March 3rd, 2010
02:47 PM ET

Should gun control be up to state and local jurisdictions?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Chicago has had a handgun ban in effect for nearly 30 years. Yet despite one of the strictest laws in the country, parts of the Windy City resemble a shooting gallery.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/03/art.gun.jpg caption=""]
Now there's an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and it seems like the conservative majority on the high court is ready to say that the Constitution gives individuals greater - or at least equal - power than the states when it comes to possessing certain firearms.

Two years ago the Court struck down a Washington, D.C. gun ban, and the plaintiffs in the Chicago case now want the justices to apply this ruling to cities and states around the country.

The four plaintiffs represent average Chicagoans - who say they should be allowed to protect themselves from gun violence.

They include a couple worried that burglars will return when the wife is home alone, a retiree afraid that drug dealers will try again to steal from him, and a former cop who wants to protect himself like he used to.

They claim the gun ban winds up hurting those who obey the law and makes them more vulnerable. See, the criminals generally ignore gun laws and carry whatever weapons they want.

Ironically, Chicago imposed the strict gun ban back in 1982 to try and fight gang and firearm violence. The city argues that handguns are used to kill in the U.S. more than all other weapons combined.

Mayor Richard Daley insists that cities and states should be able to decide how best to protect their citizens.

Here’s my question to you: Should gun control be up to state and local jurisdictions?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Taggart writes:
Should cities be allowed to ban typewriters, or require priests to be licensed? Obviously not? Then they just as obviously should not be allowed to infringe on other Constitutional rights. If that argument doesn't do it for you, then consider that the American cities that have the most gun control also have some of the highest crime rates. Clearly it doesn't work.

Kevin in California writes:
The problem with local jurisdictions superseding state or federal jurisdictions is that skirting the law is as simple as walking across a street in many cases. If it's a constitutional-based issue, then it should be under federal jurisdiction and applied uniformly.

Tim in Los Angeles writes:
Gun control should be a local issue! The idea that gun control is a one-size-fits-all notion is ludicrous. People in rural Alaska carry guns for completely different reasons than people in Los Angeles or New York and local lawmakers should be free to assess society and make regulations that make sense for their community.

Chris writes:
Simply put, banning guns just makes all gun owners criminals. Those that wish to smack me for this comment can reflect on the city of Chicago. They have one of the strictest bans in the country yet a ridiculous rate of gun crime... Jeez, I wonder if it is because the citizens are easy picking. Look, taking guns from citizens is just taking fear away from criminals.

Leo in Illinois writes:
The city of Chicago had 28 years to try their idea. Did it work? Now let us try concealed carry for 28 years. Then let us compare results.

John in Ada, Oklaholma writes:
Gun bans never work. How many people have been shot or killed by a person with a handgun in Chicago since 1982?

Tony in Indiana writes:
If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?

Filed under: Government • Law Enforcement
soundoff (185 Responses)
  1. Robert Zoeller

    The only people who abide by gun laws are law abiding citizens. Creating additional laws and thinking the criminals are all of the sudden going to start following them borders on lunacy. Chicago is a "shooting gallery" as you state exactly because the only armed citizens there are the criminals. Decent people are prevented from owning a firearm.

    March 3, 2010 at 6:56 pm |
  2. Tom

    It doesn't really matter what the people want. It will come down to which way can they make the most money off of us and where does the money go local or federal.

    March 3, 2010 at 6:57 pm |
  3. Brian

    Gun control is not within the jurisdiction of individual states, as the Bill of Rights guarrantees the right to keep and bare arms. No other Constitutional right is under State jurisdiction, why is this one? I am an advocate for responsible gun ownership and national reciprocity for concealed carry. As it is stated in the article, criminals by definition do not obey the law. The only people that are affected by restrictive gun laws are law abiding citicens who are entitled to life, liberty, and happiness by the same document that guarentees our right to protect it!

    March 3, 2010 at 6:57 pm |
  4. Chucka

    The numbers do not lie. Gun violence is significantly less in states that have the most liberal gun laws and the highest in the states with the most restrictive laws. This is primarily for the reason that you cite – criminals don't obey the law. The average person is left defenseless because they do follow the law. I've always thought it was only common sense to allow individuals to make their own choices when it comes to self defense. The Second Amendment protects this right (assuming you interpret it the way it was meant back when it was drafted). Not everyone is comfortable with guns in the house, but those that want to have guns for their own protection should not have that choice made for them by a state which is unable to then protect them.

    March 3, 2010 at 6:58 pm |
  5. Edward

    It's Constitutional thus federal. We don't allow states or cities to limit free speech so why can the restrict gun ownership? Laws only affect law abiding citizens. The laws are intended to limit law abiding citizens from owning guns which they can't do under the Constitution. Felons and people with mental disorders already can't own fire arms so we don't need extra laws for them. Going after guns detracts from the real problems. The anti gun people that fantasize about a country free of guns are dreaming. There are more guns than people so it'll never happen. Like with Pot people have voted already with their dollars, I don't smoke pot and don't currently own guns. It's time our elected officials listened to the people and NOT special interest groups.

    March 3, 2010 at 6:58 pm |
  6. brad

    i keep getting emails about how the president wants to ban guns i have one question for him how would he feel if the secret service was unarmed and couldnt protect him and hi family.thats how we would feel.

    March 3, 2010 at 6:58 pm |
  7. Dave

    No, states and cities should not be allowed to disarm their citizens. The constitution says we as citizens have the right to bear arms, it does not leave an asterisk for states to bend it to their will. Chicago has one of the highest crime rates in the usa for a reason. The criminals know if a citizen uses a handgun to protect himself his family or his property that he has infact commited a crime. look at history and tell me what good disarming your citizens does. As an example would nazi germany have been able to murder 6 million jewish people if the jewish people were armed?

    March 3, 2010 at 6:58 pm |
  8. max m

    Since Chicago wants to guarantee everyones safety and ban the possibility of defending ones self then they should pay for every time they fail to protect someones life. I think $3 million for each person killed to their family and $1 million to each person who survives a shooting. Police are not there to protect the public they are there to clean up afterwards and hunt down the bad guy. They rarely prevent a killing. And if you believe other wise heaven help you if you need a cop in a hostage situation.

    March 3, 2010 at 6:58 pm |
  9. Jason

    Gun control should be up to American citizens without restriction from overreaching federal or state governments. Homeowners should not be forced to bring a knife to a gunfight.

    March 3, 2010 at 6:59 pm |
  10. Tom

    >Chicago has had a handgun ban in effect for nearly 30 years. Yet despite one of the strictest laws in the country, parts of the Windy City resemble a shooting gallery.

    Sounds like it's been working out really well.

    March 3, 2010 at 6:59 pm |
  11. Michael

    We should uphold two core ideals: Individuals should be free to act as they see fit, and freedom should only be curtailed when clear or compelling evidence exists to merit a restriction. If the evidence is conflicting or unclear, freedom should be chosen over restriction. At best, the evidence in the Chicago case supports neither side exclusively. Both sides can point to anecdotal and emperical evidence to support their claims. In this case, that should be a vote for freedom for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

    March 3, 2010 at 6:59 pm |
  12. J. Mcgee

    It is my personal belief that people should be able to carry firearms openly if they choose to do so. Criminals are criminals because they break the law no matter what it is. Banning guns is not going to stop them. It only hurts the good people that just want to defend themselves. Do people really think there would be more rapes and murders if everyone was armed? Would they target a woman walking to her car is she had a .357 strapped to her side? Would the poor gas station attendant be robbed if 3 other customers in the station had holsters? I would carry a holstered weapon openly everyday if my state would allow it. Unfortunately they only allow me to hide it in my pocket with a permit. I would hate to spend the last few seconds of my life digging around in my pocket while someone is stabbing me.

    March 3, 2010 at 6:59 pm |
  13. Viv from NY

    I'd love to see stricter gun laws everywhere – but since some states are so gun happy and paranoid doesn't seem like this will happen. So if certain states like having guns around so their kids can get their hands on them well just make sure your irresponsible depressed kid doesn't come here to my state!

    March 3, 2010 at 6:59 pm |
  14. Kevin, Co Springs

    States should never be able to step on your constitutional rights. Of course they have been doing that for a long time because so many weak minded libs let them do it.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:00 pm |
  15. Terry in Texas

    Absolutely not. My right to bear arms is guaranteed by the constitution. Neither has any right to control my gun rights.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:01 pm |
  16. Chris

    Simply put, banning guns just makes all gun owners criminals. Those that wish to smack me for this comment can reflect on the state of Chicago.

