Who says a city council cannot act quickly to address an emergency?  Less than one week after the United States Supreme Court ruled Chicago’s 28-year old gun ban unconstitutional, the city’s mayor and compliant council rushed through a new firearms ordinance designed to address what they apparently viewed as a crisis, if not a catastrophe – that crime-beleaguered citizens of the Windy City might actually decide to lawfully possess firearms for self-protection.  The City’s rapid response to such a situation is nothing short of blatant civil disobedience; a local government thumbing its nose at the nation’s highest Court.

The lightening speed with which Daley and his cohorts, including the city’s top lawyer, Mara Georges, acted to thwart the Supreme Court’s June 28th opinion in McDonald v. Chicago, was swifter even than that by the District of Columbia following the high Court’s 2008 Heller decision striking down the three-decades old gun ban in the nation’s capitol.  While not identical in the particular steps each of these two local governments took to avoid complying with the Court’s rulings, the results are the same.  The regulations instituted by the city councils make it virtually impossible for the citizens of their respective cities to exercise their recently-revived Second Amendment rights in any realistic or meaningful way.

Let’s take the Daley anti-firearm ordinance (the “Responsible Gun Ownership Ordinance,” as he labeled it).  Here’s just a sampling of what a Chicagoan now must do in order to take advantage of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling:

- He or she cannot purchase a firearm anywhere within the Chicago city limits; Daley’s law prohibits any gun sales anywhere in the city, whether by a retailer or a private citizen.

- The citizen can have only a single firearm within their home; at least only one gun that is actually operable.

- That single, functioning firearm cannot lawfully be taken anywhere outside the four walls of the home itself.  That means, literally, a citizen facing an armed assailant on the porch, in their yard, or in their garage, cannot defend themselves with their one lawfully-possessed firearm, without being in violation of Daley’s edict.

- Even before the city resident can possess that one, operable firearm inside their home, they will have to successfully complete a city-mandated training program in order to obtain a city-issued firearm permit.  Of course, there will be no place within the city that the applicant might obtain such training, because no firing ranges can be operated lawfully inside city limits.

Lest there be any doubt what the true intent of Daley and his colleagues was in passing this ridiculously restrictive ordinance, Hizzoner and other city aldermen made their intent crystal clear in remarks following passage.  Alderman Dan Solis said the city’s action was made necessary because the Supreme Court’s decision simply “was not in the best interests of our citizens.”  Another alderman, Sharon Denise Dixon, exhibiting her obvious Supreme Court-level legal ability, denounced the court’s “blatant misreading of the law.”  The “poor judgment” exhibited by the five members of the high Court who ruled against the City in the opinion, would now be rectified by what I am sure the city leaders consider their own “superior judgment” and their “correct reading” of the Constitution.

Beyond the particulars of the case, Daley’s obstinacy sets a great example for the citizenry – if you disagree with a court ruling, don’t comply; just exercise your power as a government “leader” and circumvent the decision.

The city’s latest anti-firearms ordinance already has been challenged in a lawsuit.  Those of us who believe in the rule of law can but hope that the judges who will ultimately decide the issue, will slap down this blatant government disobedience in the clearest and harshest terms.