    June 4, 2009 at 1:42 pm |
  22. Gary of El Centro, Ca

    Certain types of guns should be banned in all cities......but a ban of all guns in a particular city won't stand up to the constitutional question of the right to bear arms. I don't blame them for wanting to take actions to reduce the crime and murder rates, but trying to ban all hand guns won't do the job.

    June 4, 2009 at 1:44 pm |
  23. Bill, Quarryville, Pennsylvania

    Jack first of all passing any gun control bills whether it's local, State or Federal is not left up to any people in elective office to decide. It is left to up to the NRA who has control over them to decide. The NRA has made it relatively easy for any nut to be able to purchase hand weapons that can literally blow a person's head off with one shot. When there is a good gun control bill that does get passed, such as the one on AK 47 weapons, they get so watered down they don't even exist. Until the day comes that the top executives in the NRA are forced to stand in the shoes of the victims on the other end of the nut firing the gun, there will not be any gun control laws passed.

    June 4, 2009 at 1:47 pm |
  24. Don (Ottawa)

    Sure, why not! It won't do any good, but at least it may give some people a sense that something is being done about gang violence. Handguns are not the problem, it's the mentality of those that carry them.

    June 4, 2009 at 1:51 pm |
  25. Scott from Texas

    I live in a small city in Texas called San Angelo. We have a very loose reign on handguns and firearms here and we have a very small amount of violence in town. Probably 98 percent of weapons here are used for hunting. In big cities it's a much different case. You can't just go hunting like you can here; firearms are used for violence against human beings.

    June 4, 2009 at 1:54 pm |
  26. Mike S., New Orleans

    Sure Jack, why not? I'm sure once they ban handguns, all the criminals will turn themselves in to authorities.

    June 4, 2009 at 1:56 pm |
  27. Terry from North Carolina

    Whatever happened to our second amendment rights ?

    June 4, 2009 at 1:59 pm |
  28. Ken Brown

    NO! Handguns do not become a problem until they land in the hands of criminals. If there were no hand guns and every criminal used knives; should we then blame and ban knives? Then if criminals started using bats; should we ban bats as well? It's ridiculous to think that you are going to curb criminal behavior by forcing them to change their weapons of choice. Jack, I live in St. Louis, very near to Chicago and here in the "Lou" we have a gun related crime every single day. The overwhelming majority of those crimes are gang-related and almost none of them involve legally acquired hand guns and permit holders. Perhaps even more revealing, it is rare that those with the legal right to carry a gun is involved in a such crimes, as victims or criminals. People need to flush the coward out of their systems and get over the fact that many of us want to preserve our right to defend ourselves, keep and bare arms, and are not chumps who care to live in a world where the powerful have absolute power. I like knowing, that they know, that we have the ability to fight back if they let power go to their heads. Leave our guns alone!

    Ken Brown
    St. Louis, Missouri

    June 4, 2009 at 2:01 pm |
  29. Denny from Tacoma, WA

    They should modify their restrictions of handguns to those who use them for criminal activity. In other words stiffer sentences for those who use handguns in criminal activity. Merely restricting handguns for everyone only decreases the ability of the victims to defend themselves, because criminals will use them anyway under the current system.

    June 4, 2009 at 2:02 pm |
  30. Valerie

    No becasue hand guns are not their problem but drugs are ..they provide the funds for the purchase of guns

    June 4, 2009 at 2:02 pm |
  31. Tom, Avon, Maine, The Heart of Democracy

    When blood shed in the wild west got too drastic the sheriffs adopted a policy of asking people to turn in their guns. It isn't as though there isn't precedent for common sense.

    Chalk Beeson got the Allison gang to turn in their guns in Dodge city at the time of the Earps. As societies get older they are supposed to get wiser. How much blood does it take?

    June 4, 2009 at 2:03 pm |
  32. Tina Tx

    Didn't Washington, D. C try this a few years back? Did not work. Crooks will always find way to get weapons. Why not have better resources for people to get off welfare and keep kids off drugs?

    June 4, 2009 at 2:05 pm |
  33. Theresa Hill

    That would put law abiding citizens at risk. By banning the legal ownership of handguns, criminals would be given the upper hand.

    Nova Scotia, Canada.

    June 4, 2009 at 2:07 pm |
  34. bob z.from pa.

    this all obama doing we are going to alot more than gun rights

    June 4, 2009 at 2:09 pm |
  35. Jim


    Sure they should, but how do they enforce such a ban?

    Reno, Nevada

    June 4, 2009 at 2:10 pm |
  36. Jacob

    Absolutely not. It is our constitutional right to have a gun. Chicago should not and cannot be allowed to ban handguns. That's not the answer.

    New Jersey

    June 4, 2009 at 2:11 pm |
  37. David from California

    Yes, hand guns should be banned throughout the United States and the Second Amendment should be repealed.

    June 4, 2009 at 2:12 pm |
  38. Venia PA

    Guns should be banned across the country. Honestly, what do we need guns for other than to kill or maim?

    June 4, 2009 at 2:14 pm |
  39. Tom in Desoto, Tx

    Let everyone have access to guns. Let's have vending machines at convenience stores for guns, just swipe your credit or debt card and start shooting. All people killed should be left on the street where they lay so others can see it's not a video game or movie. Let all see the main purpose for weapons. Have a good day.

    June 4, 2009 at 2:14 pm |
  40. Bill


    The first step to take over a country and make it completely fascist: Disarm the population.

    June 4, 2009 at 2:30 pm |
  41. Robert Giroux

    HÉ! What a strange idea that is...

    80 million americans hoarding 250 million firearms of all sorts and calibers cannot be denied...

    June 4, 2009 at 2:32 pm |
  42. Barbara in NC

    That's for the cities to decide. None of my business.

    If thngs change where I live, I may move, but I won't demand my opinions be adopted by the rest of the people in the community or the world.

    I'm not a bullying republican.

    June 4, 2009 at 2:48 pm |
  43. Ann from Hampton, New Jersey

    With all the violence among teens there, why not? Maybe the rest of the country will follow suit and do the same. It is about time these weapons get off of the streets and out of the hands of children.

    June 4, 2009 at 2:49 pm |
  44. Chris D., NYC

    Of course they should!! You can't place rural, & country areas, in the same league that the urban cities of America live in. The realities of crimes w/ assault weapons in the inner cities are grieveous......and must be stopped or slowed down.

    June 4, 2009 at 2:51 pm |
  45. Susan from Twin Falls Idaho

    No, what needs to be banned are poverty and ignorance. That is why we need so many more community organizers like our sitting president. No one is born a killer they are being groomed in the ghettos. When all you know is negative the chance of becoming a functioning member of society are slim to none. It would be money well spent to infiltrate the problem areas with paid mentors (possibly ex gang members) to temper violence and lead youngsters in a different direction.

    June 4, 2009 at 2:53 pm |
  46. David in San Diego

    Yes. A typographical error in the Constitution (it should have read "the right to bare arms") should not dictate policy. Federalism must allow State and local governments control over the kinds of arms that are allowed or not allowed.

    June 4, 2009 at 2:53 pm |
  47. chris

    nope one it fringes on our right to hold and have handguns and 2 it would be the first job of the yet announced next czar it will be control your life czar meaning tell you what you cna do or not eat or drink to control our lives that is our presidents next czar to be named

    June 4, 2009 at 2:56 pm |
  48. Tony from Torrington

    Why not? Chicago has a reputation for corruption and a liberal political machine. Our second amendment rights will be taken away soon just as the liberals want. With socialism, the government can't afford to have an armed population. It's too dangerous for them.

    June 4, 2009 at 2:56 pm |
  49. Michelle, Philadelphia, PA

    YES, yes, and hmm, yes. I always find it ironic that the people who most vociferously assert a Second Amendment right to own a gun don't live in cities and have no sense of urban crime. I say, let the cities do what they have to do to keep their residents safe.

    June 4, 2009 at 2:59 pm |
  50. Larry from Georgetown, Texas

    Yes, yes and YES. Why do we continue to tolerate the behavior of criminals who hide behind the 2nd Ammendment? If a few of the law makers would have a child murdered by some of these people then they would take some action to stop it once and for all.

    June 4, 2009 at 2:59 pm |
  51. Darren

    All people have their Constitutionally provided 2nd Amendment riights which our government shouldn't infrige upon. Look at all the other nations that gave up their arms to their government and the violent outcome of each of those - and as Thomas Jerrerson once quipped, “the strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government/”

    June 4, 2009 at 3:06 pm |
  52. Bob in San Jose, California

    All cities should have the right to place strict limits on guns. Urban areas with large populations are sometimes turned into target shooting zones by gangs and misguided thugs grasping for control and respect.. Having grown up in Chicago, and seeing the endless gunplay as a child, I am now applauded we haven't taken strong steps to crackdown. Protect citizens, especially the millions of innocents, caught in the crossfire. Those gun nuts, who live for the right to bear arms, might wake up if they lost a family member or friend from a stay bullet. What good is your constitutional right then?

    June 4, 2009 at 3:06 pm |
  53. BJ, Columbus, GA

    No apolgy here - I'm an extremist I guess. I think every city should ban handguns!

    June 4, 2009 at 3:09 pm |
  54. Steve, NY

    No they should not. I understand that based on experience in Washington, DC which did not allow hand guns, the murder rate from hand guns was the highest in the nation. The reason was that the victims could not protect themselves. It's always the crimimnals that disobey the law and get all the handguns they want., while the average citizen obeys the law and gets murdered. CNN should do a lot of research on this.

    June 4, 2009 at 3:09 pm |
  55. ROD Chicago

    Banning handguns in Chicago does not keep those guns out of the hands of criminals, only out of the hands of law abiding, tax paying citizens.

    June 4, 2009 at 3:17 pm |
  56. Diane Dagenais Turbide


    Cities have responsibilties to serve and protect all lives; then they need all the tools they need to better serve and better protect all lives even if this tools includes the ban of handguns!

    June 4, 2009 at 3:27 pm |
  57. Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

    Not unless there is a constitutional amendment that reverses or modifies the 2nd amendment. Not that I am for or against banning handguns but the law is the law.

    That said, I believe banning hand guns anywhere or everywhere will have little effect on crime. It is a fact that where concealed carry is legal crime rate drops. Where guns are banned crime increases.

    Please decide and vote with facts and not emotions.

