98 Comments - Montrose - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 1:53 pm: I am as anti-gun as they come, but I do think the city should stop and think about what they could gain from legal gun ownership. If registering a handgun is relatively easy, more people will do it. The more people the do it, the better equipped CPD will be to trace guns and bullets. I am not sure what the tipping point is for someone to say they will just have an unregistered gun in the house so they can avoid the training, insurance, etc., but I have this gut feeling the Mayor is getting close to it. - Steve - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 1:55 pm: Reasonable is the right to carry. Obviously, what Mayor Daley thinks is reasonable is way outside the mainstream of American thought. Most Americans would have a problem with only police officers owning guns. Jon Burge and William Hanhardt are the best reasons for owning guns. It must upset Mayor Daley to think that individuals have rights to self-defense. A view at odds with Chicago’s handgun ban. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/chicagos_handgun_ban_and_rico.html - just sayin' - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 1:56 pm: “So, what’s your definition of reasonable?” That question is also known as the Lawyer Full Employment Act. - siriusly - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 1:57 pm: I am with Daley, my definition of reasonable is anything that allows for the best protection of children who might be in a gun-owners home or others. If every gun manufactured and sold in the US was required to be “stamped” or ballistically tested, you’d have a lot less gun trading and illegally obtained firearms because there would be a chain of liability. I find it laughable that the Southern wants conceal carry for “law-abiding” citizens. A lot of those school shooter nut jobs were law-abiding, until they murdered people. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 1:59 pm: ===Jon Burge and William Hanhardt are the best reasons for owning guns.=== So, you’re advocating that civilians shoot bad cops? Are you a nutball? - How Ironic - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:00 pm: The FOID card is fine as is, although a bit redundant considering the Federal Background check. As a responsible gun owner, I’m not against some sort of ‘training’ if nothing to stress the safety aspect of owning a firearm. This should be at most a mininal expense, not to be used as a deterrent or hurdle to obtain a gun. Registering the firearm doesn’t make much sense. As it is now a CPD, Fireman, EMT isn’t going to know if there is a firearm in a home while responding to a call. There isn’t much to gain with the knowledge. Honest gun owners are not lying in wait to harm emergency personell. Daley needs to own up to the fact that the gun violence that is occuring in a majority of the cases are executed by individuals posessing a firearm illegally. That by it’s very definition is a failure of the policy. It’s not honest homeowners gunning down their neighbors and robbing people. And the ‘one’ firearm per person rule is idiotic. Why does it matter if a person collects 1 or 20? - dave - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:04 pm: Jon Burge and William Hanhardt are the best reasons for owning guns. Rich already addressed one problem with this, but you do also realize that Burge would have confiscated any guns from a person before he tortured them, right? - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:06 pm: Yeah, what Dave said. Steve, either explain yourself or consider yourself banned. - Irish - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:06 pm: Reasonable is when they same restrictions are applied to gun ownership that are applied to bat ownership, knife ownership, and automobile ownership; three other weapons that are used in murders. Daley is trying to make guns the culprits because he does not want to say that gangs are the real reason Chicago has one of the highest murder rates. One of the problems is that shooting someone with a gun can be one of the most impersonal ways of ijuring or killing an individual. You really don’t even need to look at them. Examples of this are on the news everyday when some wannabe opens up and sprays a building or a car, or a sidewalk with gun fire and innocents are killed or injured. Using a knife requires feeling the blade go into an individual and feeling their body close to you and hear their screams or moans. Much more personal as is using something to beat a person to death. So in essence these kids are just going to a shooting gallery and popping off a few at nameless targets and then going home and not seeing the devastation they just wreaked on a family or families. To fix this problem you have to resolve the issues that made that kid feel it was necessary or excusable to do that. That won’t be done however because those issues are harder and more expensive to fix than declaring a gun the culprit and banning them. The one thing concealed carry has going for it is that kid might get shot back at in a concealed carry society and that makes it much more personal because his life is then at stake, he has a stake in the outcome. - Levois - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:07 pm: I think requiring training is reasonable, not sure at all about forcing people to register their weapons. I don’t think limiting people to one gun per household is reasonable but criminal background checks are reasonable. Also forcing gun owners to buy liability insurance is unreasonable. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:10 pm: Irish, you expanded on knife and bat ownership, but then you didn’t talk about auto ownership. Training, licensing, registration, insurance, imprisonment for being under the influence, etc. - Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:17 pm: - Reasonable is when they same restrictions are applied to gun ownership that are applied to bat ownership, knife ownership - You gave a detailed explanation of how much different it is to use a bat and a knife to harm someone than a gun, so why should the restrictions be the same? I feel that reasonable means personal protection in the home and open carry in public at most. I don’t believe assault rifles have any place in society. - Really?? - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:17 pm: Is it true that every state except for IL and WI have conceal carry laws? That doesn’t sound right to me. - Chicago Resident - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:18 pm: I think it’s reasonable to say that no matter what is done, it’s not going to appease the card carrying members of the NRA, in addition, it will not stop the almost daily carnage on the streets of Chicago. - dupage dan - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:19 pm: I think training is a reasonable expectation in this situation. Since it is unlikely that a person can use more than 2 handguns at any given time, why limit the number to a household? The FOID registers the owner, not the gun. Add to that the training, on which the FOID can be contingent. Should we insist on liability insurance on other dangerous “weapons”? Knives? Baseball bats? I am not trying to be snarky here. Low income folk who can’t afford cars/insurance won’t likely be able to afford weapons liability insurance - a barrier to gun ownership that is likely to trigger lawsuits. I am not aware of any such type of insurance - does it exist? Banning gun shops could end up in courts, as well. If the city makes it so difficult to purchase a gun as to make low income folk without personal protection how has anything changed? This city does not trust its’ own citizens to be reasonable despite multiple recent examples of citizens behaving in precisely that manner with folk protecting themselves with appropriate use of handguns. - Irish - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:24 pm: Sorry - I didn’t want to take up too much space. Auto ownership requires some training of which I am not opposed for gun ownership. It requires registration again not opposed in fact that occurs now with the FOID card. However that being said I would not want to see gun registration become what auto registration has become, a means to generate money rather than a means of monitoring. And as far as the insurance issue the automobile requires it because we are out everyday with our automobiles interacting with other people and automobiles, accidents happen. I don’t see that same constant interaction with gun owners while they have their guns with them and the public. I believe the insurance is just an added tax to make it harder to own a gun. Can Daley really say with a straight face, and honesty, that the kid on the corner with his pants down around his knees, flashing gang signs, carrying a Mac 9 in his hoodie, will have that weapon registered, take the training, and be carrying his insurance card? A figure I would like to see is how many of the guns that are turned in when the city buys them from the public, have the serial number filed off, or are altered in some way to make them not able to be registered. And another question do they try to match those guns to crimes that have been committed? - The Doc - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:26 pm: I’m a bit unclear on the rationale for a blanket prohibition on dealers. Certainly, these shops could be tightly regulated, while bringing in tax revenue for the city. The city council already micromanages a number of other specific business types, so why not gun dealers? Daley frequently pops off about how Chicago residents cross city limits to shop at Wal-Mart; wouldn’t the same notion hold true for the sale of firearms? I’m not advocating throwing TIF funds in their direction, but if folks will soon be allowed to own them in the city, why not allow them to purchase them in the city as well? - MrJM - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:26 pm: This discussion calls to mind the wisdom of the pride of Calumet City and the Illinois Republican Party, Alan Keyes: “The premise of the gun control agenda is that people can’t control things, but that things control people. At the root of the gun control agenda, as with the sex education agenda and so many other liberal agendas, is a denial of our moral nature. And that denial of our moral nature rests ultimately on a denial of the existence of God and of a relationship between God and human things. So the gun control agenda is a natural outcome of the agenda of godless materialism.” All Chicago needs to do is reestablish the relationship between God and human things, i.e. handguns, and all will be well. And friends, what firearms policy could be more reasonable than that? – MrJM - nick - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:29 pm: yes really??, 48 other states have a form of concealed carry. - TimB - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:40 pm: Nick is correct, 48 other states have some form of concealed carry law. 39 are “shall issue”, Vermont requires no special license to carry a firearm for law abiding citizens, if you can pass the mandatory Federal background check to purchase a firearm, you can carry it in VT. WI has legal “open carry”, so IL is the only state that doesn’t allow some form of carry of a firearm by citizens for personal protection. IN has issued a “License to Carry a Handgun” since 1935. No training, no fingerprints, small fee, no hassle. Concealed carry is the norm in the majority of the states. IL is still in the dark ages with it’s paranoid fear of guns and not allowing citizens to take responsibility for their own safety. - Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:41 pm: Rich Miller said: “Training, licensing, registration, insurance, imprisonment for being under the influence, etc.” All fine items for a car used on a public street. You do not have to register a car parked in your drive, nor do you need any special training to own a car, to own a gun you need an FOID