Barry Obama has voted for and endorsed anti-second amendment laws that are common in Chicago and around Illinois. If Barry had his way, he would impose these anti-constitutional laws throughout America.

But even Barry’s own backyard is acquiescing to the SCOTUS decision. In towns like Wilmette, a suburb just north of Chicago.

But the day after the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the second amendment and the right of individuals to own (and use) firearms, the town of Wilmette has already backed down from their previous unconstitutional laws (probably to avoid the sure to come lawsuits):

“The Law Department and the Police Department have suspended enforcement of the ordinance pending further review by the Village Board,” Wilmette village attorney Tim Frenzer said Thursday. “Based on the decision today, at a minimum it calls into serious question the continued viability of the ordinance.”

Review all you want Village Board — but you’re not going to be able to get around the fact that people, even in your village, can own handguns.

Frenzer said he did not know exactly how many times the law has been invoked, but said its use is rare.

The last case he recalls involved a 2003 incident in which a resident, Hale DeMar, was cited after using a handgun to shoot and wound a burglar in his home.

It’s insane that it took the SCOTUS to make these liberal wackjobs concede that people have the right to defend themselves — not just in their home, but wherever they might be. But especially in their own homes.

________

David Bernstein, writing at The Volokh Conspiracy:

The Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, upholding the Second Amendment right of individuals to own firearms, should finally lay to rest the widespread myth that the defining difference between liberal and conservative justices is that the former support “individual rights” and “civil liberties,” while the latter routinely defer to government assertions of authority. The Heller dissent presents the remarkable spectacle of four liberal Supreme Court justices tying themselves into an intellectual knot to narrow the protections the Bill of Rights provides. Or perhaps it’s not as remarkable as we’ve been led to think.