Chicago defies Supreme Court, enacts ever more bizarre gun restrictions

[Little-Acorn]

Looks like Chicago's city council didn't take the little hint delivered by the Supreme Court a few days ago.

Hey, aldermen! What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" don't you understand?

-------------------------------------

http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/2458402,new-chicago-gun-law-passed-070210.article

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

July 2, 2010

By ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter
Chicago aldermen voted unanimously today to approve compromise gun restrictions they hope won’t run afoul of the U.S. Supreme Court majority’s new standards on gun bans.

The 45-0 vote, coming four days after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling against the city’s handgun ban, puts in place strict limits on guns.

The new ordinance, which city officials called the strictest in the nation, allows adults in Chicago to buy one gun a month — 12 a year. But they must pay registration and permit fees and take five hours of training.

The measure prohibits gun shops in Chicago and bars gun owners from so much as stepping outside their homes with a handgun, even if it’s only onto their porches or garages.

------------------------------------------

So, now we have the following situation, if you happen to live in Chicago.

If you have a gun inside your house, you're fine.

But if you step out onto your porch with it, or even into your garage, you'll be arrested and thrown in jail.

Chicago authorities have not yet detailed how many police officers would be positioned outside people's houses, checking for porch usage or garage entry by gun owners.

This is perfectly in accordance with the 2nd amendment, which reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except on porches, garages, sidewalks, workplaces, and in the owners' private automobiles."

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along, move along. - LA

 

[Gipper]

Looks like Chicago's city council didn't take the little hint delivered by the Supreme Court a few days ago.

Hey, aldermen! What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" don't you understand?

-------------------------------------

http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/2458402,new-chicago-gun-law-passed-070210.article

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

July 2, 2010

By ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter
Chicago aldermen voted unanimously today to approve compromise gun restrictions they hope won’t run afoul of the U.S. Supreme Court majority’s new standards on gun bans.

The 45-0 vote, coming four days after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling against the city’s handgun ban, puts in place strict limits on guns.

The new ordinance, which city officials called the strictest in the nation, allows adults in Chicago to buy one gun a month — 12 a year. But they must pay registration and permit fees and take five hours of training.

The measure prohibits gun shops in Chicago and bars gun owners from so much as stepping outside their homes with a handgun, even if it’s only onto their porches or garages.

------------------------------------------

So, now we have the following situation, if you happen to live in Chicago.

If you have a gun inside your house, you're fine.

But if you step out onto your porch with it, or even into your garage, you'll be arrested and thrown in jail.

Chicago authorities have not yet detailed how many police officers would be positioned outside people's houses, checking for porch usage or garage entry by gun owners.

This is perfectly in accordance with the 2nd amendment, which reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except on porches, garages, sidewalks, workplaces, and in the owners' private automobiles."

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along, move along. - LA

It does boggle the mind the lengths in which liberals will go to disarm the law abiding. Are libs really this dumb?

The libs regularly petition the SC to impose their kooky beliefs (Baby Murder Law for one), but when the SC rules against them, they merely ignore it and try to circumvent it.

This proves they are devious, underhanded, dishonest, dastardly, sly, scheming, sneaky, deceitful.....

 

[Pandora]

How do they get the gun from the store to home? What happens if they move to another house?


The law is retarded as the people who wrote it!

 

[dahermit]

It does boggle the mind the lengths in which liberals will go to disarm the law abiding. Are libs really this dumb?

The libs regularly petition the SC to impose their kooky beliefs (Baby Murder Law for one), but when the SC rules against them, they merely ignore it and try to circumvent it.

This proves they are devious, underhanded, dishonest, dastardly, sly, scheming, sneaky, deceitful.....

I am 100% in favor of unrestricted gun rights. Does that make me a "conservative" despite that fact that I am usually on the other side of most issues?

 

[Pandora]

I am 100% in favor of unrestricted gun rights. Does that make me a "conservative" despite that fact that I am usually on the other side of most issues?

NO! but it makes you rare and more the exception than the rule

 

[dahermit]

NO! but it makes you rare and more the exception than the rule

As is Democrat John Dingle Congressman from Michigan, a gun rights supporter (usually).

 

[dahermit]

It does boggle the mind the lengths in which liberals will go to disarm the law abiding. Are libs really this dumb?

The libs regularly petition the SC to impose their kooky beliefs (Baby Murder Law for one), but when the SC rules against them, they merely ignore it and try to circumvent it.

This proves they are devious, underhanded, dishonest, dastardly, sly, scheming, sneaky, deceitful.....

What would you expect from Chicago, historically having one of the most corrupt city administrations and police force of any American city.

The senior mayor Daily (now deceased) had people voting for him long after they had died.
A police force that rioted, beating many innocent people during the Democratic Convention (during the Bobby Kennedy/Viet Nam War era).

 

[Pandora]

As is Democrat John Dingle Congressman from Michigan, a gun rights supporter (usually).

There are a number of "Blue Dog" dems who are for the right to own a gun and for lower taxes, for death penalty and against abortion. Most people are some place in the middle, neither hard right or hard left.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Like it or not, the law has long said you do not have the right to have a gun anyplace you wish...this law does allow it in the home for deffence...and lets people own a gun...so its very possible this would conform to the law as based on precedent.

Also the fact this passed with not a single no vote, says how much the city belives in it.

question, how many of you are living in major cities like this, and in areas with high crime and murder rates? I suspect if you polled the most pro Gun people, they would in much higher numbers be found in areas with low Murder rates....those who live in the city who have to listen to gun fire evry night in the street....much less son.

 

[Gipper]

question, how many of you are living in major cities like this, and in areas with high crime and murder rates? I suspect if you polled the most pro Gun people, they would in much higher numbers be found in areas with low Murder rates....those who live in the city who have to listen to gun fire evry night in the street....much less son.

I do not think you are right with that pocketrocket.

The guy who brought the case to the SC was a black Chicagoan who wanted a gun to protect himself. Most rational people (libs excluded) want to be able to protect themselves and not become a helpless victim.

We know you think guns are dangerous because you think ALL people are irrational and prone to killing at a drop of a hat when they get angry and a gun is accessible. My theory is liberals will kill when angry if a gun is accessible because to be a liberal one must be irrational from the get go.

I have never been and never will be so angry as to want to kill someone...even a lib. Though we know there are libs here at the HOP who would love to kill me.

 

[PLC1]

There are a number of "Blue Dog" dems who are for the right to own a gun and for lower taxes, for death penalty and against abortion. Most people are some place in the middle, neither hard right or hard left.

So, they're Libertarian on gun rights and taxes, but authoritarian on the death penalty and abortion, so that makes them what? Conservative? Liberal? Moderate?

It is mind boggling the lengths to which this city council has gone to try to circumvent the Constitution, isn't it?

 

[Pandora]

So, they're Libertarian on gun rights and taxes, but authoritarian on the death penalty and abortion, so that makes them what? Conservative? Liberal? Moderate?

It is mind boggling the lengths to which this city council has gone to try to circumvent the Constitution, isn't it?

Well... they are democrats but lean more conservative so they call them blue dog democrats. I don't think they would fit in with moderates. Arlen Spector was a moderate or maybe just a liberal John McCain is moderate, Olympia Snow and Susan Collins too.

More than just libertarians are for the constitution. Most conservatives and many republicans are for gun rights.

It seems to me that anyone who believes what the declaration of independence about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness would have to believe that a person has a right to be born and have liberty and pursue that happiness. There just is no constitutional right to kill your offspring.

 

[dahermit]

Like it or not, the law has long said you do not have the right to have a gun anyplace you wish...this law does allow it in the home for deffence...and lets people own a gun...so its very possible this would conform to the law as based on precedent.

Also the fact this passed with not a single no vote, says how much the city belives in it.

question, how many of you are living in major cities like this, and in areas with high crime and murder rates? I suspect if you polled the most pro Gun people, they would in much higher numbers be found in areas with low Murder rates....those who live in the city who have to listen to gun fire evry night in the street....much less son.

You seem to not be aware of the fact that Chicago has had one of the most restrictive gun laws in place for years. Are you saying that it has not worked inspite of that fact? High crime and murder rates despite such ristrictive law...how can that be? Could it be that passing a gun law only resticts non-criminals? My, My.

 

[PLC1]

Well... they are democrats but lean more conservative so they call them blue dog democrats. I don't think they would fit in with moderates. Arlen Spector was a moderate or maybe just a liberal John McCain is moderate, Olympia Snow and Susan Collins too.

More than just libertarians are for the constitution. Most conservatives and many republicans are for gun rights.

It seems to me that anyone who believes what the declaration of independence about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness would have to believe that a person has a right to be born and have liberty and pursue that happiness. There just is no constitutional right to kill your offspring.

Is that what Chicagoans were doing with their guns, killing their offspring? No wonder the city council wants to ban them.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You seem to not be aware of the fact that Chicago has had one of the most restrictive gun laws in place for years. Are you saying that it has not worked inspite of that fact? High crime and murder rates despite such ristrictive law...how can that be? Could it be that passing a gun law only resticts non-criminals? My, My.

no I am saying its the reason they want tougher laws...how many gang bangers you think they got jailed up for longer on tough gun charges that would have still been on the street? Fact is with easy access to guns there, murder rate would most likey be even higher...problem is like Mexico...you just leave Chi get guns and drive back and have them or sell them for a profit.

if city A has 1,000,000 people and City B has 1,000,000 as well
City A has 50 gun deaths, and 300 wounded
City B has 2 gun deaths and 6 wounded,

one city do you think will be more in favor of gun laws to restrict there use?

If Montana had there state filled with Gang Violence, and not open feilds and wild life...I am sure its gun views would not be the same..