    June 4, 2009 at 3:29 pm |
  58. Irv Lilley

    Jack, Bet you get a lot of responses to this one. Only when people realize that any gun is not the true answer to thier problems , will
    banning hand guns be helpful. I would like to know what the situation is like in England.

    June 4, 2009 at 3:30 pm |
  59. Mike of Hot Springs.

    Why not. Since all of the right wing nuts argue that states should decide everything on their own – what makes this issue diff. One of these days they may realize we are a nation not just a bunch of separate states.

    June 4, 2009 at 3:35 pm |
  60. Rick Medina,OH


    I do not like guns, do not own one, and the last time I fired one I was in summer camp. (Don't ask how long ago that was!) But, I respect the rights of others to choose otherwise.

    As long as you are not nuts, a criminal, a child or spousal abuser, the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to own a gun in your own home for protection. If you do not meet these criteria, the 2nd Amendment gives you nothing. And nothing stops the various States or its proxies from properly controlling the environment of public places.

    This time the courts got it right!

    Rick, Medina, OH

    June 4, 2009 at 3:35 pm |
  61. Lionel Harris, Albany New York

    Should cities like Chicago be allowed to impose a ban? yes! Will it matter? No! The problem is once something is banned, you create an even bigger market for the banned item. ( Think Prohibition, music downloads, drugs, etc). Plus, the moment you start banning weapons in this country, folks will just make a trip down to Mexico and pick up one of our "banned" weapons from there. Condsidering that is where a lot of them are ending up anyway.

    June 4, 2009 at 3:38 pm |
  62. Tom Mytoocents Fort Lauderdale Florida


    No. I think handguns and firearms should be taught in high school and everyone 21 years of age should be required to carry them

    June 4, 2009 at 3:43 pm |
  63. Paul S. Columbia, SC

    If I were stuck living in Chicago I'd carry two guns. Earth to Jack. There's no money to pay police now. Guns should be required to be carried by every adult citizen in full view of everyone else including the bad guys. If you have no criminal record and willingly accept responsibility for your actions; lock and load. At the rate we are going, we all will soon need all the protection we can get.

    June 4, 2009 at 3:45 pm |
  64. I.M. Merican in Merica

    NO WAY! whats next Jack?
    Banning Guns in Schools and Bars?
    Guns don't kill people, People Kill
    The answer is to ban People not guns.
    So Right wing Wacko's should be banned
    from certain cities.

    June 4, 2009 at 3:53 pm |
  65. Charlie in Belen, New Mexico

    I notice that the "ban" has not had much of an effect on street violence and murder in Chicago to date. So, perhaps you can explain to me exactly what is to be gained for the citizens of Chicago if this "ban" on handguns and semi-automatic rifles is upheld... (FYI.. "automatic" weapons, AKA "Machine Guns" are illegal under Federal law..... It is very distracting for the reader when you use incorrect descriptive terms.)

    June 4, 2009 at 3:53 pm |
  66. Jay in Texas

    Banning handguns has been a policy that towns and cities have been doing since the 1870s when our little central Texas town's leaders banned six-guns due to gang activity from the likes of John Wesley Hardin on the streets of Brownwood. While I strongly support our constitutional right to "keep and bear arms", there are times when allowing cities to ban handguns is necessary to protect the public and Chicago certainly qualifies in my opinion.
    Brownwood, Texas

    June 4, 2009 at 3:57 pm |
  67. Alan- Buxton, Maine

    Of course they should. I am all in favor of 2nd amendment rights but they do not supersede the rights of cities to provide protection against being gunned down on their streets.

    June 4, 2009 at 3:58 pm |
  68. Pugas-AZ

    For the overall safety of their citizens, yes. The federal goverment should probably stay out of this one. The Chicago police have their hands full just dealing with all the illegal weapons on the streets. They do not need more firepower to face while trying to do their job.

    June 4, 2009 at 3:59 pm |
  69. Tim in Texas

    Hell yes. The right of a six-year old to play outside without getting shot at trumps the rights of some whack-job gun owner any day of the week. Read the dang second ammendment. A 'well-regulated militia being necessary to the sanctity of a free State' is the modern day equivalent of a police department – not a street gang, and not some NRA nut.

    June 4, 2009 at 3:59 pm |
  70. penny

    Absolutely..and when someone breaks into your home and murders your family , you will find comfort knowing at least you followed the law.

    June 4, 2009 at 4:02 pm |
  71. Pablo in Tejas

    Hey Jack,
    Local Option, Referendum, Will o' the People, you know... Democracy?
    if it can work for the knuckle dragging, gun toting, slug nutties it can also work against 'em!
    Power to the People, Bra! Right on!

    Arlington Texas

    June 4, 2009 at 4:07 pm |
  72. Jim, from Las Vegas

    What is unclear in the wording of the 2nd Ammendment? The right to bear arms is a fundamental right given to every citizen of the United States. One has only to read Jefferson on this point to understand the purpose for having the 2nd Ammendment. The fact that this right was placed second in line to only the right to free speech and the freedom from religion in government should speak volumes.

    June 4, 2009 at 4:08 pm |
  73. dave

    No the 2nd amendment give us the right to own guns but putting restrictions on the way they are used in the city limits is OK.

    June 4, 2009 at 4:09 pm |
  74. odessa

    yes!.children are getting killed everyday as well adults.i believe that law officers should have guns because nobody isn't doing a serious background check on people especially if they have mental problems or damage criminal record.something has to be done because we are losing too many lives for nothing.i do believe in gun rights but i want guns falling into the worng hands.have we learned anything yet?no!

    June 4, 2009 at 4:11 pm |
  75. Jerry: Alpharetta, GA

    Does anyone really think that criminals carry legally registered hand guns? Cities and States must not have the right to limit the powers that are granted by the Constitution to each and every citizen. If you want to keep law biding citizens from carrying hand guns, eliminate Article Two of the Constitution. Until then, keep your hands off my gun.

    June 4, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  76. Jerry Jacksonville, Fl.

    Yes they should,then maybe not they may need a gun to protect themselves against the bunch of idiots from the NRA that think they should be allowed to carry a .50 caliber machine gun around with them.

    June 4, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  77. Richard-Arkansas

    They should absolutely be able to set the rules. One of their main responsibilities is public safety.

    The NRA won't be happy until everyone carries a Uzi openly to church (and that will be when a lot of us will stop going). If the Republicans want to make an issue of this then remove the "no guns" requirement for the House and the Senate gallery.

    June 4, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  78. CJ in Roanoke, VA

    No city should be allowed to ban any type of firearm, including handguns. Criminals do not follow the laws, so only the law abiding will be disarmed. The 2nd Amendment is an individual right, just like the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights. What part of "shall not infringe" don't you get? Law abiding citizens should be allowed to have guns period.

    June 4, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  79. Paul Pettipas

    Absolutely! I applaud Chicago and its stance. As long as there are no national parks within city boundaries, then it'd get even more complicated.

    Prince Edward Island, Canada

    June 4, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  80. CM

    Yes, and the rest of the U.S. should follow their example. We are all aware that gun violence is OUT OF CONTROL. Unfortunately, nothing is being done about it. More and more deaths are resulting in gun violence, and in Chicago, the youth are severely affected. But hey, the NRA demands that gun ownership is their right, then I think they should be held responsible in some way.

    June 4, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  81. Martin in Shoreline, WA

    Absolutely not. The Second Amendment is national law. Feel free to enact laws to keep criminals and psychos from owning guns. That is perfectly constitutional. But feel threatened by any government who wishes to disarm you. They are simply trying to scare you into giving up your rights.

    I don't care if there are drive by shootings. Legalize drugs, and you will stop most of those tragedies from happening. I don't care if someone accidentally shoots themselves. It is Darwinism at work. That may sound harsh to the empathetic, but it is true.

    Anyone who thinks that outlawing guns will make us safer is a moron. If a criminal wants a gun, they will get it regardless of any laws. After all, the nature of the criminal mind is to break the law. Does any sane person really think they will acknowledge a ban on guns?

    June 4, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  82. Rich from Toronto

    Absolutely, especially if they think it will result in less deaths. Look, in Canada we have strict gun control. Yes, we have random shootings now and again with the use of an illegal firearms. But if we compare the death tolls of major U.S cities versus large Canadian cities, you'll find that American cities look like a blood bath. Don't get me wrong, I'm a true supporter of your "right to bear arms" in the United States Constitution, but I think now, in our times, people are just plain taking advantage of that law. That right was for a different time, and a different type of people.

    June 4, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  83. Steve of Hohenwald TN.

    Yes! Jack, i am a country boy that likes to hunt once in a while. I own 4 hunting rifles and keep them locked away when not in use. Even the best of us are capable of doing something stupid when enraged, but by useing our head, and taking time to cool down, we can spare ourselfs any regret. A concealed handgun can turn a good man into a murderer in a hartbeat. It`s not the bad people we have to worry about so much, the`re going to be bad with, or without handguns. Who we have to worry about is ourselfs.

    June 4, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  84. Chad from Los Angeles, CA

    If it actually and substantially reduces gun violence, then YES! If no, then the law should be reversed. Let time decide, not some NRA backed Federal Court.

    June 4, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
  85. Jan - Lancaster, PA

    No. It is a Constitutional right. What could be done is to amend the laws at the state & national levels to eliminate all acquisition/background check/gun show loopholes, require waiting periods in order to acquire the weapons, in Metropolitan areas, require licenses to carry firearms (handguns) which also would require weapons handling and weapons related law training prior to the issuance of a license to carry firearms.

    June 4, 2009 at 4:25 pm |
  86. Agnes from Scottsdale, AZ

    Jack: The right to bear arms is a protected privilege of being a US citizen. The licensing and registration of hand gunds is another story. Why not require all guns not only to be registered, but also be renewed each year similiar to cars? The "bad guys" will always find a way around this, but in these very difficult times, with the incidence of violence rising, it may prevent some unfortunate circumstances from occuring.

    June 4, 2009 at 4:26 pm |
  87. LS

    The gun ban is nothing but window dressing to appease the anti gun crowd. Taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens accomplishes absolutely nothing. No proposal has ever been put on the table addressing the real issue:getting guns out of the hands of criminals.

    June 4, 2009 at 4:28 pm |
  88. Dan, Chantilly VA

    By our current interpretation of the Second Amendment, this law sounds unconstitutional. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a ban on handguns, but sometimes the law is the law and you just have to suck it up.

