Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is turning a traditional NRA argument on its head in her effort to keep handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park. The National Rifle Association has long fought gun bans saying the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Gun advocates are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to find Chicago, and Oak Park's gun bans unconstitutional.
But in a brief submitted to the Court, Illinois Attorney General argues that the whole point of the second amendment is to protect local governments from the might of the federal government. So it would be ironic if the federal government in the form of the U.S. Supreme Court, stepped in to the gun debate and now used the second amendment to diminish local powers.
Madigan argues that local governments should regulate guns based on local conditions. Federal courts should not, "enforce a national standard with which every state and locality must comply, regardless of popular will or circumstance." The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the case march second.
I believe this has come up before. On this very blog, it's been explained that a similar irony exists in the Heller vs. D.C. ruling.
Do you see any inconsistency in the pro-gun activist who generally abhors the federal government's dictates yet can't wait for the Supreme Court to rule in the Chicago case?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.