|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 7, 2014, 04:10 PM | #126 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
|
I really like the wording Chang used...
Quote:
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately) |
|
January 9, 2014, 01:13 PM | #127 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Chicago Tribune article on outcome of Benson:
Chicago Loses on Guns Again http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...1919558.column So many good quotes: Quote:
You would have thought that after Heller there wouldn't have had to be a McDonald case. What legal genius thought that Chicago could win that? Or maybe the mayor at the time didn't care? They sure are on a losing streak, and an expensive one. |
|
January 9, 2014, 02:05 PM | #128 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 30, 2012
Location: Oh, Jesus.
Posts: 226
|
Chicago is re-wording regs on selling guns.
I thought the train-wreck Illinois legislature put in a clause that dictates that ONLY the legislature can enact changes to gun laws....or was that specifically for carrying weapons?
Now Chicago's ban on selling guns is gone, but the city can side-step that and come up with other infringements. It would be nice if all home-rule gun ordinances flew out the window. |
January 9, 2014, 02:59 PM | #129 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
I guess they're getting ready to write more laws that will generate more lawsuits.
|
January 10, 2014, 04:45 AM | #130 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
|
This just in....
Emanuel asks for time to regulate gun sales in Chicago Quote:
Quote:
2. Emanuel could try to implement a "gun tax" to discourage gun shops, but he'd once again run afoul of the courts. Rights cannot be licensed or taxed -- i.e. your right to vote or to free speech may not be subject to a tax, fee or surcharge nor dependent upon issuance of a license. [Begin rant] My question is ... how many more constitutional violations will it take before the politicians can be charged with conspiracy to violate the constitutional rights of the citizens of Chicago? It's one thing to make a law that goes just a tad too far (e.g requiring a permit to play a [flute/guitar/etc] in a public park) versus making a law that any law school graduate would believe violates civil rights (i.e. taxing gun shops, gun sales, gun ownership, etc). Oh yes, I'm sure they'll claim they're not taxing your right to acquire a gun, just taxing "a" commercial enterprise to help pay for the extra policing and oversight. But the city's history is clear. Aldermen have been recorded as saying "We want to make it as difficult as possible to have a gun" in Chicago. Now the mayor is saying he wants it to be as expensive as we can get away with to open a gun shop in the city. That's a direct statement they want to prevent the exercise of a civil right. It is also an abuse of the taxation authority. [/end rant]
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately) Last edited by Tom Servo; January 10, 2014 at 08:27 AM. Reason: Copyright issues |
||
January 10, 2014, 06:48 AM | #131 | |
Member
Join Date: December 23, 2007
Location: Central South Carolina
Posts: 89
|
Quote:
Rick
__________________
NRA Training Counselor NRA Advanced Pistol Instructor NRA RTBAV Regional Counselor Member IALEFI, SCLEOA |
|
January 10, 2014, 08:58 AM | #132 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 30, 2012
Location: Oh, Jesus.
Posts: 226
|
Rham's antigun agenda hindered by laws and rights and such.
“We're going to think about it in a way that while we have to abide by the straitjacket the court put us under. In my view that's a straitjacket. Access, it's not like a shortage of guns. People get access to guns,” Emanuel said as police Superintendent Garry McCarthy looked on
Straitjacket---Bill of Rights. What's the difference Rham? Chicago Tribune. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/p...,3010693.story |
January 10, 2014, 02:03 PM | #133 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,871
|
Clearly obvious they don't want legal ownership and sale of guns in their realm. Sad for them, the courts have finally said they cannot do that legally.
So they are going to look for a "legal" way to make it as onerous and expensive as possible. And apparently asking for a year in which to plan. Truly intelligent people would have prepared a fall back position, in advance, but then, we aren't dealing with those people, are we? That much, at least, is clear.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
January 10, 2014, 07:08 PM | #134 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2002
Posts: 287
|
2 points;
1) "but could still possess one after it was revoked or cancelled." A person could possess the FOID but when they ran the sale through the ISP the FOID # would come back as expired and the sale would not go through. 2) " Emanuel could try to implement a "gun tax" to discourage gun shops, but he'd once again run afoul of the courts. Rights cannot be licensed or taxed -- i.e. your right to vote or to free speech may not be subject to a tax, fee or surcharge nor dependent upon issuance of a license. " You may not be aware but Cook County (where Chicago is located) already has a $25.00 tax on all firearms sales from gun stores. Since that is legal why can't the city add another tax? NukemJim
__________________
"Half of being smart is knowing what you are dumb at" "Guns shoot bullets. People shoot people." |
January 10, 2014, 10:47 PM | #135 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Any gun control measure that ever succeeds - like Kwong, becomes the new avenue for gun control.