    June 4, 2009 at 4:29 pm |
  89. Adam Thousand Oaks, CA

    This is crazy. City and States and not allowed to restrict rights granted by the Constitution. Likewise, they cannot pass a law restricting someone's free speech. That will most certainly be overturned by the Supreme Court. On the otherhand, the law itself is ridiculous. Why would you take lawabiding citizen's weapons, when you know the criminals will not give up their's? Are those people supposed to just hope that in an emergency the 911 call is responded to in time before their family is killed? I don't trust anything coming out of Chicago.

    June 4, 2009 at 4:32 pm |
  90. Russ in PA

    No, they should not have such a right. Citizens are provided the right to bear arms. End of story.

    June 4, 2009 at 4:36 pm |
  91. Sherri--Illinois

    Absolutely not Jack! Chicago is a perfect example of the strict gun laws NOT solving the crime & murder rates hikes that this major city has been having for the pass several years and that includes almost 40 school kids killed so far this year!. 2nd Amendment entitled us the the right to have guns to protect ourselves & family. Funny how the Politicians live in their GATED communities & has the audacity to tell everyone esle they can't bear arms via the 2nd Amendment.

    June 4, 2009 at 4:38 pm |
  92. Ed Reed

    Yes, but they won't be allowed to. Conservatives championed states' rights over desegregation, but when it comes to guns they want the Federal Government to intercede. Well, fair is fair. Guns should be allowed in Congress, the Supreme Court, churces, schools, day care centers and bars. What could possibly happen?

    June 4, 2009 at 4:41 pm |
  93. Thom Richer

    I am not sure if banning handguns is the answer to their crime problems. I do think making it illegal for anyone to carry concealed weapons in the city may help. Not issueing concealed weapon permits in the city and banning the carrying of a concealed handgun with a mandatory prison sentence for doing so, may be a better way to go. But what the hell, one can carry a handgun is State Parks. I think Chicago may be a little more dangerous. But I could be wrong.

    Thom Richer
    Negaunee, MI

    June 4, 2009 at 4:42 pm |
  94. Michael McDowell from Ft Hood Texas

    Jack, that is like saying should Calcutta be allowed to ban cows?? The premise is not so much what should be done, but what can be done? A gun free zone in Chicago?? Al Capone is uncontrollably laughing at the thought!!

    June 4, 2009 at 4:45 pm |
  95. Mike, Syracuse, NY

    No Jack. Criminals would still have them, so the only ones unarmed will be law abiding citizens. Besides, why wouldn't the DC ruling apply nationwide?

    June 4, 2009 at 4:45 pm |
  96. LDR in Central Texas

    Absolutely. Didn't sheriffs ban guns in some of the rougher towns during the 1800s? And lord knows some of our cities are pretty rough at times. At least ban all weapons that are more deadly than those used by the average police officer.

    June 4, 2009 at 4:48 pm |
  97. John in Santa Barbara

    Just try to enforce that one. They have a better chance of banning sex and drugs. If it helps them round up bad guys, okay, but on New Years Eve in Chicago, I'll hide under my bed when the guns go off.

    June 4, 2009 at 4:48 pm |
  98. Jeff C in CT

    The guns of America help keep us free and safe!! Everywhere!

    If a gun ban happens, will all the street gangs and thugs turn in their weapons Jack!! Heck NO!!!!!!!!!!!

    Criminals will have an even better chance! At least now they never know who owns a gun!!

    Jeff in New Britain, Ct

    June 4, 2009 at 4:48 pm |
  99. Angela, Kentucky

    I am so sick of the NRA and the destruction of lives their ever loving sickness for guns creates.

    June 4, 2009 at 4:50 pm |
  100. Roy Tacoma WA

    Gee, Jack
    I remember a couple movies where Sheriff John Wayne didn't allow guns in town and collected them!

    This happened in real life in many towns. If the citizens of a municipality vote to exclude guns from their town I think they should be allowed to. After all they enact anti-noise, anti-dog waste, and anti-nuisance laws.

    Roy from Tacoma

    June 4, 2009 at 4:51 pm |
  101. Roland(St George,UT)

    Yes and No. Cities should be allowed to prohibit carrying a handgun (except in some circumstances). But citizens should still be allowed to own/possess them within the confines of their own residence for self protection. That is, if someone breaks in with the intent to harm or kill, you have the right to pull out the handgun to protect yourself. Hopefully, the sight of the gun will deter the criminal and he/she will flee your residence without you having to pull the trigger. But if your life is in danger inside of your own residence, you should be allowed to protect yourself, and hopefully with a shot to a major limb to incapacitate rather than kill the intruder/attacker until law enforcement gets there.

    As an aside, I'd like to say, I think the private ownership of assault rifles should be prohibited. Nobody has a need to own or use one unless you are actually in the military or as part of law enforcement.

    (Roland/St George, UT)

    June 4, 2009 at 4:52 pm |
  102. steve in scappoose or

    Does anyone REALLY think that banning handguns in Chicago is going to slow down crime? The old phrase, "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" comes to mind.
    This ban is obviously aimed at the criminals and bad boys of society, so how is the government of Chicago going to sell them on the idea?
    I would like to point out Prohibition and the ban on marijuana as examples of well thought out bans by government.
    Think this one through Chicago, I bet you have better places to waste your time.

    June 4, 2009 at 4:54 pm |
  103. Brian in Phoenix, AZ

    Of course not. How would 'da boys' give my pizza joint satisfactory 'protection', then?

    June 4, 2009 at 4:56 pm |
  104. Allen in Hartwell GA

    Jack, at the risk of sounding like a liberal I would say yes. I own a semiautomatic 22 rifle. I have it for a varmint gun since I live in the country, but one thing I learned in 22 years in the military was how to defend myself and my own if I have to. I also saw combat in Vietnam so I wouldn't have the problem many people face the first time they think they might have to use a gun against another person.
    Chicago should be able to ban handguns and any other easily hidden, or assault weapon, as long as the people can have some type of weapon, like my 22 rifle.

    June 4, 2009 at 4:59 pm |
  105. legal gun owner

    No Jack. Cities should not be allowed to outlaw handguns. We've seen it over and over again. Denying legal, law-abiding people the right to own handguns ONLY empowers the criminals who will still obtain guns for the sole purpose of committing crime. Law abiding citizens, who the criminals know will be unarmed, will be sitting ducks. We saw this in New Orleans after Katrina, we've seen it in DC. Cities like Chicago should start looking at the more enlightened places, like Arizona, where the Legislature is starting to loosen restrictions on guns. The reality is, the vast majority of gun crimes are not committed by legal gun owners, they're committed by criminals who obtain their guns without going through proper channels. That will never change.

    Legal gun owner, Phoenix

    June 4, 2009 at 5:00 pm |
  106. Jefferson -TN

    Absolutely not. When will we as Americans stand up and limit our government (local, state and federal) rather than allow our government to continue to limit us?

    June 4, 2009 at 5:03 pm |
  107. Missy

    And how is that Chicago law working out Jack? It would be nice to see a good investigative piece analyzing whether gun crimes have been reduced in Chicago since the law went into effect. Have gun-related homicides become a thing of the past in Chicago? How was the murder rate impacted by taking handguns away from people who want them only to protect themselves? Have criminals left Chicago or are they thriving there now that guns are not allowed? I'd love to see CNN do a real story about this, backed up by statistics and examples of how Chicago has become more safe/less safe since this law went into effect.


    June 4, 2009 at 5:08 pm |
  108. Mari, Salt Lake City, Utah

    Yes, but NRA will fight 'hand to hand' if necessary to prevent that from ever happening! Sad to say.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:08 pm |
  109. Kevin in CA

    An outright ban on all handguns would seem to be incongruous with a fair and equal application of Federal law.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:11 pm |
  110. Karen - Missouri

    The law sounds fair enough. Our forefathers didn't know what a semi-automatic weapon was...a lot different than muskets, I'm sure. For those who don't like the law...leave them on a dark street corner to fend for themselves.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:12 pm |
  111. Kinomfer

    No, guns are needed to protect oneself. It's America still, is it not?

    North Suburbs
    Chicago, Illinois.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  112. Christine from Ocean City, MD

    Yes, absolutely! States' rights are important for reasons just like this-Chicago is not Wyoming. Different laws are reasonable in different places. That's why the Constitution must always be considered a living, adaptable document.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
  113. Bruce

    Absolutely not. The word abridge means to "curtail or shorten". The second Amendment can no Constitutionally have any additional laws limiting or modifying it under any conditions.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
  114. Drake from Shongaloo,La

    No Jack, they shouldn't be allowed to. For one, a handgun may be the only thing that protects you from death. Yes, it may be the weapon used in a killing or robbery occasionally, but really, banning handguns in a large city will do nothing to help. The people who abide by the law, of course wouldn't have them. But a criminal doesn't care. It's illegal to rob a bank, but they do it. The only thing it would do would be cause many (more) cases in court, and many upset residents.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:16 pm |

    No. After the ban, "only the criminals will own guns". Seven Eleven are you ready for the mad rush of gun toting idiots.
    This ban should not even be an issue, whether its Chicago or not. In the end when all states in our nation take our guns from us, we just became a weaker nation, not only in the eyes of criminals that arrive at our door step within, but from our enemies abroad.
    Not to mention our Gov't being all powerful with it's thumb upon us, and us having no recourse but to submit.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
  116. Ralph Spyer chicago Il

    Jack I live in Chicago we have more children killed last year by handguns then military killed in Iraq. Oh don"t get me wrong I still carry a base ball bat in my car.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
  117. Rob Garraway

    On Chicago's gun ban. As a Canadian I can only hope this law is upheld. And add my hope that this is only the beginning.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  118. Franky, Land of Lincoln

    Say what? Hey Jack, we are tired pf everybody looking at us differently, what's so different about us than...New York or L.A? Last time I checked, they got double the population and if you wanna pick on us, then do me a favor and don't be bias, will you?

    Listen, I don't like guns and quite frankly, if you look at our constitution, it it says we are created equal but also created differently, huh? What I'm saying is you can't get to A to C if you have people in the middle between you...ohh yeah, morons!!!

    In my opinion, if you need a gun, then quite frankly, God don't like you and I have evidence and if you're gonna give me that crap, then say it to the lord...you can't have it both ways, you don't do that to me.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
  119. Curtis R. Campbell

    My wife has the right idea regarding the right to possess handguns. Give everyone handguns but let their Mothers keep the bullets. When Mom dies they lose their gun. They should have taken better care of her.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:20 pm |
  120. Lynn, Columbia, Mo..

