Supreme Consequences

As expected, yesterday's 5-4 ruling against Chicago's handgun ban has opened the door for legal challenges to every state and local handgun restriction in the country.

"It's going to be city by city, town by town, block by block," National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre vowed Monday. "We're going to have to work into every level to make sure this constitutional victory isn't turned into a practical defeat."

Monday's decision was somewhat predictable, in light of the justices' 5-4 decision in 2008 that first found an individual right to bear arms in the Second Amendment and the tenor of oral arguments in the Chicago case in March.

Yet it greatly expands the force and consequences of the ruling two years ago and generated new concern from city officials worried it would undercut gun laws and lead to more violence.

"Across the country, cities are struggling with how to address this issue," Chicago Mayor Richard Daley said at City Hall. "Common sense tells you we need fewer guns on the street, not more guns."

David Pope, president of the village of Oak Park, outside Chicago, which also was defending a handgun ban, said the ruling curbs local flexibility to address crime. "For a long time, we always thought it was reasonable and constitutional for different cities and towns to have different regulations," he said.

Several large cities, including Baltimore, Cleveland and Oakland, had urged the court not to rule against Chicago. They were joined by three states with urban centers, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey, that warned if the high court extended the Second Amendment's reach, "nearly every firearms law will become the subject of a constitutional challenge, and even in cases where the law ultimately survives, its defense will be costly and time-consuming."

Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, which supports strict gun-control laws, predicted more than a new tide of lawsuits.

"People will die because of this decision," she said. "It is a victory only for the gun lobby and America's fading firearms industry."

No matter which side of this argument you're on, the direct result of this law means there will be more guns on America's streets.

The larger political issue is now that the gun battle now almost perfectly mirrors the abortion battle:  one side wants a complete ban, but the Supreme Court has disagreed, therefore the goal is to make getting one as difficult as possible.  The other side then says there's a right to have one and that more people will die without one as a result of these restrictive laws, and that government interference is wrong.

There's hypocrisy here on both sides.  I'm the kind of guy that wouldn't want to personally obtain either one, but I believe everyone should be given the freedom to exercise that choice.  I don't believe in handgun bans any more than I do abortion bans, but intelligent restrictions are needed on both.