Chicago Moves Quickly to Replace Previous Ban Ordinance

Status
Not open for further replies.
The liability limitations concerning firearms owners and police who shoot them, as well as the Nazi-esque lists that Daly wants are the most sinister portions of this law in my mind (though the whole thing is obviously designed to circumvent the ruling).

Those two provisions basically would allow the police to kill an innocent and get away with it, making Daley's police force little better than the Stasi.

We have no idea if the police would be used in that way or not, but the potential for abuse is to great to allow that to stand.
 
This is going to die horribly in court because many provisions directly violate the Constitution and prior legal precedence.

*Only one firearm can be kept in immediately operable condition in each home. Other guns must be broken down or have trigger locks in place.

That provision alone is horribly unconstitutional because it violates the Second Amendment rights of any other adults living on the premises. It will be struck down based on that alone.
 
What's Good For The Goosestepping Is Good For Those Who Shop At Gander Mountain!

Maddening. I haven't seen the exact verbage, but I'm sure it's even worse than described in the article. Most maddening to me is the idea of exempting the City from liability if they kill someone who's exercising their Constitutional rights and even if they're fully in compliance with the City's law. That's nice, isn't it?
I fully believe in reciprocity. Make the law reciprocal! All citizens with licensed guns are exempt from prosecution and liability for shooting and even killing a police officer -- if it is fair one way it sure as HELL is fair the other, especially because the civillians have been trained!!!
Al
 
I truly believe that Daley supports these provisions because civilians with guns represent an occupational hazard for his criminal friends.

I flew through Chicago twice this week. On my return from Boston, I struck up a conversation with a 30-something mother of two. The talk turned to guns. She seemed to understand that guns had legitimate uses, but also seemed to think that striking down the ban would result in guns being more readily available to criminals. "All I can think about is those kids getting caught in the crossfire of gang shootouts."

I felt like she was the kind of person who would come around to our way of thinking if only she was exposed to shooting. She had never fired a gun. She was shocked to find out that I owned one (I only mentioned my handgun. I didn't think she was ready to hear about my AR-15 :D)

However, her objections to guns are the kind that exist in the minds of almost every Chicagoan. They were born of ignorance. She didn't know about background checks. She didn't know that felons aren't legally allowed to buy guns. She didn't even know that England's violent crime rates skyrocketed after they banned guns.

As wonderful of a person as she seemed, people like her keep electing Daley because the truth is hidden from them. People who agree with him, who believe that government is the only entity that can be trusted with guns. It's a fight for the hearts and minds of those sheep, who have been led astray by corrupt and evil shepherds.

Take people shooting, even antis. Expose them to the sport, show them that real, normal people own guns and don't kill people. Make them one of us by teaching them the real facts about gun laws. You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. Only converting individuals will allow us to bring real 2nd amendment rights to cities like Chicago.
 
Justice Alito stated in McDonald that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental. Laws which prohibit a person 18 years of age or older from possessing a firearm or restrict them from possessing one without parental permission are going to be struck down. If you can sign an enlistment contract and enter the armed forces, vote in federal and state elections and suffer the death penalty you can own a firearm. There is simply no basis, rational or otherwise, on which to support any age restriction past age 18.

While I agree.... using that logic would support lowering the drinking age to 18.

This also supports the notion that not enough people vote in general.


I say this because I wish more people would vote instead of relying on other people voting and other people and their lawyers to shape their future for them.

Daley and the other 44 Councilmen (women) probably could have been voted out by the time McDonald got through all of the courts.

Chicago gun laws are a result of their own residents voting or lack thereof.

Back to your regularly scheduled Daley/Chicago bashing.
 
Really Daley is one of the best friends gun owners have - he insists on passing and supporting the most extreme gun laws possible which makes it so much easier to get them overturned and set legal precedents in court supportive of the RKBA.
 
I hope I'm wrong, but if you guys think the age and one gun a month restrictions are going to go out the window in court I'd think again. I'm not defending the provisions but these types of gun control measures have been in place all across the country and many Americans, even in red states, believe these are as mainstream as background checks. I suspect the courts will agree more or less. Remember, Heller & McDonald left the door open for "reasonable restrictions" and these are entirely open to interpretation by the courts.