so licensing is a wash. Anything more stringent and onerous than an FOID will probably result in further litigation. - Reformer - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:41 pm: Since gun ownership is finally recognized as a fundamental right like freedom of the press and of religion, it should be subject to no more regulation and limitation than those other rights. If the City can restrict residents to one handgun, could the City restrict churches to one location? Or restrict newspaper subscriptions to one per household? Or restrict abortions to those who first undergo education about it? - South Side Mike - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:45 pm: dupage dan, Let me start by saying I am not a gun owner, nor do I desire to be. I don’t really care for them at all. However, I know a number of gentlemen who are responsible gun enthusiasts (most of them are military/ex-military). The problem with 1 or 2 gun per adult per household is that it ignores the hobby aspects of gun enthusiasts. You don’t necessarily want to own only one handgun, one rifle, one shotgun, etc. You like to have a three or four different caliber handguns (not to mention your hunting rifles) and to go to a licensed range once or twice a month with buddies to practice and feel the different kicks, aiming techniques, etc. When the guns are being taken to the range, they are emptied, cleaned, and securely stored away. Like I said, I don’t care for this hobby, but that would be the position of those who do. To me, reasonable restrictions include registration of owner and gun and reasonable training (~3-6 hours every couple of years). To me, special insurance should not be an issue because most homeowner and renter insurance companies ask about the presence of firearms and price the policies accordingly. The Chicago gun ban did nothing to make the streets of Chicago safer. Rescinding the ban is unlikely to make either more dangerous or safer. Gang banging punks will continue to own and use illegal weapons. - TimB - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:46 pm: Owning a car is not a “fundamental right”. - dupage dan - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:47 pm: STL, I am responding to your statement about assault rifles. Although there can be much debate about original intent as it relates to personal ownership over the “well regulated militia”, the idea that gun ownership was tied to the ability of the states to protect themselves from federal tyranny is generally accepted. This would mean that the folk protecting themselves from said tyranny should be able to arm themselves with weapons of a type that would be useful in a battle against such tyranny. That could lead to claims that private citizens be allowed to arm themselves with much more than an assault rifle. Not only can it lead to that but I have heard just that claim from some quarters. I am not trying to be sarcastic here - just debating the point. - Mike Ins - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:47 pm: The car licensing/registration analogy, while perhaps “reasonable” in terms of a lay discussion, completely ignores the fact that “driving a car” has not been found to be a consitutional right. It’s apples and oranges. The legal debate (for this generation anyway) as to the meaning of the constitution is now over, however one may feel about that. … one cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater, but that is more comparable to the legal realities we are now in than an analogy to one driving a car and needing to be registered, which is not a “fundamental right”. Let those words sink in, “fundamental right”. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:50 pm: TimB and others, lobbying is specifically included in the 1st Amendment without the 2nd Amendment’s obvious caveat language, yet there are tons of restrictions on it. In other words, lobbying is a fundamental, constitutionally guaranteed right that is taxed and heavily regulated. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:51 pm: === Reasonable is when they same restrictions are applied to gun ownership that are applied to bat ownership, knife ownership, and automobile ownership; === I don’t know how many people are killed by bats and knives each year, but I do know that we consider automobile owners to license their vehicles, update their address every year, report sales or transfers, and carry liability insurance. That seems pretty reasonable. If the second amendment folks are right and owning a gun makes you safer, then telling your insurance company that you own a gun should make your insurance rates go down. I don’t think they can argue that “guns save lives” and “insurance is a burden” at the same time. - TimB - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:53 pm: Rich, Not saying that there shouldn’t be some restrictions, non-felon, age limits, background checks, etc. Just, as Mike Ins says, the comparison between cars and guns is “apples to oranges”. - anon - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:55 pm: “driving a car” is not a constitutional right because cars didn’t exist when the constitution was written. Same with many other things. Guns shouldn’t have some sort of special treatment just because they happened to exist in the 1700s. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:55 pm: TimB, I was just responding to somebody else. I have since responded to you. The far more apt comparison is lobbying restrictions. - Mike Ins - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:58 pm: The problem with the current “registration” system in the Chicago ordinance is that if you are a day late in an annual re-registration, that firearm may NEVER be registered in Chicago again. It is contraband. Imagine if you were a single day late in obtaining your vehicle plate sticker from the SOS and you recieved a letter that your vehicle could NEVER be legally owned/possessed/driven in the State again… your options are to turn your car into the SOS office immediately or sell it within 10 days and submit proof of same to the SOS. … and believe me, many firearms are as least as valuable as vehicles out there… That is the current system, even for the firearms that are registered… and that, I believe, will be specifically found to be “unreasonable” when the 7th Circuit rules on remand… … for an interesting illustration of this, look at what happened in 2007 (?) or 2008 (?) when Alderman Mell forgot to re-register his extensive firearm collection… all a matter of public record. Check it out. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:58 pm: === The Chicago gun ban did nothing to make the streets of Chicago safer. Rescinding the ban is unlikely to make either more dangerous or safer. === There is strong evidence to back the argument that local gun bans have limited effect on criminal gun activity. Its pretty obvious that if gun sales are banned in D.C. but Virginia will sell them to anyone, a gun ban isn’t going to thwart a criminal. At the same time, there is a direct correlation between the availability of guns and accidental shootings, suicides, and the Columbine-like rampages that are every community’s worst nightmare. Also, the fact remains that the better armed the public is, the better armed criminals are, because the #1 way criminals get guns is by stealing them from law-abiding citizens. If gangs cared about the consequences of their crimes, they wouldn’t be criminals, so don’t expect the SCOTUS decision to deter them. But you can bet suicide and accidental shootings will go up. - dupage dan - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 2:59 pm: YDD, I don’t know if any insurance companies currently offers any such gun ownership liability policies. If not, then starting up such a program with those actuarial types would likely lead to exorbitantly high premiums given the skittish nature of folk trying to provide such. Since Chicago is in the extreme minority when it comes to gun ownership, perhaps we can learn from other states regarding the statistics of gun ownership, incidents of improper gun use and the civil actions that arise from them. Why re-invent the wheel? - Way Way Down Here - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 3:04 pm: I’m a gun owner. I’m more worried about reciprocal agreements between states and lack of regulation. I have a license to carry, from another state, that I was able to get throught internet sale, $25, valid without photo, no training, nada. Issued by a county sherif. I heard about it and tried it to see if it would work. I know it’s not valid in Illinois, but it is in other states. I think that’s kind of scary. - dupage dan - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 3:07 pm: YDD, What are you suggesting, then, a total ban on firarm ownership in the USA since that is the only way to limit access to guns by bad guys? Beyond the fact that that is impossible legally (per the SCOTUS) it is not a useful way to reduce crime. Look at the crime statistics of “island nations” and you see a rise in crime with a restriction in firearm ownership. Since I am terrible at names of people/books I don’t recall the recent book that details the stats on that. Perhaps someone here can remind me/us. Can you cite statistics from states that have higher access to guns and more gun ownership that have higher rates of suicide (by gun, only) and accidental shootings? That would be useful information here, I think. - Jechislo - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 3:08 pm: Reasonable is Constitutional. - Mike Ins - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 3:09 pm: Oh - and to answer the question (nod to Rich), I believe reasonable (on top of FOID) is a registration scheme and training, though training may be an issue in light of the supreme court ruling, b/c do we have to be “trained” to join a religion, etc? But if I were king, that’s my personal druthers. A legit registration scheme with nominal fees, not a significant or total barrier to responsible ownership masquerading (sp?) as a “registration” scheme, and training. - TimB - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 3:13 pm: YDD and others, Rather than fill Rich’s blog with statistics, I’d suggest that you Google GunFacts by Guy Smith. A good compilation of statistics from many sources including the CDC, BATF, British Home Office and academic sources. Much of what is “accepted” is shown to be untrue. For instance, the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics show that there is no correlation of availablity of firearms to the rate of homicide and suicide in America. - Mike Ins - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 3:22 pm: Anon @ 2:55 pm: Cars may not have existed when the constitution was written, but horses (and boats, etc) sure did, and those things were not included in the constitution. As mom used to say, “Driving is a privilege, not a right”. With apologies to Mom… as the Supreme Court has now said, “Firearm ownership is a right, not a privilege” - Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 3:24 pm: dupage dan - What is your point? I don’t believe citizens should be able to own assault rifles, and I don’t believe they should be able to own nuclear weapons just because the federal government has them. Are you saying you think citizens should be able to own any weapon that the federal government uses? - dupage dan - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 3:24 pm: BTW, YDD, can you cite the statistics on how criminals acquire their guns? Given the hundreds of handguns confiscated by the Chicago PD every year, it would seem the entire city is chock a block with handguns, or suburban PDs would be reporting high rates of home break-ins with guns being stolen or, finally, gun shops being broken into with large scale theft of inventory. I have lived in suburban Chicago for all of my life and read the “police blotter” section of the local paper and I just don’t see the kind of crime you seem to claim is rampant. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 3:27 pm: Irish wrote: “The one thing concealed carry has going for it is that kid might get shot back at in a concealed carry society and that makes it much more personal because his life is then at stake, he has a stake in the outcome.” Good point, because the fear of return fire is really cutting down on gang violence. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 3:33 pm: Cincinnatus wrote: “Anything more stringent and onerous than an FOID will probably result in further litigation. ” No, anything at all will result in further litigation. The ILNRA wants zero restrictions on guns. Todd posts here often. Maybe he can tell us what restrictions he views as reasonable. However, I’ve never heard him support any restriction at all. If a gun law is currently on the books, expect Todd and his pals to file suit against it. So (and back to the point), I don’t consider fear of litigation to be a factor in deciding on whether restrictions should be put in place. - Phineas J. Whoopee - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 3:33 pm: seriously 1:57, I think the point of concealed carry is that when a latent nut job goes active you can shoot back. - Deep South - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 3:33 pm: ===Owning a car is not a “fundamental right”=== Well, anyone can own a car…even a two year old kid. But being able to actually drive that car is a whole ‘nother animal. - dupage dan - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 3:34 pm: STL, No. I was offering an opposing viewpoint based on reasonable statements. You decided to go nuclear. Please comment on the idea that the 2nd amendement was predicated on the belief that the citizenry has a right to protect themselves from the tyranny of a strong federal gov’t and what constitutes a reasonable means by which citizens can arms themselves against such tyranny. Is this, or is this not a central tenet of the 2nd amendment? A person should be able to address that without necessarily going to the extreme of suggesting some type of internal nuclear arms race. It is also possible that continuing this discussion is not what Mr Miller was seeking when he asked “what is reasonable”. I do have the tendency to go off a bit during these debates and don’t want to go too far. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 3:37 pm: To Rich’s question of “what is reasonable”: I’m inclined to say “If you think you need a gun for protection, you should be denied one.” But that would be snark. There may be one or two gun owners who think they need a gun for personal protection who are not insane. However, I think the First Amendment is a pretty good starting point. Impose reasonable time and place restrictions. No guns within a certain distance of schools, churches, funerals, etc. No loud guns after a certain hour. That works for speech. It should be a good start for guns. - Ghost - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 3:43 pm: === You do not have to register a car parked in your drive, nor do you need any special training to own a car,==== Of course primary function is not designed to hurl small objects several hundred feet per second with lethal purpose. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 3:44 pm: With regard to insurance – I’m not sure how that would work. Insurance typically excludes intentional conduct. So most shootings are not covered. However, plaintiff’s typically (where coverage might be available), plead “negligent” shooting, and then a Homeowners’ policy might cover it (although almost always under a reservation of rights). I just don’t see how any insurance requirements are going to matter. Insurers are never going to re-write policies to cover intentional shootings. - todd - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 3:48 pm: Reasonable — Well it’s easier to say what is not. Mandatory training is not Registration schemes treating gun owners as sex offenders is not Rationing the number of firearms one may own is not. Insurance requirements are not. Banning semi-auto rifles, shotguns or handguns is not Take any of the proposals from Chicago and run them up against the right to have an abortion so lets see waiting periods before abortions – check Mandatory “educational” lectures about the unborn and a video about the procedure – check One abortion per life time – check The point it the right to own a firearm is now a fundamental right compared to the freedom of the press, freedom of religion and trial by jury some of the cornerstones of our liberties. I know, how about a 7 day waiting period for editorials – they ain’t news just opinions. You can only buy 1 newspaper a week. you can’t publish a blog without the approval of the Illinois press assn. Reasonable needs to be looked at in a context of other fundamental constitutional rights. Background checks at point of retail sale — ok. But it should be in the context of a Terry stop no longer than what it takes to ascertain that you’re not a prohibited person. Which by the way the City now wants to use a DUI to remove a fundamental right. Just as an aside does anyone know how many times the Court used the term reasonable in describing restricts that would be permissible? - Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 3:48 pm: dupage dan - Well, my initial post said I believed that assault weapons were above what I considered reasonable. Or was that not clear when I said “I don’t believe assault rifles have any place in society.”