Will Chicago ever get reasonable gun owner rights ?

Hook686 · June 25, 2011, 11:40 PM

The new 'Top Cop' in Chicago seems to support strong gun controls in Chicago, and even seems to blame this on the feds using the 2nd Amendment rights to kill black and brown children.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_884564.html

Quote:

“After several minutes of gratuitous self-promotion, McCarthy launched into a racially charged tirade in which he accused the NRA and law-abiding gun owners of participating in a government-sponsored program to kill black people," Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, wrote on the group's website.

When I read material such as this I wonder just how likely is it that the majority of citizens in this country will one day elect representatives that will indeed legislate away the 2nd Amendment. What are your thoughts ... is there any reality to this type belief spreading, or does the vast majority see the delusions upon which it is founded ?

BarryLee · June 25, 2011, 11:44 PM

Well, as many on this site have pointed out I do not believe elected officials will legislate away our rights. However, I believe we are very close to appointed members of the SCOTUS limiting them.

**Bud Helms** · June 26, 2011, 12:47 AM

I'm thinking this is more appropriate for L&CR.

Moving.

youngunz4life · June 26, 2011, 12:49 AM

not in our lifetime, but then again - I guess it's better to stay optimistic.

Eghad · June 26, 2011, 07:42 AM

racism is one of the reasons gun control laws came about....

In the 1700s the The French Black Code forbid black persons to have firearms. Guess what happened in New Orleans after the U.S. took possession. They excluded free blacks from positions in the militia that required them to have firearms. Free blacks were prohibited from possessing Firearms

After the Civil War it became worse. That is where some of the gun laws in Texas that affected us into the Th century and beyond came from.

The underlying premise for gun control is still the same as it was used for racist reasons. that the people are untrustworthy and too violent to be allowed to have weapons.

maybe the Chief should break out a book called " Negroes with Guns" by Robert Williams.

Something that should be put into Ripley's Believe it or not museum....the article below

Even the Daily Kos had an article: Outmanned and Outgunned: Gun Control in Black History. Someone should send the Chief this article.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...-Black-History

So what was the first step in depriving black people of their civil rights?

depriving them of their right to defend themselves.

The Chief has opened his mouth and removed all doubt now...would somebody tell the Chief I have a sign for him to wear around his neck now.

chasep255 · June 26, 2011, 07:46 AM

So long as there is no law or constitutional amendment saying something like "No Goverment shall pass laws regarding firearms" I think that places like Chicago will find ways to restrict the right. Actually they would probably still finds ways around that. I say best solution is to elect a pro-gun government. Of course this requires that a significant percentage of the population actually cares about guns. However, the problem here is that a lot of people who actually care about guns don't live in places like Chicago since they want to have guns. Maybe IL could pass a preemption law since the difference between the state laws in IL and the laws in Chicago are like the difference between California and Arizona.

Uncle Buck · June 26, 2011, 08:10 AM

Eghad, I was going to write pretty much the same thing you did. I am very surprised how many people do not realize gun control was also used as a racist tool.

There were so many barriers put in the way of a black persons ownership of a gun. You see the same effects from it today in larger cities with gun bans.

Eghad · June 26, 2011, 08:16 AM

If I was a reporter I would have asked the Chief one question. Why did Otis McDonald a black person file a suit against the City of Chicago for depriving him of the right to defend himself and win the case in the Supreme Court of the United States of America?

Why was the city of Chicago discriminating against this person?

Eghad · June 26, 2011, 08:18 AM

Quote:

So long as there is no law or constitutional amendment saying something like "No Goverment shall pass laws regarding firearms" I think that places like Chicago will find ways to restrict the right. Actually they would probably still finds ways around that. I say best solution is to elect a pro-gun government. Of course this requires that a significant percentage of the population actually cares about guns. However, the problem here is that a lot of people who actually care about guns don't live in places like Chicago since they want to have guns. Maybe IL could pass a preemption law since the difference between the state laws in IL and the laws in Chicago are like the difference between California and Arizona.

My friend things are a changing. We had a victory in McDonald vs. Chicago and we had a forum member tell us he got his Chicago Firearms permit

vranasaurus · June 26, 2011, 10:22 AM

The states passing laws prohibiting freed slaves from possessing arms was one of the reasons the 14th amendment was passed. The permit to acquire handguns as well as "may issue" laws were primarily brought about so that local officials could ensure that only the "right people" had guns.

Far from initiating a campaign to kill black people the NRA is a color blind organization that wants to see people of all stripes be able to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. Those who claim to fight for minorities seem to be on a campaign to deny them their constitutional rights.

jgcoastie · June 26, 2011, 12:50 PM

Here's a link to a pretty good read about the racist origins of gun control.

http://www.lizmichael.com/racistgc.htm

It's worth noting that "gun control" was virtually nonexistent prior to the 1800's, and was only implemented to block people of color (enslaved and free) from obtaining weapons.

BGutzman · June 26, 2011, 01:48 PM

Gun control was non existent because gun control was understood to be unconstitutional... With few exceptions it seems the constitution started out pretty clear and got less clear as time passed....

C0untZer0 · June 26, 2011, 01:53 PM

I think we tend to blame the politicians for everything in Chicago, but honestly all my relatives in Chicago are very anti-gun. They feel that guns are dangerous and you are more likely to hurt yourself or accidentally hurt someone else than ever you are likely to use it to defend yourself. They think if only we did a better job of getting rid of guns altogether then the city would be safer.

There are hundreds of thousands of people in the city - whole generations of people who think that way.

Its not just the politicians.

Eghad · June 26, 2011, 02:16 PM

My reply to the Cheif in Chicago would be...

The Chief might want to explain why the city of Chicago denied a black man, Otis McDonald, the right to own a handgun to protect himself in Chicago. This man had to take the City of Chicago to the Supreme Court of the United States to get his right to own a handgun for self defense. The Supreme Court upheld Mr. McDonald's right.

Now the City of Chicago has a permit program that is not conducive to poor black people being able get a handgun permit for self defense. If the Chief had bothered to do his homework he would see that a majority of gun control laws in place in America were put there to deny freed blacks after the civil war the right to own weapons so they could not defend themselves from groups like the KKK and other racists.

Even Huey Newton a member of the Black Panthers went to the steps of the Capitol in California and protested the Jim crow gun control laws that were being passed to prevent blacks from defending themselves.

People of Chicago should be asking the Chief why they have a gun permit law to keep handguns out of the hands of law abiding poor black citizens.

So who is the racist in Chicago ? Is Jim Crow is alive and well in Chicago's gun laws. Do they say that blacks are untrutworthy and too violent to be allowed to own a handgun as part of the individual right to defend themselves?

chasep255 · June 26, 2011, 03:22 PM

Quote:

think we tend to blame the politicians for everything in Chicago, but honestly all my relatives in Chicago are very anti-gun.

I once made the mistake of friending my aunt in Chicago on Facebook. Had a couple photos on it of me skeet shooting at the time. My aunt sees this and calls up my mom. She was worried I might do something and that I was gun crazy or something

. Wonder how she would react to some of my newer AR-15 photos

.

Patriot86 · June 26, 2011, 04:08 PM

I saw this article yesterday in the Sun Times (odd how it took so long to come out). Does anyone from NJ have this guys track record when he was in Newark? I am guessing he is not pro 2a but I am curious to see if he is your typical 2A guy or if we have a real nut job here.

C0untZer0 · June 26, 2011, 04:10 PM

McCarthy is quite the preacher...

I don't know if it's a only a Chicago phenomena but I have to say I also detest when any church loses its focus, strays from it’s primary spiritual message and becomes focused on some political or economic issue. I’m not just saying this about gun control / 2nd Amendment rights, I’ve seen it happen with issues like healthcare, and unions / labor issues. The church cannot be completely separate from any and all social issues. Most religious organizations have as part of their doctrine – a calling to minster to and help the poor. An argument can be made that the church should be involved with social issues, but when the 51% of the church’s activities are about politics, and only 49% is about preaching and delivering spiritual messages then I think a church has lost it’s focus.

Unfortunately, Father Phleger long ago stopped relaying traditional Catholic messages at St. Sabina and instead has been using the St Sabina church to deliver popular political and social diatribes on a weekly basis.

The church made a move to remove him from the church but caved under pressure when Phleger said he would leave the Catholic Church and continue his “work” on his own – that basically meant he would start up his own church and St Sabina’s congregation would drop to probably only 50 or so attendees.

So the Catholic Church has buckled under to Phleger and will continue to allow the misuse of their facilities to further the political goals of his adherents. Somewhere along the line the teachings of the New Testament have taken a back seat. Seldom if ever are there messages from the Gospel at St Sabina’s. The people would be better off meeting in a gymnasium or presentation hall somewhere, at least they wouldn’t fooling themselves that they are going to church.

KyJim · June 26, 2011, 04:12 PM

Gun Control = People Control

That's why it started; that's why it continues.

C0untZer0 · June 26, 2011, 04:27 PM

McCarthy's words speak for themselves, he's is basically saying that being pro - 2A is equal to being racist because it facilitates "the flow of illegal firearms into our urban centers across this country, that are killing our black and brown children."

If he is banking on gun control to curb crime - it's the same bankrupt ideology pouted in the past. And personally if my police cheif made some kind of statement like this that seemed to indicate that he was banking of gun control to curb crime in my city I would immediately call for his resignation. When ever increased gun control laws fail in any area the advocates claim that their gun laws are being undermined by lax gun laws in the "surrounding" communities. What constitutes "surrounding" can be as large as necesary to suit their needs. It's the same old crap carted out for the last 30 years... I would think they would have given up on such a failed argument by now. I would want a new police cheif immediately becasue there is nothing that a local police cheif can do to bring about tighter gun control even in the surrounding suburbs let alone in Wisconsin, Indiana and Missouri. He's basically saying "We can solve crime in Chicago with tighter gun laws." The reverse of the statement is "I can't do anything to control crime in Chicago because they didn't change the laws to the way I need them to be in the rest of Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana and Missouri."

He's already a failure...

rdf.hack · June 26, 2011, 04:30 PM

It just goes to show, most gun laws make little sense.

Patriot86 · June 26, 2011, 04:49 PM

I would speculate that this is part of a set up. When the CPD cannot curb a rise in crime under the new Mayors(Emanuel) administration due to a lack of Officers, they can point to the lack of a federal AWB, the voiding of Chicago's handgun ban and also CCW in Illinois(when it comes) as factors. This is all speculation but IMO reasonable speculation given the legal and political history in Chicago.

On the positive side of all this, it is just a matter of time before CCW despite the inevitable challenge by Illinois to it is reality not only in Illinois, but in Chicago and Cook county much the same way that handgun bans by localities have more or less been struck down by the Supreme Court. I never thought I would say this but I really believe I will live to see CCW in Illinois.

C0untZer0 · June 26, 2011, 06:05 PM

I agree with what's been said.

Marion Barry blamed DC's crime problem on the surrounding areas of Virginia. I'm sure Emanual will make some claim that Chicago's crime problem is the result of lenient gun laws outside of Chicago.

I think McCarthy has already said "we can't arrest our way out" of Chicago's crime problem. That's a way of saying that putting more better equiped bettter trained police officers on the street won't accomplish anything.

C0untZer0 · June 26, 2011, 06:19 PM

When ever I see backwards thinking - a common denominator is shifting responsibility from where it should lie.

The idea that it's the government's job to protect people and if people protect themselves - it's vigilantism and they are over-stepping their bounds.

No - people have a right to protect themselves and no governmnet could ever take responsibility for it because 30% of the entire populace would have to go on the government payroll as "peace" officers.

The idea that the people in Chicago that are commiting the majority of crimes in Chicago aren't responsible for those crimes - that it's a nation wide conspiracy to get guns into the hands of black and brown children.

There are a large number of crimes committed without firearms. Is it the nation's gun control laws that are causing the people who commit those crimes to engage in criminal activities?

It's the same old story - tell a people that they're not to blame for their own crummy situation, in exchange they keep you in office.

Tengu01 · June 26, 2011, 06:48 PM

Well , as one who lives about 1 1/2 hours from Chicago , I don't see the possibility of this happening , not with the current Administration in place . A great many people were hanging on the edge of their seats when HB 148 hit the floor in the House , and a collective " moan " was felt when it didn't pass ( and I was one of them ). With the rising tide of violence in Chicago , I think that the majority of citizens state-wide would be in favor of such a bill . This state needs to follow suite with the other 48 . And i'm sorry , but the lift on gun ownership ban in Chi-town , while a good start , just isn't cutting it .

just my .01 cent .

Patriot86 · June 26, 2011, 08:15 PM

@ Tengu: Normally I would agree with you but after the McDonald case I think that pro-2A groups even in Illinois have the upper hand.
It might take a SCOTUS or multiple SCOTUS decisions against the state of Illinois/City of Chicago but it will happen so long as the makeup of the SCOTUS doesn't change before this thing is seen through.

Chicago will be dragged kicking, screaming, tooth and nail to it but you will see a "technically" legal CCW in Illinois. It might be next to impossible to get to begin with, this is where in the next 10+ years we are going to see the limits of 2A as decided by SCOTUS. What type of handgun, what levels of training, what ammunition type of capacity, detachable mags, "assault" weapons etc etc. I am sure the second any kind of CCW is passed in the State of Illinois unless provisions are written otherwise the City of Chicago and County of Cook will ban it. Considering the make up of the Illinois legislature at this point this is almost guaranteed.

The scary part is a number of SCOTUS justices that are pro 2A are getting very old and under this administration we have already seen the types of people deemed fit for service on the high court. Through legal maneuvers, going in as the State of Illinois then perhaps the County of Cook then the City of Chicago CCW in IL could be "up in the air" for more than a decade. All that needs to happen to ruin the second amendment in America is for Obama to be re-elected or if the next Administration is republican for that president to be a 1 termer, succeeded by Obama pt2 and to replace one or in a doomsday scenario 2 pro 2A justices with YOUNG anti 2a justices.

I would say the upcoming state of IL or City of Chicago decisions are going to be the most important 2A cases in the next decade or two.

June 25, 2011, 11:44 PM	#2
BarryLee Senior Member Join Date: July 29, 2010 Location: The ATL (OTP) Posts: 3,946	Well, as many on this site have pointed out I do not believe elected officials will legislate away our rights. However, I believe we are very close to appointed members of the SCOTUS limiting them. __________________ A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

June 26, 2011, 12:49 AM	#4
youngunz4life Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2010 Location: United States of America Posts: 1,877	quick answer not in our lifetime, but then again - I guess it's better to stay optimistic. __________________ "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864

June 26, 2011, 07:42 AM	#5
Eghad Senior Member Join Date: May 28, 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 6,231	racism is one of the reasons gun control laws came about.... In the 1700s the The French Black Code forbid black persons to have firearms. Guess what happened in New Orleans after the U.S. took possession. They excluded free blacks from positions in the militia that required them to have firearms. Free blacks were prohibited from possessing Firearms After the Civil War it became worse. That is where some of the gun laws in Texas that affected us into the Th century and beyond came from. The underlying premise for gun control is still the same as it was used for racist reasons. that the people are untrustworthy and too violent to be allowed to have weapons. maybe the Chief should break out a book called " Negroes with Guns" by Robert Williams. Something that should be put into Ripley's Believe it or not museum....the article below Even the Daily Kos had an article: Outmanned and Outgunned: Gun Control in Black History. Someone should send the Chief this article. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...-Black-History So what was the first step in depriving black people of their civil rights? depriving them of their right to defend themselves. The Chief has opened his mouth and removed all doubt now...would somebody tell the Chief I have a sign for him to wear around his neck now. __________________ Have a nice day at the range NRA Life Member

June 26, 2011, 08:10 AM	#7
Uncle Buck Senior Member Join Date: June 21, 2009 Location: West Central Missouri Posts: 2,592	Eghad, I was going to write pretty much the same thing you did. I am very surprised how many people do not realize gun control was also used as a racist tool. There were so many barriers put in the way of a black persons ownership of a gun. You see the same effects from it today in larger cities with gun bans. __________________ Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen.

June 26, 2011, 08:16 AM	#8
Eghad Senior Member Join Date: May 28, 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 6,231	If I was a reporter I would have asked the Chief one question. Why did Otis McDonald a black person file a suit against the City of Chicago for depriving him of the right to defend himself and win the case in the Supreme Court of the United States of America? Why was the city of Chicago discriminating against this person? __________________ Have a nice day at the range NRA Life Member

June 26, 2011, 12:47 AM	#3
Bud Helms Senior Member Join Date: December 31, 1999 Location: Middle Georgia, USA Posts: 13,198	I'm thinking this is more appropriate for L&CR. Moving.

June 26, 2011, 07:46 AM	#6
chasep255 Senior Member Join Date: December 21, 2009 Location: NJ Posts: 727	So long as there is no law or constitutional amendment saying something like "No Goverment shall pass laws regarding firearms" I think that places like Chicago will find ways to restrict the right. Actually they would probably still finds ways around that. I say best solution is to elect a pro-gun government. Of course this requires that a significant percentage of the population actually cares about guns. However, the problem here is that a lot of people who actually care about guns don't live in places like Chicago since they want to have guns. Maybe IL could pass a preemption law since the difference between the state laws in IL and the laws in Chicago are like the difference between California and Arizona.

June 26, 2011, 10:22 AM	#10
vranasaurus Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2008 Posts: 1,184	The states passing laws prohibiting freed slaves from possessing arms was one of the reasons the 14th amendment was passed. The permit to acquire handguns as well as "may issue" laws were primarily brought about so that local officials could ensure that only the "right people" had guns. Far from initiating a campaign to kill black people the NRA is a color blind organization that wants to see people of all stripes be able to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. Those who claim to fight for minorities seem to be on a campaign to deny them their constitutional rights.

June 26, 2011, 12:50 PM	#11
jgcoastie Senior Member Join Date: February 15, 2009 Location: Kodiak, Alaska Posts: 2,118	Here's a link to a pretty good read about the racist origins of gun control. http://www.lizmichael.com/racistgc.htm It's worth noting that "gun control" was virtually nonexistent prior to the 1800's, and was only implemented to block people of color (enslaved and free) from obtaining weapons. __________________ "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.

June 26, 2011, 01:48 PM	#12
BGutzman Senior Member Join Date: December 4, 2009 Location: Frozen Tundra Posts: 2,414	Gun control was non existent because gun control was understood to be unconstitutional... With few exceptions it seems the constitution started out pretty clear and got less clear as time passed.... __________________ Molon Labe

June 26, 2011, 01:53 PM	#13
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	I think we tend to blame the politicians for everything in Chicago, but honestly all my relatives in Chicago are very anti-gun. They feel that guns are dangerous and you are more likely to hurt yourself or accidentally hurt someone else than ever you are likely to use it to defend yourself. They think if only we did a better job of getting rid of guns altogether then the city would be safer. There are hundreds of thousands of people in the city - whole generations of people who think that way. Its not just the politicians.

June 26, 2011, 02:16 PM	#14
Eghad Senior Member Join Date: May 28, 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 6,231	My reply to the Cheif in Chicago would be... The Chief might want to explain why the city of Chicago denied a black man, Otis McDonald, the right to own a handgun to protect himself in Chicago. This man had to take the City of Chicago to the Supreme Court of the United States to get his right to own a handgun for self defense. The Supreme Court upheld Mr. McDonald's right. Now the City of Chicago has a permit program that is not conducive to poor black people being able get a handgun permit for self defense. If the Chief had bothered to do his homework he would see that a majority of gun control laws in place in America were put there to deny freed blacks after the civil war the right to own weapons so they could not defend themselves from groups like the KKK and other racists. Even Huey Newton a member of the Black Panthers went to the steps of the Capitol in California and protested the Jim crow gun control laws that were being passed to prevent blacks from defending themselves. People of Chicago should be asking the Chief why they have a gun permit law to keep handguns out of the hands of law abiding poor black citizens. So who is the racist in Chicago ? Is Jim Crow is alive and well in Chicago's gun laws. Do they say that blacks are untrutworthy and too violent to be allowed to own a handgun as part of the individual right to defend themselves? __________________ Have a nice day at the range NRA Life Member

June 26, 2011, 04:08 PM	#16
Patriot86 Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2010 Location: Chicagoland Posts: 1,293	I saw this article yesterday in the Sun Times (odd how it took so long to come out). Does anyone from NJ have this guys track record when he was in Newark? I am guessing he is not pro 2a but I am curious to see if he is your typical 2A guy or if we have a real nut job here.

June 26, 2011, 04:10 PM	#17
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	McCarthy is quite the preacher... I don't know if it's a only a Chicago phenomena but I have to say I also detest when any church loses its focus, strays from it’s primary spiritual message and becomes focused on some political or economic issue. I’m not just saying this about gun control / 2nd Amendment rights, I’ve seen it happen with issues like healthcare, and unions / labor issues. The church cannot be completely separate from any and all social issues. Most religious organizations have as part of their doctrine – a calling to minster to and help the poor. An argument can be made that the church should be involved with social issues, but when the 51% of the church’s activities are about politics, and only 49% is about preaching and delivering spiritual messages then I think a church has lost it’s focus. Unfortunately, Father Phleger long ago stopped relaying traditional Catholic messages at St. Sabina and instead has been using the St Sabina church to deliver popular political and social diatribes on a weekly basis. The church made a move to remove him from the church but caved under pressure when Phleger said he would leave the Catholic Church and continue his “work” on his own – that basically meant he would start up his own church and St Sabina’s congregation would drop to probably only 50 or so attendees. So the Catholic Church has buckled under to Phleger and will continue to allow the misuse of their facilities to further the political goals of his adherents. Somewhere along the line the teachings of the New Testament have taken a back seat. Seldom if ever are there messages from the Gospel at St Sabina’s. The people would be better off meeting in a gymnasium or presentation hall somewhere, at least they wouldn’t fooling themselves that they are going to church.

June 26, 2011, 04:12 PM	#18
KyJim Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2005 Location: The Bluegrass Posts: 9,142	Gun Control = People Control That's why it started; that's why it continues.

June 26, 2011, 04:27 PM	#19
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	McCarthy's words speak for themselves, he's is basically saying that being pro - 2A is equal to being racist because it facilitates "the flow of illegal firearms into our urban centers across this country, that are killing our black and brown children." If he is banking on gun control to curb crime - it's the same bankrupt ideology pouted in the past. And personally if my police cheif made some kind of statement like this that seemed to indicate that he was banking of gun control to curb crime in my city I would immediately call for his resignation. When ever increased gun control laws fail in any area the advocates claim that their gun laws are being undermined by lax gun laws in the "surrounding" communities. What constitutes "surrounding" can be as large as necesary to suit their needs. It's the same old crap carted out for the last 30 years... I would think they would have given up on such a failed argument by now. I would want a new police cheif immediately becasue there is nothing that a local police cheif can do to bring about tighter gun control even in the surrounding suburbs let alone in Wisconsin, Indiana and Missouri. He's basically saying "We can solve crime in Chicago with tighter gun laws." The reverse of the statement is "I can't do anything to control crime in Chicago because they didn't change the laws to the way I need them to be in the rest of Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana and Missouri." He's already a failure...

June 26, 2011, 04:30 PM	#20
rdf.hack Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 2011 Posts: 173	It just goes to show, most gun laws make little sense.

June 26, 2011, 04:49 PM	#21
Patriot86 Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2010 Location: Chicagoland Posts: 1,293	I would speculate that this is part of a set up. When the CPD cannot curb a rise in crime under the new Mayors(Emanuel) administration due to a lack of Officers, they can point to the lack of a federal AWB, the voiding of Chicago's handgun ban and also CCW in Illinois(when it comes) as factors. This is all speculation but IMO reasonable speculation given the legal and political history in Chicago. On the positive side of all this, it is just a matter of time before CCW despite the inevitable challenge by Illinois to it is reality not only in Illinois, but in Chicago and Cook county much the same way that handgun bans by localities have more or less been struck down by the Supreme Court. I never thought I would say this but I really believe I will live to see CCW in Illinois.

June 26, 2011, 06:05 PM	#22
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	I agree with what's been said. Marion Barry blamed DC's crime problem on the surrounding areas of Virginia. I'm sure Emanual will make some claim that Chicago's crime problem is the result of lenient gun laws outside of Chicago. I think McCarthy has already said "we can't arrest our way out" of Chicago's crime problem. That's a way of saying that putting more better equiped bettter trained police officers on the street won't accomplish anything.

June 26, 2011, 06:19 PM	#23
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	When ever I see backwards thinking - a common denominator is shifting responsibility from where it should lie. The idea that it's the government's job to protect people and if people protect themselves - it's vigilantism and they are over-stepping their bounds. No - people have a right to protect themselves and no governmnet could ever take responsibility for it because 30% of the entire populace would have to go on the government payroll as "peace" officers. The idea that the people in Chicago that are commiting the majority of crimes in Chicago aren't responsible for those crimes - that it's a nation wide conspiracy to get guns into the hands of black and brown children. There are a large number of crimes committed without firearms. Is it the nation's gun control laws that are causing the people who commit those crimes to engage in criminal activities? It's the same old story - tell a people that they're not to blame for their own crummy situation, in exchange they keep you in office. Last edited by C0untZer0; June 26, 2011 at 11:56 PM.

June 26, 2011, 06:48 PM	#24
Tengu01 Member Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Illinois Posts: 37	Well , as one who lives about 1 1/2 hours from Chicago , I don't see the possibility of this happening , not with the current Administration in place . A great many people were hanging on the edge of their seats when HB 148 hit the floor in the House , and a collective " moan " was felt when it didn't pass ( and I was one of them ). With the rising tide of violence in Chicago , I think that the majority of citizens state-wide would be in favor of such a bill . This state needs to follow suite with the other 48 . And i'm sorry , but the lift on gun ownership ban in Chi-town , while a good start , just isn't cutting it . just my .01 cent . __________________ "He is best who is trained in the severest schools."

June 26, 2011, 08:15 PM	#25
Patriot86 Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2010 Location: Chicagoland Posts: 1,293	@ Tengu: Normally I would agree with you but after the McDonald case I think that pro-2A groups even in Illinois have the upper hand. It might take a SCOTUS or multiple SCOTUS decisions against the state of Illinois/City of Chicago but it will happen so long as the makeup of the SCOTUS doesn't change before this thing is seen through. Chicago will be dragged kicking, screaming, tooth and nail to it but you will see a "technically" legal CCW in Illinois. It might be next to impossible to get to begin with, this is where in the next 10+ years we are going to see the limits of 2A as decided by SCOTUS. What type of handgun, what levels of training, what ammunition type of capacity, detachable mags, "assault" weapons etc etc. I am sure the second any kind of CCW is passed in the State of Illinois unless provisions are written otherwise the City of Chicago and County of Cook will ban it. Considering the make up of the Illinois legislature at this point this is almost guaranteed. The scary part is a number of SCOTUS justices that are pro 2A are getting very old and under this administration we have already seen the types of people deemed fit for service on the high court. Through legal maneuvers, going in as the State of Illinois then perhaps the County of Cook then the City of Chicago CCW in IL could be "up in the air" for more than a decade. All that needs to happen to ruin the second amendment in America is for Obama to be re-elected or if the next Administration is republican for that president to be a 1 termer, succeeded by Obama pt2 and to replace one or in a doomsday scenario 2 pro 2A justices with YOUNG anti 2a justices. I would say the upcoming state of IL or City of Chicago decisions are going to be the most important 2A cases in the next decade or two.