Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants state handgun registry!

we ALREADY register firearms - long guns & handguns, right?

help me out here - how is this different than FOID?

i mean, other than generating close to $100 million for the state in the 1st year (conservatively)?
 
Truthfully, there's not a chance that it would pass in the current environment. Rahm, is just, well, being Rahm. He wants to placate his liberal friends that got him elected.

But, if gun owners in IL are on their game, they will make a huge stink over this and all other gun control proposals in the future. I know ISRA has one lobby day per year. I think they should make it a once a month event and really start demanding some real results from their legislators. Enough is enough already.
 
Illinois should try tracking criminals, not guns and law-abiding gun owners.

They can't do that. Too hard. They have to be appearing to do something to earn their pay ..... so it's the path of least resistance.

Resist. Maybe they'll do something constructive for a change.
 
On another note, if this helps bring CC to IL, I would be for it. (I know it is too much to register each gun especially if you have a lot of them) but maybe only for new guns and over a certain price point.

I didn't think any gun owner would actually say that.

I did not either.

Divide and conquer, just like England.
 
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-Magazine/January-2012/Gangs-and-Politicians-An-Unholy-Alliance/

Why don't they enforce existing gun laws?

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

http://thevoicenewspapers.blogspot....showComment=1327886426043#c272257934894374148

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:

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
“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/conten...leases/2012/February/2.9.12GunLegislation.pdf
 
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.
 
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.....
 
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.:confused:
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.
 
Back
Top