    This is the 21st century. I'm sick to death of applying the constitution as it was written in the 1700s. Back then the average survival rate was 45 yrs old. We didn't have to worry about Supreme Court judges getting a lifetime position. They didn't last that long and they didn't have semi-automatic weapons back then. They did have slavery. It's time to evolve. I bet our forefathers would agree.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  121. keith from New Jersey

    I can understand the need for stronger gun laws but the last time I check a city does not have the power to amend ( or change ) the constitution. If the city of Chicago where to ban guns out right than they ( city of Chicago ) would be taken away the 2nd amendment rights that are guranteed to every American reguardless as to where they live . I am a strong supporter of tougher gun laws for as long the law does not over step it's constitutional boundaries.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
  122. David in Germany

    Pure and simple Jack ... YOU'RE DAMNED RIGHT THEY SHOULD !
    There are no more indians hiding in them thar hills – it's 2009.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  123. Mark in OKC

    NO CITY in the United States of America should be able to ban handguns....only certain people should be banned from owning handguns and that is already on the books.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  124. Nancy from Arizona

    Yes, Every city/town in the USA should ban guns/rifles from its citizens, unless they are registered yearly, but this will never happen because there are so many criminals, gang members, etc. that have access to illegal firearms that it makes such a law "impossible to enforce". Every day, there are too many people killed/injured by guns/rifles. When will we learn?

    June 4, 2009 at 5:29 pm |
  125. Scott Stodden

    No Jack the city of Chicago should not be allowed to ban hand guns because that would go against the 2nd Ammendment would'nt it Jack? However look at all the problem's Chicago has had all these past years. With all the murders & gangbanger's in Chicago what else should they do? Here's my answer Mayor Daley, ban all current semi automatic weapons except for military and other law enforcement and goverment personnel like the law currently is and make it a law where anyone who wants to purchase any handguns or any other weapons to go through a background check and register there guns or weapons with the police. Jack what is so hard about this this isnt high school why cant these politicans just get it right and this Jack is how you reduce crime.

    Scott Stodden (Freeport, IL)

    June 4, 2009 at 5:31 pm |
  126. Jasmine in Germany

    The US is ranked as having the 7th highest homicide with weapons rate in the world (Zimbabwe is 6th) and Chicago is one of the worst examples in the country. The NRA should be ashamed of themselves for putting monetary greed above human life. We don't live in the 18th Century, Jack. The only reason the US would need a militia these days is if aggressive aliens would land in everyone's back yard.

    I dare not reveal the annual homicide rates of Chicago compared to other whole countries, you'd fall off your chair. Tighter control is needed, not just for the big cities, but for the whole country. Some States just make it too easy (there's that "greed" issue again). Automatic weapons (and hand guns) in the streets of cities, not to mention being used by children in schools, does not make sense in any civilized society.

    Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, it is a very small country (landlocked) and has a real militia (formally trained), structured to respond to international aggression. Guns (army issued) are not allowed to be carried in public. And the government recently took the ammunition away, because there were suicide cases involving the guns. So, if the Swiss militia is alerted to take stance, they've got to go to the town vault and show their i.d. first. Switzerland knows that aliens are unlikely to make a surprise attack, aliens tend to go to places where "there is no intelligent life".

    June 4, 2009 at 5:32 pm |
  127. Gigi

    YES, Chicago one of the most corrupt cities in America. If they want to live in a safe city.
    Only when people feel safe will they travel to large cities. Remember New York and Washington DC. When we went there we were cautioned not to walk around the streets at night. That's enough to send you home fast.
    It would be nice to raise your kids in a world that your youth could feel safe. And not worry that some nut might kill you because they like to take matters into their own hands. Shoot first ask questions latter.
    Hand guns are not part of my sports or vacation equipment.


    June 4, 2009 at 5:33 pm |
  128. Dee in FL

    What will it take for people to understand that banning GUNS is not now and never has been the answer!!!

    Honest, law-abiding people do not use their guns in crimes.

    It is CRIMINALS who do so, and the better course would be to ban CRIMINALS. But, by their very nature that is not possible. And a criminal would pay absolutely no attention to a ban on guns, that is what CRIMINALS do, they ignore laws!

    To stop the violence and crime associated with guns we need to eliminate the incentives to use guns. And that is also probably not possible.

    But banning guns is not the answer.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:34 pm |
  129. Lynn - NC

    I think the only ones that should be able to ban handguns, are the people. If the people votes for such a ban then yes. But for politicians and judges that get elected by the people , then go pursue their own agendas should not be allowed to change the constitution and take freedoms away from the people. Today, they seem to spend our money without asking and now they want to take away our right to defend ourselves.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:35 pm |
  130. eddie rebb

    Jack is off on the gun issue.I sure the criminals in corrupt chicago love jacks point of view,they love unarmed victims.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:35 pm |
  131. Alex in Boulder

    Perhaps a more extensive background check and application process should be enacted to allow people to carry these weapons. I would hate to see a crisis situation where just the gangsters and police had automatic/semi-automatic weapons.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:39 pm |
  132. Ralph Nelson

    Absolutely ! Look at Mexico and the government versus drug dealer war. And who is selling them the AK-47's and AR-15's? You want that in America? Even in the war for two years all I had was an M-1 carbine. Citizens should be allowed to hold rifles and normal guns for self-defense in cities and in rural areas for hunting, not assault rifles, semi-automatic rifles, automatic pistols, rifles convertible to automatic rifles, and machine guns. These weapons did not exist in 1776. But as long as there is an NRA and GOP this well continue. It's called "money". Ralph, Yakima, Wa.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:39 pm |
  133. Allen in Hartwell GA

    June 4th, 2009 4:59 pm ET
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Jack, at the risk of sounding like a liberal I would say yes. I own a semiautomatic 22 rifle. I have it for a varmint gun since I live in the country, but one thing I learned in 22 years in the military was how to defend myself and my own if I have to. I also saw combat in Vietnam so I wouldn’t have the problem many people face the first time they think they might have to use a gun against another person.
    Chicago should be able to ban handguns and any other easily hidden, or assault weapon, as long as the people can have some type of weapon, like my 22 rifle.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:41 pm |
  134. John/Jack hopkins

    Maybe it is because that the major players in the Republican party view the two bafoond as stupd asswholes; to tone it down if we would have a chance next time.

    Jack/John MIL Ret.
    Chino, Hills, CA

    June 4, 2009 at 5:41 pm |
  135. Linda in Arizona

    If cities can ban handguns, then they can be banned everywhere. I'm not a gun nut, but I would NOT like to see that happen. I believe when only the government has guns we are all at risk. I never felt the necessity of owning a gun until cheneybush took over and made me fear my own government.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:41 pm |
  136. Chris D., NYC

    Of course they should!! You can’t place rural, & country areas, in the same league that the urban cities of America live in. The realities of crimes w/ assault weapons in the inner cities are grieveous……and must be stopped or slowed down.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:45 pm |
  137. Mike in Albuquerque,NM

    Bat Masterson banned guns in Dodge City KS. Henenforced it with Wyatt Earp and other famed lawmen by beating cowboys over the head with billyclubs and siezing their guns.
    For those that think that gun possesion is somehow part of American western culture, this would verify that the government can and will sieze your weapons with any force neccessary. Libertarians have NO precident to suggest otherwise.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:46 pm |
  138. andyz Lynn, MA

    Is there any way to supercede the Bill of Rights? Not at the city level. Enforcing the laws that are already on the books should be a step in the right direction. (See Immigration Laws and illegal aliens.)

    June 4, 2009 at 5:47 pm |
  139. Gary in Lexington


    I have not, do not and never will own a gun. However, I believe any responsible person, the operative word being responsible, has the absolute right to own a non-automatic handgun or rifle. Conversely, we must pass laws that totally eliminate all semi and fully automatic weapons. The penalties need to be so strict, that if you are caught with one and convicted, you go to prison for life without parole. Extreme, of course, but you get my point. These types of weapons have no "practical or logical" place in any home or on any person, especially the "bad guys".


    June 4, 2009 at 5:50 pm |
  140. bob

    Drug dealers and criminals are going to be the only ones owning handguns in chicago. SOME not all criminals, just some, really will and do kill no matter what.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:51 pm |
  141. V Feacher

    Allow the people to decide. They know their situation better than anyone else does.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:51 pm |
  142. Bob D, Morrisown, NJ

    Cities should absolutely be allowed to ban weapons whose sole purpose is to shoot people, and to regulate (require registration) of other firearms. We accept restrictions of how much noise or cars produce and how fast they may be driven etc. for the public good, the same should be true for firearms, whose access to the public is constitutionally guaranteed within the context of a "well regulated militia" (i.e. National Guard). I would go further and require anyone who owns a firearm to first demonstrate their ability to handle one safely, as is done in all states for driver's licenses. Firearms are at least as hazardous as motor vehicles.

    However, I doubt the Supreme Court that selected "W" as president will see this issue the way I do. 🙁

    June 4, 2009 at 5:52 pm |
  143. Erica from New York

    No way! Not as long as I live in a country with a Second Amendment as a part of its Constitution. Of course, politicians love to pick and choose which parts of that document are politically expedient to support and follow, so I shouldn't be surprised that the liberals in government want to gloss over this incredibly important right of mine.

    June 4, 2009 at 5:54 pm |
  144. Brian McGinnis

    If Chicago is able to misinterpret and limit the freedoms gauranteed by the 2nd Amendment, than it will not be long until cities try the same thing with the 1st Amendment and the 3rd and 4th and on and on we go until the Constitition is meaningless and your freedoms are gone. Remember that in every country that outlawed guns the crime rate doubled since the only ones that had guns were criminals.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:01 pm |
  145. Jeff in Houston

    Unfortunately, I have to say yes. Every year I see more firearms being horded by just the very nut case people that should not have them at all. We need to change the constitution to state something like: The right of EDUCATED AND MENTALLY STABLE citizens to have guns. Pretty soon, we will need all the protection we can get from the Bubba's of this world.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:07 pm |
  146. Joseph Leff

    Handguns and automatic rifles are absolutely needed within Chicago's city limits. How else can you shoot the deer which are tearing apart the city?

    Joe, Delray Beach, Florida

    June 4, 2009 at 6:09 pm |
  147. Conor in Chicago

    The problem is illegal guns, not legal ones.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:09 pm |
  148. Leef

    No way! How does a city have the right to tell me what to do? Would it be proper for them to say you can not have a Coke in the city limits?

