New Chicago Gun Laws and New Lawsuit

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

milky7272

New member
"The measure, which draws from ordinances around the country, would ban gun shops in Chicago and prohibit gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/01/mayor-daley-lays-strict-gun-rules-chicago/?test=latestnews

Wow Glad I live in Noth Carolina. I just dont see how this is legal? I wonder if all the criminals are getting ready to register there guns. Is this violation of free enterprise?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A) I'm not surprised that Daley's administration would move that direction - the "reasonable restriction" clause in the SCOTUS decision is more than a little vague.

B) Beware the source - Fox News isn't exactly a bastion of unbaised, unspun reporting (not that there are many such news agencies at all).
 
There have been no gun shops in Chicago for at least 28 years. You have to travel outside of Chicago to look at any kind of firearm. Until this week's SCOTUS ruling, handguns were banned in Chicago, even in one's home. You were always allowed to own a rifle or shotgun.

In my experience, the employees at the gun shops closest to Chicago look at you "funny" if you're not a LEO. The farther away from Chicago you get, the larger the selections, lower the prices, and friendliest the salespersons.

Chicagoland is a HUGE metropolis, and the only guns the people see or hear about are those used by criminals. It's easy to convince the public that firearms are evil and should be heavily regulated, hence the strict laws. I'm sure the folks living in Downstate IL don't appreciate the heavy gun control being handed to them from one corner of the state either.
 
Last edited:
They're deliberately trying to provoke further suits, which is why they're claiming that these measure are drawn from other ordinances across the country.

Some other requirements that I've heard them float are a 1 gun maximum, hundreds of hours of expensive training, and humiliating registration requirements.

They don't care whether these are legal are not. It's Chicago.
 
I guess I just find this so hard to believe. Growing up in North Carolina has spoiled me. I find things like this just hard to fathom. To see open cary is no biggie even around the Charlotte suburbs.
 
It has been a very long time since there were any gun shops in Chicago. The only ones I remember were HH Harris & Klein's & they could only sell a handgun to a Chicago resident with a permit issued by the PD. Harris was located next to the PD's Headquarters, 11th & State. The owner, Herb was married to either Smith or Wesson's grand daughter & had S&W's that no one else could obtain.

The only other shops in the city that I recall were Abercrombie & Fitch when they sold high end rifles & shotguns & the old Marshal Fields. They had a gunsmith in their men's annex back in the early 70's.
 
The .pdf of the ordinance is available . . . FNC is not exaggerating. The highlights:

  • No gun shops and no ranges open to the public will be allowed in Chicago
  • Even so, anyone who wants to register a firearm will be required to pass a 4-hour class and a 1-hour range exam
  • 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.
  • $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
  • 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.)
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
 
Gee - what people should do is take this as a starting point and move through the electoral process to change it by throwing the bums out.

Let people follow the law and be safe and protect themselves and then propose less restrictions. That has worked elsewhere.

I fail to see why folks don't think the new law is a substantial tactical defeat for the Chicago paradigm of no guns that can be used as a stepping stone.

Or is it better to want all the cake at once and then get none?
 
I'm not an expert, but I doubt the state legislature could do much about it. Home Rule is on steroids in Illinois, and Chicago is the Queen of the Home Rule Hill.
 
Chicago is an interesting study for sure. I have a few friends in Chicago and I lived there for three years and I have never met anybody that respected Daley ( always considered an idiot ). The city has always been corrupt. Funny thing is that "pay to play" still exists in Chicago and Illinois today even after Bloggo scandal.

An easy example is the required fire retardant caulk used in all building remodels. It must be a certain kind that is only manufactured by a group controlled by retirement fund of Chicago Firefighters Union and yes a 25oz tube costs $125.00. We laughed about all the corruption when I was up there and the dead people collecting paychecks. Bloggo was just doing business as usual.

Anyway back to point, if you listen to the quotes by the aldermen you can begin to understand what their mindset is. They associate guns with crime not crime prevention. The majority of the people living there have never hunted or shot a firearm before and aren't familiar with guns except as portrayed in movies. So your arguments of self protection fall on deaf ears to them.
 
That's true. It's a local culture variable. Many of the large urban areas only see crime usage. They prefer to limit access, as they think reasonably in their view, that will limit crime. Empirical question it seems.

That's a utilitarian view as compared to a 'rights' view. Quite common in the discussion of limiting rights. Depending on your politics you buy into different rights limitations. What a surprise.

Talking to inner city residents here - they were upset that local gang kids could easily buy cheap SKS rifles and drive around with them. Some supported the right of law abiding citizens to own guns so NICS was quite OK with them. Some guy who lives in the country may flip out over NICS.

Can't separate local circumstances from people's views in most cases.
 
This is all new to me with the whole Chicago thing going on. Growing up in NY most of my life they were always somewhat strict with gun laws as well but nothing compared to this :eek:
 
Laws like this, and the lawsuits that will challenge them, will eventually define what "infringe" means.

Gonna be a long war, folks. The lawyers will get rich(er).

And we'll finally get the freedoms we were supposed to have all along.
 
I've nothing but contempt for the Daley administration

Richard J. Daley's policy is: "if ya can't beat 'em, profit from 'em!"

Let's turn this into a money-generating profitable scam for the anti-gun left in an attempt to make it extremely difficult for financially depressed people to defend themselves against crime using a handgun. ...and we all know how the economy is right now


The only thing that Daley and his corrupt henchmen are trying to accomplish now is to make the laws and regulations so strict that the average working man won't be able to afford to use a handgun to defend his family against crime.


Evidently the mandatory liability insurance BS was shot down.. Thank God!
 
Last edited:
New Chicago Gun Law nets New Lawsuit

There is a lawsuit filed against the new Chicago gun law. It asks that the law be ruled unconstitutional and discusses those sections of the law it identifies as violating the consitution - it also asks for an injunction against the law in the mean time. The lawsuit is funded by the NRA, though the NRA is not a direct party in the lawsuit. The lawsuit may be read here:

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/litigation/bensonvchicago1.pdf


Would be interested in anyones opinion on this and its merits - hope it prevails.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top