    They have one of the strictest bans in the country yet a ridiculous rate of gun crime... Jeez, I wonder if it is because the citizens are easy picking. Look, taking guns from citizens is just taking fear away from criminals.

    Those who wish to argue would do well to review what is actually happening in Chicago and really truly think about what the gun ban has actually done...

    March 3, 2010 at 7:01 pm |
  17. Adam

    Self defense is our god given right, firearms are merely the tools that equalize the small, the weak and the single individual that packs of thugs prey on. Why demonize tools? It appears that most would rather blame an inanimate object for the savage actions of humans who have no respect for society and the laws we have or other human beings for that matter.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:01 pm |
  18. Josh

    In a society that bans guns, criminals are the only ones that have guns. Think about it.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:01 pm |
  19. Tom

    The constitution and bill of rights were written to protect the citizens of the United States. Unless a state becomes its own country, the citizens of the states have the rights and protections under the constitution. The right to bear arms is an individual constitutional right. Therefore, the answer is no, states do not have jurisdiction on gun control.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:02 pm |
  20. JD

    What part of "shall NOT be infringed" don't the gun-grabbers understand?

    Let's recap a few simple principles:

    "The People" in the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments in the Bill of Rights means *THE PEOPLE*...but we're supposed to believe that "The People" in the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791) is supposed to mean the National Guard...which didn't exist until an Act of Congress in 1917?

    It's time that the criminals lived in fear of law-abiding citizens, not – as the Leftists would have – the other way around.

    Phoenix, Arizona

    March 3, 2010 at 7:02 pm |
  21. Banned in Hartwell GA

    Jack, as much as I don't like the NRA, I'd have to err on the side of the Constitution on this one. The first ten amendments in Constitution were written to protect citizens from government. As long as the citizens aren't insisting on having assault weapons and the like I have no problem with us owing long-rifles, shotguns, and handguns.
    Hartwell GA

    March 3, 2010 at 7:02 pm |
  22. dale

    The handgun band saved lifes
    instead of 300 murders a year you have 200 or less
    100 lifes is worth more then you can imagine
    If you want to protect your home – purchase a hunting rifle and train your self how to use it
    Dont be brainwashed by the other side

    March 3, 2010 at 7:03 pm |
  23. SBM

    Gun control doesn't work, once you create a market for the criminals.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:03 pm |
  24. Banned in Hartwell GA

    Third time's a charm.

    Jack, as much as I don't like the NRA, I'd have to err on the side of the Constitution on this one. The first ten amendments in Constitution were written to protect citizens from government. As long as the citizens aren't insisting on having assault weapons and the like I have no problem with us owning long-rifles, shotguns, and handguns.
    Hartwell GA

    March 3, 2010 at 7:04 pm |
  25. Ken Geiger

    NO! The question of gun-ownership belongs at the Federal level and one single standard should apply to the entire country. Chicago, New Jersey, California, and other jurisdictions that have either banned or severely restricted handgun ownership are prime examples of the old adage, "If guns are outlawed then only the outlaws will have guns!" Recently, handguns were banned in Australia – in the following year, the rate of violent crimes went up drastically – the rate of murder went up by 44%! He who does not learn from history is destined to repeat the mistakes all over again.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:04 pm |
  26. Jay

    It would be interesting to hear how many firearm incidents Chicago had in 1981 and now. The old saying is true "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" . The constitution's second ammendment guaranties us the right to keep and bear arms. Law abiding citizens should have the right to protect theirselves from the non-law abiding ones. We don't ban cars because someone uses it as a weapon or ban knives because people get stabbed. Get real America. The supreme court is right to give the power back to the people.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:05 pm |
  27. Annie, Atlanta

    If it were up to me we'd melt down all the guns in this country, and create a monument to all those needlessly murdered because of a misinterpretation of our rights. Creating an army to fight against outside forces doesn’t give us the right to take up arms against each other. Wait until gun nuts, full of hate and fear thanks to voting against their own best interests, who are being fueled by Beck, Limbaugh, etc. (traitors for profit), reach their breaking point.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:05 pm |
  28. J.E.

    To have a hand gun should be the chose of the people Not King Richie, The Mayor of Chicago.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:05 pm |
  29. Jay

    Anyone who depends on law enforement agencies to protect their home and family are fools. With the states letting more offenders out of prison due to budget constraints, the issue is more important. A lot of these criminals "only commited crimes aginst property". That is code for "they break into houses and businesses' to support their drug habits.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:05 pm |
  30. Shane

    Gun control only infringes on our right to protect ourselves and does very little to curb violent crime. Fair representation does not exist in Illinois due to the Chicago influence. Fortunately their 1982 ban only hurts themselves. Gun control should not be decided on the state or local level.
    Williamsville, IL
    (the real Illinois, south of Chicago)

    March 3, 2010 at 7:05 pm |
  31. Thomas

    The answer is simply answered by asking another question. Should the Constitution of the United States be up to state and local jurisdictions? The answers are then no and no.

    New Vernon, NJ

    March 3, 2010 at 7:05 pm |
  32. Matthew Mueller

    Jack –

    I generally believe social issues should be left for local governments to deal with. This is the only way we can ensure that the laws in a given county or city best reflect what residents want (except of course national issues such as voting rights and gays in the military). With such vast diversity and such a heterogeneous mixture of citizens its unfair for an already out of touch federal government to tell citizens in county A or city B how they should live their lives.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:05 pm |
  33. Layne Alleman

    Jack, If the Constitution says we can have guns, what right do the states have to over-ride it? With certain cities, or at least parts of them, turning into war zones, why shouldn't a qualified, licensed individual have a right to protect oneself. Let's be real about this, however, and restrict the concealment part to women only. For men, you have to show it, plain and simple. Layne A. Antioch, Il.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:05 pm |
  34. Danno

    Your question is entirely misleading: "Should gun control be up to state and local jurisdictions?" is not the same as a complete ban on guns, which is what is currently under review. State and local jurisdictions currently have some control over various aspects, but authority to ban something that is constitutionally protected is not acceptable on any level.

    This would be akin to banning a particular religious group in a locale.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:06 pm |
  35. Chris - Denver

    Nope. The Big-Brother Federal Government Nanny State should control all the puny states and localities and shove gun rules down their throats.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:06 pm |
  36. David Dohr


    I believe that they mentioned that 402 of 420 murders in Chicago were with handguns. All of those guns were already illegal to have, so it appears that the ban does no good as the criminals are ignore it. Only the law-abiding citizens of Chicago are impacted.

    The 2nd amendment should not be overrun by local or state jurisdictions. While they should have some say on a public place or business, a wholesale ban is not the answer.

    Little Rock, Arkansas

    March 3, 2010 at 7:06 pm |
  37. Bill

    The Chicago law is a maditory year in jail for possesion of a hand gun no matter what the use or location is.
    In your house, not using it, self defense, no excuses or exceptions.

    Mayor Daley gets armed guards 24/7
    The rest of us are just out of luck
    Call the police if you have a problem
    They will come look at your body

    March 3, 2010 at 7:07 pm |
  38. Norman Wattenberger

    There is a difference between cities and the countryside. We live inches from our neighbors. I don’t want some nut next-door forgetting to empty his gun before cleaning it, or getting drunk and playing with it, or letting his kids play with it and having bullets come through the plasterboard that separates us. Do we have to put our kids to sleep in bathtubs to protect them from any loon with a gun?

    March 3, 2010 at 7:07 pm |
  39. Eli

    Since when are conservatives against state's rights?

    The issue of state's rights has been a staple for conservatives since as long as anyone can remember.

    I guess those principles are for sale when it comes to the issue of medical marijuana, abortion, and guns. I wonder what other principles the conservatives and the GOP will compromise when their philosophy becomes an inconvenience.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:08 pm |
  40. Brian P. Ward

    NO! Our constitution clearly lays out a U.S. citizen's right to keep and bear arms in the 2nd Amendment. Localities have no right to make any law in conflict with the U.S. constitution. It is an individual and national right as are all of those in the Bill of Rights.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:08 pm |
  41. Taggart

    Should cities be allowed to ban typewriters, or require priests to be licensed? Obviously not? Then they just as obviously should not be allowed to infringe on other Constitutional rights. If that argument doesn't do it for you, then consider that the American cities that have the most gun control also have some of the highest crime rates. Clearly it doesn't work.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:08 pm |
  42. Gary - Woodhaven, Michigan

    We endlessly keep speaking of gun control when we should be speaking about self control.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:09 pm |
  43. R

    I do not see any argument here. The Constitution is supreme ruler.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:09 pm |
  44. Eric

    Absolutely not. This is a liberty guaranteed by the Constitution, and should even apply to ex-felons violent or non-violent who have served their time and regained their citizenship. You cant have it half way one or the other.. if you are a citizen of the United States, you have the right to bear arms.. it is not a privilege, bu an unalienable right.

