Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Poll: Half of Illinoisans want public employees to pay more for pensions - Half approve of gaming expansion
Next Post: *** UPDATED x3 *** SUBSCRIBERS ONLY: Campaign updates and a Statehouse roundup
Posted in:
* Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s newly unveiled handgun registration proposal has zero chance of passage, but will probably rake in big bucks for the pro-gun lobby. Check out this Illinois State Rifle Association e-mail…
URGENT ALERT:
CHICAGO MAYOR RAHM EMANUEL LAUNCHES NEW ATTACK ON YOUR RIGHTS
On Thursday, February 9th, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel called for the Illinois General Assembly to pass a $65 per handgun fee to be levied against every law-abiding gun owner in Illinois – INCLUDING YOU. Of course, gang bangers, murderers, robbers and rapists are exempt from the fee. This fee would be charged every 5 years on every handgun you own. Additionally, you would have to register with the government in the same manner as sex-offenders.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU
If Rahm Emanuel’s gun tax passes, you will be required to pack up your handguns and take them to the local police station for examination and registration. If you have 10 handguns to bring in, you’ll walk out paying $650 in taxes. If you own 100 handguns, the government will lighten your wallet to the tune of $6,500. And, you’ll have to repeat this process every 5 years – unless Emanuel and his buddies in the legislature bump this up to an ANNUAL FEE.
WHAT IF YOU DON’T HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY THE TAX?
If you cannot pay the $65 tax on EACH of your handguns, you will have to surrender your guns to the local police for destruction.
WHAT IF YOU DECIDE NOT TO PAY THE TAX?
If you decide not to pay the tax, the police will come to your house and take your guns away. They will also arrest you and charge you with a CLASS 2 FELONY.
WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP STOP THIS HANDGUN TAX IN ITS TRACKS?
1. Using the link below, contact your State Senator and State Representative and politely tell them that you are a law-abiding Illinois firearm owner who does not want their rights taxed. Tell your Senator and Representative that you expect them to vote AGAINST Rahm Emanuel’s gun tax should it come to the floor of the legislature.
2. Please pass this alert on to all your gun-owning friends and family, tell them to follow the directions contained in the alert.
3. Please post this alert to any and all Internet Blogs or Bulletin Boards to which you belong.
4. Go to the City of Chicago web page and fill out this form. Tell Emanuel that you will NOT LET HIM TAX YOUR GUNS.
http://webapps.cityofchicago.org/eforms/org/cityofchicago/eforms/controller/contactUsForm/preFeedbackForm.do5. Please use the donation link below to send a generous donation to the ISRA, today. We badly need the money to continue to fight against Emanuel and his gun-grabbing pals. Think about it:
would you rather send your money as taxes to Emanuel, or donate to the ISRA?!
* As I pointed out yesterday, Mayor Emanuel has worked hard to convince Downstate Democrats to help with his agenda. They are not happy campers…
Rep. Brandon Phelps, who has championed efforts to pass a concealed weapons bill in Illinois, said the mayor’s office called him Thursday morning to let him know the registration proposal would be introduced.
“Number 1, my first response was I don’t know why you’re trying to do this statewide because we don’t want your policies on us downstate,” said Phelps, a Southern Illinois Democrat from Harrisburg. “Number. 2, it’s never going to work. They’re trying to go after criminals. They’re never going to register their guns. They won’t pay the fee. “
Phelps called Emanuel’s initiative a “slap in the face of every law-abiding gun owner.”
More…
But metro-east legislators, who have been working in the opposite direction, to allow concealed carrying of handguns, say they’ll fight Emanuel’s proposal hard. One of them called the bill ridiculous, and another, Sen. Bill Haine, said there’s “just no damned way we’re going to let that happen.”
More…
“Why does Chicago think they’re smarter than anybody else in the rest of the United States? I don’t think they are,” says Senator Gary Forby. […]
“The city and the area of the country with the toughest gun laws in the country is also the highest crime rates in the country and I don’t think that’s a simple coincidence,” says Bradley. […]
“People down here I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if they have 25, 50, 100 guns down here. Can you imagine $65 for every gun?,” asks Forby.
