|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 7, 2010, 02:34 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2010
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 368
|
I'm afraid that if the court determines the new Chicago ordinances run afoul of the Constitution, the city will just come up with new ones that will have to be challenged, and on and on it will go. Daly is nothing if not stubborn and determined. And I think many people in Chicago have been so brainwashed that they think he's actually doing the right thing by thumbing his nose at the SCOTUS.
DD |
July 7, 2010, 02:36 PM | #27 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
You can see what is going on here. A proposed settlement order was submitted here What this all means is that 2 years after the Judgment was entered, D.C. is (still) balking at paying. The longer D.C. delays, the more they will end up paying. |
|
July 7, 2010, 04:28 PM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Quote:
|
|
July 8, 2010, 08:42 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 1,128
|
WildlikeoldtammanyhallAlaska
If we only had a young Theodore Roosevelt to do battle with the New Tammany Hall of Chicago...
__________________
'Merica: Back to back World War Champs |
July 8, 2010, 10:06 AM | #30 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
The lawsuit, Benson v. Chicago (an easily read double spaced 20 page complaint), is pretty specific as to which parts of the new laws place an undue burden upon the exercise of the core right, which parts are so contradictory as to be arbitrary and capricious, and which parts deny due process. The only thing they didn't touch upon were the fees. McDonald, going forth will be mooted for the most part, except the those portions dealing with the fee and licensing structure. Given that the suits are dealing with the core right, the court(s) will have to apply strict judicial scrutiny. I think this is actually a good two-pronged attack, which will likely succeed. |
|
July 8, 2010, 10:54 AM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,299
|
RMA, I am from the opposite spectrum, having grown up in AZ with few, (and now even fewer), firearms restrictions, the Chicago law is appalling...but it IS the step that could never be taken before.
|
July 8, 2010, 11:27 PM | #32 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
* No gun shops and no ranges open to the public will be allowed in Chicago...this one would pass muster * Even so, anyone who wants to register a firearm will be required to pass a 4-hour class and a 1-hour range exam...iffy in light of the one above * Only one handgun per month may be registered. Move to Chicago with three handguns, and you'll need to decide which one you're keeping.......unconstitutional * $100 every three years for the right to register, $15 per gun annually to register, $10 for Chicago's knockoff of the Illinois FOID card......nope, gone * Only one firearm may be stored in the home in a functional state. All others must be locked up AND broken down into a non-functioning state (field stripping will suffice.)....nope, gone * If the registered owner has reason to believe there's at least one minor "present," he must carry the one functional gun on his person at all times to keep it away from the minor.....nope, gone * Firearm possession is legal in "the home," which the ordinance defines as the interior of the dwelling, not including garages, outbuildings, porches, patios or yards. While you're carrying that gun to keep it away from your kids, don't step out to the mailbox or try to mow the yard, you filthy gun nut.....this one has to go * Daley wants the state to pass a law stating that "first responders" in Chicago are immune to lawsuits brought by people who are shot or otherwise subjected to force IF there's a firearm registered at the residence where the police responded.......constituional WildwithoutreadingthestatutesAlaska TM |
|
July 9, 2010, 12:02 AM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Quote:
|
|
July 9, 2010, 05:50 AM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 642
|
Quote:
|
|
July 9, 2010, 06:47 AM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 734
|
Yes Wildalaska, I don't know about your "no gun shop or gun range" conclusion?
Seems to be denying people their fundamental right to obtain a firearm. If that is constitutional, then any domicile could do the same and, if enough areas do this, the 2A is moot. Last edited by RDak; July 9, 2010 at 06:54 AM. |
July 9, 2010, 07:28 AM | #36 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
State immunity is, of course, a matter of state law and not federal constitutional law. I don't know about his chances for full immunity but I can certainly see some qualified immunity against negligent acts of police. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
July 9, 2010, 08:47 AM | #37 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Those suing Chicago are Brett Benson, Raymond Sledge, Kenneth Pacholski, Kathryn Tyler and the Illinios Association of Firearms Retailers (ILAFR).
To keep it within what is actually being challenged, here is the list of challenges from the suit (since some do not want to read the file). Also, keep in mind that several of the quotes from the council members were made a part of this suit to document that these laws were, in fact, enacted to hinder, as much as possible, the decision in McDonald: Quote:
|
|
July 9, 2010, 08:50 AM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
|
I believe the "no gun outside the home itself" part will be struck down. The 2nd. A. states:"....., the right of the people to keep AND BEAR arms, shall not be infringed." It's one right. The word AND makes them inseparable, or at least it should. Thus, if you have the protection of the 2nd A. as a fundamental, individual right to keep arms, and the states and localities are bound, then you can also BEAR arms as that is part of the fundamental, individual, right as well.
