Bolingbrook residents sue to repeal village's 23 year-old nuclear weapons ban

Some opponents say that lifting the nuclear weapons ban will protect Bolingbrook from nuclear attack.

Following the Supreme Court's recent ruling on the 2nd Amendment, three Bolingbrook residents announced that they will sue to overturn the village's nuclear weapons ban.

"Nuclear arms are arms too!" Said plaintiff John. "The court clearly ruled that the government cannot ban any type of arms outright. The village is denying our right to own nuclear arms!"

The ordinance, enacted in 1985, bans residents from possessing nuclear weapons in their homes. A trustee at the time, who asked not to be identified, says the ordinance is symbolic.

"You see, at the time a lot of communities were passing nuclear-free zone ordinances and we didn't want to be left out. However, we also didn't want to exclude the possibility of nuclear plant being located here. I mean we could have used the jobs back then. Plus we didn't want to get into a big battle with the government if the Air Force needed to transport a nuclear warhead through Bolingbrook. So we decided to just ban residents from having nuclear weapons in their homes. It made the point, without harming our economy."

Unchallenged for 23 years, the court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller now brings constitutionality of the ban into question. Donald Longworth, lawyer for the plaintiffs, says the court made it clear that arms used for self-defense cannot be banned.

"The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify specific weapons. It says arms, and nuclear weapons are widely accepted as a form of armaments. We may not agree on sanity of allowing individual citizens to own hydrogen bombs for self-defense, but the village board does not have the option of banning nuclear weapons."

Added John, "Nuclear weapons have maintained peace for decades. I want peace too. Gang bangers will twice before coming into a nuclear neighbor! Chicago will think twice before imposing their immorality on my village. Terrorists will think twice before flying an airplane into my house!"

Many experts question the wisdom of allowing individuals to own nuclear weapons. According to an unpublished study by the Ann Rand Society, an individual bomb owner is ten times more likely to be blown up by his or her own bomb than by being shot by a terrorist. The study says that children could accidentally set off a bomb. Also, 80 percent of bombs are likely to be stolen from a resident's home. These stolen bombs could eventually make their way to terrorist organizations, say the study's authors.

"We shouldn't be bombing country on the one hand, because they might get nuclear weapons, and then start selling millions of nuclear weapons to civilians on the other. Nuclear proliferation is always unacceptable." Reads the report.

A source to Mayor Roger Claar, says he intends to fight the case.

"He said, 'Steve, standing up for gun rights makes the Republican Party look tough. Allowing almost any one to own a nuclear bomb makes us look like crazy fools intent on blowing up the world! We have to fight this!'" Said Steve.

According to Steve, the Village will argue that international treaties regulate nuclear weapons. These treaties have the same weight as the Constitution, and therefore prohibit individual ownership of nuclear weapons. The ordinance, therefore, is just another means of enforcing the treaties.

John is not impressed with that argument. "I didn’t sign any treaty! My government cannot force me into an agreement with another nation without consulting me. I wish Roger Claar would shut up and realize that more nukes means less terrorism!"

The case should be filed in August. No one from the village would speak on the record to The Babbler about the case.

|

Please note: All stories and characters on this web site are works of fiction.