* Emanuel’s response…
“I didn’t go into it because I thought it was a slam dunk. You don’t need me for that. You don’t need my political capital for the easy things. You use your political capital for the tough things that are the right things to do,” the mayor said during a news conference at a Roseland youth center across the street from a memorial to the victims of youth violence.
“This is a tough issue politically. But I want you to measure that against the toughness of that memorial [across] the street.”
Emanuel noted that 56 percent of the guns used in Chicago crimes were purchased in Illinois, but outside the city. That leaves what he called a “gaping hole” that criminals are exploiting.
“We need to close that hole, shut it down, so that the hard work of the law enforcement community, the hard work of our community groups, the hard work of our faith-based community, the hard work of our parents [doesn’t go to waste and] our laws are backing them up and keeping their kids safe, rather than making them more vulnerable,” the mayor said.
“You already buy a title for a car. You already buy a title for a motorcycle. You buy a title for a boat. I’m not asking you to do anything you don’t do already.””
* And the governor appears to be learning…
The mayor didn’t get immediate public support from Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn. While the governor campaigned on a statewide ban on assault weapons, he said Thursday that he would reserve his opinion on Emanuel’s gun registry plan. Quinn wants lawmakers to first weigh in and “give their wisdom.”
That’s the smart move. Why alienate a huge bloc of legislative votes over somebody else’s bill that isn’t going anywhere?
* Reminder: Keep your overheated slogans to yourself. Also, the stupid references to Nazi Germany yesterday were blocked before they were even posted, so don’t even try that goofiness here.
* Related…
* City Writes $399,950 Check To Gun Rights Group
* Photo of the check
* Emanuel refuses to weigh in on city sticker flap, protest settlement
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 10:38 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Poll: Half of Illinoisans want public employees to pay more for pensions - Half approve of gaming expansion
Next Post: *** UPDATED x3 *** SUBSCRIBERS ONLY: Campaign updates and a Statehouse roundup
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I think this was a real miscalculation by Emanuel.
Even if he threw it out there as a chip to lose, which I think he did, he still smacked Downstate Democrats pretty hard. I don’t see how Emanuel profits by hurting prospective friends with a going-nowhere proposal.
On the other hand, the gun lobbies should send him flowers for rallying their base.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 10:53 am
+1
Comment by amalia Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 11:01 am
This is the sort of thing that boggles me. It seems to me that people who use guns safely are going to be the ones who register them. On the other hand, the criminals are not. Basically, this imposes a burden on the very people who are not a threat.
Can some of you how advocate for more gun control flesh this one out for me? What problem is this intended to solve?
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 11:03 am
With contentious items like reforming pensions and lengthing the school day on his agenda, why would the Mayor choose to squander his “political capital” on this, a solution in search of a problem?
Comment by GoldCoastConservative Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 11:07 am
Rahm just doesn’t get the difference between a right (free speech, gun ownership, voting) and a privilege (driving a car, owning a vehicle).
After the Civil War, a number of southern states imposed both poll taxes on the right to vote and high registration fees on the right to own a firearm; those laws were aimed primarily at newly freed black and poor white citizens. They were overturned. See the Civil Rights Act of 1866 requiring equal treatment, including taxation, and the 14th Amendment plus subsequent actions.
For a more recent example of infringing on poor people’s rights here in Illinois, see the 1988 Operation Clean Sweep (part of which was gun confiscation in housing projects) that resulted in the case Rose Summeries, et al. v. Chicago Housing Authority, et al. and the resulting CHS consent limiting such actions.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 11:15 am
Is it possible that Rahm wants to be Governor of the State of Chicago?
In the dreams of many downstaters, that’s exactly what he is…..
Comment by JoeVerdeal Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 11:15 am
If Rahm isn’t on the Republican payroll, he shoulf be. Why else would he bring up an issue which happens to be the biggest weakness downstate Democrats have? Does he want every single district outside the Chicago area to be Republican?
Comment by AC Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 11:19 am
>>>>>Is it possible that Rahm wants to be Governor of the State of Chicago?
He only has to win one county then, no?
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 11:19 am
>>>>>why would the Mayor choose to squander his “political capital” on this, a solution in search of a problem?
I don’t know about Davis, but Mulligan is a lame duck without so much as a dead cat bounce.
