Before the late twentieth century, the second amendment, which grants Americans the right to bear arms, was never challenged. There were absolutely no areas in the country which prohibited people from having or using guns. In the 1980s, things changed in America – there was a surge in gun violence – someone attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan and the Pope was shot. So when a resident of his town tried to open a gun store amidst this, Neil Cashman, a trustee from Morton Grove, Illinois, was more than bothered. Along with fellow residents, he drafted legislation which would prohibit the use of handguns in Morton Grove. The proposal baffled Americans – how could a person challenge an amendment which had existed since America’s beginnings? The vote split evenly – two voted for it, two against it, and two undecided.
Morton Grove became a happening place almost overnight. People were angry that their right had been challenged, and worse, that it had come so close to being repealed. The undecided voters became the center of attention as people from around the country congregated in Morton Grove to try and convince them to vote against the proposal. Additionally, the National Rifle Association began voicing their concerns over the possible ban. Their efforts failed and in the summer of 1981, both undecided voters, including one who frequently used a gun himself, voted in favor of banning handguns, as well as various other weapons. Morton Grove became the first place in America to ban unsafe weapons for people without gun licenses or gun-necessary jobs. Gun owners were required to turn in their weapons to the town, or they would be fined.
As expected, Americans were outraged. Morton Grove was being criticized and belittled. One specific resident, Victor Quilici, was especially angry. He wondered how his small town could take away his rights. Quilici, a lawyer and handgun owner, decided to make a case to reverse the repeal. He began garnering resistance against the amendment. The amendment’s true purpose became a central debate. Was it truly meant to provide the right to bear arms or was it only in place because the Constitution states the idea that states can have their own defense systems. The Supreme Court refused to rule and gave lower courts permission to The district and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit backed up the Morton Grove decision.
The second amendment is somewhat nebulous – its wording could mean any number of things. It says that “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It is unclear whether the amendment was written to protect states’ rights to have their own militias, or to provide citizens with the right to own and freely use a handgun. People from opposing sides of the Morton-Grove ruling tried to frame the amendment’s true meaning to match their case. However, because neither argument was stronger, the court referenced another case, “U.S. v. Miller.” In this 1939 case, the court ruled that the right to bear arms is not what the second amendment guarantees to citizens. This ruling confirmed the Morton-Grove decision, and therefore Cashman’s right to challenge the right to bear arms did not necessarily ask for a violation of the second amendment.
It is also important to note one of Quilici’s central arguments. According to the English Bill of Rights, English citizens were required to bear arms to support their militia and central defense. Quilici argued that this English right was definitely discussed when the founding fathers discussed the right to bear arms. It backed up his idea that the true purpose of the second amendment was to give citizens the right to possess guns, because they were a necessity during the eighteenth century.
According to Quilici’s opposition, he was reading too much into the possible mindset of lawmakers. They also argued that dissecting the amendment would only cause more confusion.
Quilici v. Morton Grove is a significant part of American history whose ruling continues to impact decisions regarding gun violence today. After the ruling, activists began seeking similar changes in their own towns. Nearing towns used Morton Grove as an example, and prohibited gun use quickly. However, other towns challenged the ruling for two reasons: first, they doubted that a state should have the right to take away a governmental right, and second, they believed that self-defense was a natural right. Hence, towns like Oak Park were enveloped in controversy.
Since its passing, the right to possess weapons has been lost in several American towns and cities. Laws relating to the second amendment have become stricter, and some even propose that the ban become a national law. The 2016 election raised even more controversy – Donald Trump outwardly supported the right to bear arms, while candidate Bernie Sanders approached the situation carefully, and stated that he was against assault weapons. Hillary Clinton proposed filtering guns out of society, slowly.
Today, as more gun violence and shootings occur, the Quilici v. Morton Grove decision is being questioned. It is a significant part not only of American history, but also modern America.