Chicago may not fight to keep gun ban

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley looks like he might be having second thoughts on his vow to defend his kingdom city's gun ban.

Mayor Daley on Friday cracked the door open to abandoning the costly fight to uphold Chicago's 1982 handgun freeze -- if he can fashion a replacement ordinance that protects the safety of first-responders.

Until now, Daley had promised to defend Chicago's ordinance all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, despite what he called the dangerous precedent set by the court.
...
Under further questioning, the mayor said city attorneys would simultaneously contest the law and work on a possible replacement.

Chicagoans with guns in their homes might be required to have insurance to protect taxpayers from frivolous lawsuits, he said.

"We're talking about putting first-responders in a very, very delicate position of people being armed without being notified how many guns they have in their homes," Daley said. "We have to be able to fashion a law that truly protects first-responders and protects the citizens."

Article here. Frankly, we need to have the Supreme Court rule that the Second Amendment applies to the states, as well as to the federal government, so it's probably in our interest to have the city fight to keep its ban all the way up to the Supreme Court. After all, it was Washington, D.C. Mayor Fenty's decision to petition the Supreme Court to keep the D.C. gun ban (after losing at the D.C. federal appeals court) that got us the Supreme Court's clear ruling that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

Hopefully, Dick Daley won't go all yellow-bellied on us. C'mon, Dick, be the anti-gun politician we know you to be. Live up to your power-hungry, unconstitutional ideals. Please?