I’m not sure how much “capital” we are really talking about here, just some tinder that will quickly flare and die without embers.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 11:21 am
Rahm takes a hit on this so that every downstate Dem can oppose it, go home and say “I beat Chicago!”, and then win reelection.
Comment by LakeviewJ Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 11:26 am
as we have seen, ideas that were dismissed as loonie years ago (nearly everything Ron Paul says) are now mainstream in the Republican agenda (not everything Ron Paul says). Consequently, there’s no reason this currently non-mainstream idea shouldn’t be pushed as it is reasonable, consistent w/ the constitution and I like it.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 11:35 am
I was hopefull that the new Mayor wouldn’t waste his time and resources going out of his way to push this failed agenda. These sorts of schemes have never worked anywhere in the past, why pick the fight when there are so many things that need to be done that he will need cooperation from others on.
The Mayor is a very inteligent man, he has drop out rates, unemployment, drugs and gangs that should be in the forefront of his agenda, not looking for distractions with things like this. For far too long, guns are bad has been the mantra in Chicago. The continuous rhetoric for the last 30 years has gone stale.
The people want the ability to protect themselves, not more restrictions and obstacles on their ability to do so, yes even in Roseland… it’s ideas like this that scare his own constituents from saying it, they are just as afraid that the city will come get their firearms and they are of the gangs and violence in their neighborhoods.
You don’t earn the trust of your constituents by telling them you want to register them and thier property because… you don’t trust them.
Comment by ISRA Don Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 11:37 am
As a Chicago resident I feel no safer with Chicago and Illinois’ restrictive gun laws. The criminals do not follow these laws — the only people that follow these laws are the people I am not worried about. These proposals are waste of time, money, and resources.
Comment by Just Observing Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 11:39 am
The mayor says 56% of guns used in chicago crime were purchased outside of chicago but in the state.
Until recently there hasn’t been a gun store in chicago for many years so what’s the point?
Comment by anon Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 11:46 am
Both sides show how ridiculous they can be. Rahm pushes this when we have bigger issues, and it only strengthens his political enemies, and the gun-lobby all but announces “the British are coming, the British are coming”.
Comment by mark walker Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 11:50 am
One wonders, if like his former Congressional colleague, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Emanuel imagines a future in which the Democrats could manage to hold a legislative majority without those annoying Blue Dog Democrats?
I have to agree with ISRA Don: Chicago has been using “gun control” as the quick fix social pancea for a failure on a variety of fronts (crime, drugs, gangs, awful public schools, high unemployment and generations of impoverished people with no prospects for breaking the cycle of poverty). It is a total smoke screen, but it satisfies the ministers and the voters and the organization keeps prevailing at the ballot box.
Comment by Esquire Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 11:52 am
Keep in mind that Emanuel is one of Obama’s cronies. This could be a way to test the waters without getting Obama wet.
BTW, if 56% of Chicago’s crime guns come from downstate, and Chicago has no gun shops… where are the 44% coming from? Out of state obviously. So you see, this will someday be a national agenda.
Comment by SailorTom Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 11:53 am
Illinois and counties need more revenue, if we are going to add a fee to one constitutional right, gun ownership, let’s add fees to others for more revenue. If you want to vote, pay a registration fee for each election year. Maybe have a 5 year free-speech registration fee for all media outlets operating in Illinois that want to report on government activities. [Would that be okay with you Rich?
] Religious organizations would have to register and pay fees to continue enjoying their religious “freedom” rights. You get the idea.
Comment by KurtInSpringfield Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 11:55 am
For a guy who doesn’t like guns Rahm sure knows how to shoot himself and his fellow Democrats in the foot.
Comment by wishbone Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 12:03 pm
I’ve been saying this for some time now Esquire.
The problems that need attention in Chicago proper are hard, difficult things to change with a lot of chicken and egg spread in the mix.
How do you lure employers back, ones that would provide for decent jobs and hopes for the employees to live the American dream, when you have ~50% drop out rate in the local populace.
How do you end the hopelessness when there is no prosepect of ever changing your life’s hopeless situation?
Long term solutions are not often the product of political ambition, they take too much time to see results… so, if you can find something that you can blame as evil, and take everyone’s eyes off the ball… you can survive politically to serve another term. Guns have served that purpose graciously for the last 30 years in Chicago, but people are catching on.
