Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants state handgun registry!

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/new...-proposing-illinois-gun-registration-20120209
 
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:
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.
Click to expand...

Given the way IL is run, chances are the better part of the money would ultimately end up in Chicago.
 
^ 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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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/...egers-role-new-duties-outside-st-sabinas.html

It also comes on the heals of Ed Acevedo introducing 3 anti-gun initiatives in the Illinois house earlier this year.
 
Still do not understand what they think the registry will solve. Do they think criminals will register their guns? If not, what is the point accept to control the law abiding masses.
 
Spanishjames... I know someone would object to my agreeing with the registration cause then we will end up like England? I think where they progressively registered and than took all the guns pretty much.

That is the common fear, but I don't think it will happen. Other states are supposed to register guns. Even in MI you are supposed to register every handgun you own. Even if you move in and have 2+ huge gun safes full of them.

I think this is more accurate...
Truthfully, there's not a chance that it would pass in the current environment. Rahm, is just, well, being Rahm
Click to expand...
 
bitttorrent, only two of the states in which I've resided had registration laws: Hawaii and Rhode Island.

(Edit: I was a teenager in RI, and didn't have guns, so it didn't matter. When the Navy sent me to HI, I left all but two of my guns in storage at my parents' place, because I dislike registration. I won't move back to either state, gun laws being one of several reasons.)

Maine, Florida, Texas, Washington, Georgia, and Missouri do not.

Tell me what the benefit of a registration scheme is?

Or tell me why the states I listed are worse than states that have registration?

Government should always have to prove a real benefit, any time it wants to impose ANY restriction of ANY sort, let alone a restriction on a Constitutionally protected right.
 
As a Chicagoan, who works in Chicago, lives about 2.5 miles from downtown, I can tell you that this registry business isn't big news here. After the high of getting our handguns back, I think there is little steam sufficient to bring this bill to fruition. I doubt many people would register their firearms given the history of disarmament through registration lists. Gun owners in the know just aren't that stupid. Like everyone else has said, "Sorry, officer, tragic boating accident you see..."
 
Part of the issue is that they're not interested in catching criminals, they are interested in rounding up firearms.

These proposals come from some erroneuous foundational beliefs:

1) That it's possible to pass laws which disarm criminals

2) That taking firearms away from criminals is going to cut down on crime, and taking firearms away from the rest of the population A) makes them and those around them safer, and B) restricts the supply of firearms to criminals.

Each one of these points is false, but it doesn't matter.

If the city was interested in catching criminals who use firearms in the commission of crimes they could. The state could increase the sentencing for UUW by a felon from 2 to 4 years to 15 to 30, with no plea bargaining, no reduced sentencing, no early release. Most felons are serving concurrent sentences for whatever crime they committed plus the weapons charge. It's actually not that hard to catch and convict them.

One of the criminals involved with murdering Officer Clifton Lewis in December of 2011 was arrested for UUW that came to light during a traffic stop. He had a weapon in his vehicle. When they do drug busts, they usua;lly have enough evidence to also charge the gang members with UUW charges. They could incarcerate the people who are actually perpatrating gun violence. They choose not to.
 
The politicians cannot get the criminals so they settle for harassing and badgering law abiding citizens, making every attempt to trample on the 2nd amendment rights. It is disgusting and shameful the way they want to regulate people's rights.
Do some of these like minded officials get a kick back for trying to disarm the law abiding citizens, making them an easier target for the criminals ?
 
It's a red herring issue.

Read about the financial situation in Illinois. If they can talk about anything but the budget and pension funding they'll be happy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top