    If more people had guns, less crime would be committed.. think about it do you think some puck thug would try to rob you if they knew you were strapped, or better yet could likely be strapped..

    Raleigh, NC

    March 3, 2010 at 7:09 pm |
  45. Michael Pale

    Pick up a newspaper on any given day, in any given city, then read the reports of random acts of violence(committed by obviously unstable individuals). Continue to read of reports of violence commited by the criminal element (i.e. holdups, roberries, home invasion and the like). Then factor in the reality of how our brave Police are able to respond to these increasingly common incidents. The sad fact is they can't. Try as they might, Police can only respond to the above mentioned crimes AFTER they occured... in essence leaving the general public suseptible to the whims of the criminal element. RESPONSIBLE gun ownership enables the citizenry a chance to protect themselves and their family.

    Thanks for the opportunity to voice my opinion,

    Mike Pale
    Bensalem, PA

    March 3, 2010 at 7:09 pm |
  46. The Swami

    If state and local jurisdictions can't run afoul of the first or fourth amendments, they can't enact laws the contravene the second either.

    We cannot confuse the issues of whether the bill of rights protects the right of individuals to own a gun with the issue of whether it should.

    Some people don't like guns, so what? I don't like religion (more people have been killed because of religion than anything else), but we can't ban that.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:10 pm |
  47. Ken

    Gun control is shooting a tight group on a target, operating wisely, and is the responsibility of the operator of the weapon.

    What you're asking about is restrictions or prohibitions on everyone's natural right to self-defense. That is not merely granted by the US Constitution, but preexisted the writing of the US & state constitutions & was recognized by their authors.

    Misuse of, or fear of others' potential misuse of, firearms is a reflection of the misuser's & commenter's weak impulse control or desire for power over others.

    How does one come to the aid of a neighbor, relative, or officer under armed assault or animal attack if unarmed?

    Restrictions or prohibitions help the criminal element by creating imbalances, scarcity and high black-market prices, whether for alcohol, the drug trade, or guns.

    McFarland WI

    March 3, 2010 at 7:10 pm |
  48. Don Nash

    The police have guns. But there are not near enough and with budgets being cut there will be even fewer.

    The bad guys have guns. Always have – always will.

    So if the good people can have guns – at least they have an equal chance.

    But 'irresponsible people and accidents and....'

    Alcohol is legal almost everywhere. It is controled but no one calls for it to be illegal in your own home. No one. National Prohibition was tried and it remains one of the most ridiculed efforts in our history.

    People against guns simply don't like them and want to force their way on everyone.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:11 pm |
  49. Bob (Illinois)


    The statement that a firearm in the home is there for home defense is pure nonsense. If it is *safely* stored there is a negligible chance it would be of any use at all during a home invasion, etc.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:11 pm |
  50. steve- virginia beach

    The fact that this is even a question shows yet another example of our Constitution becoming irrelevant in practice. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld our right to own guns and Constitutional law trumps all other law. Besides that, we have extensive evidence that banning guns increases crime. Chicago has proven that. On the other hand, when Kennesaw, Georgia made gun ownership mandatory, crimes against persons plummeted to almost zero. It's too simple- predators stay away when they know that their prey is armed and dangerous.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:11 pm |
  51. Kevin in CA

    The problem with local jurisdictions superseding State or Federal jurisdictions is that skirting the law is as simple as walking across a street in many cases. If it's a constitutional based issue, then it should be under Federal jurisdiction and applied uniformly.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:11 pm |
  52. Erik

    Absolutely not. Chicago must not have the ability to pick and choose which parts of the bill of rights they want to observe. Whats next? Boston saying that you can choose any religion as long as its Christian? Or NYC saying that you still have freedom of press but not assembly.

    Erik in Hawaii

    March 3, 2010 at 7:11 pm |
  53. Michael Machado

    I am a law abiding citizen that owns firearms. I believe that is in the best interests of democracy to err on the side of liberty. I believe that American citizens who have had firearms training and passed background checks should be licensed to own and carry on their person the firearm of their choice. I believe that cities and states should only be able to determine the training requirements and conduct background checks.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:11 pm |
  54. Shawn Peters

    NO! The constitution was written to protect the individual from both the state and the national government. The bill of rights and subsequent amendments are the peoples rights that cannot be infringed on by the state nor national governments. It is the politicians of the left who throughout history has taken the means of defense away from the citizens. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Brady, Clinton, Daley, Feinstein, Boxer, et al. I would not be surprised that Obama will call for a ban or restriction on firearms before he is out of office. For those who will argue that Hitler was not on the left politically, National Socialist German Workers' Party, was the official name of the Nazi party. The left tries to insinuate that it is a rightest movement, but with the word SOCIALIST in it's name, it is a movement of the left.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:12 pm |
  55. Rick Wheeler

    It is a touchy area, but my vote would be no. I live in Charlotte NC, and will have to admit if the laws were changed, then I would become a law breaker. I enjoy my guns, though I don't hunt any more, I skeet, and target shoot at an indoor range.
    I know children through negligence have been killed by home weapons, and that is a tragedy, but how many children have been killed in there yard OR home from a passer's by bullet. I keep two weapons in set places in the home for one reason, home invasion.
    I don't think I have a greater fear in life other than hearing a scream in the middle of the night DAAAD!!! Knowing without a firearm, the most I could do is, willingly get between a shooter and my family, then what happens to them. I would never know.
    One other note, my wife, and oldest daughter also enjoy the gun range.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:12 pm |
  56. tina james, idaho

    If we could just eliminate guns altogether, innocent lives would be saved and we wouldnt have this conversation Jack.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:12 pm |
  57. Jonathan

    I got a better idea for both areas: How's about we end this insane drug war, and maybe the gangs will disappear and we won't need gun control or everyone armed to the teeth.

    Also, hey pro-gun Republicans, when you guys actually take your stance on guns and apply it to the other NINE AND A HALF amendments in the Bill of Rights, then I'll be more then happy to hear what you have to say.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:13 pm |
  58. Joseph Kavanaugh

    Every citizen in good standing regardless of state should be allowed to have a gun if they so choose.

    Postal Joe

    Rock Hill, NY

    March 3, 2010 at 7:13 pm |
  59. Scott

    No way jack we cant have local officals playing with the constitution this is something for the feds.
    Aberdeen, MD

    March 3, 2010 at 7:19 pm |
  60. Dave Strzok

    Well, you sure as hell don't want ANYONE in Washington, DC to decide what cities and states should do on ANY issue.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:19 pm |
  61. Jessica in Nashville

    The Second Amendment is outdated. It is simply asinine to think that the founding fathers' intention was to protect the so called right to carry a concealed handgun. Allowing local control of gun regulation will allow laws to vary to reflect the needs of local people. Let us use reason to guide policy instead of historical delusions.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:19 pm |
  62. Tom from Florida

    No. Because these politicians just try to push through more and more "feel good" legislation rather than spending the time to do the real work. There are plenty of laws to put gang members away who have guns. This is so similar to FL current proposed law to ban texting – sounds good but there are already plenty of laws to prosecute texters who cause accidents.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:19 pm |
  63. DAVE

    No. All states should follow the constituion of the United States

    March 3, 2010 at 7:19 pm |
  64. Carl

    Laws are not obeyed by Criminals.

    Average LAW ABIDING citizens are the only ones who are adversly affected by gun limiting laws, not CRIMINALS. It is a RIGHT in the United States to be able to bear arms. It gives the less powerful, and elderly a chance when confronted by a Law Breaker.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:19 pm |
  65. John Evans

    No, I believe that the right to own guns is a Federal Constitutional right that should not be limited or controlled locally. Calls for local controls on guns or ammunition are only attempts to get around the high Court's ruling and the Constitution.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:19 pm |
  66. Arlene, Illinois

    The Supreme Court should keep its fingers out of this role,
    as it should be up to the cities and states to monitor this.
    I can't imagine everyone walking around carrying a gun
    except if your an NRA member and if you don't like how your
    nieghbor cuts his lawn the you can shoot him. I don't want
    some trigger happy kid or an old guy who can't see beyond
    his bi- focals living in my area owning a hand gun.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:19 pm |
  67. James

    What part of, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

    March 3, 2010 at 7:20 pm |
  68. C.Beitz; Oak Hall, VA

    The far-right extremists, 99.9% of which are Republican, will not stop until our strets are like the Middle East terrorists photos of constant violence. More guns in the hands of idiots with very little patience does subdue viloence...just multiplies it. We should have a national gun law that bans certain guns. But if not, let each state contril it & ban as they choose. The NRA and gun expansion people are embarrassing, and no number of innocent deaths and school shootings will ever alter their repulsive & extremist view.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:20 pm |
  69. Cameron


    I am a strong believer that the Bill of Rights needs no interpretation. It clearly states that we possess the right to bear arms, and that the right will not be infringed upon. While I am a reasonable person (the founding fathers probably never thought we'd have .50 calaber rifles and mini-guns). Something like a complete ban on handguns is simply a violation of our constitution. This is not to mention that the idea of banning guns to prevent violence has one giant loophole....criminals dont obey laws, so who does the gun-ban REALLY protect? The answer: no one...

