* If you were wondering whether gun owner rights groups would challenge Chicago’s new gun restriction proposals, this could be your answer…
“There are numerous problems,” said Alexa Fritts, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association. “It is extremely restrictive and completely against the intent of the Supreme Court ruling.
“It is ludicrous for someone to fear prosecution for fending off an attacker in their garage,” she added.
More…
The National Rifle Association argued that mandatory classroom training, parental permission, registration fees and one gun-a-month limit are “unconstitutional impediments” to gun ownership.
More…
Professor Ann Lousin of the John Marshall Law School said that doesn’t mean this ordinance won’t face legal challenges. She said the registration provisions will likely be the first thing challenged in court.
The National Rifle Association has already threatened to challenge a new gun ordinance.
In The Week Magazine, National Rifle Association chief Wayne LaPierre said any “byzantine labyrinth of regulations and restrictions” would be contrary to the spirit of the Supreme Court decision, and “the opinion of Mayor Daley doesn’t entitle him to throw out the Bill of Rights.”
LIVE session coverage...
- bored now - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 10:17 am:
is this the conservative/republican strategy: have the urban population kill each other so that they can return to power?
- Larry Mullholland - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 10:23 am:
I agree with the Chicago’s leadership latest efforts, Ban guns altogether for Chicago’s law abiding citizens!!!
That way no one in Chicago would be shot killed anymore. I am quite sure that the previous past weekends 50 or more shootings would not have occured if we only had gun more laws on the books. sheesh
- Skeeter - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 10:35 am:
I had heard from a well placed source that Daley was dropping the one gun a month provision.
- Matt - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 10:46 am:
I hated the gun ban, but attempted challenges against common sense provisions like this are just outrageous. I mean come on… whats so bad about a little classroom training in order to use a deadly weapon? It’s like drivers training!
The insurance thing may have gone a bit too far. But even a one gun per month limit isn’t outrageous. I’m just sick and tired of people criticizing common sense regulation in addition to unconstitutional bans. Since when does “the right to bear arms” imply absolutely no regulation at all?
- VanillaMan - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 10:54 am:
is this the conservative/republican strategy: have the urban population kill each other so that they can return to power?
There ya go. Political spin does have it’s limits, and this statement proves it.
- bored now - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:01 am:
sorry, i should have included snark tags. i continue to take at face value rich’s comment that he has the smartest commenters.
i strongly suspect that i have more insight into the real republican/conservative strategy than you do, vm…
- How Ironic - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:07 am:
@ Matt
What do you care if someone is buying 2 guns a month? Or 5? As long as the process is done legally, and they are not ’straw’ buying for someone that CAN’T own a gun…what’s the point of the ‘limit’?
Should we also limit cars to 1 a month? Or how about cases of beer? Maybe that should be 1 a month?
If someone is legal, and wants to buy more than one gun a month…what’s the problem? Just because (I’m assuming here) that you don’t have firearms doesn’t mean that you should be able to regulate what another does with his money. If a person is a collector, or hobbiest I don’t see the point in the limit.
- Patrick McDonough - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:11 am:
I wish Daley would limit bribes paid to city employees.
- Conservative Veteran - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:19 am:
If the new limits are implemented, no gang members will obey the laws. They’ll buy as many guns as they want, without attending classes. If handgun bans decreased crime, no one would have been shot, in Chicago, since 1982.
- HatShopGirl - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:28 am:
Passing laws to ‘prevent’ criminals from getting guns does not work. They’re criminals, which means silly rules do not apply to them. We can make all the rules and laws we want. The criminal will, be definition; the criminal will do whatever is easiest, laziest, and craziest to get what the criminal wants!
So, lets go ballistic on ANYONE who is within the City limits who has a gun that has NOT been dismantled and rendered impotent. Then separate the wheat from the chaff. If you have a license to carry, then you get hit with a hefty fine for carrying a ‘live’ weapon that has not been dismantled at the City limits. I suggest that the fine for carrying an unlicensed, operational weapon within the City limits, that the fine for carrying $1,000 for the first offense (to cover all the adminstrative & court costs). And for it to rise … geometrically from there. 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 for subsequent offenses.