    June 4, 2009 at 6:11 pm |
  149. Noel in Nashville, TN


    Ultimately, the question is a constitutional one. But isn't it funny how the conservative right is interested in a literal reading of the constitution until it gets to the phrase "for the purposes of a well regulated militia".

    June 4, 2009 at 6:11 pm |
  150. Jeff, Atlanta, GA

    With laws like this, are you protecting 2nd amendment rights, or are you trying to protect the people inside a city. Cities have a much larger population density, which means accidents will happen alot more often. So where do you draw the line? Allow people in cities to own handguns, and risk many more deaths because of them, or ban them and have Lou Dobbs get angry. Kidding, Lou, you're helping to protect alot of our rights. So Jack, the question is, "Should people in cities that allow handguns be responsible for any accidents?"

    June 4, 2009 at 6:11 pm |
  151. Jerry

    NO!!! The only people that this hurts are the law abiding citizens that want a handgun to PROTECT

    June 4, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  152. Ever


    What you have to remember, Jack, is that killers don't obey the law to begin with. If someone is planing to kill a person, the last thing on his mind is if its legal or not to have a handgun. The only people this hurts are those that follow the law, the law abiding gun owner.

    Banning handguns isn't the solution, criminals will get them one way or the other

    after all, they are criminals!

    -Brooklyn, New York

    June 4, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  153. David from Winnipeg


    For the love of God, YES!!

    All those poor children dying at the hands of scumbags with guns is just too much for me to take... I can't believe this is even an issue.

    The N.R.A. should go make their case to the parents of these dead children!

    June 4, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  154. Tom Spencer

    No...If this is allowed to stand it will prompt another constitutional convention to clarify an individual's right to "keep and bear arms".

    June 4, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  155. Christopher Miller

    Jack, What a bad idea, I wonder if the gangs in chicago are going to comply with this law?

    June 4, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  156. Hewe

    No level of government should be allowed to infringe on the right to bear arms. It is the only defense against tyrannical government.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  157. Becky In Chicago

    I remember when that ban went into effect. It was meant to curtail gang violence. It worked to some effect, other cities have had the same results without the ban. I want my right to arms granted to me under the 2nd amendment violated. Chicagoans deserve the same rights as everyone else. I really hope they over turn this at the supreme court level.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:12 pm |

    Jack, I travel asia especially China. No one can own or posses a gun. Murder rate 1 in 300,000 US 2 in 5,000- As an ex police officer, it was the house owners gun taken from home owner that kiiled the home ownr.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  159. Will from South Carolina

    Jack, are you really asking this question? I believe it was about 36 school kids who have been killed by gunshots over a very short period of time. Of course if the swine flu had done this, people would be all "oh it's a pandemic", though nobody seems to care about even making gun laws more secure.not only that, but the fact that people are actually OPPOSING the actual sane law to not allow guns within city limits is crazy. You'd think it was the whole state, but just city limits. Seriously I know the whole guns don't kill people card, but people kill people WITH guns.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  160. Durran

    In a word...YES. There should be a national ban on ALL guns, with some exceptions, like military personnel, and law enforcement. The second amendment was written for its time. The Gun corporations have totally exploited it.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  161. David

    Absolutely NOT. It is a duty of all americans to bear arms for defense of self and state!
    Dushore, PA

    June 4, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  162. Demarcus Jackson from Columbia, TN

    Yes! Chicago's violent crime rate is through the roof and cities with similar crime rates should have the option to ban handguns, which only contribute to the violent incidents. America's obsession with guns is obscene, and I am sick and tired of the NRA and their supporters broadly interpreting the 2nd Amendment.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  163. Kathy

    Yes. The Supreme Court has said that states can have militias.
    That doesn't specifically say that individuals can have their own guns. Chicago has a difficult situation with shooting victims. if prohibiting guns within city limits can save lives, Chicago and other cities should be allowed to prohibit guns.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  164. Jerry

    NO!! The only people that this law hurts are the law abiding citizens that want a handgun to protect their PROPERTY and LIFE. The criminals and thugs don't care, they are going to carry whatever type of firearm they wish, when they wish and where they wish. Laws like this only serve to help criminals.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  165. Bill, Chicago

    The right to bear arms is in plain English in our Constitution. All laws are subject to the Constitution. All they are doing is disarming law biding citizens. The criminals will always find a way to arm themselves illegally. I have a right to my life and to defend my life and that of my family. I guess I'm a criminal whenever I go into the city.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  166. Michael Mabouka

    too many guns = permanent murder waves

    June 4, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  167. Jason Uhlmann

    Of course not. The right to defend oneself and their property is a basic right, guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Statistics in states with concealed carry all have lower violent crime rates – can we assume that Chicago is enjoying its notorious high crime rate? Or is this yet another example of corruption in the Windy City?

    Jason U.
    Mason City, IA

    June 4, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  168. MQu

    Yes, Yes, then Yes again. The cause of most misery has been the ownership of guns. Its time some civilized human beings start exerting control of gun ownership. What good can come out of owning and carrying guns within city limits? Answers like "its our right" are simply retarded and stupid. Has nobody else noticed how they always fall into the wrong hands? If this makes us even slightly safer, then its justified.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  169. Antonio from Chicago

    Regardless of the constitutionality of the law, this ban should be kept in place! Chicago is a dangerous city with a very high homicide rate. I can only imagine that it will be worst if this ban is lifted. It's Chicago–everyone knows the politicans do what they want!

    June 4, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  170. Donna Wildcat

    Are you kidding me?
    No! They should not be allowed to hinder our federal right supported by the second amendment.
    However if it is going to be tramped on, I would rather it be at the State level. Then at least I have the option to move.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  171. Adam, Va

    If anyone even considered answering yes to this question, they cannot believe in the constitution. If you start in Chicago, then who is going to stop the government from banning guns anywhere they choose.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  172. Jeff in Houston

    Just what we need. An arms race INSIDE America.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  173. Markus Dorst

    Bonn, Germany

    YES – as it seems to be impossible to win against the NRA and other gun lobbyists on federal level, this might be the only way to get rid of large numbers of fire arms. Here in Germany and in many other western countries the average citizen can not own a gun – and guess what – less people get shot!!! (Be it by accident or intention). The times that Americans had to travel the trail by horse wagon and needed guns to shoot Indians or Gangsters should be over – trust your law enforcement.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  174. Mike from Chicago

    In Chicago the police can shoot you while on duty/off duty, drunk, and pistol wipe their wives. Remember the rule, you can't testify against those bad off duty police officers after they shoot you to death and their fellow officers cover it all up and plant the weapon. You should have the right to bear arms.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  175. Andrew... miami

    Criminals will get weapons whether legal or illegal, taking the right away from citizens will only be an advantage to the criminals.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  176. Ryan, Richmond VA

    Absolutely! Chicago should ban hand guns. I went to college in Chicago and had one drawn on me, among other violent acts. Whatever that city can do – with ALL the other ways (that are still legal) to inflict harm on innocent citizens – to curtail hand guns in the city. The violence is rampant, and as to the "what if" about Sotomayor being on the Supreme Court by the time this case comes up, I say, uphold the ban!

    June 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  177. Kelly B.

    Yes they should. Law enforcement pay the price for the NRA and gun nuts, who think every child born should go home with a car seat and a gun.
    I am tired of the chicken politicians who are afraid to take a stand on gun deaths in this country.
    I live near Baltimore city, we know a thing or two about gun deaths. Common sense gun laws, closing the flea market loop hole for registration is not taking guns away from lawful owners.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  178. Stuart Broderick

    I am a vetran with a house full of guns and am currently looking to buy a new deer rifle. That said, I believe that it is the duty of the local governments, not their right to regulate gun posession. What part of the term "well regulated milita" is beyond the comprehension of the NRA?

    June 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  179. Thile

    The supreme court has already ruled that you have the right to own a gun for self defense. They used that ruling to overturn DC's law – why is chicago so special that they can avoid a supreme court ruling?

    Also, for those who are for bans like this, I have a question.
    How's that ban working out in terms of stopping gun crime in Chicago?

    June 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  180. Ashante

    As a resident of Chicago I ask those gun rights advocates that are standing up for the NRA what about the kids we loss so far? Chicago leads the nation in children deaths due to violence. The NRA should be helping in this effort not hindering. I applaud Mayor Daley continuing the fight for the residents of Chicago.


    Chicago, Il

    June 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  181. Marylyn Bowman

    Yes! They have to do something to save their children. Do you know how many school age children in Chicago die from gun violence every year? It's an epidemic!!!!!!!!

    June 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  182. Philip Morehead

    Yes. In fact, individual gun ownership should be banned throughout the country. The only use for a gun is to kill, which should say it all. Killing animals for sport is murder, just as killing people is. And individual ownership of guns for protection is just as likely to result in harm to the owner as to result in his/her protection.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  183. Fred Garvin

    Your question is missing 2 words at the end..."from criminals".

    June 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  184. karloce

    Yes, Chicago should be allowed to ban handguns. It is one of the biggest cities. Cities this size should be allowed to ban handguns. Unfortunately, handguns are not always used for defense purposes. People end up using handguns for suicide, murderies, etc. Therefore,
    a city this size should be allowed to ban handguns for the good of their own citizens.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  185. John, Fort Collins, CO

    No one in government should even be allowed to say the word "gun". The horse has been out of the barn for over two centuries, with hundreds of millions of guns out and about in the country. A stupid law like this will only inflame the masses to go out and buy another hundred million for fear they can't have them. Amen.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  186. Hewe

    The right to bear arms came from the founding fathers need to stop the British empire from enslaving them. Now the International bankers have HiJacked the US government and police, they want to disarm the individual.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  187. Ken

    Let me tell you, Jack...as a peace officer in this city, I think it is obsurd to not allow people the right to conceal carry. Thugs know no bounds, therefore, it affects them not. Violence here is on the rise, the police are short-handed and the populace is caught in the middle. The mayor has and phalanx of armed guards,but professes "it safe here". Here is advice that citizens everywhere will benefit from: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

    June 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  188. Russ Brown

    Not only do states or cities not have the constitutional rights to further restrict our freedoms but it has been proven repeatedly that these laws do nothing to curb crime. Instead statics shows that these laws almost always accompany higher crime rates! Maybe Chicago should actualy turn their focus to the criminals!