    March 3, 2010 at 7:20 pm |
  70. Matthew Sweeney

    The right to self-defense is as inalienable as the right to life itself. This right is enshrined within the 2nd and to allow a city, state, or even a nation to say "no, you can't defend your wife and children" is an egregious human rights violation.

    We allow Iraqis to own fully automatic weapons but certain cities feel that our citizens are so incompetent and violent that they cannot be trusted with weapons at all!

    March 3, 2010 at 7:20 pm |
  71. tgc

    The people of Chicago can have guns in their homes. It is totally legal to protect your home with a pump action shotgun. Probably more effective against a pack of home invaders than a handgun. But protecting your home isn't really the point of the suit, is it?

    March 3, 2010 at 7:20 pm |
  72. Larry

    If areas with lax gun control laws had as much violent crime as areas with gun bans then local law would make sense.

    The opposite is true! The answer lies in local culture, not local gun laws.

    New Brunswick
    New Jersey

    March 3, 2010 at 7:20 pm |
  73. Bert Romero

    There is tendency to let the states do the decision making when the issues are vital in a universal way–arms, individual/civil rights, etc. Let the states decide how much taxes to charge their citi\zens, and so on. Guns kill across state lines and should be banned, period. I believe the Constitution had in mind defence against invasive forces (other nations) ; but against ourselves?? We are our worst (own) enemy

    March 3, 2010 at 7:21 pm |
  74. Jessica in Nashville

    The Second Amendment is outdated. It is simply asinine to think that the founding fathers' intention was to protect the so called right to carry a concealed handgun. Allowing local control of gun regulation will allow laws to vary to reflect the needs of local people. Let us use reason to guide policy instead of historical delusions. Repeal the Second Amendment.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:21 pm |
  75. Scott Anderson

    NO! There is no sane reason to have hand guns period. Rifles are all any citizen should ever be allowed to posses. Hand guns make our society very scary. People who want to hunt and protect themselves need only a rifle or shot gun. People don't carry rifles and kill they can't its too conspicuous. Making hand guns illegal would stop the killings so easily carried out by easy concealment of small handguns that I am sure account for most of the gun killings. People robbed at gun point would not have been robbed if the guy had to tote such an obvious weapon around. The IRA is not saving peoples rights it is twisting the argument of hand gun ownership into a scare tactic on loosing constitutional rights. And most ignorant americans buy into it. The issue about hand guns is simple. Do we americans want to allow the decay of life here which we all have seen and which is directly predicated on possession of hand guns by idiots who without them could not have carried out there acts of murder. The choice is lives and a safer society or "right to posses a pistol"

    March 3, 2010 at 7:21 pm |
  76. Chuck Hower, Maryland


    The constitution says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" It doesn't say except by state or local governments, it says "shall not br infringed" Seems clear enough to me.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:21 pm |
  77. Wayne

    From Virginia:

    No...it should be the same for all States. I've had a Concealed Carry Permit for many years and if you travel you must be aware of all the different laws regarding this. If I'm ever in a threatening situation, I'd rather have my gun in my hand rather than a cop on the phone-when seconds count, help is minutes away.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:21 pm |
  78. Steve

    If a city/state (as a representative body) can overrule the Bill of Rights that must mean that we live in a legal environment where the majority wins all arguments. Didn't the civil rights movement make clear that such is not the case? If the 2nd Amendment goes what will will protect the others?

    March 3, 2010 at 7:21 pm |
  79. Lauren Anderson

    Normally I would agree that cities and states should be able to decide local issues because I think the best government is the one that is closest to the people. The problem here is that like other rights enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the right to bear arms, like the right to free speech, is federally protected. It is not supposed to be infringed by state and local governments. Until we rescind or modify the 2nd Amendment, states and cities can't limit that right.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:21 pm |
  80. christopher

    i feel second rights, are to be used too protect ones self -from evil people

    March 3, 2010 at 7:21 pm |
  81. Kruger

    As a active NRA member, not only would this benificial to the respected states and local authorites but it would also be benifitial to the whole nation by streghting state power. After all we all know locals can at least get something passed.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:21 pm |
  82. RonThacker


    I believe that it is the right and responsibility of every citizen to protect himself, their family, and thier neighbors. Police can not protect us from criminals. It is over before they get there,

    Adolf Hitler instituted gun control in Germany, next came nazis, it creates a threat to liberty to restrict citizens rights to bear arms.

    God may have created man as equals, however, Colonel Colt made it a reality.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:21 pm |
  83. Morris Mattson

    Hold people responsible for their actions. Banning guns means law abiding people will give theirs up, not the criminals. What next? Knives, baseball bats, chains, darts? Here in Japan, politicians had a knee jerk reaction and knives over about 3 inches are banned. I'm breaking the law by cooking now.... and besides our rights are preserved in the constitution.

    (U.S. citizen residing in Japan)

    March 3, 2010 at 7:21 pm |
  84. Graham Smith, Wilmington DE

    As we have seen time after time, most gun laws just keep honest people honest. Politicians can't or won't address the real problem (violence) and focus on guns instead.

    No right is absolute so some reasonable limits to gun ownership will always exist. But an outright ban on ownership is just silly. The only thing it accomplishes is that lets the politicians look like they are doing something.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:22 pm |
  85. eric in NH


    I keep hearing "guns kill more people than all other weapons combined," but the reality is weapons don't kill anyone, people kill everyone. Political correctness is so pervasive that you can't even say it, guns are not the problem, people are. God fearing, law abidding people obey the law, criminals don't. Jack, why don't you do a report on what happened to Australia when they outlawed all guns. Really, tell Americans what will happen if the liberals get their wish, no guns at all.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:22 pm |
  86. Anthone Wright

    Jack, If ever we could have a conversation devoid od emotion that would be a great day in America, However, that is not going to happen. I think gun control laws should be left up to the states and based on the constitution. With that said, a complete ban on hand guns, regardless of location is not going to solve the gun crime problem. Only effective enforcement of stringent gun sales and possession laws will!

    March 3, 2010 at 7:22 pm |
  87. Scott Cape Cod MA

    Jack, the only thing that gun control is good for is making the people feel safer. Reality is that the gangs and criminal element in this country could care less about gun control laws. If everyone had the right to carry a handgun, I'd sure think twice if I were a criminal with bad about the potential that the would be victim may or may not be carrying. P.S. Gun control should mean better aim!

    March 3, 2010 at 7:22 pm |
  88. Duane in Oklahoma

    Gun laws in the bigger cities are useless. When you look at cities like New York and Philadelphia, their crime rates are outrageous. They blame non gun control areas for their problems. If their citizens were allowed to protect themselves, maybe their crime rate would be lower.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:22 pm |
  89. Jay


    Absolutely NOT! The founding fathers did not word the 2nd ammendment as " the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infinged upon (subject to local laws)"

    Can the 4th ammenment be subjected to local jurisdictions? How about the 19th ammendment? Can a womans right to vote be subject to state a local laws?

    I didn't think so, and the 2nd ammendment is no different.

    Torrance, CA

    March 3, 2010 at 7:22 pm |
  90. Christopher, CA

    Constitutionally, every individual should be allowed to own arms; however, that right does not include the right to bear or brandish them in public. That should be up to the state or other local governing bodies.

    If violence and crime is out of hand, then we need to take steps to increase the capability of our police forces, and not give way and allow a bunch of vigilantes to take justice into their own hands when they are out in public arenas.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:22 pm |

    Jack iam american own a FOID (firearmowner's identification card) I have every right too own a hand gun!! as long as you honor the the laws and keep the weapon away from children as required i have that right!!!