It will take great political determination to overcome what has happened to parts of Chicago, but when we start being honest with ourselves and stop blaming a mechanical device and start adressing the long list of things necessary to uplift a community and give hope to its citizens, we’ll finally be moving in the right direction.
Comment by ISRA Don Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 12:08 pm
Is the issue the fee? How about if registration is free? We’ll pay for the program by fining the last registered owner $10,000 if their gun is used in a crime.
Comment by lincoln's beard Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 12:08 pm
@lincoln’s beard
That’s a little unfair. Do you really think the 56% of guns used in a crime in Chicago were actually used by the registered owner from downstate, or that somehow the registered owner is culpable in the use of the gun by the perpetrator? I would venture to guess most if not all were stolen.
Comment by KurtInSpringfield Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 12:16 pm
SailorTom - @ 11:53 am
You’re probably close to the truth …
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 12:17 pm
Stolen, eh? Okay, let’s waive the fine if the gun is reported stolen before it’s used in a crime. First gun stolen is free, second gun stolen results in a $1000 fine, and third gun stolen means you aren’t allowed to have guns anymore. How’s that?
Comment by lincoln's beard Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 12:19 pm
Probably isn’t an issue more clearly divided along I-80 than guns. In this case I agree with his sentiment but don’t see how statewide registration does much for Chicago seeing as it borders on two other states and is within half a day’s drive of a third.
Comment by Dirt Digger Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 12:29 pm
@ lincoln’s beard
We could apply the same logic to stolen vehicles, make the victim responsible for what the criminal does. Besides, why would you want to penalize the victim of a crime or crimes by taking away their constitutional rights?
Comment by KurtInSpringfield Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 12:29 pm
>>>>>Probably isn’t an issue more clearly divided along I-80 than guns.
It’s not I-80. This is an impasse between Cook Co, the north shore, and the rest of the state.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 12:38 pm
>>>>>Until recently there hasn’t been a gun store in chicago for many years
And there still is no gun store in Chicago.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 12:40 pm
Well, there’s a difference between a car and a gun.
Let’s say some contractor licensed by the state to purchase, store, and use dynamite kept having local kids steal their explosives from their construction site. Would you like the state to continue to license that guy to possess those materials?
How about a pharmacist who repeatedly has their stocks of morphine, oxycontin, and amphetamine stolen? Should we feel sorry for that guy, or investigate him?
Comment by lincoln's beard Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 12:41 pm
>>>>>if 56% of Chicago’s crime guns come from downstate, and Chicago has no gun shops… where are the 44% coming from? Out of state obviously.
Since Rahm already knows where all the guns are coming from…
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 12:42 pm
>>>>>the gun-lobby all but announces “the British are coming, the British are coming”.
As well they should, when the British stand up and announce that they are indeed coming.
I don’t donate to the ISRA so that they remain silent in the face of a threat to my right to keep and bear arms.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 12:49 pm
Beard –
the feee is the first issue. a tax on a constitutional right. Next is the issue of privacy, it’s none of your business how many guns I might own.
Third, those in government have shown they can not be trusted with these types of schemes and they only lead to them wanting to strip us of more of the right to own a firearm.
go to this link and listen at the 0.53 mark, Rahm says “if its right for a motorcycle, it’s right for a rifle” they tell us that it’s just for handguns today, but they have tipped their hand it’s about more guns tomorow.
And lets not forget Chicago’s handgun ban came about by their registration requirement. Now we have a SCOTUS ruling saying otherwise, but it was a 5-4 decision and several of the loosing side have made no bones about wanting to undo Heller and McDonald. We already have a host od state and federal judges trying to limit their application.
So it is a lot of different issues that come together in this one proposal. And even if the registration were free we would not go along with it. And we are not.
Not only are we going to beat this thing, we are going to go on the offense about it and other issues.
Now i have to go order some flowers. . .
Comment by Todd Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 1:01 pm
lincoln’s beard,
Your arguments are weak, at best. How many gun owners do you think have so many guns that the criminals keep coming to their home to steal same? You appear to have decided on a course of action and are sticking with it no matter how silly it looks.
It doesn’t matter re the fine, size of same or no fine. Registering guns will not fly. It is a doomed issue.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 1:06 pm
How about we address this with harsh penalties and long minimum sentences for crimes committed with firearms and for felons caught with firearms.