    June 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  189. tom bennett

    no. that is the reason they have a high crime rate. It has been proven over and over again that states with ccw and allowing citizens to own guns have a lower crime rate.
    retired police officer in Missouri

    June 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  190. Brian C

    No, cities should not be allowed to ban any firearms within their city limits. The various states have the responsibility for setting firearms law and, under the doctrine of supremacy, should set the standard within their borders. The second amendment grants to the *people* the right to keep and bear arms.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  191. Mark F

    Cities like Chicago ABSOLUTELY should be allowed to ban handguns. I'm a big supporter of the Second Amendment, but the Second Amendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms. So buy all the 12-gauge shotguns and 30-06's you like. But there's simply no good reason to own a handgun in the city of Chicago. None whatsoever. Handguns are for committing robberies. If you want to protect your home and your family, there's nothing like the sound of a 12-gauge, double-barreled shotgun getting racked up to send a potential burglar running for the door.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  192. Paul Witter

    Speaking as a Liberal in Washington DC, I do NOT believe handgun bans are constitutional. Nor are these bans useful. Washington DC upheld its ban for years and saw no decrease in violent crime. Chicago is one of the most violent cities in the US. Correlation? There are places in the US where guns are not just allowed-they are mandated! Crime rates in those places are practically zero. I hate to say it but the republicans are right on this one. Take the guns away from law-abiding citizens and suddenly, only criminals have guns.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  193. Jan Winters

    NO!!! NO!!! NO!!! Jack, doesn't the Constitution read that people are allowed to bear arms to protect themselves against the government? I heard nothing about this. What should be banned are the many crazies that are roaming the streets carrying guns that are doing so because some judge commuted their sentence. Too many people in prisons that dont belong there and too many people on the streets that belong in prison. But the citizenry should most certainly be allowed to carry guns. Lets start enforcing and carrying out the laws we have. I could go on but wont take up more space here.....NO again!!

    June 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  194. Floyd Vahalik

    Should Chicago get away with banning hand guns? Hell no.

    The right to keep and bear arms is settled law. This is an end run, and I would hope that Sotomayer would put an end to it.

    I once thought concealed carry laws would lead to carnage, and I was completely wrong. I'm tired of seeing this subject in the news again and again. Gun control nuts, give it a rest.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  195. Craig Goodrich

    Absolutely not! Look at the correlation between anti-gun laws and violent crime. The more a city limits our right to bear arms , the more amount of violent crime there is in that city. The lowest crime areas in the USA have the highest number of gun owners, and the areas with the least amount of gun control has the lowest crime rates.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  196. Alexander Mackenzie

    One point about gun bans. Only the law abiding will pay any heed.
    So, no I do not believe any safety for law abiding folks will be gained.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  197. Mitchell Stillman

    Nothing says self defense like a 12gauge pump shotgun!
    Mitchell Stillman

    June 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  198. Pete MacMahon

    No, not at all. Who are they to be above the constitution?! Remember, when deadly danger is seconds away, the Ch.PD is just minutes away. The protection of my family is my responsibility, first and for most.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  199. connecticutyankee

    Definitely not! As a former police officer, I know that these bans not only have not worked, but never will.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  200. WillieG

    Jack, NO City, County or State has a RIGHT to Ban Firearms...it Infringes on OUR Second Amendment... PERIOD!!!!!!! Respectfully, WillieG

    June 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  201. wzm

    With a crime rate that they have. Glad I don't live there. Remember this Jack, when guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns. I bet the new ordinance is comforting to the numerous street gangs and organized crime syndicates that the city of Chicago is famous for. Home invasions here we go.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  202. Juanita Anderson

    No. Because people should be able to buy a gun for their own personal use

    June 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  203. Willy

    Of course cities should be allowed to ban such weapons because they have to pay for extra law enforcement let alone suffer the economic damage that a reputation for gun violence can bring to a city such as Chicago. In addition to questioning the moral necessity for allowing citizens to possess weapons that are designed specifically to kill large numbers of people with maximum efficiency, for a city it becomes a matter of economics and reputation.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  204. Graham

    Yes, absolutely. It should be in the hands of each state or city to decide whether their environment warrants such a ban. A ban might be good for a large metropolitan city but not be reasonable for a small town. The federal government and the NRA should stay out.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  205. Leon

    no, any form of gun and/or weapons regulation that would restrict the american citizen from defending theirselves from any good or bad government voids the constitutional agreement.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  206. Ben

    Jack, with the economy the way it is, can we really afford to ban gun consumers from spending money? I'm not paranoid enough to buy a handgun, but if you are, be my guest!
    Mason, Ohio

    June 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  207. Ken Tomcich

    Yes - some handguns and other weapons clearly designed and intended to kill adversaries should be banded - registered weapons for sport or defense should be allowed but regulated.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  208. rick caldwell

    This is unconscionable! The right of the people to keep and bear arms is the fundamental guarantor of all other freedoms.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  209. George Fuhrmann

    No, but permits should be subject to an IQ test. So people who would leave a loaded ready to shoot handgun under the pillow in the same room with a two and a three years old could be made ineligible.
    And cities should take IQ tests too. In NYC I could get a license to own a real gun, but can not get a permit to have an air gun. I guess because it looks very much like a real... But then again: I can get a license for a real one...

    June 4, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  210. Amber (San Jose, Ca)

    I agree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of our right to keep and bear arms. And, while at first thought a part of me sympathizes with a community where a majority of the populace may support a ban on firearms (and I don't know how the majority of Chicago citizens feel), I'm not in agreement with the idea that the majority should always rule. I am reminded of why the right to bear arms was made part of the constitution, and how humanity has a way of repeating its mistakes. Perhaps it would be prudent of us to not think we are above needing to protect ourselves from our own mistakes or those of others sometime in the future?

    June 4, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  211. vegage

    They should be allow to ban certain type of guns. I think a person has the right to bear arm but not to become a military force with these type of sophisticated weapons that can be employ in Iraq. That will mean gun control vs. ban of handguns.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  212. Bill in the Alamo City

    Absolutely not! The fact that Chicago is now the murder capitol of the US demonstrates that handgun bans only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Cities with the toughest gun laws like Chicago, New York, and DC have the highest crime rates. What more proof do you need that placating the antigun left solves no problems. Gun laws are a distraction. Get tough on criminals instead!

    June 4, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  213. Sidney W

    Look into gun related killings in Chicago tells the gun ban is really working or not. Compare the numbers before and after the ban. I moved out of Chicago a couple years after the ban knowing that the killings would only increase.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  214. dennis sirman

    Chicago leads the nation in the violent death of cchildren so the current law doesn't seem to be very effective. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What could be more simple? U. S. cities are hot beds of gang violence, rampant drug abuse and the thug culture. Criminals have guns. Law abiding citizens need them too. The police cannot protect you. Their response is usually too litle too late.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  215. Peter J. Canepa

    Lets see, Chicago, no handguns allowed to the law abiding citizens to protect themselves against the thugs that don't give a darn about any laws.

    Oh yes, a real smart decision by a local government run by Mayor Daley that couldn't pass the insurance tests required to be licensed, because, he's STUPID!

    With out his fathers intervention, he would still not be licensed, so, lets see, a stupid decision made by a dumb as crap administration.

    WOW, I wonder what we shoud do to protect ourselves now, throw bricks??

    June 4, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  216. Louis Gewirtz

    This is our Second Amendment right as citizens of this country, to bear arms. That being said, I believe that gun control to law-abiding citizens not convicted of felonies or sex crimes should be allowed to bear arms to protect themselves and to allow for sportsmanship (hunting, match competitions, etc). I can only hope that if this decision stands, that it does not spread to my area. I do not collect weapons or sell them, I only have them for the reasons above. I love my country and it's Constitution, but I believe in this case that Chicago and NYC are moving in the wrong direction. It's certainly a difficult subject, but taking away our freedoms little by little certainly makes me think that we are headed down the wrong path for the future.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  217. Matt, Minneapolis, MN


    The argument behind handgun bans is that it will make people safe. Chicago and DC are case studies in exactly why this isn't the case. Recently there were 7 gun related homicides within 24 hours in the windy city. All handgun bans do is keep guns out of law abiding citizens. Do we really have to rehash the facts over and over again to see that these bans don't work? The Supreme Court has determined that we have the right to bare arms. Enough said.

    Minneapolis, MN

    June 4, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  218. Michael Roepke - Dallas

    A couple of years back I visited my daughter in her College Dorm where I saw notices on the doors stating that it was a felony to bring a handgun on the premise. I then learned that there was a law which allowed any public building post such a notice thereby baring handguns with threat of prosecution. Why shouldn't a city be able to do the same thing?

    June 4, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  219. sergio chavez

    Yes, there are too many weapons everywhere. Specially the semi-automatic and automatic ones that are used by drug cartels in Mexico and other countries.

    Actually all semi and automatic weapons should be outlawed in this country.


    June 4, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  220. Rob

    Jack, I'm a Marine, and I wonder myself why anyone would feel the need to own a automatic or semi-automatic weapon at all? Why are they even sold to the public in the first place?! Hunting rifles, I can understand (and appreciate). Hand guns I'm not so sure about – at least in the Big City. Out on a ranch, or in rural areas may be one thing, but there's no reason to own a firearm for personal protection in the suburbs or within city limits. Remember the Old West when the Sheriff made you relinquish your side-arm when you came into town? I think you were alive then . . .

    Rob in SF, CA

    June 4, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  221. Allen Berfield

    Do cities have a right to ban freedom of speech or freedom of religion? Of course not! We are citizens of the United States of America – NOT of Chicago. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution trump all state and city laws.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  222. Jill

    Yes, absolutely, Chicago has the right and moral duty to ban handguns. Our children above all need protection.
    Also, why use a pinata for a Puerto Rican American judge. Why do you give it space on your program? It shows just how ignorant many Americans are. I'm ashamed.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:20 pm |
  223. Derek Bragdon

    No.Chicago has a higher murder rate than New York or Los Angeles-with a gun ban in place for decades.Such bans only affect the law abiding people willing to comply with them.Violent criminals love such bans because they provide a convenient pool of unarmed victims.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:20 pm |
  224. Ken in NC

    No. If they are allowed to ban hand guns, the crooks will be the only ones with hand guns.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:20 pm |
  225. sunny

    no one should be allowed to carry a gun..guns shoot and kill,,,but alas, what with the nutty right wingers soon we will not only be carrying guns to parks but also to schools and churches....