    March 3, 2010 at 7:22 pm |
  92. Craig

    No, the 2nd amendment is all we need. Criminals do not follow the law so gun bans only hurt those who do. In a home invasion or robbery the police can only contain the situation or clean up the mess. It is up to you to defend yourself. I should know, I have been through an armed home invasion.

    Not to mention the fact that I would never have slept another night after the incident, if it were not for the gun next to my bed.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:22 pm |
  93. Jim

    Absolutely. Every state and local jurisdiction knows what is best in their backyard. If there is a crime problem in a certain area, then that area should get to decide whether or not to allow citizens to possess handguns. People have the right to defend themselves, and maybe some low life drug addict might think twice about breaking into someone's home if they thought there might be a .38 waiting for them on the other side of that door.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:23 pm |
  94. Kathryn Weldon

    The second amendment clearly 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." For some reason, the city of Chicago has placed itself above the Constitution of the United States, its amendments, and the freedoms it authors clearly intended to perpertuate to us as citizens. Surely it is apparent to all that by outlawing guns, now only the outlaws have guns. You see only the law abiding citizens play by the rules...as for me, you may have my gun when you pry my cold, dead fingers from around it. Bella Vista, Arkansas.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:23 pm |
  95. Brent

    Gun control really only keeps guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. This is to say that the people in violent neihborhoods who might need the guns the most are really the only one's who are disarmed. Look at Mexico, guns laws there are highly restrictive and it is easy see how that's working out. I have yet to see any type of modern success story that is related to limitations on handguns. If it could be shown that it might reduce violent crime, then maybe so, but shouldn't we base restrictions on one's rights on rational results.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:23 pm |
  96. dr. steven d. Lehmann


    we have the right to bear arms in order to form a militia and to protect us from the GOVERNMENT. Yet, the reason these 4 are fighting this rule is so they can defend themselves against criminals. Other than we're talking about Chicago(I was a resident during med school years) I'd say any other city you'd not have to defend yourself against the gov't (unless all other cities have a Daley or Blago).

    steven L.
    fostoria, OH.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:23 pm |
  97. howard

    The Constitution guarantees us equal protection under the law.What applies in D.C.. applies to us all.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:23 pm |
  98. Peter Guerin

    Simple deal, federal law allowing any qualified citizen to own and carry a handgun. Stats show crime drops drastically, there are no cowboy shoot outs. 2nd ammendment allows this. IL is one of 2 states that don't allow citizens to carry a handgun. Mayor Dayley is crazy if he thinks his stance on handguns is working. I live there and only the bad guys carry guns. Citizens should be able to carry a gun across state lines using one federal law, one set of rules. Control it, tax it and see what happens.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:23 pm |
  99. G. Fry

    Regulation doesn't work. The experience in Canada and Australia should be followed. People did not turn in outlawed guns. Localized regulation will only cause normal law abiding citizens to inadvertently break the law.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:23 pm |
  100. jason

    all the hill billies in the south think obama is coming to take their guns and their bibles.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:23 pm |
  101. Cap City Citizen

    An unarmed citizen is a victim waiting to happen.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:24 pm |
  102. Mike

    No. The Second Amendment exists for many reasons. Our Founding Fathers knew it was the great equalizer amongst us and that it made all citizens just that, citizens and not subjects.

    No jurisdiction should be able to modify it. Period.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:24 pm |
  103. Gary

    As a resident of the Chicago suburbs, and a hand gun owner, I believe citizens are the only real deterrent to crime. Police are great to mop things up after the fact. When it comes down to it, your right to bear arms is the final defence. Chicago's murder rate is one of if not the highest in the country with the current law. The only thing that makes the thieves think twice about attacking you in your home is the possbility that you have a gun to protect your family and property.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:24 pm |
  104. Randy Rich

    States should not have the right to change our god given right to bear arms. If you look at the crime rates in Mayor Daily's City they are some of the highest if not the highest in the country. Take guns away from law abiding citizens and you give the criminals and open door to commit crimes and not have to worry about the public defending themselves. Guns DON'T kill people do! criminals obviously don't care about laws or morals and legislation will have no effect and will in fact make it worse. Millions of tax paying law abiding citizens of this country have been spared harm or worse death as a direct result of having guns and using them to prevent the bad guys from doing them harm.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:24 pm |
  105. Richard Parker

    The Chicago gun ban has proved to be useless and puts law abiding citizens at harm.

    If the states are allowed to write their own laws on anything that supercedes federal laws, then why have a constitution, federal laws or even federal government at all?

    March 3, 2010 at 7:24 pm |
  106. Greg

    I find it ironic that many of the people who are constantly whining about the Tenth Amendment and "states' rights" are the very same people who are constantly whining about how the Second Amendment ought to trump state and local gun control laws.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:24 pm |
  107. gillis in cali

    i don't think state should have any say on what weapons i shall be able to have or own ....i can understand the law against full auto weapons...but i have been a gun owner since i was 21 and i am 27 now i have been shooting since i was about 6 , my dad was a marine and a police officer here in california and has told me to exericise my right to bears arms .... THERE IS NOT ENOUGH LEO TO PROTECT EVERYONE

    March 3, 2010 at 7:24 pm |
  108. Deborah Ballweg Seibert, co

    The only thing that keeps criminals from kicking in your door and helping themselves is you may be able to defend yourself. If they know you are helpless, there will be no stopping them. We live in a small community, 35 miles from law enforcement and on the interstate. We have to be able to take care of ourselves. There should be no gun control. It only keeps weapons out of the hands of the law abiding. Being a criminal should be hazardous to your health.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:24 pm |
  109. Doug Augustine

    Why don't we ask if local jurisdictions should be able to outlaw your freedom of the press or allow warrantless search of private residences.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:24 pm |
  110. Carl

    When SECONDS count, Police are MINUTES away, so NO! States and Local jurisdictions do not have have the right to ban the only defense some people may have, because Police are spread thin enough and CANNOT be there in time to Defend them.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:24 pm |
  111. Patricia

    What bothers me about surveys like this is that they do not address the more important issues about gun ownership. As a former police officer and long time therapist specializing in young violent males, I find most ordinary citizens do not recognize the "nothing to lose" factor in much gun violence, along with the fear factor, which makes anyone else with a gun seem the "bad guy." What if there was a shooting in a college and lots of people with guns went into the halls. How does someone decide which person with a gun should be shot? And, with home break-ins, any hesitation with a gun in the resident's hand will end badly for the resident, since the perp has little or nothing to lose. Those, among others, are the issues that need to be evaluated and discussed before gun laws are legislated.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:24 pm |
  112. Granny--- Texas

    I am 64 yrs. old and my 38 gives me the difference I need against an intruder. So I say leave it up to the State. By the way, I'm a native Texan and your allowed to defend yourself and your property here.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:24 pm |
  113. John Blunt

    I am a liberal Democrat with a concealed handgun permit. Hell no, The second amendment couldn't be any clearer. Citizens have a right to possess firearms in spite of the government, not by its graces. In EVERY CASE, laws enacted to permit legal handgun carry by responsible people REDUCES gun violence and crime. Look it up.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:25 pm |
  114. Bob, Arlington, VA.

    Jack – the ongoing debate on gun control is perplexing in the estreme. The second amendment was crafted when a militia was a critical feature of our ability to survive as a new nation. Fast foward some 230 years and look at our increasingly urbanized environment and a need for an armed militia that is laughable. I say this as a gun owner and former member of the U.S. Army.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:25 pm |
  115. Chad from WI

    Doesn't matter to me one bit. My gun will only come out to defend myself in case of a home invasion. In that case, I will be happy to pay the fine or whatever it takes because I will still be alive.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:25 pm |
  116. Doug

    Well Jack

    Should gun control be up to state and local jurisdictions?

    Should local jurisdictions be able to limit freedom of religion, or speech, or press?

    It is about time that the Second Amendment be applied as deeply as the first and third to the eighth (the amendments specific to personal freedom).

    If the Second Amendment were promoted and protected as much as others such as the First Amendment are applied to the porn industry under freedom of speech or of the press open carry of firearms and swords would be as common as blue jeans and t-shirts.