Don’t set up another system that only affects law abiding citizens. This registration scheme only makes it harder for law abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional right.
Comment by Kevin Highland Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 1:07 pm
I think the urgent alert by the pro-gun lobby is a little over the top. Seriously, who has 100 handguns laying around their house?… besides people you would want to keep an eye on.
I’m a downstater and I’m pro gun rights, but this isn’t about taking away any rights. If you register your car, it’s not absurd to ask people to register assault weapons.
Comment by Ahoy Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 1:10 pm
@lincoln’s beard –well there’s a difference between a car and a gun– I agree! Ownership of one is a federal constitutional right, and ownership of the other is granted by the State as a privilige. But the main reasoning behind the gun registration proposal is twofold.
1. They can be used in the commission of crimes.
2. They can cause physical harm and death.
A stolen vehicle can also be used in the commission of crimes and can cause physical harm and death.
As far as the pharmacist analogy, you haven’t really addressed my point which is penalizing victims. Why penalize the victim of a crime or crimes? Is there currently an Illinois law or statute on the books I am not aware of that makes pharmacy owners criminals if their store is broken into and controlled substances stolen multiple times? If so, please post a link to a reference. If not then your use of that argument is moot.
Comment by KurtInSpringfield Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 1:17 pm
Kevin Highland @ 1:07 pm
We already have the penalties and laws on the books. How about we hire more cops in Chicago, solve some crimes, and try actually enforcing the existing laws?
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 1:28 pm
Did I miss something? Did the NRA become a publicly held stock and Mayor Emmanuel is long on shares? If he pursues this agenda, NRA membership will double, along with its cashflow. Is the Mayor back-handedly trying to help out Republicans which the NRA backs? The Mayor seems too bright to play this dum card. Is he sending a message to certain Democrats that he knows how to help their enemies while still looking like a champion of the people?
Comment by Cook County Commoner Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 1:28 pm
Ahoy @ 1:10,
They add up. Buy a couple for yourself, inherit a few here, a few there, don’t sell any, and pretty soon you have a decent collection.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 1:34 pm
“I think the urgent alert by the pro-gun lobby is a little over the top. Seriously, who has 100 handguns laying around their house?… besides people you would want to keep an eye on.”
your kidding right?
Comment by Todd Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 1:39 pm
***- Retired Non-Union Guy - Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 1:28 pm:
Kevin Highland @ 1:07 pm
We already have the penalties and laws on the books. How about we hire more cops in Chicago, solve some crimes, and try actually enforcing the existing laws?***
How about we just keep the criminals in jail for the full sentence?? Check the arrest records of those arrested for violent crimes. Most of the time, their record goes back 10-20 years with multiple incarcerations. And nearly everytime, they were paroled or released early. The worst are the ones that are paroled, arrested for another crime and then arrested again while out waiting on trial!
Stop the revolving door jails!!
Comment by TimB Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 1:40 pm
All I have is one question. Why in the world do these politicians keep giving the criminals the upper hand, making us easy pickings???
Comment by KG Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 1:44 pm
Just last night one of the national news channels just happened to have a piece on buying guns over the Internet. They showed reporters arranging meetings with sellers to buy a variety of weapons. No permits, no background, no questions asked. As long as that exists, what good will registration do except to collect dollars?
Comment by zatoichi Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 1:49 pm
@ zatoichi - Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 1:49 pm:
That doesn’t sound quite right. Were they maybe using the web as a means to meet people for private party sales? If you or I truly buy a gun on the web from out of state, it must be delivered through a Federally licensed firearms dealer just like any commercial sale.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 2:00 pm
I still wonder — if this bill were to pass and if it were to operate precisely as Mayor Emanuel would wish, exactly what good would this bill accomplish?
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 2:17 pm
Two questions:
1) Will the criminals obey this law?
2) How will restricting and taxing the Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens make me safer?
Comment by TimB Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 2:31 pm
=== Even if he threw it out there as a chip to lose, which I think he did, he still smacked Downstate Democrats pretty hard. ===
Are you kidding?
Rahm is doing downstate Democrats a HUGE favor.
You can’t buy this kind of free publicity if you’re Phelps or Forby.
And it means people aren’t talking about the budget.