I'm just saying. Don't get your hopes up.
 
Chicago's longstanding ban on handguns, which the Supreme Court this week ruled as unconstitutional, was a complete failure.

Two years ago, every student in my first-period English class on the West Side of Chicago claimed to have easy access to a handgun -- even the goody-two-shoes Honors student in the front row. When I doubted her, she looked at me as if I were a fool. "I could get you one from my uncle tonight," she informed me with a quizzical look. "He might ask me why I needed it, might not."

Guns were so abundant that there was only, maybe, one big fight a year among the males in our school building because it was understood that the simplest of physical confrontations too quickly could escalate into deadly shootings. "You have to walk away from a lot," observed one former student of mine who has lost several friends and relatives to gun violence. "For instance, dude deserves to be beat and I know I could beat his ass, but then what? No one is just going to take an ass-beating, they're going to want to do something about it."

And he added, "Then you got to worry about him and his guys jumping on you. Or more than likely, he's going to get a gun to show that he's not a punk. That's how a lot of these shootings happen, it's over nothing."
Violence was so omnipresent that when I returned to school a few days after being shot in the arm with a .22 (I'd rather not discuss), a staggering number of students lifted their shirts to show their bullet wounds. "What you going to do?" they seemed to say with a shrug, as if this were everyday life.
In a city where an average of four people are shot every day, the random shooting death a few years ago of an amazing, beautiful person, Alto Brown, a friend of mine, was reduced to a single line in a three-paragraph newspaper story coldly tallying weekend homicides. "Everything happens for a reason," the pastor said at his funeral. "He's now in a better place."
As gangs and their illegal guns held whole communities hostage, it seemed as if the only people prevented from possessing firearms were citizens like Keith Thomas, who was raised on the West Side and now works as a mentor to at-risk youth for an alternatives schools program in Chicago
"I don't think anybody in their right mind would argue that more guns are a good thing," said Thomas, who has the scar from a bullet wound on his right wrist. "But I think the Supreme Court made the right decision. I think right now, at this point, the ban is not helping to serve any real purpose."
Thomas does not believe that the court's decision will result in significantly more or less violence, but he does hope that the ruling will force political leaders to seek community improvements beyond just strict gun control.
"It's not enough to just say we need more gun control. That's not what's causing all these problems out here, the guns are the result," he explained. "If we want to stop violence, we need to make real changes. That's a lot harder and requires a lot more money than just saying no guns."
In too many low-income communities of Chicago, the schools are in shambles, quality after-school programs are scarce, well-paying jobs are almost nonexistent, and the family structure is in full crisis. It is an easy notion to disregard, but many of these children are struggling daily to thrive in an environment that fosters failure.
"We have to get them early, before they start getting lost," Thomas said of the youth he advises, get them redirected with organizations like his and other successful mentoring interventions like the Youth Advocates Programs. "Once they start believing there's nothing else, that they have nothing to lose, they're the ones most likely to do the shooting."
After a recent weekend in which 10 people were killed and 60 wounded by gunfire, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley continued to argue the necessity of a citywide gun ban. "Look at all the guns that shot people this weekend. Where did they come from? That is the issue."
But one must ask, truly, is it?
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Will Okun.
 
This is just begging for more Supreme Court decisions to strike parts of this down.

Only one handgun in operable condition. PUHLEASE!!
 
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-city-council-gun-ordinance-20100702,0,5675294.story

"You cannot legislate criminals. They are going to be criminals no matter what," said Ald. Ed Smith, 28th. "The people who intend to do crime, they are going to do it in whatever manner they can. They are going to get a gun wherever they can, and they are going to use it. They are not going to register their gun."

They are fully aware that this new ordinance will be useless to curtail crime, yet they pass it 45-0 anyway? They must fear Daley or something. Very sad.
 
JochenWeber, that was a great post about Chicago. There's a similar problem in Detroit and many other cities. Guns aren't the cause of violence, they're just used in it. You might as well ban rap music, much of which glorifies violence of many types. Look at how many rap stars have been killed or gotten into legal trouble because they had guns when they should not have had them.