    And yes that sounds like a good idea to me, more arms in the hands of the people the less crime in the area – and that is a fact.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:25 pm |
  117. Dave Strzok

    Why would anyone trust what Washington, DC decides on ANY issue? They're BROKEN, Jack. They're the Monster Mash, what used to be Twiddledy Dumb, Twiddledy Dee

    Washburn, WI

    March 3, 2010 at 7:25 pm |
  118. Cache

    Given the nature of the Supreme Court, it's only a matter of time before street gangs will be able to donate money to political candidates they like.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:25 pm |
  119. Claudia, Houston, Tx

    Gun control laws can be left up to either state or local jurisdiction. It makes no difference as long as we have attorneys and judges who don't uphold the law.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:25 pm |

    Hey, everyday there's more and more innocent people killed by handguns in this country. Every hunting season more and more moron hunters shoot cows, dogs, and their hunting buddies. We have to be ready to hit the deck at the Mall, in school, or at our work places. Small children shoot their siblings because a gun was laying around their house. Nobody wants to work in a convienence store any more. Yeah, ain't life grand. More guns!!!!

    March 3, 2010 at 7:27 pm |
  121. Karen

    It should be up to the state and local governments. I grew up in Massachusetts and was in favor of strong gun control laws. When my family moved to Texas, the police officer who came out to meet us explained to my parents that it would be 30 minutes before they could get to our house, which was in a very rural area, and that it would be a good idea to have a gun for protection. I'm back in Massachusetts now and still favor strong gun control laws, but I remember that life is very different depending on where you live. These kinds of decisions should be made locally.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:27 pm |
  122. Wes

    You see this all the time in the wild west movies... It worked well in small isolated populations. When the riders hit town, they checked their weapons. How would you enforce this in modern times with interstate highways and large population centers that cross state lines all over the country? Impossible.

    Enforce existing laws for those who misuse handguns and remove them from society. Either lock them up, or for those who take another human life, bring back another aspect of the wild west...public hangings.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:27 pm |
  123. Joe Bannon

    I think the chicago gun band is a disturbing example of a clear violation these people's constitutional rights. The crimanls that comit gun crimes have always commited these crimes with illegal firearms even before the ban. All the ban does is make it easier for criminals to victimize the law abiding citizen. Could you imagine the helpless feeling of an intruder (with a gun) breaking into your home, and not being able to protect your family because you decided to obey the gun ban laws? The fear of going to jail if getting caught with a gun obviously hasnt been enough to keep criminals from owning them, maybe the fear that the next person they decide to victimize with that gun might just turn around and blow their head off will be enough.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:28 pm |
  124. Richard Spradlin

    The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to all citizens of the nation. The rights it guarantees should no more be subject to abridgment by state and local governments than other guarantees of the Bill of Rights - such as the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech, religion and assembly; the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure; and the Fifth Amendment's guarantees of due process and against double jeopardy and self-incrimination.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:28 pm |
  125. Richard John

    Simple the 2nd amendment gives individual rights. The liberals have expanded the 1st amendment to the extreme. But they want to restrict the second. Gun laws only affect the law abiding, criminals really don't care how many laws they break! As for calling 911 the police usually arrive to draw the chalk line around the body. Every citizen should have the right to defend himself. How would you feel if one of the states restricted the 1st or the 4th or 14th amendments there would be rioting in the streets. No state should be able to subvert the U.S. constitution!

    March 3, 2010 at 7:28 pm |
  126. Gary S.

    My comment is in response to Tina and Jonathan. You value your first amendment rights to blame those of us that believe in all of the amendments. The reason they made the right to bear arms the second amendment was to protect all of the other amendments. If it was the first amendment, you would not be able to complain about it or any others. The first time you or your loved ones need firearm protection from a failed police state, start preaching to the gun man and see if he will not shoot you. Get real folks! Police are only have good after the crime has been committed. Are you ready to be a victim? I'm not and neither are my family and friends. So hey, why not use your first amendment rights to call one of us to protect you.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:28 pm |
  127. A J

    As an Aussie I can only say how appalled I am with the availability of firearms in the US. You seriously never know who has a gun , maybe the guy in the car beside you at the traffic lights doesnt like the shape of your head !!!
    I see the gun lobby 'holding a gun to the head' of the general populace. Also turned the channel the other night and on the Military Channel they were showing the firepower of some rifle, live shots of 'pink mist' as was stated by the marksman as a human behind a wall disintergrated.....
    I think it has to be Central Govt, as only they could alter the constitution.


    March 3, 2010 at 7:28 pm |
  128. Derek

    Cities like Chicago were the flagships for bold social engineering projects that were meant to uplift the poor and down-trodden. They provided welfare programs, planned housing projects, public transportation and public education.

    Those programs were obviously complete failures given how much worse things have become in the inner cities that had the "benefit" of those bold new ideas. Maybe our well meaning urban politicians should take responsibility for some of the real causes of the plight of out inner -cites rather than calling attention to the symptoms of those problems.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:28 pm |
  129. Dave in WV

    Even you have to admit Jack, gun laws don't work. Look at Chicago itself, toughest gun laws in the nation and highest murder rate in the world, so this is what gun control does, absolutely nothing. Our nation is sick Jack, our culture, especially large inner cities creates this culture of violence and murder. People in this country just can't deal with that fact and all the gun control in the world won't stop the violence.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:28 pm |
  130. raptor

    This should not be left up to the states and local communities. If you ask the law enforcement they will tell you that it is not their job to specifically protect you. If you notice the police patrol looking for business thiefs, and patrol the upscale neighborhoods. If you want to buy a hand gun you can buy any thing you want on the street, thats why the police are pretty much out gunned in some locals. Why should you not be able to protect you and your family.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:28 pm |
  131. Eric Fedde

    Heck, No! The constitution was intended for the entire country, so why should ststes and cities have the right to take away our freedoms guaranteed in our constitution?

    March 3, 2010 at 7:29 pm |
  132. Joyce Schulte

    Jack, at my age of 60ish, I look forward to strapping on my 6-shooter and driving up to the grocery store, shopping at Wal-mart, going for lunch at my favorite street cafe, and taking the grandkids to the playground. Now isn't that a perfect picture for a nice Grandma??

    I cannot believe we think the above scene has any level of maturity and sophistication within it. That is simply faux-violence.

    There's an old song that say, "leave your gun at home............." That would be my preference for this Granny.........set the standard of safety and maturity.

    If you don't want to leave them at home, then be sure you're shooting an animal that you want to eat.


    March 3, 2010 at 7:29 pm |
  133. Jim Ingraham

    Justice Scalia suffers from cognitive glaucoma. If he would take his head out of the law books and read a little history, he would know that the main reason for the 2d Amendment was to assure the newly independent states that the Federal army would not replace the British army of occupation but that the states would be guaranteed the right to keep their militias. Soldiers in those days used their own weapons. The idea that the 2d Amendment protects the “right” to own semi-automatic hand guns is absurd.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:29 pm |
  134. Jan

    Criminals don't care about laws by definition, and they only care about city and state lines with respect to gun restrictions on law abiding citizens to estimate their own risk. Chicago has the strictest gun laws and the highest crime rates, which increased after the gun ban. And D.C. saw a whooping 25% decrease after their ban got lifted. How obtuse are these mayors and governors? Easy for them to say we need no guns. They have armed bodyguards.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:29 pm |
  135. Tom Jackson

    Absolutely not! I can't think of another constitutional right that the State can take away. This is an individual right that should not be infringed on or obfuscated by the state. Next they will want to take your right of self incrimination away.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:30 pm |
  136. Cliff Glass - Rego Park, NY

    State and local jurisdiction over firearms would only work if states were allowed to disarm persons entering states with tougher gun restrictions.
    But as Justice Scalia is noted for going on hunting trips with the reknowned marksman Dick Cheney and is likely to eviscerate all existing gun control measures, we might all be better off buying bulletproof vests.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:30 pm |
  137. Mari, Utah

    Jack, it is sad to read comments here from gun-lovers who believe that having a gun or guns will keep you safe! The Constitution allows our citizens to have guns, however, we are one of the most violent nations on Earth! How's that working for us?

    And while I am at it.......... what about the Bill of Rights, that the Republicans are always trying to change? Hmmm?

    More guns, more weapons, are not the answer to safety. We are! We must become CIVIL, kind, generous.

    And since Republicans are Christians, let me remind y'all that when Peter took up a sword to defend Jesus as He was being arrested, Jesus told him,"Peter, put down the sword!" No where in the New Testament does Jesus tell us.......... that guns are a Right.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:30 pm |
  138. Eric

    It is my right to own a bazooka. Nevermind that reference to "militias".