The folks it puts in a bind are suburban lawmakers — predominately Republicans — who have aligned themselves with the Illinois State Rifle Association.
Their constituents generally support stronger gun safety laws.
To most of them, $65 every five years isn’t a big deal.
And the argument that this is really gonna hurt the guy who owns 100 handguns?
Do you think anyone in the suburbs (or Chicago or downstate for that matter) WANTS someone living down the street with 100 hand guns?!?
I’d have a FIELD DAY with that line if I was Rahm or a suburban Democratic challenger.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 2:34 pm
When he said he was never going to run for President I thought he was lying. I believe him now.
This is a not a bill that can pass, but I like the idea and hope my GA members vote for it.
Comment by siriusly Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 2:34 pm
=== the feee is the first issue. a tax on a constitutional right. ===
Tell that to the authors of the Lobbyist Registration Act, The Attorney Registration Act, The Charitable Solicitation Act, and others.
The test of the fee’s constitutionality is whether it is necessary, reasonable, and directly related.
Unless I’m mistaken, the court’s have upheld the legality of registration, or atleast not struck it down.
After all, it goes back to like 1792.
If you say that state’s have the right to require registration, that kind of presumes the right to raise revenue for managing a registration system.
BTW Todd, that was all a question
You’re an honest and reasonable chap and have followed these recent court cases better than anyone I know.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 2:48 pm
“Tell that to the authors of the Lobbyist Registration Act, The Attorney Registration Act, The Charitable Solicitation Act, and others.”
All examples of commercial regulation. Ownership of firearms is generally a personal right.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 2:56 pm
===All examples of commercial regulation===
Wrong. Lobbying is protected by the 1st Amendment.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 2:58 pm
Haha - Rahmbo has you all fooled. He’s still working for B.O. and ran this trial balloon up as a local thing like a good apparatchik. Old Uncle Joe would be proud.
Comment by Money Spent Elsewhere Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 3:11 pm
“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.”
Comment by SailorTom Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 3:18 pm
>>>>>Rahmbo has you all fooled. He’s still working for B.O. and ran this trial balloon up
And the gun lobby in IL should have kept quiet about the whole thing? Could have kept quiet about the whole thing?
No, BO already knows how this would work out. We already seen him vote against self-defense in the home and we’ve already seen his administration force gun sales to the mexican drug lords so the Justice Dept could sit back and go: “see? Bad guns! Must ban them!”
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 3:18 pm
“Wrong. Lobbying is protected by the 1st Amendment.”
Lobbyist registration regulates the commercial occupation of lobbying. I don’t need to register before I personally contact my legislator about an issue that concerns me under the right to petition.
Compare it against regulation of dealers that sell firearms for profit vs. private owners of firearms.
Sorry, Rich - I know this is a hot topic for you, but I see a clear distinction.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 3:20 pm
SailorTom - I think even fake Hitler quotes are probably covered in Rich’s disclaimer, FYI.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 3:21 pm
Besides, legal firearm owners are already registered, just like lobbists.
Comment by ISRA Don Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 3:31 pm
===He’s still working for B.O. and ran this trial balloon up===
Sheesh. When are you guys gonna focus on what the preznit does, not what you believe in your feverishly paranoid heads that he’s gonna do?
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 3:33 pm
YDD, I don’t see this as a winner for downstate Dems.
Emanuel is a big swinging D in the Democratic Party.
The Dems down south can’t get their gun bill and then they get whacked like this. How do they defend that D on the ballot after such disrespect?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 3:35 pm
I always love the comments on the gun threads. As always, I started out thinking that the pro-gun people have a point. Then I read the comments from the pro-gun people (the Hitler and Stalin stuff) and I end up thinking that nobody should ever be allowed anywhere near a gun anytime or anywhere.
No lobby kills its own cause better than the gun lobby.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 3:37 pm
- Emanuel is a big swinging D in the Democratic Party. -
I think Rahm would approve of this sentence.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 3:41 pm
Good point, Anonymous. This whole thing is a real smack in the face for Forby, Phelps, Bradley and the other Southern Illinois Democrats. These guys are AT LEAST as conservative as any far-right oriented Republican in the northern and central regions of Illinois.
