Register
Log In
Home
January 22, 2008
Offline
npr.org
NRA Eyes More Targets After D.C. Gun-Ban Win
by Libby Lewis
Five cities and suburbs are facing lawsuits challenging their bans on
handguns. When the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark June 26
decision, rejecting Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns, gun-rights
lawyers swung into action.
As a result, the legal landscape for gun laws could face dramatic
changes.
The village of Morton Grove, Ill., just north of Chicago, has one of
the oldest handgun bans in the nation on its books. It's also the
target of one of the five lawsuits filed by the National Rifle
Association.
Village Manager Joe Wade says Morton Grove isn't going to wait for a
court battle. It's going to act.
"The village of Morton Grove has every intention to comply with [the
Supreme Court ruling]," Wade says. "We're going to propose an
ordinance that would eliminate the possession-of-handgun ban within
the village."
The attitude is different in Oak Park, a suburb on Chicago's West Side
that has become another target of NRA lawyers.
"It's just completely befuddling that our Supreme Court would be in
alliance with the gangbangers," says Tom Barwin, the village manager
in Oak Park.
Barwin used to be a police officer near Detroit. He said he's hoping
Oak Park pushes back against the high court ruling. But that might not
be easy.
Barwin says e-mail is already coming in from people interested in
owning handguns.
He says he expects the village to meet with other communities that
might want to fight to continue their bans, in order to figure out
where to go next.
Where the NRA is going next is Chicago. The city has a handgun ban
nearly identical to the D.C. law struck down by the Supreme Court.
The NRA lawsuit in San Francisco challenges a local ordinance that
bars possession of handguns by public housing residents.
How far will the legal challenges go?
Stephen Halbrook, an outside counsel for the NRA, believes it won't be
a free-for-all.
"Most laws will stay on the books," Halbrook says. "But that's because
they're regulations and not outright bans."
At the same time, Halbrook says there is fertile ground for future
challenges, whether by lawsuit or other means.
For instance, he said, Washington, D.C., officials suggested after the
ruling that residents wouldn't be able to legally own semiautomatic
handguns.
That's not acceptable, Halbrook says.
"The Supreme Court decision refers to handguns generally -- not just
revolvers," he points out. He says that means it applies to
semiautomatic handguns as well, adding that there may be more
semiautomatic handguns in use right now in the U.S. than there are
revolvers.
And he predicts that if Washington, D.C., tries to use its zoning
powers to keep handgun dealers out, that won't work either.
"It would be like if they banned books in D.C. and they told them they
couldn't do that, so they banned bookstores," he says.
Still, Halbrook does think many gun regulations will stand.
But David Kairys, who teaches law at Temple University in
Philadelphia, thinks differently.
He's a gun-control advocate, and he's an expert on gun laws.
He says the Supreme Court ruling doesn't provide a principle or a
theory to help judges or lawmakers figure out what's constitutional
and what's not.
Kairys says if he were "thinking as an NRA lawyer" he would conclude
that the ruling "throws into question almost every regulation of guns."
Kairys isn't an NRA lawyer. But if he were, he says he would challenge
just about every regulation now on the books with two words: self
defense.
1 Guest(s)