The 2nd doesn't protect just the right to keep arms. It protects one right, which is composed of the actions of keeping AND bearing arms. It will be very hard for any government entity to wriggle out of that constraint. Not impossible, but it should be very hard if our courts hold true to the Bill of Rights. That has certainly been a problem in the past. I'm under no illusions that it will be a slam dunk with our modern courts.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams. |
July 9, 2010, 09:28 AM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 447
|
Well I hope I will be able to send another thank you note to Mayor Daley for enacting such a comprehensive draconian gun control law - that it will require that the courts defne much of the parameters of the RKBA. It could have taken years and many seperate suits to address and define so many of these issues - but here Daley and the city council have kindly wrapped them all up in a single law allowing a single lawsuit. I don't know whether to or :barf:
|
July 9, 2010, 10:35 AM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 11, 2009
Posts: 506
|
Can anyone post a link to the text of the ordinance itself?
|
July 9, 2010, 11:47 AM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 447
|
here is a website address for chicago ordinances - haven't had time to ascertain if it contains the current law yet.
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicago_il/municipalcodeofchicago?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicago_il Last edited by mack59; July 9, 2010 at 11:57 AM. |
July 9, 2010, 12:29 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 447
|
|
July 11, 2010, 12:33 AM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
|
Sue the Mayor and Aldermen
The Mayor and city Alderman have their behinds hanging out in the breeze and don't seem to realize it. The media has several juicy quotes from aldermen who disagree with the court decision. Including this one...
Quote:
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S. Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs For the city to declare that some portion of the Bill of Rights is excluded or limited on one's own property is an unlawful invasion of privacy, a "taking" of property (some portions may not be enjoyed as fully as others), and offensive to the constitutional principles of the country. By limiting the definition of "house" or "home" to just the dwelling unit, Chicago could, in theory, force residents to accept the quartering of a soldier in their garage.¹ What other rights may Chicago limit to only the dwelling unit? * No warrant to search your garage or yards? ...if your "home" is only the dwelling unit according to Chicago, how does this affect the reading of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." Not a word about yards, porches or garages which Chicago now defines as "different". * Might Chicago consider a resident's angry discussion of city politics, in his own back yard, as "public speech" since it is not part of his "home"? Could he be prosecuted for "attempting to incite a riot" or "hate speech" when denegrating a public official while talking to his wife and/or child? The City's actions are an offense against the Constitution and 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 this kind of 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, having unanimously conspired to deprive the people of their rights, having threatened those who insisted on exercising their rights with unlawful imprisonment and having ignored the will of the vast majority of citizens in the exercise of their rights, has defined itself as an unconstitutional oligarchy. 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 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. ¹ USC Amdend 3: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner...nothing about garages or outbuildings, Chicago could argue.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately) |
|
July 11, 2010, 10:03 AM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Warning - keep this at a higher level. We don't do pure invective, or pictures with such.
Glenn
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
July 11, 2010, 01:42 PM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Quote:
While the new lawsuit against the new Chicago laws will be interesting, I will focus more attention to Gura's new lawsuit in North Carolina (Bateman v Purdue). Bateman is important because it is based on carry outside the home ("The Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to carry functional handguns in non-sensitive public places for purposes of self-defense") and covers ammunition ("prohibit the purchase, sale, and possession of firearms and ammunition, are unconstitutional in that they forbid the exercise of Second Amendment rights"). |
|
July 11, 2010, 02:44 PM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
I don't see how anyone has his/her "backside in the breeze" as far as this is concerned. Politicians are generally indemnified from personal civil and criminal liability for their official acts, and the idea that the voters will actually vote out Daley and the other entrenched machine politicos is as laughable an idea as any ever constructed.
|
July 11, 2010, 10:20 PM | #47 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
|
|
July 11, 2010, 11:54 PM | #48 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
|
Quote:
I think it would be relatively easy to show in a court that the city's administration should know or reasonably know that most of their limitations would not pass constitutional muster. To wit; ● Limitations on only 1 functional gun in the home ● Unconstitutional limits on the exercise of a right (1 gun a month) ● Requirements that are impossible to meet without excessive burden (training) ● Excessive permit fees ($115) to register for Chicago ● Unconstitutional limit on the right to self defense (not in garages, porches, etc) I'm surprised that the legal team advising Mayor Daley and the council hasn't publicly distanced themselves from this debacle. The easy comparsions are asking if the city could get away with ... ● allowing only 1 functional typewriter or word-processor in a home; ● limiting citizens to one "letter to the editor" per month; ● requiring them to pay $33.33 per year to go to church; ● prohibit citizens from posting political candidate signs on garages, porches, stairs, yards, etc. ● or requiring the accused to pay all travel expenses to confront witnesses. Public statements and city council records can prove a conspiracy to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights. Doing so under the guise of "public safety" knowing many of the "features" of the new law are likely to be struck down is a crime under section 242. In most cases, when a public official violates your rights through common error "in good faith" (e.g. a new police officer on the scene starts asking you questions after you asked for a lawyer and quits when he is informed of that fact), they are personally immune from lawsuits. However, when a public official knowingly violates a person's rights (e.g. making drug and/or gun crime defendants pay for their own lawyers) that will "pierce" the veil of limited immunity and expose them to legal actions. That's what I mean by having their rumps hanging out in the breeze.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately) |
|
July 19, 2010, 02:43 PM | #49 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 15, 2010
Posts: 113
|
mayor daley rewrites his gun ordinance..A right is now a privilege.
If you read this you will come to realize that the mayor of chicago has rewritten our constitution. Apparently the Second Amendment is now a privilege. You are required to get a so called permit to own a firearm. How many criminals do you think this will stop from obtaining a firearm? None. Do you think they will go through all this ?
For Immediate Release Contact: Office of News Affairs July 12, 2010 312-745-6110 City of Chicago Outlines New Firearms Ordinance Procedures The City of Chicago's new handgun ordinance goes into effect today and the Chicago Police Department is prepared to implement the permit and registration requirements. The process involves two steps, beginning with the application for a Chicago Firearms Permit (CFP), which is required in order to legally register a firearm. While the CFP application can be downloaded from the Chicago Police Department's website at www.chicagopolice.org, it must be submitted in person at Chicago Police Headquarters, located at 3510 S. Michigan. Residents must possess the following information in order to complete the CPF application: • A valid Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) Card issued by the State of Illinois • Two identical passport-size photos taken in the last 30 days showing the person's full face, head and shoulders • A valid Driver’s License, or if the resident doesn't possess one, a letter from a licensed optometrist or ophthalmologist attesting that the applicant meets the minimum vision requirements to obtain an Illinois driver’s license • A signed affidavit from a firearms instructor approved in the State of Illinois stating that the applicant has completed a firearms safety and training course. • A $100 application fee All applicants must be at least 21 years old, or 18-20 years old with an eligible parents' permission. Applicants cannot be convicted of any violent crime, have two or more offenses for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or under state law have been convicted of domestic violence. Additionally, they must be fingerprinted and submit to a background check. Add One / New Ordinance After obtaining a Chicago Firearms Permit, residents can purchase a firearm. Residents must then register their firearm within 5 days with the Chicago Police Department. Only one handgun can be registered in any 30-day period. The cost is a one-time $15 fee per firearm, and the person will be required to file an annual report. To register a firearm the owner must provide information on the type of weapon, the manufacturer, the serial number, where it was obtained or purchased and where the weapon will be located. Individuals who owned firearms prior to today, including firearms that were not registered and multiple handguns, must apply for a CFP within 90 days. The application for registration certificates can also be downloaded from the Chicago Police Department's website at www.chicagopolice.org and can be submitted by mail or in person at Chicago Police Headquarters. Certain types of weapons cannot be registered because they are ineligible or unsafe, such as sawed-off shotguns, .50 caliber weapons, assault weapons and certain handguns. A list of ineligible firearms will be posted on the Chicago Police Department's website. Residents were also reminded that it is still illegal to possess a firearm on the streets of Chicago, which includes bringing it to Chicago Police Department headquarters to register. Residents who currently have registered firearms with the City can wait until their current registration expires before re-registering, but they should apply now for the CFP. Once a firearm is registered, residents are responsible for contacting police immediately if their firearm is lost, stolen, destroyed, sold or if there is a change in any of the information on the registration certificate. Anyone supplying false information on the application is subject to fines and/or arrest, with penalties up to $5,000 and 90 days in jail for a first offense. The entire ordinance can be reviewed on the Chicago Police Department's Last edited by Uzi4u2; July 19, 2010 at 05:31 PM. |
July 19, 2010, 03:12 PM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Location: Ohio.
Posts: 634
|
That's horrifying.
__________________
"The CZ75 is made of win and longcats."--anonymous youtube comment |
|
|