? Then you brought up the federal government. Well, if we’re talking about protecting ourselves from the federal government, we’re going to need some pretty powerful weapons, wouldn’t you say? Are you suggesting there is maybe some reasonable point between assault rifles and nuclear weapons that would allow private citizens to take on the federal government? And as to commenting on what you want me to comment on, no thanks. I’m not sure exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote that particular amendment, and I don’t know if they had the forsight to think about modern weaponry. It could be a fun debate over some drinks sometime though. - GetOverIt - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 3:51 pm: I live on the southside of Chicago. I like regulation. We regulate just about everything, so regulate to the hilt. That is, only one gun for one owner (I know some will say this is unconstitutional, then again…ask yourself, does the Constitution support a person’s right to have a nuclear weapon? It’s an “arm” right?) that will have a ballistic fingerprint, so that if it used in a crime we can track it to its owner….etc…etc… - Liandro - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 3:53 pm: @Rich: Lobbying rules have been slowly getting torn down by SCOTUS lately, which I think is relevant to your point. Also, the rules on lobbying deal less with individuals and more with corporations or groups. An individual has far more constitutional rights then does a corporation or purely legal entity. Individuals are not just entities on paper. I think the auto control vs. gun control is a interesting discussion. Gotta run to work, or I’d contribute more. =o - D.P. Gumby - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 3:54 pm: It’s the original Heller and subsequent McDonald cases that are unreasonable, out of the mainstream, and the epitome of activist and results oriented judging falling in line w/ Bush v. Gore. That said, nothing being suggested by the City is out of bounds w/ McDonald’s language; they are all reasonable regulation proposals in an area where gun violence is extreme. I don’t care to experiment giving everyone free firing just to see if it might work! - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 3:55 pm: Todd, Great to see you here. Which restrictions (whether on the books or not) do you support? And with regard to your “fundamental” argument — so you agree that the First Amendment is a good model for Second Amendment law? You support similar restrictions? - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 3:56 pm: ===Lobbying rules have been slowly getting torn down by SCOTUS lately,=== When? - dupage dan - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 3:59 pm: STL, I’ll buy the first round. I don’t anticipate a full scale war against the federal gov’t - I ain’t no posse commitatus. Still, I would not think an assault rifle, in the hands of a law-abiding citizen, poses a threat to the public. Not much more than any other weapon. In general usage (hunting, personal safety) I don’t see much use for them but can’t see much rationale for banning them. Shoulder fired missiles, on the other hand… - charles in charge - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:04 pm: Gun advocates never want to have the discussion STL is engaging in with dupage dan about what KINDS of firearms are “reasonable” to prohibit. It would be absurd to argue that the 2nd Amendment protects nuclear arms, but they can’t even admit this, because it leaves them vulnerable to conceding that assault weapons bans may also be considered “reasonable” restrictions. - dupage dan - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:05 pm: todd, I understand the need to maintain a consistent stance on this issue from your perspective. From a practical side I believe that basic training is something that should be encouraged, if not required. A loaded newspaper accidentally fired at an innocent bystander just isn’t as problematic, ballistically speaking. Whether training is required, or not, I am requiring it of my son who wants to use, and hopefully purchase, a gun in the future. I received training as a young man and this has stuck with me. I am leery of the “state” requiring training but, if it is the NRA prgram would it feel less restrictive? - GetOverIt - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:06 pm: @Charles in Charge: Well stated. - Mike Ins - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:12 pm: Charles in Charge: Thank you for using the word “advocate” rather than the word “nut”, seriously. … I do understand what you are saying, but for the real “advocates” like the ILNRA and so forth, I think it is like a negotiation here… think of it like that. Typically, you never want to put your cards on the table before the other guy. It seems like common-sense. You start with EVERYTHING on the table and let the other guy whittle away from there, rather than arbitrarily shorting your position and using that as a starting point. I dont see it so much as a philosophical or idological conundrum (sp?) as you do… more just the flip side of what the city is doing… the city is essentially saying right now “How can we go right up to the absolute line of burdens for the firearm owner (the legal one that is) without going over it?” Ie, staking out as extreme a starting point as they can, and will get knocked back from there. I am sure Daley, et al, personally believe that a handgun collector existing before 1982 is no more or less dangerous than one born after 1982, but one must take a position in politics/policy, as they have. To knock gun people for just staking out an extreme on the other side, well, each are easily knocked down as “straw men” flawed positions, but I think it’s a “negotiation” thing more than a principled thing. Just my 2 cents. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:13 pm: ===but I think it’s a “negotiation” thing more than a principled thing.