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?