If NYC is able to get away with their fee structures, Chicago will put similar fees in place, on top of a firearm tax and ammo tax. Next year all those fees and taxes will go up. If capacity restrictions are successful, places like New York and California will pass a new round of restrictions after the next shooting to reduce capacity to 5 rounds, then 4 rounds. They'll keep it up until the Supreme Court stops them. |
January 11, 2014, 09:49 PM | #136 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
|
Quote:
I will argue that it is not constitutional. The courts have long held that rights may not be licensed or taxed. They have even drawn the line at "tests" to determine if one is "qualified" -- i.e. "intelligence" tests to vote. A tax specifically on firearms transactions would fall into the same unconstitutional regulatory scheme as found in Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue (501 U.S. 663,111 S. Ct. 2513,115 L. Ed. 2d 586,1991 U.S). Minnesota created a use tax specifically on newsprint and ink. The newspaper claimed it violated their 1st Amendment free press rights. The danger of a specific use-tax separate from the general sales tax is that it is focused on one specific industry or area (here, it's the press). Such a tax may be changed to be punitively expensive without directly impacting other areas of society. It could also be used to run small or large operations out of business at the whim of the State. HELD: Quote:
A State may claim their interest in "public safety" is compelling enough to enact a tax on firearm sales or transactions, including ammunition. If that tax is applied in lieu of sales tax it might work if the differences are small. The call-out to the state is for them to show that the use of the tax dollars will be applied to program(s) that foster measurable improvements in public safety as it relates to firearms.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately) |
||
January 14, 2014, 08:10 PM | #137 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
|
There's a group of gun stores sing over the Cook County tax in state court, the legal strategy is that it violates state law wrt regulating firearms. Per the new concealed carry law the state has sole power to regulate firearms (with the exception of long gun "assault weapons" regs passed no later than 10 days after the concealed carry law), and Cook County has already admitted in depositions the tax is a regulation. I'd bet it gets tossed on those grounds.
|
May 27, 2014, 06:49 AM | #138 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Looked like the best place to put this since this is going to be a new Chicago law
Plan for city gun shops would limit sites, require sales be taped
http://politics.suntimes.com/article...5272014-1201am I personally think mandated video taping will pass constitutional muster - although I seem to remember an Honorable Judge Bork being torpedoed by political opponents over the issue of "privacy" in the constitution. I wonder though, if limiting sites will survive a constitutional challenge - this is after the city's outright prohibition on gun shops was overturned in Ezell. |
May 27, 2014, 08:22 PM | #139 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,871
|
Quote:
Zoning, ordnances, etc. Done all the time. And as far as crying "gun business" singled out, they won't be any more singled out than other "unsavory" (in their view) but legal businesses. If they have the legal right to tell you that you cannot have a (tattoo parlor or a bar, or a toxic waste storage facility within XXX feet of a school or whatever), they can say no gunshop there. The can't say no gunshop anywhere (like they were), but they can say no to certain places.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
May 28, 2014, 05:51 PM | #140 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
|
There are some parts of the law (like the one handgun per month per person limit) that may not survive a state court challenge since state law now preempts local handgun laws.
|
May 29, 2014, 08:02 PM | #141 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
|
One-gun-a-month laws violate the Constitution, IMHO.