This whole thing makes them look very marginal, influence-wise within their own party. It would be fun to see them develop a more solid voting bloc with Illinois Republicans. They are already voting this way, much of the time. It also would be a hoot to see them endorse a Republican candidate for Illinois Governor.
Comment by JoeVerdeal Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 3:51 pm
=== the feee is the first issue. a tax on a constitutional right. ===
==Tell that to the authors of the Lobbyist Registration Act, The Attorney Registration Act, The Charitable Solicitation Act, and others.
I agree. I think those fees are wrong as well, but no one has stepped up to challenge it. But if you go back to Murdock v. Pennsylvaina, the Court struck down fees on protected activity. And it was cited in Heller.
==The test of the fee’s constitutionality is whether it is necessary, reasonable, and directly related.
That part depends on how core it is to the right. They can’t charge you for a permit to stand on a corner with a bullhorn. But they can charge you for a parade permit. And using a fee for other than administration of what is allowed becomes a tax, which is being challenged in New York and CA.
In Illinois you have a tax on the license, the FOID, then in Chicago you have the CFP $100 and the costs to get it, $125-$150, plus the registration costs which I think is $20. So just to own a handgun in Chicago, with the Mayor new tax your looking at $325. Just for ownership in the home. That I think becomes excessive
==Unless I’m mistaken, the court’s have upheld the legality of registration, or atleast not struck it down.
Correct, they have not struck a registration scheme, and I beleive the court would find a no fee no hassle form of it consitutional.
==After all, it goes back to like 1792.
If you say that state’s have the right to require registration, that kind of presumes the right to raise revenue for managing a registration system.
BTW Todd, that was all a question
You’re an honest and reasonable chap and have followed these recent court cases better than anyone I know.
Comment by Todd Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 7:01 pm
This is nothing more than a ploy by Emmanuel to help downstate Democrats. The downstate Dems are already pro-gun, so this issue allows them to jump up and down and trump up their pro-gun credentials and distract voters from their horrendous and unforgivable vote to raise income taxes.
Comment by East Sider Tuesday, Feb 14, 12 @ 1:04 pm
Chicago, like California, New York City, the Canadian national government and countless others, has proven that it can’t be trusted with a registry. The fees matter, but that’s the key.
In Chicago, gun registration was enacted amid promises that it was a safety measure and would of course never be used to confiscate firearms or infringe on anyone’s right to own one. Then the city escalated to a policy of making it as difficult as possible to get the permit, and in the next generation simply stopped accepting registrations of handguns. Simple as that, and the promises . . . .what promises?
California sold its registry of SKS rifles as a simple safety measure, and elected officials made heartfelt, sincere promises that it would never be used to round up the rifles from legitimate owners, with many going so far as to admit that they were personally offended that anyone would even suggest such a thing.
You can probably guess without being told how long that lasted.
Since I have a .22 I use for plinking and training, two .45s I use for competition and self-defense, and an old revolver that has mostly sentimental and collector value but would be perfect for deer hunting if I were willing to get it dirty, this proposal would “only” cost me $260 this year. Maybe some of you call that reasonable, but I don’t. The reasonable thing to do is to leave a constitutional right alone.
I do not accept that I have to register my books, my computers, my printers, my bibles or my korans, so I do not accept that I have to register my firearms. I gave a ten-minute speech to a small group of citizens last night, on the topic of our plans to visit the capitol and lobby our representatives, and I do not accept that I owe the state a fee or an accounting of that speech.
It’s simply none of their business.
Comment by Don Gwinn Wednesday, Feb 15, 12 @ 11:53 am
Id like to know how the Chicago administration always has more sway on the states agenda than the Governers administration, maybe its the voting block do you think?
Comment by Fredshell Monday, Feb 27, 12 @ 12:23 pm
Illinois is the only state without some form of Concealed Carry. And now they are trying to pass the so called Assault Weapons ban; HB1294 and in conjunction with that bill is HB1599 that bumps up
the penalty one notch for violating HB1294. Now the Chicago Mayor is trying to get our guns registered. If you have not looked up the two House Bills, please do so and contact your Rep and ask them to vote “no” on these two bills. They have not yet come up for a vote and I hope they never do, but we need to be ready to fight
not only the House Bills, but also the Chicago Mayors gun registration.
Comment by Ron V Tuesday, Feb 28, 12 @ 10:29 am