NBC Chicago /

News

Winnetka Votes For Right to Bear Arms Chicago suburb reversed its 20-year-old weapons ordinance

By  MATT BARTOSIK

Updated 10:20 AM CDT, Wed, Nov 19, 2008

Related Topics: Winnetka

59 Comments   Post a comment Post a Comment

Getty Images

"Winnetka is a better community because of the handgun ban," Village President Ed Woodbury had said prior to Tuesday's vote.

 

Despite pleas from residents gathered at a town hall meeting Tuesday night, Winnetka officials voted to repeal a 20-year ban on handguns.

A Supreme Court ruling in June declared that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms.

In September, three Winnetka residents and the National Rifle Association sued the village, stating that the local ban violated their rights protected by the Constitution.

The plaintiffs claimed they were "subjected to irreparable harm in that they were unable to obtain handguns and ammunition to protect themselves in their homes ... subjecting them to endangerment from criminal intruders."

The Village Board referenced both the high court ruling and the lawsuit in making it's decision Tuesday night.  Council members said they feared if they didn't repeal the ordinance it would cost the suburb thousands of dollars to fight the suit with the real risk of still losing in court.

With the Winnetka ruling, handguns in homes will now be permitted for the first time in 20 years, but firing guns and gun sales will still be prohibited.

The Village Council called a meeting in October to address the issue. A number of residents spoke up passionately, arguing to keep the ban.

"Winnetka is a better community because of the handgun ban," Village President Ed Woodbury said prior to Tuesday's vote, according to WinnetkaTalk. "The choice in front of us is nothing short of terrible."

Winnetka's handgun ban, and others like it, has been closely examined since the Supreme Court ruling. 

Other Chicago suburbs that have taken steps to reverse their local handgun bans are Wilmette, Evanston, Morton Grove and Oak Park.

Copyright NBC Local Media / NBC Chicago

Comments (59)

Sort by: Most Recent | Oldest
  • Hillbilly Friday, Nov 21 at 5:18 AM FLAG COMMENT Hooray! Power to the people.
  • dlyn454 Wednesday, Nov 19 at 6:13 PM FLAG COMMENT NO GUNS, I am being politely and sincerely curious. See, I am a gun owner of Indian and Jewish ancestry. All three of those groups have found that registering with the government leads to very bad things. Yet gays who have experienced government persecution, are actually demanding to register with the government, and insisting the government become involved in their relationships. This is incomprehensible to me. I would a ... MORE >
  • fr8dog Wednesday, Nov 19 at 5:55 PM FLAG COMMENT “Winnetka Votes for Right to Bear Arms”....... Has it escaped anyone’s attention that the concept of “VOTING for a RIGHT” is an oxymoron. One doesn’t vote for a RIGHT. A RIGHT exists on its own, requiring neither approval or vote. So the concept of requiring a vote is absurd. If anyone in Winnetka, or anywhere else, wants to have a gun, (ANY type of gun), in their home, or carry it concealed on their person, they requ ... MORE >
  • BobbyT Wednesday, Nov 19 at 5:46 PM FLAG COMMENT The article title is a bit off. Aside from the fact that rights don't change because of a vote (they're simply observed, or infringed upon), Winnetka didn't address the right to BEAR arms. They've stopped infringing the right to KEEP them, but Illinois still remains 1 of just 2 states with a complete ban on BEARing them...you cannot carry at all here unless you happen to be one of Daley's Chitcago aldermen buddies.
  • fr8dog Wednesday, Nov 19 at 3:17 PM FLAG COMMENT No Guns writes:........ [“where in the Constitution does it say that a man can't marry a man or woman can't marry a woman?”]........... Obviously the Constitution doesn’t address the institution of marriage. This should be a CHOICE. So it has no relevance a the discussion of the RIGHT to bear arms. As a CA resident I voted FOR prop 8, as gay marriage no relevance to me nor should it to anyone other than those obse ... MORE >

Post a Comment

Name


Comment - You have 2000 characters left

Enter both words below, separated by a space, in the field located to the lower right. Can't read the words below? Try different words or an audio captcha. What's this?