Reason Writers Around Town: Damon Root on McDonald v. Chicago

Writing in today’s New York Daily News, Associate Editor Damon Root explains the importance of yesterday’s landmark Supreme Court gun rights decision and argues that New York could use some gun owners like 76-year-old lead plaintiff Otis McDonald.

Read all about it here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Question:

    Did the Administration file a brief in this case? If so, Where did they come down?

  • Joe||

    They did not file a brief. The list of briefs is here:

    http://www.scotuswiki.com/inde.....of_Chicago

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    New Yorkers can have their guns when they pry them out of Bloomberg's cold, dead, transfat-free hand!

  • ||

    How about a contrasting editorial from the NY Times.

    Here is one gem:
    The court’s members ignored the present-day reality of Chicago, where 258 public school students were shot last school year — 32 fatally.

    First of all, it is not the court's job to consider the "reality" in Chicago, but rather; whether or not the statute in question is constitutionally allowed.

    Secondly, Chicago has some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation, so it seems that The Gray Lady prefers the status quo where 258 public school students were shot last school year — 32 fatally.

  • Joe||

    It looks like most of those killed were older teens. It's not like kindergarteners are getting gunned down daily on the streets of Chicago.

    I wonder how many of those students were involved in gangs or something else that led to them being shot. It all goes back to drug prohibition.

  • ||

    They fail to consider the difference between DC -- high murder rate, draconion gun control -- and a place a few hours drive away, Vermont, with some of the least restrictive gun laws and a WAY lower murder rate.

    But, you can't let evidence get in the way of ideology.

  • ||

    If the gun laws are relaxed, ten thousand school children will be shot; with machine guns!!!!11

  • ||

    Just like in Austin TX!

    The editorial that I linked to has comments that are surprisingly pro-gun(as of 11am). If you read the "readers choice"(highest recommendations by readers)they are mostly pro-gun, however the "highlights"(chosen by the editors to show a "thoughtful comments...and a range of views") comments are unanimously hysterical bed-wetters.

    A study in contrast:

    From "readers recommendations":
    #1
    When will the editorial board at the NYT realize they have been on the wrong side of this important civil-rights issue for decades? The second ammendment right to keep and bear arms is an individual civil right just as all of the rights in the first ten ammendments to the Constitution, which make up the Bill of Rights.

    From "highlights":
    #1
    I guess citizens of the United States want freedom.
    Freedom to kill themselves with handguns at the rate of 30,000 per year.

    Very thoughtful.

    Wow.

  • Piggly Weigely||

    The whole point of the original gun laws was to keep minorities from owning guns. It began in 1893 in Florida when blacks were coming up to work in the lumber and turpentine camps.

    They, like unions and universities*, are inherently racist.

    http://www.guncite.com/journals/cd-reg.html

    *Asians don't get AA breaks. Guess that whole internment camp thing never happened.

  • Joe||

    And keeping minorities from owning guns is still the result of most of the gun laws in the US.

  • ||

    Freedom to kill themselves with handguns at the rate of 30,000 per year.

    Is it wrong to want this person to be free?

  • ||

    That was the first, but not the worst.

    For your reading pleasure...you fucking mouth breather!

    Tell us, O ye of the Cult of the Gun, how long will it be before drunken gun carriers decide to resolve an argument over which American football team is the best by having a shoot-out in the pub or street out front? Indeed, how long before testosterone-loaded junior Wyatt Earps decide that it would be fun to see which of them is the fastest on the draw? I'm willing to wager that it won't be long in Arizona or Texas or wherever mouth-breathing legislators have their way on the issue.

  • ||

    Wow that was thoughtful all right.

  • ||

    You ever think that some people have a view of reality that is completely distorted by movies they have seen?

  • ||

    Yeah, cuz people in AZ and TX where they already are allowed to carry guns are known for shootouts over football. The wording of this comment sounds like it came from a foreigner (terms like American football and pub). Maybe fans of the other football would like to tell us how violent we get over our American sports teams, without a hint of irony, please.

  • ||

    I had exactly the same thoughts.

  • ||

    Very perceptive, Nick.

    dbsweden
    Sweden
    June 29th, 2010
    11:09 am

  • Joe||

    Of course the streets in those states have been running red with blood for the last 15 years (Arizona and Texas passed shall-issue concealed carry laws in 1994 and 1995 respectively). It's not like the US murder rate has been cut in half since 1990.

  • ||

    And no one on the ban side of this issue cares that this elderly black man wants simply to defend himself against the bad guys in his neighborhood. Nope. He must want to go to Soldier Field to shoot a Packers fan.

  • robc||

    KY's "running red with blood" legislator admitted his/her (cant remember) error a few years ago. Still opposes the concealed carry law but admits it didnt cause any problems.

  • TickleStick||

    AZ is an open carry state.

  • ||

    Maybe fans of the other football would like to tell us how violent we get over our American sports teams, without a hint of irony, please.

    Whatever do you mean?

  • Tim||

    Freedom to kill themselves with handguns at the rate of 30,000 per year.

    ...this is the status quo, current laws are not preventing this.

  • ||

    I'm willing to wager that it won't be long in Arizona or Texas or wherever mouth-breathing legislators have their way on the issue.

    What about Montana?

    What a gyp.

  • ||

    If indeed 30,000 Americans killed "themselves" with guns last year, they probably had a good reason. If the commentor meant that 30,000 Americans killed "each other" last year, at least this ruling will begin the process of making those confrontations a fair fight.

  • Joe||

    30,000 is the commonly-quoted number of annual gun deaths in the US.

    About half of those are suicides, yet the suicide rate in the US is comparable to other industrialized, English-speaking nations--11.1 per 100,000, as compared to 9.2 for the UK, 10.5 for Australia, 11.6 for Canada, and 13.2 for New Zealand.

  • robc||

    I know you said "english speaking" but isnt Japan's something crazy, like 30ish or something?

  • Joe||

    A number of Asian nations have both extremely strict gun control and high suicide rates--24.4 in Japan, 21.9 in South Korea, 18.8 in Taiwan.

    The highest rates are former Communist bloc nations, most of which have strict gun control laws too AFAIK.

    Source:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....icide_rate

  • Colin||

    Like the comment posted there: "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

  • Archie Bunker||

    "Would it make you feel any better if they was all pushed outta windows?"

  • Meathead||

    Yes! Because replacing the broken glass would stimulate the economy!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement