The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 10, 2012, 11:10 AM   #26
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
There is a particular mindset in Chicago, it's a faith in collectivism and a distrust and dislike of individualism.

Individuals having guns - is not the answer (according to the mindset). In fact, they're part of the problem (according to the mindset). And the individuals who do insist on keeping guns have to be regulated and brought under society's control.

The flip side is true for holding criminals responsible for their own actions. Many people in Chicago who have this mindset do feel that society is responsible for everything, so if some young man decides to hold up a jewelry store - it's because society let him down. Society failed to educate him, society failed to provide a job for him.

This mindset seeks to shift responsibility away from the criminal onto vaugue concepts generally categorized as social problems and they consider guns a social problem. They want to both demonize and blame corporations like S&W, Ruger, Beretta, Glock and other gun manufacturers. They view guns the way that they view lead paint. It's a social ill that can be cured with the right government program aimed at it. But they view gun manufacturers like corporations that refuse to start making paint with no lead in it...

It may surprise people but many many Chicago politicians do not see violent gang members as the problem:

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Ma...holy-Alliance/

Why don't they enforce existing gun laws?

I want to direct your attention to a drug bust last year:

http://thevoicenewspapers.blogspot.c...57934894374148

I'd like to point out that two of Koolaid's henchmen were A. Wilkerson and Lashawn Cain - both felons with previous convictions. They were charged with "Use of a Weapon by a Felon", The possible sentence for this crime? A paltry 2 to 4 years.

These guys have already decided to take part in a criminal enterprise that could get them 30 to 40 years in jail, so why would they care if they get 2 to 4 on a weapons charge that they serve concurrently anyway.

Also - read the comments of one of the posters:

Quote:
you cant judge them what if one of them just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time you dont know what these men are dealing with at home so who are you to talk about how many years they should get.there are so many crooked police out here these days who's to say they havent been set up and are giving 10 years so you need to think outside the box before you just judge someone. Remember there is only one real judge who is god and thats not you
This kind of thinking is prevelant in inner-city Chicago. Very difficult for police to have to deal with those kinds of attitudes, but more importantly, the politicians for these districts aren't flown in from somewhere else, they come from these nieghborhoods where this kind of thinking is prevelant.

They basically want to shift responsibility for criminal behavior somewhere else, they don't want to hold criminals in their community responsible for their criminal behavior.

Every drug dealer that gets locked up has a grandmother, a half dozen aunties and dozens of cousins and a few uncles in the community. The politicians know that there is a lot of sympathy for that individual in the community and a lot of angst and resentment in general. It's easy to turn that dissatisfaction against corporations like S&W, Glock, Ruger, Beretta, the NRA, "rich people" et al...

It's a complicated issue, but its true that generally there aren't consequences for gun possession or gun use that criminals are afraid of.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old February 10, 2012, 11:19 AM   #27
Old Grump
Member in memoriam
 
Join Date: April 9, 2009
Location: Blue River Wisconsin, in
Posts: 3,144
Effective immediately: All FOID cards are now permanent and also double as CCW permits. A FOID card eliminates the need for any paperwork to the government and qualifies as the NCIS check. FOID cards to be issued without question if the requester is not disqualified due to a violent felony conviction or having been adjudicated mentally ill to the point where they are a danger to themselves or society.

That is the way it should read.
__________________
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern will, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
--Daniel Webster--
Old Grump is offline  
Old February 10, 2012, 11:22 AM   #28
Herr Walther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: A Place Worse than California
Posts: 782
That's the way I read mine.
__________________
"It was people who upheld their duties to their office, the constitution, and the public by opposing Hitler who were called traitors"
-------------------------------------
"...a historian asked what had happened to the German people for them to accept a criminal government. Unfortunately, nothing needed to happen. In nations across the world people accept government crime."
-------------------------------------
"In democracies as well as dictatorships, subordinates illegally obey their rulers. Subordinates who remain true to their oaths of office by opposing their rulers are rare."
Herr Walther is offline  
Old February 10, 2012, 11:23 AM   #29
Daugherty16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 2008
Location: Live Free or Die state
Posts: 259
They Always Call Them Crime Bills, but...

the crime is extorting a fee from law-abiding citizens for the simple enjoyment of a constitutionally guaranteed right. It certainly won't stop any street crimes. But it will make the purchase of a gun more expensive, thus raising the barrier to ownership just a little higher. Which is undoubtedly the real goal.

Such an act could not really be enforced retroactively, unless people volunteered to register the guns they already have. Criminals in illegal possession of guns cannot even be compelled to comply with a registration program (USSC, Haynes vs. US, 1968) because it would involve self-incrimination, so maybe that would also provide an affirmative defense to anyone who simply refuses to register their existing collections. Hopefully the mere proposal will cause such an uproar that Rahm will shelve it.

There is ample historical basis to fear, and thus resist, gun registration programs. Think Great Britain and Australia, and to a lesser degree Canada. Registration seems to inevitably lead to confiscation. Though, Hitler, Mao, and Stalin took it to a whole new level against a newly disarmed populace.
__________________
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness... How pathetic." - - Ted Nugent

"Cogito, Ergo Armitum Sum" - (I Think, Therefore I Am Armed)- - anon.
Daugherty16 is offline  
Old February 10, 2012, 11:29 AM   #30
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
Such an act could not trally be enforced retroactively, unless people volunteered to register the guns they already have. Criminals in illegal possession of guns cannot even be compelled to comply with a registration program (USSC, Haynes vs. US, 1968) because it would involve self-incrimination, so maybe that would also provide an affirmative defense to anyone who simply refuses to register their existing collections.
Sadly, law-abiding citizens would enjoy no protection from forced registration under Haynes. Criminals who illegally possess firearms cannot be forced to register them, because registering them would force them to admit they possessed the guns, thereby incriminating themselves.

For regular citizens who possess their guns legally, forced registration doesn't lead to self-incrimination, so Haynes isn't applicable.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old February 10, 2012, 11:46 AM   #31
Daugherty16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 2008
Location: Live Free or Die state
Posts: 259
Quote:
For regular citizens who possess their guns legally, forced registration doesn't lead to self-incrimination, so Haynes isn't applicable.
Maybe, but i was referring to when they become criminals themselves by failing to comply with the registration rules. Perverse logic, isn't it?
__________________
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness... How pathetic." - - Ted Nugent

"Cogito, Ergo Armitum Sum" - (I Think, Therefore I Am Armed)- - anon.
Daugherty16 is offline  
Old February 10, 2012, 12:11 PM   #32
Onward Allusion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: IN
Posts: 1,717
Quote:
Tom Servo
Allusion, the Supreme Court has found taxation on the exercise of other rights [caselaw.lp.findlaw.com] to be unconstitutional. However, the contours of the 2nd Amendment are still being hashed out in the courts, so it'll be awhile before we can challenge schemes like those proposed in Illinois.
Tom - Thank you for the informative read. It sounds like if something like the proposed registration fee should pass, it will be a legal battle all the way to the SCOTUS.
__________________
"With great power, there must also come great responsibility." - Stan Lee

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Onward Allusion is offline  
Old February 10, 2012, 01:22 PM   #33
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Gah, I hope that doesn't pass. Chicago doesn't ever seem to understand that just being a major population center for a state does not make you the state.
sigcurious is offline  
Old February 10, 2012, 01:32 PM   #34
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Just thought of something...if this were to pass would it Chicago remove its city handgun registration? I mean registration is one thing, but double registration?
sigcurious is offline  
Old February 10, 2012, 03:07 PM   #35
Mike38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2009
Location: North Central Illinois
Posts: 1,150
Quote:
help me out here - how is this different than FOID?
The Illinois FOID identifies a gun owner, not the gun. There are people that have a FOID card that do not even own firearms. My wife for example. She couldn’t buy ammo without it.
Mike38 is offline  
Old February 10, 2012, 05:04 PM   #36
spanishjames
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2010
Posts: 537
Quote:
“56 percent of short time-to-crime guns recovered at Chicago crime scenes originate in the State of Illinois, but outside of the City of Chicago. A state law requiring handgun owners to register their guns – just like they register their cars – will increase the safety of our residents.”
Where else would they originate from? There are no gun shops in Chicago!!! There haven't been any in decades. Of course, since every subject has to register their car, it's only natural they should register their guns.

This is getting more and more riduculous.
http://www.cityofchicago.org/content...egislation.pdf
spanishjames is offline  
Old February 10, 2012, 06:07 PM   #37
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
I would never register any of my handguns, they would all be moved to my families Wisconsin or Indiana Property. If CC ever gets passed I would keep ONE in the state. This is just step #1 to making it easy to confiscate all guns in the event of another handgun ban or a martial law type situation ala Hurricane Katrina.
Patriot86 is offline  
Old February 10, 2012, 06:45 PM   #38
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 1,791
Quote:
Someone, please, explain to me how this would work? Police can't trace a gun they don't have. SO, the gun already HAS TO BE IN CHICAGO for the police to trace it (after they take it from a criminal), so, how does making it easier for the police to tell where a gun WAS (through registration records) stop or reduce the flow of the gun into their city, WHEN IT HAS TO BE THERE ALREADY for them to trace it?

Now, if I'm missing some part of the grand master plan (that would actually make it work), PLEASE, fill me in!
Simple. Time travel. The police go back in time and seize the gun before it is given to the criminal. The problem they have been running into is that he just goes and finds another gun and commits the crime anyway. Soon they will be able execute the criminal before he does the crime however and then everything will be GTG. They just need a few more trillion in stimulus money to perfect the time machine.....
__________________
Proxima est Mors, Malum Nullum adhibit Misericordiam
MTT TL is offline  
Old February 10, 2012, 08:49 PM   #39
gvw3
Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2012
Location: Chicago Area IL
Posts: 72
Let them know how you feel about this.

I did. Let them know it could go a long way for us....


http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
__________________
Criminals promote gun control. It make the rest of us easy prey.
gvw3 is offline  
Old February 10, 2012, 09:19 PM   #40
taylor351
Member
 
Join Date: June 25, 2010
Posts: 35
I loved the comment he made today. Something along the lines of his proposal will not affect legal gun owners only those who are illegal.
So a $65 dollar fee to title a handgun will not affect legal gun owners? I am confused how taxing people who aren't in the wrong does not burden them.
taylor351 is offline  
Old February 10, 2012, 10:11 PM   #41
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,082
I just deleted a number of posts because they were generalized politics or bashing on Chicago. If you want to discuss the measure at hand, its implications, or how to challenge it, that's fine.

General rants and jokes about the mayor do not fly.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 11, 2012, 01:45 AM   #42
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
Quote:
Mayor Daley learned it takes a lot of political capital to fight for gun control laws. Emanuel was put on notice tonight by Democratic Rep. Brandon Phelps, whose Southern Illinois district runs along the Kentucky border. In a phone conversation, he noted that the mayor's controversial speeding camera law would never have passed without Downstate support. Ominously enough, Phelps predicted that Emanuel "won't get anything else" through the State Capitol until he withdraws the handgun registration bill.
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news...ation-20120209
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old February 11, 2012, 09:40 AM   #43
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,847
I really think Emanuel is just pandering to his base here as I don't think this will have much of a chance to go anywhere given the current IL state legislature. Remember, CCW actually did pass but it just didn't pass with enough votes to override Gov. Quinn's veto.

Quote:
Quote:
To register my handguns, eight of them, would cost me $520. And that goes to Chicago? I don’t think so!

It would go to the State. He wants State legislators to introduce the bill. Chicago has its own registration.
Given the way IL is run, chances are the better part of the money would ultimately end up in Chicago.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old February 11, 2012, 11:27 AM   #44
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 1,791
Quote:
I really think Emanuel is just pandering to his base here
But is it that big of deal in Chicago? It is barely a blip nationally.
__________________
Proxima est Mors, Malum Nullum adhibit Misericordiam
MTT TL is offline  
Old February 11, 2012, 11:34 AM   #45
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
^ True.

We also needed that super-majority to over ride home rule for places like Chicago and Oak Park.

This proposal may have an effect of rousing some of the complacent hunters and gun owners to action, we have yet to see what the backlash is going to be.

The mayor is elected by people in the city obviously, but a suddenly uncooperative Illinois State legislature can cause Chicago and the mayor a lot of pain.

It seems like a sensless way to expend political capital, but it may be ideologically motivated, or maybe President Obama asked Rahm if he could do something to try to lend weight to the idea that lack of gun control laws is a serious problem in the country? Like maybe adding weight to the argument that even if Fast & Furious was executed poorly, the premise of it was valid - lax gun control laws cause violent crime.

I don't know... I'm just speculating, but I don't think that there would be any big payoff from Rahm's constituents for proposing gun control - there is very little upside to it and a tremendous potential downside.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old February 11, 2012, 01:51 PM   #46
spanishjames
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2010
Posts: 537
It could also be that he's "sticking it to" the citizens because of the check paid to the Second Ammendment Foundation for legal fees. I'm sure the picture of Alan Gottlieb of the SAF holding the check doesn't sit well with the Mayor. He is human, and it could be that his emotions are in play here.
spanishjames is offline  
Old February 11, 2012, 02:31 PM   #47
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Emanuel, with emotional outbursts? I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you.

(That was his reputation with the White House press, when he was chief of staff. One article had him going into a locker room, to confront a party member who wasn't toeing the line - in the shower. The guy has a reported history, in the mainstream media, of bullying and theatrics.)

Note to mods: Not political - based solely on individual patterns of behavior, as reported by the MM.

Edit: It just occurred to me, that many people who act in the manner that has been frequently reported about the mayor of Chicago, would fall afoul of the Lautenberg Amendment. Just a wee bit ironic...
MLeake is offline  
Old February 11, 2012, 03:01 PM   #48
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
Catholic church in Chicago developing anti-violence initiatives with focus on guns

I'm not sure how much the whole Catholic church in America is behind this or if it's mostly Cardinal Francis George and Father Michael Pfleger, but it seems to be timed well with Mayor Emanual's call for stricter gun control.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1...t-sabinas.html

It also comes on the heals of Ed Acevedo introducing 3 anti-gun initiatives in the Illinois house earlier this year.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old February 11, 2012, 08:28 PM   #49
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,550
Next generic city basher or suggesting to move as a bash - gets a whack.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old February 11, 2012, 10:43 PM   #50
checkmyswag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
...suggesting to move as a bash - gets a whack.
Then, I'll say get active politically. It definitely doesn't do any good to blame Chicago for all of the problems of the state.

http://www.gunssavelife.com/ This group meets frequently and is very active politically.
checkmyswag is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13928 seconds with 8 queries