netsecurity
Shooter
As I understand it, Chicagoan's may now have one handgun in their house, if they buy a state license, a city license, register the handgun, and take training. But they may not carry the gun to protect themselves, only use it to protect their home. How is this constitutional? Is my understanding wrong? If a felon gang member is walking the streets with a gun, he is assured that any businessman or law abiding "yuppie" that he decides to rob or murder will be unarmed right?
The Truth About Concealed Carry in Illinois | The Truth About Guns
But the SCOTUS affirmed in the DC case* that the 2a states to "keep and bear arms" means a) To 'keep' a gun at home, and b) To carry, or 'bear', a gun. They also clearly established that a handgun is the most appropriate and desire able gun to carry.
So how did Chicago comply with the 2a I'd they are not allowing citizens to legally carry?
*DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
The Truth About Concealed Carry in Illinois | The Truth About Guns
But the SCOTUS affirmed in the DC case* that the 2a states to "keep and bear arms" means a) To 'keep' a gun at home, and b) To carry, or 'bear', a gun. They also clearly established that a handgun is the most appropriate and desire able gun to carry.
So how did Chicago comply with the 2a I'd they are not allowing citizens to legally carry?
*DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER