Chicago's Daley Blinks:May Drop Fight to Keep Handgun Ban

[Solo Flyer]

Daley hints he may drop fight to keep handgun ban

http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/1087669,CST-NWS-guns02.article

August 2, 2008

BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter/[email protected]
Mayor Daley on Friday cracked the door open to abandoning the costly fight to uphold Chicago's 1982 handgun freeze -- if he can fashion a replacement ordinance that protects the safety of first-responders.

Until now, Daley had promised to defend Chicago's ordinance all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, despite what he called the dangerous precedent set by the court.

On June 26, the Supreme Court overturned a Washington, D.C., handgun ban on grounds that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to possess a handgun in your home for self-defense.

The National Rifle Association then filed lawsuits seeking to overturn handgun bans in Chicago, Morton Grove, Evanston and Oak Park.

Wilmette and Morton Grove preemptively repealed their bans.

Now that both suburbs have thrown in the towel, and newspaper editorials have urged Daley to do the same to save millions in legal costs on a fight he can't win, he appears to be having second thoughts.

At a news conference called to tout the 6,848 guns collected at last week's gun turn-in program, Daley was asked point-blank whether he would continue the legal fight to keep Chicago's handgun ban.

"We don't know yet. ... We're not gonna run away. We're gonna try to figure this out," he said.

Under further questioning, the mayor said city attorneys would simultaneously contest the law and work on a possible replacement.

Chicagoans with guns in their homes might be required to have insurance to protect taxpayers from frivolous lawsuits, he said.

"We're talking about putting first-responders in a very, very delicate position of people being armed without being notified how many guns they have in their homes," Daley said. "We have to be able to fashion a law that truly protects first-responders and protects the citizens."

 

[30 cal slob]

"We're talking about putting first-responders in a very, very delicate position of people being armed without being notified how many guns they have in their homes," Daley said. "We have to be able to fashion a law that truly protects first-responders and protects the citizens."

 

[XDKingslayer]

Why are these people not being impeached for not upholding the Constitution as they swore to do?

 

[M1911]

It would be unfortunate if Daley caves. We actually need this trial to get to SCOTUS, so that they rule on incorporation of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Chicagoans with guns in their homes might be required to have insurance to protect taxpayers from frivolous lawsuits, he said.

????? Anybody have a guess as to what this is supposed to mean?

"We're talking about putting first-responders in a very, very delicate position of people being armed without being notified how many guns they have in their homes," Daley said. "We have to be able to fashion a law that truly protects first-responders and protects the citizens."

He must be amazed that there are any first responders still alive in the "wild" states of Indiana, Ohio, Florida, Texas, . . .

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

Agreed M1911 it would be better for the long run.

Then again I feel somewhat of a hypcrit living in VA hoping the citizens of Chicago remain deprived of their rights and "take one for the team" in order to get a ruling.

I mean I am sitting here with very generous gun laws (no registration, no license, open carry) with some small issues to resolve (I think CHP should be free, one gun a month unless you have CHP, etc) and people in Chicago can't even keep a single gun in their homes legally.

 

[El Tejon]

post 1983.

They are terrified of us in Chicago. We are taking the battle to them. It's about time.

 

[Prince Yamato]

"We're talking about putting first-responders in a very, very delicate position of people being armed without being notified how many guns they have in their homes," Daley said. "We have to be able to fashion a law that truly protects first-responders and protects the citizens."

Umm... with FOID, I think they could just check. You don't need to fashion a new system, your state already has one in place.

 

[Mr_Rogers]

Chicagoans with guns in their homes might be required to have insurance to protect taxpayers from frivolous lawsuits, he said.

Read as - this is one way we have thought of to make ownership extortionately expensive.

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

Chicagoans with guns in their homes might be required to have insurance to protect taxpayers from frivolous lawsuits, he said.
Chicagoans who register to vote might be required to have insurance to protect taxpayers from frivolous lawsuits, he said.

Yeah doesn't really work well in either case. You can't tax a right. If courts agree w/ Heller in Heller 2 I think it will change the whole playing field. If courts rule that you can't tax a right regardless of the cost to the government cities may look for more reasonable restrictions. When cities start looking into way crazy xyz scheme costs and have to flip the whole bill maybe they will change their rules.

Remember running elections costs millions, yet their is no poll tax, and not all taxpayers vote thus non-voters pay for the rights exercised by voters.

 

[damien]

"We're talking about putting first-responders in a very, very delicate position of people being armed without being notified how many guns they have in their homes," Daley said. "We have to be able to fashion a law that truly protects first-responders and protects the citizens."

Rebutting Daley's argument is very easy.

Chicagoians already are "allowed" to have shotguns and rifles in their homes, so this situation already exists. If first-responders not having information about who owns firearms is a "problem", why has Daley not responded to it already?

