Media reaction to Chicago case court arguments had surprises
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in McDonald v. City of Chicago, there were some interesting, and even surprising, reactions from newspapers around the country.
It took a day for most newspapers to wade through the written transcript of the oral arguments in the Second Amendment Foundation’s case against the Chicago handgun ban, which was joined by the Illinois State Rifle Association and four Chicago residents—Otis McDonald, Colleen and David Lawson, and Adam Orlov. Availability of audio transcripts was surprisingly delayed.
Some reactions were predictable, while others were hardly that.
Not surprisingly, the Chicago Sun-Times stuck to its anti-guns, observing in an editorial that “It’s hard to argue with a man like Otis McDonald,” but later adding, “come June…we urge the City Council to act boldly…Chicago could face a long and costly fight, but given the cost of inaction—more guns flooding our city—we see no alternative.”
Nor did the editorial writers at the anti-gun Philadelphia Inquirer, who lamented, “Now the top court’s conservative voting bloc seems intent upon expanding the risk to other US cities by dismantling strong gun-violence safeguards.
“Assuming that the court is willing to overturn century-old legal precedent to apply its ruling outside the nation’s capital,” The Inquirer stated, “it will be embarking on a social and legal experiment that’s likely to play out across the chalk outlines on many cities’ mean streets. Given the national plague of gun violence, that’s simply the wrong course for the court.”
Other newspapers, however, see things much differently. The Leaf Chronicle in Clarksville, TN, noted, “Legal experts are predicting that the court will rule that Chicago’s handgun ban is unconstitutional but still allow for some other state and local regulation of firearms. For instance, the court has upheld state laws that restrict convicted felons from firearms possession.”
The Leaf Chronicle concluded, “The bottom line is that Americans always have had a constitutional right to possess guns, and local and state governments should be much more limited than they have in the past in the limitations they can place on those rights.”
An eye-opener came from Investors Business Daily, which editorialized, “Otis McDonald, 76, an Army vet who lives in a high-crime area of Chicago, thinks the Constitution gives him the right to bear arms to protect himself and his wife as he protected his country. We think so too.”
Perhaps less surprising was the observation from the El Paso, TX, Times. After writing that, “A majority of the members of Congress say that the Chicago ban should be struck down. They are joined by the attorneys general of 37 states, including Texas.” The newspaper also pointed to the opposition of 34 California county prosecutors to the ban.
“The extension of Second Amendment protections to state and local governments is the right thing to do,” the El Paso newspaper stated.
In Augusta, GA, the Chronicle offered the perspective that preventing law-abiding citizens from owning handguns because they are used in most homicides is “just silly.”
“As an Associated Press story noted,” The Chronicle stated, “describing the view of one of the plaintiffs, a former police officer, the only people ‘hurt by the city’s handgun ban are those obeying it.’
“Precisely,” the Chronicle reasoned. “Nor is it legal or constitutional to allow cities and other units of government to interpret the Second Amendment any way they choose. They’re not allowed to do that with any other amendment or other facet of the Constitution.”
Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman seemed to have the firmest grasp in his city following the high court hearings. He detailed why the Chicago ban, and the one in the District of Columbia, were failures.
“In the years following its ban,” Chapman wrote about the District, “Washington did not generate a decline in gun murders. In fact, the number of killings rose by 156%—at a time when murders nationally increased by just 32%. For a while, the city vied regularly for the title of murder capital of America.
“Chicago followed a similar course,” he continued. “In the decade after it outlawed handguns, murders jumped by 41%, compared with an 18% rise in the entire United States.
“One problem is that the bans didn’t actually have any discernible effect on the availability of guns to people with felonious intent,” he explained. “As with drugs and hookers, when there is a demand for guns, there will always be a supply.
“Who places the highest value on owning a firearm,” Chapman questioned. “Criminals. Who is least likely to fear being prosecuted for violating the law? Criminals. Who is most likely to have access to illicit dealers? You guessed it.”
Return to Archive Index