    June 4, 2009 at 6:20 pm |
  226. karloce

    From Dallas, TX

    Yes, Chicago should be allowed to ban handguns. It is one of the biggest cities. Cities this size should be allowed to ban handguns. Unfortunately, handguns are not always used for defense purposes. People end up using handguns for suicide, murderies, etc. Therefore,
    a city this size should be allowed to ban handguns for the good of their own citizens.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  227. Mo

    Sad and a little scary that the elected officials feel that disarming law abiding citizens makes a city safer. Look at the murder rates in chicago, there is no evidence that gun control does anything but create defenseless victims. Assuming a law is going to be obeyed by criminals is absurd. This decision will only insure criminals have a safe working environment and the law abiding will be at the mercy of those willing to do violence... But it's for there own good of course. More nanny state politics as usual.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  228. Jay

    The answer is no, city and state governments are not exempt from the United States constitution. Should Chicago be able to repress free speech or implement cruel and unusual punishment since the constitution does not apply to them? Perhaps gitmo detainees are safer in Cuba than they are near a US state or city government...

    June 4, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  229. E Knight

    Of course they should Jack. I'm from England and most people here find the American attitude to guns unbelieveable. Why is it that so many Americans refuse to see the correlation between the ownership of guns and gun violence? It is no accident that your society has one of the highest levels of gun crime in the western world. Thinking you need a gun to defend yourself against others with guns is a vicious circle where nobody can win. Please America wake up!

    June 4, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  230. Stan Zimmerman

    Until handguns are taken out of the hands of the bad guys, freedom loving people should be allowed the freedom of protecting themselves. No individual cities should be allowed to circumvent the constitution.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:22 pm |
  231. Richard (Orlando, FL)

    Of course, criminals will obey this ban as well as or even better than law abiding citizens...NOT!!! Decent citizens should have the right to carry concealed handguns for their personal defense. Stop punishing law abiding citizens and go after the real criminals.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:22 pm |
  232. John Okbo

    All arms should be abandoned within citylimits.
    Go back til bow and arrow. Diffycult to hide in your pockets

    John Okbo
    The city of Aarhus,

    June 4, 2009 at 6:22 pm |
  233. Frank B. Fort Worth TX

    Every city is similar but still unique...each with its own set of issues, problems,and cultures and in turn one solution to a problem will not work in every case. Chicago has had a serious problem with gun crimes to the point of requiring "extreme" measures to solve that set of problems.

    In my view the Chicago gun ban does not conflict with the second amendment because it specifies only a gun category at issue and is not a blanket cover banning everything that shoots a projectile.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:22 pm |
  234. Harvey

    Cities (especially Chicago the world renouned mob birthplace and dishonest politics capitol that it is), Local governments, Politicians, just-asses, etc. do not have the authority to remove our rights to keep and bear arms given by the Bill of Rights. It is more and more looking like a time to take up arms to restore the values and rights established by the founders. Just take a look at what happened to crime rates in Australia following their gun confiscation fiasco.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:22 pm |
  235. Sly, Alpena, Mi

    I would think so, I'm a retired Police Officer from NYC, now living in Michigan, and as long as that ban is Exempt for Law Enforcement Officers around the States.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:22 pm |
  236. Jon

    Yes of course they should be allowed to ban handguns, semi and fully automatic weapons! Why would a person in a city possibly want to house a weapon, specifically manufactured for killing large quantities of people? I can appreciate people keeping weapons at gun ranges, or using them in the country. But their is no reason people need to own these sort of weapons and the sooner America loses it's love affair with guns, the better. The Second Amendment states... "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." This is an out dated statement that was aimed at ensuring America's ability to rise up against a government. It is time that America revisited the constitution and updated it to suit today's morale compass. Guns only do one thing in society, which is kill people. Having a bigger gun than someone else does not protect you from violence, in fact it increases the chance of it occurring.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:23 pm |
  237. Nancy, Tennessee

    Chicago may be violating the 2nd Amendment by banning handguns inside the city limits, but the officials there are trying to do whatever it takes to keep the citizens safe. It's a tough call when it comes to taking away rights provided all citizens in the Constitution, but extreme situations call for extreme measures.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:23 pm |
  238. Tyler Johnson

    I can kind of understand how different cities want to ban different types of guns from civilian use, but I believe that any sort of ban hurts both the American manufacturers, the American businesses that sell these firearms and those that have purchased such firearms that wish just to protect themselves. Such gun bans are worse in harder economic times, since more people are going to steal to stay financially afloat. It is also great incentive not to steal, when you know everyone is armed to the teeth.

    While at summer camp in Boy Scouts about 5 years ago, I was told that guns are weapons only when used as such. I also believe that everyone should be able to hold at least one firearm, unless deemed unfit by the justice system because of big crimes so that they could form their own militia if the government's own is unable to respond to a threat in a timely manner.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:23 pm |
  239. SHARON: Anchorage, Alaska

    ABSOLUTELY NOT. How has their gun ban prevented the deadliest year in an American city for school children? What's the number in Chicago now; almost 40 over the past year? Review New York's record from a war zone (over 2 decades) to one of very little violence (since the police went proactive, instead of reactive). Gun control IS NOT THE ANSWER.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:23 pm |
  240. Abou-Madison,WI

    Why not? Those gun clingers are the same ones who don't want a gay couple anywhere near their city and that's a violation of the constitution... How about when gay people are allowed to marry everywherw in the US we strike down the gun ban

    June 4, 2009 at 6:23 pm |
  241. Tim (Houston,Texas)


    Being a Protected Right established by the Second Amendment, Gun ban laws only deny the law abiding citizen the chance to defend itself.
    In my opinion, any Proponent of a law that violates the Constitution of the United States, should be charged as a criminal.
    Chicago has turned into a cess pool of crime due largely to the existance of the bans. Criminals do not obey laws, hence the definition of criminal.


    June 4, 2009 at 6:23 pm |
  242. Stephen Cain

    Hello. I think it is our right to protect ourselves. In theory, no guns is great, but it obviously hasn't stopped Chicago's young men from killing each other at an appalling rate, as CNN has recently covered. We shouldn't make rules and take away responsible peoples rights just to appease people who really don't seem to understand Who has the right, based on a philosophy , to tell all of the good people that have to live with the violence, that they can not protect themselves and their children? They might change their minds if they spent a few nights there. Nice work. I just started watching again. Best wishes.


    June 4, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
  243. Brian from Phoenix AZ

    The right to keep and bear arms is in the constitution. It was the very next amendment they added, right after the one about freedom of speech.

    Should cities have the right to restrict free speech, or does the constitution provide a federal guarentee on that for everyone?

    The question is as simple as that Jack, and any federal judge who does not think so, is obviously trying to legislate from the bench.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
  244. Andrea in Raleigh, NC

    Sure. This would make us one step closer to a less violent world! I don't see anything wrong with that. However, the constitution grants us the right to bear arms. With all do respect, I think this amendment originated in a time that called for more personal protection, but in today's world? It seems counterproductive if we are trying to combat violence. The more guns we make available, the more police we need, the more police we need, the more guns we need. If it stands, that handguns continue to be available, there needs to be strict oversight! One who has been convicted of a felony or is mentally unstable shouldn't be allowed to purchase a handgun. The possibility still exists for the government to overstep it's boundaries, hence the necessity for the populace to have the option of owning firearms. Some people like to "go shooting" at the range to blow off steam, and some like to kill people. What kind of "happy" medium can one find amidst all the gray?

    June 4, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
  245. Mike from york, PA

    I believe everyone with a clean record or within the parameter of the gun laws has a right to bare arms. Most of the crimes that involve guns are people that illegally obtain guns. It's not fair to keep changing laws and peoples rights because of a bunch of criminals. Even if handguns are banned, people will still buy them one way or another. Atleast now, guns are documented and tracked when bought and sold legally.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
  246. Leon Hammond, Louisiana

    No, any form of regulating gun and/or weapons would violate the agreement in natural checks and balances agreed to by our founding fathers and should not be overthrown. Citizens have a right to defend themselves not only for self -protection but also from a good or bad oppressive government.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
  247. John N


    Cities should not be able to dictate or infringe on laws that are part of your natural constitutional or citizen rights. Citizens constitutional rights should never be overridden by smaller communities. They must and need to follow a hierarchy or were and when does it stop?

    As in the case in Washington, DC the courts ruled rather simply, that individuals have the right to own firearms. So it seems simple that no city and or state for that matter, should be allowed to infringe your constitutional individual rights, given that ruling Period! It just amazes me that everyone thinks that if you take away the guns problems will just disappear, what a fantasy world there living in.

    Ever hear the saying “Its better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it!” I wonder how many victims given the choice would've taken the latter of their rights were infringed upon and they became victims whoever speaks up for these people..

    John N. Austin Tx

    June 4, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
  248. Marjorie Steiner

    No cities or states should be allowed to ban handguns, that is our basic constitutional right. How can they tell legal, honest citizens that they won't be allowed to protect themselves against criminals, that will get guns anyway; legal or unlegal

    June 4, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
  249. Allen Clague

    Concealed weapons should be banned, period. 20/20 did a study that showed that they are ineffective for defense. Military type weapons are for the military and should be banned for all but the military

    June 4, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
  250. Ed from Montana

    Yes, Chicago has the right to ban handguns and assault weapons, just like Las Vegas has the right to ration water. I am a member of the NRA because I believe in the right to bear arms, but I also understand that in cases where law enforcement needs special tools, exceptions need to be made. We are a nation of laws, not vigilante justice, and the answer is not armed citizens battling armed criminals in the street.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:26 pm |
  251. Larry Lester Springfield, Illinois

    If handguns are banned in Chicago, why does law enforcement and selected others need them? Could it possibly be to protect themselves from criminals having guns? Citizens of Chicago should be able to protect themselves. Remember law enforcement does not protect anyone. That is up to the individual.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:26 pm |
  252. Mason (Dora, Alabama)

    Cities like Chicago should be able to ban any type of gun they want. Nobody, besides law enforcement officals, should have access to handguns. If this tramples on the Second Amendment so be it. "The right to bear arms" was appropriate when the United States didn't have the protection it has now.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:26 pm |
  253. Frank from Indiana

    I can understand where Chicago is coming from. With a big city comes big city crime rate. But Chicago can't be the poster city for the country. If you are a law abiding citizen without a crime record you should have the right to bare arms. That's a slam dunk case for those Chicago lawyers.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:27 pm |
  254. Triv

    I beleive that gun violence is most common in urban areas and in conjunction with youth activity and gang violence. So what is apt for rural/unincorporated places might not be apt for populus urban domains.

