Chicago approves new gun restrictions

[pnac]

That didn't take long! You'll have to read this to believe it, should make for an interesting test though.

Link to whole article:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhal...070210.article

Chicago approves new handgun restrictions
45-0 vote comes after Supreme Court hits city on gun ban

July 2, 2010
By ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter
Grumbling about a U.S. Supreme Court they say is out of touch with America’s cities, Chicago aldermen voted 45-0 today to approve a rushed-through compromise gun ban.

The law, weaker than the gun ban tossed out Monday but with some even stronger new provisions, allows adults in Chicago to buy one gun a month, 12 a year, but they must pay registration and permit fees and take five hours of training.

Within 100 days, anyone who wants to keep a gun in the city will have to register, get their training and pay the fees. Also within 100 days, any of the estimated 10,000 Chicagoans convicted of a gun offense will have to register at their local police station like sex offenders.

[stevelyn]

Passed without any public hearings or input?

[Standing Wolf]

Passed without any public hearings or input?

It's a Chicago thing. Americans aren't required to understand.

[Brian Pfleuger]

As I said, they're not going to give up. They will spend tens of millions of dollars of tax payer money, money that could be used for police forces and training and money which they do not have available in todays economy, to fight this battle until the bitter end. There is no end in sight, in Chicago or anywhere else.

[Tom Servo]

It's really a sad echo of the same measures taken by the District of Columbia after Heller. Here's a pamphlet [pdf] outlining what it takes to get a pistol registered in the District.

The idea is to comply, but to do so as little as humanly possible.

In DC, less than 900 handguns have been registered since the decision. Expect to see a similarly small number in Chicago.

Blood will continue to run in the streets, but local politicians will be able to say, "see? We honored your 2nd Amendment rights, and it didn't stop the violence."

[maestro pistolero]

No gun shops, no ranges. How are they going to hold safety training classes with no ranges?

Isn't this akin to claiming to respect a 1st amendment right while maintaining that libraries and bookstores are against the law, and books must be rationed and registered?

[vladan]

the vote was 45-0
I guess they like it like that over there since they keep electing morons like that

[csmsss]

This is just an artifact of Heller/McDonald's toothlessness and milquetoast recognition of a "right" on one hand and allowing it to be fully infringible on the other.

[Tom Servo]

This is just an artifact of Heller/McDonald's toothlessness and milquetoast recognition of a "right" on one hand and allowing it to be fully infringible on the other.

Don't worry; just because we're not there yet doesn't mean we're not on the right road.

[SVO]

45 alderman's? Plus a mayor. There's part of the problem right there. I realize that Houston is smaller than Chicago, but they only have 10 representives plus her mayorship.

[BillCA]

Originally Posted by csmsss

This is just an artifact of Heller/McDonald's toothlessness and milquetoast recognition of a "right" on one hand and allowing it to be fully infringible on the other.

The court addressed the question that was asked of it.
Trying to get concensus on the limitation of the right (or the scope) would be impossible in a 5-4 split court.

Originally Posted by Chicago SunTimes

When the new laws were announced in Chicago, Alderman Mary Ann Smith thanked "everyone who has worked to try and create as restrictive a tool as possible.”

The city aldermen and mayor have publicly stated their intent is to make exercising what is now a fundamental civil right as difficult as possible opens them up to a civil rights lawsuit.

Chicago is already being sued for it. See Benson v. Chicago

I'll go one further. Such an agreement amongst the city's leaders amounts to a conspiracy to violate the civil rights of Chicago residents and/or to delay the intent of the constitutional guarantee of those rights. Such a conspiracy is a federal felony and should be investigated by the FBI and an independent prosecutor.

Some of Chicago's draconian requirements:
● To have a firearm requires a Chicago firearm permit.
● The city has up to 4 months to approve the permit (1/3 of a year)
● You must be 21 in order to obtain a permit.
● 18-21 years olds, need a parent or guardian's permission.
● The parent or guardian must be eligible for a firearms permit.

In other words, a 19 y/o U.S. Marine has to get his Mama's permission, even though he may be qualified to shoot the M4, M16, M9, M24, M240 SAW, M2 Browning MG and anti-tank missles.

More Requirements

● A training certificate w/at least 1 hour of range training
● Prohibits shooting a gun "except in lawful defense"
● The above makes it illegal to fire on a shooting range.
● But that's okay, because Chicago bans gun stores and shooting ranges within Chicago.
● Can't keep more than 1 "operable" firearm in the home.
● Can't buy more than 1 gun per month.
● Prohibits licensing an "unsafe" handgun as defined by the Superintendent of police.
● Vague safety criteria allows banning almost any handgun.
● Chicago permit is only valid at the address listed on the permit.

Chicago says that "self defense in the home" is a right, but then move to limit the definition of what constitutes "a home". They define it as "the dwelling unit". Then, these clueless morons define what is not part of your "home":

● Any garage on the lot, even an attached garage.
● Any space outside the dwelling unit.
● Specifically any external stairs
● Specifically any porches
● Or any back, side or front yard areas
● Or any common areas.

So, if Nathan Nitwit and his gang decide you need a lesson and stand in your front yard lighting a molotov cocktail, you can't shoot them according to the City of Chicago. Not even if your elderly, bedridden 77 y/o mother is upstairs on 24/7 oxygen.

The City's actions are an offense against the Constitution, against the citizens of Chicago. They show a wanton disregard for the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and contempt of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I hope for swift action by the Federal courts in Benson. If we prevail and Chicago repeats their stupidity, the citizens of Chicago should notify the State of Illinois and the officials in the City in a letter that says...

The elected officials of the City of Chicago having ignored state and federal constitutional laws, conspired to deprive the people of their rights, and threatened those who insisted on exercising their rights with unlawful imprisonment. They have ignored the will of the vast majority of citizens in the exercise of their rights. Governments exist to protect the right of the people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not to leave them defenseless and at the mercy of criminals. As such, the Citizens of Chicago, exercising the inalienable Right of the People to alter and abolish any government that is destructive of those ends, gives notice to the elected officials of Chicago that they have 24 hour hours to tender their resignations to the Governor of Illinois or face forcible eviction from office.

Such a notice, signed by several hundred Chicago residents might shake up the politics in Illinois for decades.

[Al Norris]

Somehow, this one slipped by me.

Duplicate thread. See here.

Closed.