    March 3, 2010 at 7:30 pm |
  139. Rob Richardson

    The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:30 pm |
  140. David Williams

    It's in the constitution of the United States of America, this document is the essence of America. We need to embrace ALL of it as a country. Including the 2nd amendment. Without the 2nd the 1st will be indefensible.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:31 pm |
  141. David B

    The military has guns, Police have guns, gangs have guns, so it stands to reason I will have guns until all the rest do not have guns.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:31 pm |
  142. Michael Brown

    Denying American citizens the right to equal armament versus the bad guys– who are NOT going to pay any heed to whether it is or is not legal to have a gun– should be the focus of this case, yet here we are on both sides pretending 'somebody' doesn't understand what the Constitution says in plain English. The anti-gun forces cannot for a moment believe the 2nd Amendment doesn't say what it says. And these are the same people who have no plan when the bad guys break down the door (911? Sure). I do not want to have to abide by the leftists' inherently helpless position. I want to be a cause not an effect. Bad guys already have their guns, the least we can do in the Spirit of '76 is have the ability to fight back. Then watch these statistics on crime drop even further, and watch the anti-gun smoke and mirrors evaporate.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:31 pm |
  143. bill

    Jack – A single political figure should not be able to ban something from all the citizens af any city. There should be continuity within our constitutional rights throughout the United States. The vast majority of US citizens are in support of reasonable gun rights. The right to protect oneself or someone you love should be available to all.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:31 pm |
  144. Jeremiah, VA

    If Chicago or any other city is having a problem with criminals and their use of illegal firearms, then go do better police work and track down those who are selling illegal guns and leave the law abiding citizen that is in good standing alone.

    This idea of mass punishment, where those who are in compliance with the law are punished by having their Constitutional and more importantly God given right to protect themselves by bearing arms, is utterly ridiculous and totally naive.

    Hey to all Chicagoans that are law abiding citizens in good standing, move to VA. The process of purchasing a gun is approximately 45 minutes for us, and crime is VERY LOW!!!!!

    March 3, 2010 at 7:31 pm |
  145. ryan

    Would be great to see society evolve beyond the need to carry a lethal weapon around that has no purpose outside of killing/wounding another person.

    If we keep using 200 year old laws and ancient traditions to guide our thinking ignoring facts and science, we'll just continue the current cycle of violence forever. I suppose that is what the religious right wants, as they clearly fear change.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:31 pm |
  146. Paul Porter

    No person or state should have the right to take our firearms. I’m over 70 years old and have been a law abiding citizen all my life, when they take my firearms, they have just made a criminal out of me.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:31 pm |
  147. Ron

    I am extremley well armed and well trained in tactical handgun. I train to protect myself and my family. I should I ever be somewhere where an anti-gunner owner needs my help because he/she cant protect themselves or get a cop, dont count on me to risk my life for you because you could not care less about my life either! My handgun which I carry everywhere I go, never leaves my side will be my instant protector, the cops albit the good guys only come by to clean up the mess if I am unable to.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:32 pm |
  148. DeShawn

    I don't think it should be left up to the local goverment.It should be the will of the people.coming from a bad neighborhood I can tell you the criminals who carry guns feel it's a matter of life and death.I can also tell you that the criminals respect the police mostly because their weapons are in plain site.and they have the authority to use them.if weapons owned by those who follow the law were carried in plain site .I believe there would be less altercations. Because as they say everybody respects the gun.and the police wouldn't have to worry if everybody had a gun.like they would with conceal and carry.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:32 pm |
  149. Joie

    The US Constitution protects gun possession for "a well regulated militia," NOT individual citizens. Regulated as in regulated by a governing body, not a free-lance militia. Read it carefully before one goes off on an unsupported rant.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:32 pm |
  150. Robert Chute

    No. The constitution cannot be explained 50 different ways.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:32 pm |
  151. MB Seattle

    I believe in the second amendment as a hunter and a sportsmen.

    But what works in Montana may night be right to NYC.

    I think the NRA has every elected official running scared. Now they are scaring the crap out of women and small children by parading around with side arms strapped to there hips on in my local Starbucks. Enough with the Gun Bully's.

    Call be crazy but that kind of behavior I thinks speaks to the the theory big guns equals small equipment below the belt if you know what I mean.

    I think all political lobbies are at there strongest before they fail. I think we ma be witnessing that today with the NRA.

    Responsible gun ownership is the future and the NRA represents the past. I hope they can catch up soon.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:32 pm |
  152. Michael R

    Should gun control be up to state and local jurisdictions?

    Neither, they should be at the Federal level and nationwide.

    The reason why gun control laws are doomed to fail when restricted to states and cities is that criminals can still easily gain access to guns imported from other cities and/or states. we will never see gun laws do any good until their circulation diminishes.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:32 pm |
  153. Troy

    This issue is one of the hotest topics for many years within our country. The attempts at gun control are very well meaning and I applaud the efforts of law makers who are allowed to get permits to carry to make the rest of us safe by excluding the rest of us from having the same right. The statistics are very overwhelming when you look at the gun violence in dc as well as Chicago and realize that both cities have been and are amongst the most violent in our country. The bans have been to no effect. At least not to the law abiding majority. All of this becomes a mute point when you realize that the supreme court has recently upheld that the second amendment was an individual right gauranteed by the constitution. The city of Chicago is contending that the states can legislate around federal laws and rights. I for one hope they are right and will be working avidly within my state to support that contention so that I can stop paying federal taxes as that legislation should be able to be blocked under the same premise of the gun laws.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:33 pm |
  154. carlos trejo

    jack guns for everyone, because the way things are going in this nation,state and local government cutting jobs because budget problems. Its the 1800s all over again.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:33 pm |
  155. Steve Pavent

    No. As a responsable gun owner and concealed permint holder, I take a gun with me everywhere that is currently legal. Everyone that's pro gun control would pray that I'd be standing next to them they day a gun man would burst into their (church, school, store). Simply put if I can't take my gun with me everywhere I'm going when I leave my home or travel, then effectively I can take it nowhere without becomming a criminal. So what do I do if 99.9% of the places that I'm going it's legal and .001% are illegal. I have a choice to be a law breaker that day and I am effectively deprived of 100% deprived of my constitutional rights.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:33 pm |
  156. Dave

    Gun laws would work if they were applied nationally, but as long as you can buy a gun in one area outlawing them in another area just gives criminals the upper hand.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:33 pm |

    Absolutely not!!! The only answer here is strict educational standards. All people have the right to defend themselves. Take guns away from law abiding citizens. Criminals will take control.


    March 3, 2010 at 7:33 pm |
  158. Jessica Bisagno, Davis, CA

    In an ideal world, there would be no gangs, no crime, no violence, no hate...

    But unfortunately, we live in the real world, and we don't have the option of just taking guns away from every bad person on the planet. Instead of throwing out conjectures such as "handguns are used to kill in the U.S. more than all other weapons combined", let's look at some real facts: in the cities in which handguns have been banned (or unable to register, a loophole ban), has there been a significant decline in crime using handguns? Has there been any proof that making handguns illegal equals less murder per capita?

    The people who are going to use guns for illegal activity and not self defense do not buy guns legally and register them. It's just common sense.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:33 pm |
  159. Ian

    Mission Viejo CA

    Yes, BUT they cannot be allowed to abrogate the rights enshrined in the 2nd amendment. The SCOTUS has already ruled that citizens have the right to "bear arms" in their own homes, hence the recent DC decision. The current case depends on whether or not the 2nd amendment should apply to all states (like virtually all the other constitutional amendments). It is difficult to see how they can come to a different conclusion than the DC case. However, owning a handgun to defend your own home and family, for example, is not the same as being allowed to wander around the mall with a loaded Uzi. That is where the states come in.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:33 pm |
  160. Don

    Everyone should be allowed to have all the guns they want – 100 or more if they so desire

    You shouldn't need a permit to own one, like you do to drive a car or get married or start a business . . . . . the constitution guarantees every American to be offered the opportunity to be SHOT – We have the statistics to PROVE it

    If you compare the gun related deaths in the United States to say those in England you'll see what it has gained us. More gun deaths than car crash deaths and we deserve it – We're unable to pass even common sense laws here concerning guns . . . . let everyone who owns one shoot it out

    March 3, 2010 at 7:34 pm |
  161. Coolv

    This law is stupid, it basically takes away the right's of Law abiding citizens to protect theirselves....... Do you think the gang bangers and drug dealers care about a law that say's you can't carry a handgun. I wonder if your Highness Mr. Daily would walk around his safe (lol) Handgun free city without his security detail????????