    Times magazine says that the majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with firearms used in 16,907 suicides (almost all- "legal guns") in the United States during 2004.

    The legal guns would eventually make their way to the illegal markets..into the hands of gangsters, thugs and muggers in inner cities. It is time that the state lives up to its responsibility in offering protection for its citizens (like every where else in the world) without abondoning them to fend for themselves. Cheers!

    June 4, 2009 at 6:28 pm |
  255. paul Wilson

    No. The second ammendment explicity states that we have to right to keep and bear arms. Constitutional cherry picking for political reasons has got to end. Targeting the second ammendment will soon obsufucate all of our rights.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:28 pm |
  256. James Kendrick

    Should cities like Chicago be allowed to ban handguns?

    Of coarse they should! Hmmmm let's see someone breaks into my home with a handgun and I chase them off with my butter-knife. Well I maybe exaggerating just a little; I meant to say have them at "Spoon" point until the police arrived.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:28 pm |
  257. Randy Rhynes

    The notion that law enforcement can actively, not passively, protect you from harm is one of the greatest falsehoods of our modern society. When you are being attacked, there isn’t sufficient time to call law enforcement and expect them to come to your rescue. I would much rather be alive than my family take comfort in the fact my attacker has been brought to justice by the courts. What's most amusing to me is that the largest cities where you have the greatest likelihood of being attacked, with virtual impunity, have the strictest weapons laws. We already know the criminals just bring them in from other states and cities, but all the law abiding citizens cannot posses them for their own protection. The fact Chicago allows rifles, which are for more powerful than a pistol, can be owned and potentially used as a method of protection, reflects their ignorance. I would much rather have people shooting handguns in the streets than I would a hunting rifle. I won't get into assault weapons as they are not good choices for protecting yourself, without endangering bystanders. They are the same as hunting rifles, just carry more rounds. For that matter, I don't think law enforcement should be allowed to carry assault rifles. The number of rounds expended during most shootouts is outrageous and only goes to show that cool heads and better weapons training is far superior to stray rounds flying throughout our neighborhoods. Bullets do not know from where they originate and a stray round from a police officers assault rifle or handgun will kill and injure just as readily as it would if it were discharged from a homeowner or criminals gun. So, if you think its okay for cops to shoot in our streets, it better be okay for the rest of us to do the same, provided it's warranted.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:29 pm |
  258. Ballard Powell

    I worked thirty years in Illinois State maximum securityprisons and I don't qualify for conceal carry on the Bush Bill for retired law enforcement employees. Now Mayor Daley who is guarded 24-7 by police officers doesn't want me to have gun(so) in my home. This is asinine so I live in a Chicago suburb, even though I own a two flat in a better Chicago neighborhood. I believe in the right to own except for convicted felons and persons with a history of mental illness.


    June 4, 2009 at 6:29 pm |
  259. Jim

    A flat no! That is not a local issue but a national one, and I think the men who wrote down a few certain ideas a couple hundred years ago had there reasons.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:29 pm |
  260. Wilson from Alabama

    The best info I have is the timeline of 1934, 38, 39, 68, 87, 90, 94, 96, and 2000. During those years Congress and The Supreme Court addressed hand guns, automatics, semi-automatics, sawed-off shotguns, etc., and in 2009 here we are back in Chicago where it once was dominated by the Mob. Here is my question. Why would anyone who has the power to reason want to go back to the days of Al Capone? The Mexican Cartels could be hit hard if those laws were in place.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:30 pm |
  261. Chuck Jones

    Should cities like Chicago be allowed to ban handguns: Doesn't Washington D.C. have a handgun ban? How effective has that been?(It seems that I have read that you have a greater chance of being "shot" in D.C. than in Afghanistan) While I agree that handguns, or guns in general, are not the answer.....I feel that if there is a ban, only those with the intent to committ a crime will be the ones CARRYING a gun! I'm sure the "bad-guys" would feel a lot safer if they knew that "Joe-the-Plumber" (borrowed-phrase) will NOT be "carrying" a weapon.

    Chuck OHIO

    June 4, 2009 at 6:30 pm |
  262. Mike

    No, gun control of any kind.............

    June 4, 2009 at 6:30 pm |
  263. mhenson400

    No, cities should not be allowed to ban guns. The Unites States constitution takes precedence over state or local laws. The second amendment is pretty straightforward – "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."

    Seems pretty clear to me.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:30 pm |
  264. Jann Wilson

    Us thiefs and muggers demand you ban gun ownership. Otherwise we might get hurt when we rob you!

    June 4, 2009 at 6:31 pm |
  265. vegage

    I am just sick of the majority of people writing on here. If this country continues on this path forward we will see kids taking guns to school, people with guns in the planes, to court rooms, even to the bathroom or sleeping with guns. Unbelievable how sick this country has become.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:31 pm |
  266. Ray

    Those who wrote the constitution did not expect to see 100 Million drug dealers and pimps running wild in our neighborhoods and schools terrorizing and killing our children. Next thing we can expect is to have these terrorists demanding their constitutional rights for equal opportunity teaching our childern how to become a terrorist, drug dealer and pimp!!

    June 4, 2009 at 6:36 pm |
  267. mike Geary


    The old joke about 1,000 lawyers at the bottom fo the sea – its a good start- applies to judges who cannot 's read the `king's English'.
    What part of ` the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' do they not understand?

    Mike in OHIO

    June 4, 2009 at 6:36 pm |
  268. Allen in Hartwell GA

    June 4th, 2009 5:41 pm ET
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    June 4th, 2009 4:59 pm ET
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Jack, at the risk of sounding like a liberal I would say yes. I own a semiautomatic 22 rifle. I have it for a varmint gun since I live in the country, but one thing I learned in 22 years in the military was how to defend myself and my own if I have to. I also saw combat in Vietnam so I wouldn’t have the problem many people face the first time they think they might have to use a gun against another person.
    Chicago should be able to ban handguns and any other easily hidden, or assault weapon, as long as the people can have some type of weapon, like my 22 rifle.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:36 pm |
  269. JoAnne Weller

    Absolutely! and here's to hoping other crime-ridden, drug-ridden
    cities follow suit!

    June 4, 2009 at 6:39 pm |
  270. Tim

    No. Chicago is located in Illinois which last I knew was part of the U.S. If we allow cities and states to ignore parts of the U.S. Constitution they disagree with, then there's no point in having the Constitution.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:39 pm |
  271. Chad

    The second amendment is a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution. Too often in this country politicians have twisted and perverted this sacred document to reflect their needs and wants.

    Judges in this country are supposed to reach decisions according to the constitution not their feelings or personal beliefs. Too many of these judges are influenced by their political parties and their philosophies.

    None of these gun bans have prevented violence or crime. The only thing they accomplish is keeping law abiding citizens from exercising their second amendment rights and protecting their families and property.

    “Those who pound their arms into plows will plow for those who do not.” Thomas Jefferson.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:39 pm |
  272. Jorge Lopez

    Hand guns are banned in Chicago since 1982! Great, that makes Chicago the safest place to live and bring up a young family away from hand gun violence since 1982 right? When will we as a people finally get it, the gun ban has only those who follow the law from having guns. If this was not so, why then is Chicago the leader in the homicide of adolescents by hand guns! The violence is a cultural, social, economic problem that hand guns are being used as a tool. The community leader ( civil, social, religious,educational etc.) and parents need to address this problem at the root of the disease not at its symptoms. Attacking guns is a scape goat to pass on their responsibilities.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:41 pm |
  273. Matthew

    Western Massachusetts.

    Absolutely not!
    Such laws do one thing and one thing only. Keep law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves against criminals who don't follow laws to begin with. Chicago has one of the highest crime and murder rates in country. Cleary the laws they passed years ago aren't working! As in my state of Massachusetts, extreme gun laws do NOT lower crime. Do the research! Since the 1989 extreme gun laws went into effect in Massachusetts gun ownership has dropped almost 80%, while violent gun crime and gun related homicides have increased drastically. Please tell the facts here! Are we living in China, or America? What is the first thing the Germans did when they took over country? Have we forgotten so quickly?

    Let's also stop calling semi-automatic rifles and handguns, automatic's and machine guns. Machine guns have been illegal for over thirty years everywhere! By the way, there is no such thing as an assault weapon. Bill Clinton introduced this as a term referring to semi-automatic rifles. Assault "rifles" are strictly for military use and fall under the term "Machine Guns", and have been illegal for decades. I wonder if there will be assault knives and forks someday too? Why don't we all just bow our heads, drop to our knees and surrender every last bit of freedom we hold dear. I guess that's what they'll want next?
    Thank you.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:42 pm |
  274. John N

    May not write like a journalist I admit that. I can read and read just fine. And anyone that claims they can don't seem to understand their Second Amendment rights of the Constitution. Either can't read or reading into something much further than our forefathers ever intended. And I quote:

    “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 it says the right of the people it also refers to free state, not cities. Our forefathers were trying to provide the citizens of this newly discovered country and never face opposing government control or rule again, let alone what the word “shall not be infringe”

    I'm thinking the people that don't care about this right and should read the Declaration of Independence sometime to get familiar with their real history again you can see the correlation of the US government and the declaration of independence currently kind of scary when you think about.. but then again mesmerized, because anything else requires personal sacrifice and work. "Oh not in my backyard"

    June 4, 2009 at 6:43 pm |
  275. Alex

    They can have my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead, hands. You fools that think disarming legitimate, hard-working, honest people need to take a look at England and Australia. As soon as the criminals knew they had the advantage they took full advantage. As for us "Border" states; yeah we have our guns, pistols, rifles, and shotguns – "Come get some!" It not so east to be a bad guy when you have to wonder if the person you intend to make a victim of is armed, and ready, to blow your head off. The Second Amendmen is a Constitutional guarantee. If an individual choses to be unarmed them more power to that person. Leave the rest of us with our choice to be armed.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:44 pm |
  276. Luis F. Monteiro

    Yes, Chicago has the right to ban weapons. The 2nd amendment allow us to bear gun for self protection, but I would like to see, in big cities like Chicago, the % of deaths provoked by guns for self-defense. If I remember correctly, this number is less than 2%. The 2nd amendment protects very few (2%) and allows the majority (98%) to be killed by accidents, murder and few suicides.

    June 4, 2009 at 6:47 pm |