Four people were shot to death and another four people were injured in the second mass shooting in Chicago in four days. Two of the injured were “shot in the back of the head,” according to WTTW.

Citing police, the report says “shots were fired following an argument. The shooting occurred at roughly 5:42 a.m. and four victims were pronounced dead at the scene.”

“This is the second mass shooting Chicago has seen in the last four days” ABC affiliate WLS adds. “A 29-year-old mother of three was killed in a Chatham shooting that left nine others hurt on Saturday morning.”

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot “blamed illegal guns for the mass shooting, and said the city needs federal help to help stem the flow of violence. Lightfoot said the White House reached out early Tuesday to offer assistance.”

According to the Gun Violence Archive there have been 275 mass shootings this year. 19,920 people have been killed by guns this year, including by suicide.

This is a breaking news and developing story. 

Image by Tony Webster via Flickr and a CC license

Could Make It ‘Easier to Have a Gun Than a Car’

Legal experts are issuing warnings after the U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it will take up a major Second Amendment case, its first in a decade – and warning of a “guns apocalypse” given the extremely conservative makeup of the Court.

“This case is likely to pave the way to the Supreme Court declaring a constitutional right to concealed public carry, overriding many state and local restrictions on the ability to bear concealed arms in public,” Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern writes.

In theory what that might mean is not only an explosion of people carrying guns, but people carrying guns that you cannot see – until it’s too late. It quite literally is the Republican Party’s dream.

Vox’s Ian Millhiser warns “The Supreme Court guns apocalypse is now upon us.” 

The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett. Millhiser says the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case, which would come in about a year from now, “could transform the judiciary’s understanding of the Second Amendment and lay waste to many of the nation’s gun laws.”

In short, he says, it “could make the NRA’s dreams come true.”

The case, as Millhiser describes it, focuses on a 108-year old New York State law that requires anyone who wants a gun to obtain a permit, and to show “proper cause,” in other words, to prove they have a need for it. Someone “who merely wants to carry a gun, because of a general belief that it would be useful if they are ever the victim of a violent crime, cannot obtain a license.”

The Second Amendment has just 27 words: “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.”

The 6-3 “Trump Court” is more than likely to strike down the New York law.

“Indeed,” Millhiser writes, “Corlett could potentially dismantle more than a decade of judicial decisions interpreting the Second Amendment, imposing prohibitive limits on lawmakers’ ability to reduce gun violence.”

To paraphrase Oprah, “And you get a gun, and you get a gun, and you get a gun.”

Here’s what some other legal experts are saying:

Former DOJ prosecutor:

Get ready to see exactly what a 6-3 Republican stacked supreme court means in this case that will decide whether or not people have a personal right to carry a concealed weapon in the city while walking around.https://t.co/dHqdA4rWDY

— Michael J. Stern (@MichaelJStern1) April 26, 2021

Law professor, Georgia State Law:

I have a bad feeling there’s going to be some truly atrocious 14th Amendment originalism about gun ownership and Reconstruction that will irk me for the next year.

— Anthony Michael Kreis (@AnthonyMKreis) April 26, 2021

Former US Attorney, now MSNBC/NBC Legal analyst and Law Professor:

Given the views of Trump’s justices, this case likely furthers the jurisprudence of making it easier to have a gun than a car, with no training, in an environment where mass shootings frequently take lives. So, not exactly the well regulated militia the 2nd Amendment envisions. https://t.co/4cpPJ286xp

— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) April 26, 2021

Slate’s Stern (quoted above), author of “American Justice 2019: The Roberts Court Arrives”:

Just last month, the conservative Judge Jay Bybee penned an extraordinary 127-page opinion canvassing the history of firearm laws and concluding that there is plainly no constitutional rights to public carry. Do not expect his view to prevail at SCOTUS. https://t.co/SuPl6w2tj3

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) April 26, 2021

Attorney, politics and law reporter at NY’s Fox5:

Next SCOTUS term could very well include major guns, abortion, and affirmative action cases that will end with decisions revealing the true legacy of Trump’s four years in office https://t.co/yPH4FvjEKR

— Mike Sacks (@MikeSacksEsq) April 26, 2021

The day after Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke told Americans, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15,” Tomi Lahren warned Americans will be armed to protect themselves from immigrants. The Fox Nation host suggested Americans may have to shoot immigrants to “protect” themselves, as Media Matters reports.

Lahren made her remarks on sister network Fox Business, in an insane segment that included host Stuart Varney’s false claim that America is “the only country in the world where armed citizens are allowed.” 175 countries around the world allow their citizens to be armed, and three explicitly do so in their constitutions.

After telling viewers that “you can’t depend on the government to protect you at all times,” Lahren insisted the “government is going to fail you.”

Having a firearm “is your right, your right to protect and defend yourself and your family,” she added.

“And all the things the Democrats want to put in place — my goodness, if they want to open our borders, you better be sure the people in Texas, the people in South Dakota, the people in the middle of this country, we are going to be armed and ready, because we have to have a means to defend ourselves from — who knows who’s coming in? That’s the thing, we don’t know, and we have to be able to protect ourselves.”

Democrats are not advocating for “open borders.”

Watch:

Fox host Tomi Lahren suggests that Americans may need to shoot immigrants: “We are going to be armed and ready, because we have to have a means to defend ourselves from — who knows who’s coming in?” pic.twitter.com/W5NckY8YhU

— Media Matters (@mmfa) September 13, 2019

RELATED STORIES:

Anti-Gay Tomi Lahren Dragged for Trying to Use LGBTQ People as an Issue Against AOC and ‘The Squad’

Anti-LGBT NRA Supporting Tomi Lahren Delivers Insane New Claim: Gun Rights Are Gay Rights

Tomi Lahren Tells World Cup Champ Megan Rapinoe She’s ‘Not a Hero’ and Has ‘An Attitude Problem’