    March 3, 2010 at 7:34 pm |
  162. Don

    Anybody who think's we need more gun control is a idiot.Let's disarm America,and make us all easy pickins for the criminal element.How about this,simply enforce the law's we have.Tack on extra time to felonies perpetrated with a fire arm,as Ohio does.I'm sure several other states do as well.Those silly dumbasses who think we need no gun's at all,maybe should move somewhere that is true.Any and all human beings should have the right to protect themselves,loved ones,property,or even a stranger.Get real ,liberal dunderheads.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:34 pm |
  163. kirk

    It is problematic when a public servant, who is afforded continual
    police protection, declares he knows best how to protect Chicago's
    citizens. This reasoning resembles that of a benevolent dictator and
    is exactly the reason our founding fathers enacted the second

    March 3, 2010 at 7:34 pm |
  164. Matt Moberg

    This is such a tired debate. We have a constitutional right to bear arms. Let us just ignore that obvious fact for now. By removing the right of people to defend themselves LEGALLY just gives the scum bags easy pickings. I have never been able to fully understand the liberal hatred of guns, but, everyone else knows that guns level the playing field against those who would do us or our loved ones harm. And yes, there should be some restraints when it comes to the type of gun ownership: See: we don't need people carrying machine guns and anti-tank weapons. But long rifles, shotguns, and handguns are perfectly acceptable. Watch the nature shows: the predators seek out the weak and injured. My 66 year old mom packing .357 heat is not a prime target.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:35 pm |
  165. Steve-Arizona

    No, the Constitution gives us that right. The bad guys have guns now and it's already illegal in Chicago / Illinois, and they are apparently shooting each other at an increasing rate. Another law will not change that. Arizona has a liberal gun law, and the good guys are allowed to defend themselves. We don't need more Government anything!!

    March 3, 2010 at 7:35 pm |
  166. Randy Dunaieff From New York

    It seems to me that the Constitution should always trump local government laws and whether the issue is gun control, search and seizure or freedom of the press should not matter.

    If We The People don't like the current Constitution or its interpretation, then we can amend it and remove, add, or clarify freedoms and restrictions as needed. Until then, we can only argue over the intended meaning.

    I personally think, "shall not be infringed" is perfectly clear, and obviously relates to the "right of the people."

    March 3, 2010 at 7:36 pm |
  167. Dennis

    Unfortunately the arguement that gun control helps control crime is faulted. Criminals ignore the laws and regularly carry any weapon they desire, and have an advantage over the "law abiding unarmed citizen"

    March 3, 2010 at 7:36 pm |
  168. Michael from Ft. Hood, Texas

    Because some states would allow open carry and the carry of semi-automatic weapons like the days of the Wild West if given the freedom to decide. As a former police officer I want only the true law abiding citizen to have guns. Convicted criminals need to be sent away for life for carrying a weapon. You need some uniformity from state to state, not a free for all that causes confusion.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:36 pm |
  169. Skip Wood

    No. The states and local governments should not have gun bans that are contrary to the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. Criminals don't abide by laws. If every citizen, were trained in the use of weapons and owned one, crime would be reduced because criminals are cowards and wouldn't attempt the crime if they thought they would be shot. Statistics prove this out in those areas with no gun bans.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:36 pm |
  170. Dave Berkey

    Chicago is a glaring example that "gun control" does not work! Being able to protect myself and family is a GOD GIVEN right and should not be taken away by a mayor who has armed guards protect him.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:36 pm |
  171. Cted

    The 2nd amendment prevents the federal government from infringing on the right to bear arms (presumably so we can form our own local militias, but thats a cited reason, not a requirement). The 14th prevents states from infringing on that right.

    Gun control nation, and stopping gun violence may be a laudable goal, but to do so requires that you amend the Constitution. If you can convince enough people, have at it, if not, stop trying to get around the law of the land.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:36 pm |
  172. kerry swanson

    I have mixed feelings, I believe most gun owners are law abiding citizens, but, if I am in public somewhere and a guy is wearing a gun, I would feel a bit uncomfortable. It sounds too much like the Old West. I think this issue should be decided by the entire country, not just each State., but I think if Republicans are in power they will say "guns for all."

    March 3, 2010 at 7:36 pm |
  173. steve- virginia beach

    Even if all of the guns magically disappeared, crimminals would use other weapons. If we banned everything that could be used as a weapon we wouldn't have much left. The solution is to restore the expectation of effective parenting and American values, not gun bans.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:36 pm |
  174. Gene

    Jack, the question should be phrased, "Should cities and states have the authority to abrogate a Constitutionally guaranteed individual right." The answer to that is...no.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:36 pm |
  175. Tim in Texas

    The actual wording of the second amendment is: " 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. The writer's of the constitution were not wordy. They didn't put that part about a "well-regulated militia" in there for it to be ignored. They gave conditions for the right to obtain. The "people" here clearly refers to the states, not to individuals. The police force is a "well regulated militia," the National Guard is a "well-regulated militia;" individuals are clearly not a well-regulated militia. The recent ruling by the Supreme Court was just another example of conservative activist judges - taking away the rights of the states to regulate as they see fit.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:36 pm |
  176. Matt Holmes

    People need to stop attempting to subvert the Bill of Rights to suit their beliefs. I'm not saying everyone should have an automatic assault rifle, but handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns should be left alone. Given the frightening potential future of our nation as the debt crushes us, people lose more property, money, and rights, no one should have to surrender the right to defend his life or his property. The potential adjustments to the value of the dollar will mean more people may have to resort to hunting simply to feed their families.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:37 pm |
  177. Veteran

    I am a Navy veteran of Vietnam and carried a weapon to protect the people of South Vietnam from the armies of North Vietnam. Hard for me to believe I could not carry a weapon to protect myself or my family from criminals in Chicago. I bet the mayor of Chicago has guns protecting him. Why is he allowed defense against criminals and not the average citizen?

    March 3, 2010 at 7:37 pm |
  178. Joe Hayes

    If the founding fathers had ever been plagued by "ride by" random killings or had an innocent family member shot and killed for no reason I'm sure they would have re-written and federalized that law to read "Every Responsible Citizen." To place jurisdiction at the state level would inhibit travel across state lines, and city limits. One can only imagine the ramifications of being caught with a legal weapon in a town that doesn't support gun ownership. When this country was founded and the constitution written, times were very different. Those who stand for gun ownership must also recognize these changes and adapt a responsible and working law that protects the citizen and not just stand on an ammendment over two hundred years old. We have to change with the times on all levels of gun ownership.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:38 pm |
  179. Steve Czerniak

    The Chicago ban on handguns should be struck down. Mayor Daley has 7/24 personal police protection for himself and his extended family. The City Council not only exempted themselves, the wrote into the law that THEY are allowed to carry handguns concealed.

    When seconds count, the policy are minutes away but they can always be depended-on for well-drawn chalk lines.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:38 pm |
  180. Dave Strzok

    Jack, How can anyone trust what comes out of Washington, DC? We out in the boonies see our government as broken. What used to be Tweedledee Dumb, Tweedledee Dee is now Monster Mash – all over our common sense and freedoms.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:39 pm |
  181. Salt5792

    Good gun control = 2 inch shot group at 10 yards.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:40 pm |
  182. lynne j.

    I have a better question. Ask the police who have to deal with guns and the mess they cause on a daily basis. They're the ones on the front line and have to clean up afterwards. Find out what they want, something no one has ever thought about. Furthermore, ask those who are in underserved neighborhoods whom are afraid to sit on their porches or let their kids play outside because of shootings.

    I'm all for the Second Amendment. It was written at a time that is unlike now. But it is time to have some serious common sense and find common ground. Let those cities, towns and municipalities decide not the government whom probably all live in gated and secure communties.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:41 pm |
  183. Lee

    These gun laws they are proposing is not going to help gun violence. It is not like gangbangers and criminals go to the local gunstores to get firearms to commit crimes. They will just get guns through their normal illegal sources. It simply restricts law abiding citizens the ability to protect themselves. Criminals would have second thoughts about commiting crimes if they know their potental victims might be armed themselves.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:41 pm |
  184. Jay

    No, gun control laws should be determined the Second Amendment alone. However, while the amendment says that you have the right to bear arms, it says nothing about having the right to own or possess bullets. So it is perfectly legal to outlaw ammunition, and these gun-toting weirdos who use the Second Amendment as a crutch to whine about their right to own Uzi’s can’t say a damn thing. Bullets are explosives, and thus can be considered weapons of mass destruction just like a can of hairspray on an airplane can be. Gotcha, NRA!

    March 3, 2010 at 7:41 pm |
  185. Mike

    This is the very reason we have the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights. The restrictive ban has not removed handguns from the criminals, they would not be criminals if they obeyed laws. In each state that has passed concealed carry violent crime has decreased. Law abiding citizens have the right to be able to defend themselves. If the criminals know their intended victims may be able to shoot back, watch the violent gun crimes decrease. States should not be able to ban firearms.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:41 pm |