Also, to the extent that it is a "problem", this is a problem everywhere. And despite the fact that first responders don't have complete information on who owns firearms anywhere in the USA, the vast majority of localities have a better public safety record and also a better first-responder safety record than Chicago.

 

[sctman800]

Why are these people not being impeached for not upholding the Constitution as they swore to do?


Impeach Daley!!! He doesn't campaign and still wins with 75-80% of the vote. Jim.

 

[M1911]

Why are these people not being impeached for not upholding the Constitution as they swore to do?

Have you ever spent much time in Chicago? Daley is very popular with Chicago voters.

Also, I suspect that IL law does not allow for "impeachment" of a mayor. It might provide the ability to do a recall election.

 

[damien]

Also, I suspect that IL law does not allow for "impeachment" of a mayor. It might provide the ability to do a recall election.

I'm thinking not. Never heard of a mayoral recall mechanism in Illinois, other than indictment (the preferred method). There is no statewide office recall either, but this has been discussed as something that might be passed into law recently. The Democrats want to get rid of one of their own here, Governor Blagojevich. As soon as the Democrats took over the state, they split into two factions or several factions depending on how you count them (Chicago vs. the rest, and Madigan+Daley vs. Blagojevich). Democrat antics are quite entertaining here.

 

[RickW]

The sad thing is Daley and his crappy city of Chicago seems to dictate what goes on in the rest of the state. We, yes I live in IL., should be able to let Chicago secede from the rest of the state. We could have our constitutional rights and they can keep the laws as they see fit. The citizens of Chicago keep voting in that nut case and we end up paying for it.

 

[Deanimator]

Then again I feel somewhat of a hypcrit living in VA hoping the citizens of Chicago remain deprived of their rights and "take one for the team" in order to get a ruling.

Chicagoans don't WANT rights. They want:

1. Loot. You can take away their rights to speak or to assemble or to be secure in their homes, or anything else, so long as you throw a couple of shekels their way... even if you stole those couple of shekels from them in the first place.

2. Harm to those they hate. Even more important to a Chicagoan than money is not that you help him, but that you hurt someone he hates. If you're White, you want something done TO Black people. If you're Black, you want something done TO Jews. If you're Mexican, you want something done TO, Blacks or Puerto Ricans. Not one in ten thousand Chicagoans can spell "Schadenfreude", but they all practice it on a daily basis.

Chicago makes Apartheid South Africa and Northern Ireland look like hippy love-ins. I know, I grew up there in the '60s and '70s.

 

[Standing Wolf]

You can't tax a right.

Unless, of course, you have the unchecked power of government at your disposal. In that case, you can do whatever the people don't prevent you from doing.

 

[Solo Flyer]

Chicagoans don't WANT rights. They want:

1. Loot. You can take away their rights to speak or to assemble or to be secure in their homes, or anything else, so long as you throw a couple of shekels their way... even if you stole those couple of shekels from them in the first place.

2. Harm to those they hate. Even more important to a Chicagoan than money is not that you help him, but that you hurt someone he hates. If you're White, you want something done TO Black people. If you're Black, you want something done TO Jews. If you're Mexican, you want something done TO, Blacks or Puerto Ricans. Not one in ten thousand Chicagoans can spell "Schadenfreude", but they all practice it on a daily basis.

Chicago makes Apartheid South Africa and Northern Ireland look like hippy love-ins. I know, I grew up there in the '60s and '70s.
__________________

OK,Dean.Now tell us how you really feel!

 

[rugerman07]

Why are these people not being impeached for not upholding the Constitution as they swore to do?

Good question. And, one I've asked more than once.

 

[Unisaw]

From what I have heard about the way government works in Chicago, a cynic might suspect that Daley and his cronies hope to make money on the sale of the insurance.

 

[Kino74]

One thing I truly believe is that its the governments job to do their duty without infringing on my BOR. Private Citizens should not give up rights to make the government's life easier. I'm still stuck on the ole government serving the people idealogy.

 

[Rachen]

Why are these people not being impeached for not upholding the Constitution as they swore to do?

Because there are way too many leftist trash using their 1st Amendment rights to protect these crooked politicians.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Personally, I'll be disappointed if Daley doesn't fight this. I'll have to send him a letter accusing him of spinelessness in the face of the gun lobby

 

[taliv]

heh


and i'll send him two saying the only way to fight the gun lobby is for the city to issue a gun to every citizen

 

[Len S]

If Daley gives up it is for one reason and one reason only. Daley does NOT want Chicago to do the same thing for gun rights that D.C. did. D.C. was told to drop it or lose they lost, Daley does not want to go there. If King Richie thought for one minute he had at least a 50% chance of winning he would spend millions of Tax payer dollars to fight. He does not want to become the laughing stock Fenty has become.


Len