"My responsibility is to make sure Evanston officers uphold the law," Eddington said. "But I think one of the issues is that the Supreme Court decision is narrowly focused on firearms in the home for self-defense, and I don't know if that narrow scope will have a huge impact on us."
Mayor Lorraine Morton, the defendant in the NRA lawsuit, attended the meeting and is concerned that the recent court ruling disregards important issues about the safety of the community.
"I just can't see how anyone could be helped by the gun ruling that the U.S. Supreme Court put out," Mayor Lorraine Morton said. "But you can't fight the Supreme Court."
The City of Evanston will seek to have the NRA lawsuit dismissed, based on its plan to bring the law into compliance with the court ruling.
The NRA said that it would consider dropping the lawsuit only after a review of the new ordinance, according to a spokeswoman. Evanston, along with San Francisco, Chicago, and three Chicago suburbs, were targeted for lawsuits because they are "areas that had the most restrictive bans," said Rachel Parsons, a spokeswoman for the NRA.
sarasuleiman@northwestern.edu
2008 Woodie Awards
The DAILY encourages you to share your thoughts on this story. Please help us keep the discussion lively, but civil. Comments that are abusive to others, off-topic or vulgar, or comments that misrepresent someone's identity, will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete any comments in violation or to close comment threads on articles.
Please e-mail online@dailynorthwestern.com to flag a comment or for more information.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 43
DDS -- NRA Life Member
posted 7/17/08 @ 10:57 AM CST
In light of all of the empiracle evidence compiled by Lott, Kleck, and others in recent years about the positive effects on crime statistics that come from ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens, how does any politician still get away with saying that a gun in the hands of a responsible adult constitutes a threat to public safety?
mec
posted 7/17/08 @ 11:31 AM CST
Whether or not this town has a ban on handguns has very little to do with how many handguns are actually there and in use. It only impacts the number of guns held lawfully by the citizens. (Continued…)
Johnk568
posted 7/17/08 @ 11:38 AM CST
To Evanston Politicians,
Do you understand the phrase "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". each and everyone of you sworn an oath to uphold the constitution of the US, not just parts of it. (Continued…)
James Shook
posted 7/17/08 @ 11:40 AM CST
Honestly, where in the United States can they cite an instance where an increase in the number of weapons "jeopardized community safety?" Quite the opposite is true. (Continued…)
Stu Strickler
posted 7/17/08 @ 11:58 AM CST
Firearm ownership by law abiding citizens has never posed a threat to public safety, anywhere in the United States.
On the other hand, Gun Free Zones have. (Continued…)
DonP
DonP
posted 7/17/08 @ 12:05 PM CST
At least Evanston won't throw millions of taxpayer $ away trying to stall or fight the SCOTUS decision like Chicago's Daley intends to.
No Sara, some regsitration or safe storage plan may be put into effect, but NO aspect of a ban of any kind will be allowed. (Continued…)
Simon
posted 7/17/08 @ 2:07 PM CST
Guns owned by law-abiding citizens are not a problem. It is not difficult to understand. What the Supreme Court has affirmed is the individual right to self defense, something that is everyone's responsibility and is in everyone's best interests. (Continued…)
Preacher1
posted 7/17/08 @ 2:16 PM CST
What I would like for one of these little dictators to tell me is where they get the authority to impose ANY restrictions on our Constitutional RIGHTS. (Continued…)
Kevin
posted 7/17/08 @ 2:44 PM CST
Evanston is doing the right thing. Law-abiding, private citizens posessing firearms are no danger to anyone but the lawless who would molest them. Municipal laws infringing this liberty are in violation of the most basic of laws, that of survival - human beings have an intrinsic, natural right to defend themselves, and posessing the effecient and effective means to do so is critical to the exercise of that right. (Continued…)
ernie
posted 7/17/08 @ 3:07 PM CST
With all the evidence to the contrary, why do these people continue to insist that allowing people to defend themselves will only increase the crime incidence rate in their community. (Continued…)
Post a Comment