If you don’t have a license to carry, throw the bum behind bars. Yes, I’m being harsh. I’m just getting started! You get hit with the fine, that MUST be paid in full, before we even talk bail. And bail would be astronomically high. I don’t care what the excuse is. If you are CARRYING and it’s UNLICENSED, (no ifs, ands, or buts) you ARE a CRIMINAL. You are up to no good. You do NOT belong in a world-class city, you are a worthless human being. If your family disagrees, bring them to court too! Hold the families of the criminals responsible for their children. If there’s a Judge out there that disagrees, I would send the ciminal that own a gun, to LIVE with the Judge and the Judge’s family. Let the Judges try to rehabilitate the criminal, let the Judges feel the pain when the criminal goes off the straight and narrow path. Judges would rule differently if the community applied pressure.
What has happened to the Kennedy-supported program that addressed inner-city kids at risk for criminality, OUTWARD BOUND? I recall several bad-boys being sent away to OutWard Bound. It was a sound idea. Put these kids in extreme environments, a summer of ranching, learning to ride horses AND the care & feeding of horses. Or the Outward Bound School on Hurricane Island, learn how to sail and how to TAKE CARE OF sailboats.
CeaseFire, the physician-led organization gets it right about half the time. CeaseFire should incorporate programs that take the kids out of the ghetto and teach them skills, like ROCK CLIMBING, SAILING, HORSEBACK RIDING. Anything that would emphasize team-work, trust, skill-building, character-building-integrity. It’s never too late to stop the killing, stop the criminality.
- Irish - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:32 am:
Hunters that have a birthdate after a certain time have to attend a hunters safety course before they can hunt.
Snowmobilers that have a birthday after a certain date have to attend a snowmobile safety class before they ride a snowmobile by themselves.
In Wisconsin ATV riders have to do the same.
So I do not see the problem with requiring new gun owners to do the same. I do believe there should be a provision for long time gun owners who have not had any criminal activity or violations with a gun in their past to be grandfathered in without the training.
I am also in favor of registering guns to an owner much like the FOI card system is today.
These are common sense requests that should be agreed upon by both sides. There is too much radical hysteria on both sides that is clouding the practical approach to this issue.
I used to hunt. I own several guns. I keep them oiled and they are stored out of the reach of anyone but myself. The ammunition is not stored in the same location as the guns. I have not fired any of them in many years. There are many people out there that have the same situation. We do not have horns and claws and we do not walk the streets at night looking for victims. We should not be penalized because the city of Chicago cannot get a handle on their street gang problem, which is what this is all about.
The punishments handed down by the courts need to fit the crimes and there should be no lenience. I get tired of reading in the paper about offenders with multiple assaults or even murders on their record who are out and commit the same crime again. The laws should allow no variation. Murder and you get x amount of time, no good behavior, no exceptions. Do it twice and you never get out, end of story.
- Responsa - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:33 am:
Almost everyone in America knows that this is not a clear conservative vs. liberal issue by a long shot. :). Plenty of political overlap when it comes to gun rights and gun bans. Actually, more overlap than almost any other issue I can think of.
- How Ironic - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:38 am:
@Irish
I’m not against some sort of training course. At issue however, is the simple fact that Chicago is attempting to implement ‘training & firing’ at a range. But THERE ARE NO RANGES for the public IN CHICAGO.
By default, they are essentially putting residents in a catch-22. If you don’t get the training you cant have a gun. HOWEVER THERE ISN’T ANYWHERE to get the training in the city.
Not a problem you say…go elsewhere. Well, unless you own a car, good luck with that. Can’t take a firearm on the bus, cabs, or train. Can’t take on your bicycle either.
It’s an impossible requirement dressed up as ‘reasonable’.
That’s the problem.
- Rob_N - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 11:42 am:
I wonder how often Wayne LaPierre yells “Fire” in crowded theaters or “Bomb” in busy airports…
- VanillaMan - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 12:01 pm:
sorry, i should have included snark tags. i continue to take at face value rich’s comment that he has the smartest commenters.
i strongly suspect that i have more insight into the real republican/conservative strategy than you do, vm…
So what is it? Are you trying to be funny, or displaying your insight? If you are trying to be funny, you didn’t couch your comment in a way for it to be funny. If you assumed that everyone would understand it to be funny, than your comment couldn’t be revealing insight, because insight wouldn’t be common enough to make the snark funny. Which is it?
Rich’s commentors are not stupid. I can vouch for that, as I regularly test them and fail just as regularly. Additionally, those whom I insult, I make a sincere attempt to apologize without insulting them again by claiming they are too stupid to understand me.
If you are unclear in a statement, then you are unclear and responsible for our feedback questioning that statement. It is not due to any stupidity on our part.
- bored now - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 12:32 pm:
i’m truly sorry, vm. i don’t think of sarcasm or satire as “funny.” if you are stuck with such a crude binary set of possibilities, then you will necessarily fail to understand. i don’t know if that makes you stupid, as i wouldn’t use sarcasm as a standard for measuring one’s intelligence.
since you seem ignorant of the place of satire in political commentary, i’ll just mention that there is supposed to be a measure of truth in it (at least, it works best that way). but only an idiot would consider it spin. spin is intended to be taken seriously (at least by one side). satire isn’t…
- Septic - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 12:37 pm:
Chicago continues to waste tax funds on ineffective approaches to decreasing violence… At what point should an elected official personally responsible for gross mismanagement?
- dupage dan - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 1:18 pm:
bored now,
Your attempt at whatever it was you were attempting failed completely. It just came across as some sophmoric attempt at being edgy. Truly worthless. Your attempts to make the statement out to be something other than drivel only end up making you look more foolish.
Now bored with bored now.
- Steve - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 1:19 pm:
Daley and Burke don’t care about the cost of defending the lawsuits. It’s someone else’s money. Actually, this is a great way to pass out money to law firms of their friends. It’s about money. That’s it.
- bored now - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 1:43 pm:
dupage dan: dude, maybe we have different ideas about the rhetorical value of snark, but i never considered it more than drivel. feel free to consider me foolish, if that makes you feel better. but since this was vanilla man’s third or fourth time misreading one of my snarky comments, i figured i should explain. again, i take at face value rich’s comment about the people who post here…
- wordslinger - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 2:09 pm:
The gun laws are Daley’s liberal cover. It doesn’t have anything to do with disarming the gangbangers.
- Skeeter - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 2:13 pm:
Bored now, you are now beginning to bore the rest of us. You two don’t like each other. Nobody else cares. Move on.
To the topic — from the looks of it, Daley reverted to his prior opinion on one gun a month.
Also, this is another example why I have so littel regard for the press covering City Hall. None of the reports identify the five not voting, or the reasons that they did not vote.
- dupage dan - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 2:16 pm:
bored now,
I didn’t classify your remark since it is indeciferable. Without any value either as snark or something more erudite. I was not even remarking much on the back and forth between you and VM. The original statement does nothing to further discourse, snark or not.
- Amalia - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 2:32 pm:
the mayor needs to read Heller and McDonald. there are not
two separate classes of guns, handguns and other. but Daley
makes handguns more expensive to own in Chicago, and
seems to require that any gun, even if in a locked case, must
be broken down. somebody please tell me I’m wrong, but I think I am not.
granted, he did not add the liability charge, or limit the
ownership to one handgun, but he’s added restrictions,
not just added handguns to the ownership possibilities.
if he were truly smart, he would simply have added handguns
to the list and told folks to register and dropped the annual
provision. then, if the gun nuts questioned, at least they could
have the moral high ground. he does not now.
- bored now - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 4:39 pm:
fascist dan: while you are free to have an opinion, at least from my p.o.v., you are not free to impose your values on mine. ftr, my initial comment was not intended to “further discourse,” it was intended as snark. if you’re missing the point, i don’t care if you appreciate, enjoy or understand it, at all…
- How Ironic - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 4:49 pm:
I’m now also bored that bored can’t figure out when to drop it. Apparently he’s the ‘Daley’ of bad satire. (or snark)
- Todd - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 8:40 pm:
Ok The Driver’s license thing is so old and worn out. You do not have a right to drive a car on a public road. You do have a right to own a firearm. Apples and oranges.
Would any of the left of center types here support a class rooms training and test for say voting? what about abortion? A fundamental right is juts that, a fundamental right that can be regulated only in the narrowest of way to address a compelling government interest. This doesn’t get it. It is red tape and road blocks to availing ones self of that right.
You now have to get a FOID card, a City permit, and a registration certificate per gun. THree permits to exercise a consitutional right. Hmm let see how you feel about paying a fee to vote in federal elections, another fee for state elelctions and a third for local elections. Or how about three different voter registration sysytems for each elelction. Would you tollerate that?
And the thing about not being able to take a gun outside the home goes beyond description. Take it to your garage and loose your rights. Step on your bak porch to check out a noise — loose your rights.
We’re going back to court and this is goign to be sweet.
- Weird - Saturday, Jul 3, 10 @ 9:09 pm:
I hope every one of these idiotic new provisions get overturned by the SCOTUS, and Daley gets exposed for continually wasting tax dollars trying to infringe upon our rights.
The restrictive gun laws do NOTHING to prevent crime. Why doesn’t he get it?