I don't mean to sound like a feelie-touchie BHL; you can mourn the lost child but that doesn't mean you don't need to remove the criminal that child became. But in Chicago, like a lot of other places, gun control has become a substitute for addressing the true causes of the violence.
 
Justice Alito stated in McDonald that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental. Laws which prohibit a person 18 years of age or older from possessing a firearm or restrict them from possessing one without parental permission are going to be struck down. If you can sign an enlistment contract and enter the armed forces, vote in federal and state elections and suffer the death penalty you can own a firearm. There is simply no basis, rational or otherwise, on which to support any age restriction past age 18.

x2. These types of restrictions always tick me off. With the number of American 18-20 yr olds currently carrying automatic weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq, risking their lives day in, day out, to simply reduce their rights when they get home is borderline treason to me.

I would have to say I am not surprised by Daleys move,I was surprised by how fast he did it. Which, if I was in Chicago would be VERY telling given how little he has done to reduce crime, fix the budget, or pretty much anything else in the city.
 
This is just begging for more Supreme Court decisions to strike parts of this down.

Actually, they already filed a number of suits in NC which may help out with this clown. The SCOTUS would to good for a clear and comprehensive ruling from the first of these. I imagine in about all 50 states there are hundreds, if not thousands, of suits either filed already or in the process of being filed. Daley, and the other control dimwits are doing us a favor. The 2A is getting its true day in the sun and the SCOTUS will have to clearly define its implications and how far it can be restricted. The SCOTUS already said some form of restrictions will be allowed, but they will have to do better than vague descriptions of "reasonable". Daley and others have shown, "reasonable" has a HUGE array of meaning.
 
The 2A is getting its true day in the sun and the SCOTUS will have to clearly define its implications and how far it can be restricted.

There lies the rub. The SCOTUS is not going to write law. It's almost like doing a math homework problem. Mom checks the work, Dad checks the work, little brother checks the work and they all say, "looks good to me." You turn in the answer only to have the teacher say, "Too high", or "Too low." and hand you back the paper to try again. It's soon obvious that you don't know how to do the problem and begin to turn in answers one number higher or lower than the last one. The family thinks those answers look good too.
When you have a string of judges and courts that approved the previous laws based on their beliefs instead of the constitution these laws will always have to go back to the SC. Winding their way through the various appellate courts takes years. When writing these bad laws have no repercussions, financially or politically, there is no reason to not drag it out as long as possible by writing a slightly less onerable law each time until somebody runs out of money. Political gamesmanship at it's finest.

In the land of precinct bosses, community organizers and political machines, the best way out, as I see it, is to vote with your feet.
 
The liability limitations concerning firearms owners and police who shoot them, as well as the Nazi-esque lists that Daly wants are the most sinister portions of this law in my mind (though the whole thing is obviously designed to circumvent the ruling).

Those two provisions basically would allow the police to kill an innocent and get away with it, making Daley's police force little better than the Stasi.
They already do. Police in Chicago don't get prosecuted for wrongfully shooting citizens. Your ONLY recourse is in civil court. Look at the shooting of Michael Pleasance.

We have no idea if the police would be used in that way or not, but the potential for abuse is to great to allow that to stand.
That provision has little chance of being enacted in Illinois (especially after last week's conviction for perjury of police torturer Jon Burge), and LITERALLY none in the U.S. House and Senate. It amounts to a license to kill for police. It's not happening.
 
Anyone convicted of unlawful use or illegal possession of a weapon would be required to register with the police for a four-year period.
They are already "registered", it's called a criminal record, usually accessable by any on-duty police officer with a working computer/link.

I hope we can get this mess under control by the time I retire. In the meantime, we'll enjoy our Alaska/Vermont style gun laws here in AZ in 26 days.
 
Unsafe firearms? Don't worry folks, for only $100 a gun you can have your gun "inspected" at your local XYZ. The best part you ask? Well, it only has to be done once a year!

I can't believe I'm the first to think of this...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top