Since when can the gov't dictate how often you can write an opinion piece to your newspaper? Or worship in church? Or how many times a year you can obtain a lawyer to represent you in court? Can they also limit how many times you can invoke your 5th amendment rights per day? Per month? Declaring it illegal to exercise your rights more than once a month because "you already own a gun so your right is intact" doesn't cut it. Yeah, buying a .22 LR pocket pistol satisfies all my needs for at least 30 days, except when I decide I want a 12 or 20 gauge shotgun or a .45 handgun for home defense a week later.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately) |
May 30, 2014, 12:58 AM | #142 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,871
|
Quote:
I agree completely with "one a month" (or what ever restriction they pick) doesn't cut it. The way I see it is the same as , "yes, Mr BillCA, we see you are registered, but you cannot vote in this election. Our records clearly show you voted in 1987, so your rights are not being violated. Next!"....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
June 3, 2014, 10:32 PM | #143 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 28, 2004
Posts: 105
|
Why buying from a Chicago gun shop is a bad idea
If someone ever opens a shop in Chicago, he is going to pay higher rent & insurance than a suburban shop. You don't have to be a fortune teller to guess that there will be a higher local sales tax on guns & ammo (20% ?).
What this means is a $500 handgun in the burbs is going to run you $700 in Chicago. A Chicago shop is likely to be a fun place to visit and see if you you like the feel of various guns, but a terrible business idea. |
June 4, 2014, 05:55 PM | #144 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Don't forget the $25.00 Cook County firearm tax.
http://www.cookcountygov.com/portal/...irearm_tax/742 Despite all that, the alternative for some people is taking buses out to the suburbs to visit gun stores, so some people will probably buy from Chicago gun stores. I think what is more important though are RANGES in Chicago where people can learn to shoot. |
June 4, 2014, 10:18 PM | #145 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
|
The lack of shooting ranges is a big problem. Of course the left will insist that you're responsible for any shot you fire and if you indicate you've never fired your gun before, will brand you "irresponsible" even though they are the ones who made it nearly impossible to practice at a range.
A shop in the city will almost always have higher rent & insurance rates that one in the 'burbs. Theft and other crimes are almost always higher in cities. But it will be the cost of business licenses & regulations that really drive costs up. Cities can add to the cost of your "build-out" of a store front by insisting on certain "security and safety measures". Alarms, barred doors & windows, safes or vaults to store guns nightly, fire suppression systems and more. One city I know of required there to be a locking mechanism at any point that accessed "behind the counter" plus a secure, locking door to the "back room" where the safes/vaults stored guns. Chicago's $25 tax is likely unconstitutional. So might many other required "fees" or taxes such as California's so-called Handgun Safety Certificate. See: Minneapolis Star and Tribune Company v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue 460 U.S. 575 (1983)
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately) |
June 4, 2014, 11:33 PM | #146 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
|
The gun stores aren't fighting the $25 Cook County tax on Constitutional grounds, but under state law that gives the state sole right to regulate firearms. Cook County's lawyer already admitted in court the tax was a regulation, so we'll see hoe this goes.
|
July 4, 2014, 09:06 AM | #147 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Another story on the cost of litigating bad gun laws
This time the City of Chicago.
I guess this is haggling over fees in Ezell? Quote:
It seems that the ISRA is indicating that there will be a legal challenge to the new set of laws / regulations that Chicago enacted concerning gun stores, in the wake of overturning Chicago's ban: Quote:
|
||
July 4, 2014, 01:53 PM | #148 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
|
See also Gura's droll article describing his recent filings - http://alangura.com/2014/07/lisa-mad...nt-you-to-tip/
Quote:
__________________
|
|
November 7, 2015, 08:09 AM | #149 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
I wasn't aware that Chicago was appealing the Ezell decision, but here we are. David Hardy has audio of the oral arguments. The judges are clearly not convinced by the city's arguments. In fact, they seem annoyed to have their time wasted.
The city alleges that shooting ranges will create fire hazards, noise pollution, light pollution (?), and that they'll attract theft. The judges are buying none of that. The city's attorney is repeatedly criticized for presenting "highly anecdotal evidence," and is told that a narrowly tailored regulation "requires more than speculation." The best quote comes at 4:41: Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
November 7, 2015, 10:28 AM | #150 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
|
Yeah, that went about as badly as it could for Chicago. The question is will they get rid of the ridiculous zoning requirements or just make minor tweaks and force this all over again?
|
|
|