=== Advocating shooting bad cops is negotiation? Gimme a break. - dupage dan - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:13 pm: CIC, I dont’t have the same ox to gore as some who post here re the guns rights issue. I respect the rights of gun advocates to choose their strategy. When faced with some in the gun restriction lobby who have privately and publicly stated their end game is the confiscation of all firearms from all citizens it is more understandable. It is hard to justify hand held missiles in this context but the discussion is interesting. My point has been that the 2nd amendment has been debated to a point re who actually has the right to bear arms. The SCOTUS has spoken on that point. Generally accepted is the idea that the right to bear arms, whether personally or as a member of a “well regulated militia” relates to concerns that states had regarding the proposed stronger central federal gov’t and the desire to be able to defend against said federal gov’t if it decided to overthrow the state(s) sovereign status as such. Once you accept that you have to face the question(s) regarding what is reasonable. In the above context, some folk reasonably consider some powerful weapons as appropriate that would amaze folk here. Just sayin’ - Bemac - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:14 pm: Reasonable is Chicago residents having the same access to guns as Chicago politicians allow for themselves. Let law-abiding people and businesses sell, buy and own firearms, and don’t allow the city to impose burdens that will unduly impair the ability of the poor or racial minorities to exercise their right. - todd - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:15 pm: Skeeter – Well I think the FOID card as problems from the stand point of a 30 day waiting period and a governmental permission slip to exercise a fundamental right. I think waiting periods outside of the concept of a Terry stop have problems. I believe our mental health statute/prohibition does not pass muster as there is no requirement of a finding i.e. no due process. I think the prohibition on an 18, 19 or 20 year old being unable to sign for their own FOID card doesn’t cut it. AND I THINK Illinois being the ONLY state without either open carry or concealed carry does not meet the test of Heller. I do think the ban on machineguns, silencers and short barreled stuff passes muster i.e. Heller’s reference to the National Firearms Act. That is a bright line of what is in bounds and what is out. I think our mandatory storage law is about as far as you can go as a state/local law. Over all I think we only have a few laws that stand a chance of being overturned as I have outlined. But it doesn’t matter what many here think, it only matter what the Court said. They said it was a fundamental ‘right (as) recognized in Heller’. And Heller held: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” Heller also defined the right as: “Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed.” I think that word infringed is going to have something to say about this in the context of reasonable. Also let me point out something from McDonald – “so what they must mean (municipal respondents’) is that the Second Amendment should be singled out for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment. We reject that suggestion.” - Mike Ins - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:16 pm: Rich - Wow that actually bothered me - I would never and have never advocated anything of the sort?!?! Total straw-man. You really take from my above advocating shooting cops? I apologize for the communication problem, but I was responding to Charles in Charge’s post about gun advocates refusing to take “nuclear arms” off the table as a protected arm under 2nd amendment. A clearly ridiculous position. But, in my view, all firearms off the table is ridiculous too, just for the other side. My point is that the ILNRA starting position seems to be “No restrictions” and the Daley camp is “As many restrictions as possible” - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:17 pm: MI, scroll up to near the top of the comments and you’ll see what I’m talking about. - charles in charge - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:19 pm: @Mike Ins: I’m trying to approach this problem like a judge, not as an NRA lobbyist or a spokesperson for Mayor Daley’s office. It IS a philosophical conundrum about how our Constitution should be interpreted, not just some zero-sum political game about winners and losers and “negotiations.” - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:21 pm: Todd, I need to make sure we are clear. The ONLY restrictions of any sort that you support are: “I think waiting periods outside of the concept of a Terry stop have problems.” As you know, a Terry stop should take no more than 1/2 hour on a bad day. I remain unclear as to what you believe that the “Terry stop” should consist of. Outstanding warrants? Anything else? Todd in your opinion, under what circumstances can a person be denied the right to purchase a weapon? And you also suppport mandatory storage. But no other restrictions of any kind. Is that correct? - Mike Ins - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:23 pm: Charles in Charge: I agree with you and staked out what I thought was reasonable above. I thought you were referring to “gun advocates” in terms of the actual lobbies and so forth. I see what you are saying. If I was a federal judge I would definitely find major issues with the 1982 prohibition and I would also find even more major issues with a neighbor owning a suitcase nuke. So my line is in-between, and have no problem admitting that. - Say WHAT? - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:24 pm: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Reasonable regulation of the Constitutional rights of citizens? I say no. Yesterday a friend of mine predicted each roadblock that has been proposed today. Lets regulate who may read books! Maybe those who enjoy reading should have to take training, pass a test and obtain a license to take a book out of the library. AND we should require that the individual register which books they check out. Maybe we should regulate church attendance, and charge a fee for a license to attend, and then only allow people to attend once a month? Keep a list of which church they attended? - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:28 pm: Say What’s commnents remind me of The Onion piece: Area Man Passionate Defender of What He Believes Constitution To Be http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c%2C2849/ In reality, courts have imposed all sorts of restrictions (notably reasonable time/place restrictions) on the First Amendment. Yet gun rights advocates want the Second Amendment, in contrast, to be absolute. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:28 pm: ===AND we should require that the individual register which books they check out.=== Goofball, they do. With the librarian. And the USA PATRIOT Act gave the government access to those records. Also, as I’ve pointed out here a couple of times above, lobbying is guaranteed in the Constitution without the caveat language you forgot to include in your brief quote, yet lobbying is heavily regulated. And there are such things as child porn laws, etc, The question is what is a reasonable restriction to this right as newly outlined by the USSCt. Your inane rambling is not helpful. It is just inane rambling. - Steve - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:29 pm: I’ll explain myself. Gun ownership is a check and balance against authoritarianism. Maybe the rogue SOS unit would have been a bit more deterred in doing what they did if they didn’t know who was armed. When Hanhardt can make it to the top of the police department , you have a corruption problem. Nutball? Anyone who wants to defend Hanhardt or Burge you ahead. - charles in charge - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:31 pm: @Say WHAT?: Then you must be positively ENRAGED at the majority in the Heller decision stating unequivocally that reasonable regulation is permissible. Seriously, get a clue. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:32 pm: ===Maybe the rogue SOS unit would have been a bit more deterred in doing what they did if they didn’t know who was armed.=== Most of the truly bad guys in Chicago ARE armed. That didn’t deter Burge. - Mike Ins - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:38 pm: For me I could get behind a LEGITIMATE regulation system, a training requirement, and some nominal fees, ie, a system of which the purpose is to REGULATE similar to the regulation of an abortion doctor (has to be licensed, etc) the regulation of lobbying, of yelling fire in a theater. I think part of the problem is for those of us sportsmen/hunters/collectors who live in the City, we do not trust that “regulation” is not going to be de facto “prohibition” (Chicago’s current ban is actually a “registration” system that just simply will not register whatever the CPD decides not to register). We here the word “reasonable regulation” and the fear, based on our personal experiences, is that this amounts to placing as many burdens on us and is not in fact regulation. Sure, I have to sign up for a library card and pay a fee, but the process of doing so not designed specifically to discourage me from reading, and if I return a book late, I am not permanently banned from reading again, or from the library again. - Steve - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:41 pm: Well. The overwhelming majority of Chicago Police Officers are hard working dedicated professionals. No doubt about that. But,there has been some major problems in the department. We’ve had the infamous Summnerdale scandal. The Marquette Ten, the SOS unit. Hanhardt was Chief of Detectives, the Chicago Mob’s long term plant on the force. The FBI believes Hanhardt sent people to their death by handing them over to the Chicago Mob. In this environment, widespread handgun ownership is essential to at least try and deter police corruption. Stay tuned for Professor Dick Simpson large scale study on Chicago Police corruption. It will be up on his website soon. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:42 pm: Yeah, and you want people to shoot them. You’re done here, man. Go away. - Mike Ins - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:44 pm: Rich @ 4:42: I think we can all agree that was a reasonable restriction on 1st amendment rights - SoIL M - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:45 pm: Reasonable gun ownership is already defined by law. No convicted felons, no person convicted of domestic battery, no person who has been an inpatient of a mental institution. Any Law Abiding Citizen who is mentally stable, and yes I know that is debateable, should be allowed to posses a fire arm of their choosing. The ridiculousness of the liberal arguments against the rights of citizens to me was glaring on the day the Court Decision was announced. As reported in this Blog, among other news sources was the fact that last weekend there were 3 people killed and 29 injured in shootings in Chicago. In one weekend. This is the city that stands hard against the Constitutional Rights of Law Abiding Citizens. If that is not as clear as you can be on the failure of this false notion that disarming the citizens is a good thing, then what more do you need? I would have no problem with Chicago requiring citizens to pass a gun safety course in order to own a gun. I also wonder why the laws that are in place against convicted felons from possesing a gun are not enforced. As for the assault weapons ban, first get a liberal that can correctly define an assault weapon. It is not defined by the look of a gun. Fully automatic weapons are now banned. Look at the millions of Americans who own more than one pistol, rifle, and / or shotgun. They are not the problem, even though liberals want you to think they are. Gun Collectors are among the most Law Abiding Taxpayers you can find. Tax Paying Citizens who participate in shooting sports are not breaking laws. Bring back common sense enforcement and law making and then the problems faced by Chicago and the rest of this State will begin to be solved. One more question; Why are the same people who are strongly apposed to the Constitutional Rights of people who pay taxes, and obey the law, the same people who are so strongly against punishing the people who break those laws? - todd - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:50 pm: no skeeter. I based my opion on what laws I thought would withstand strutiny and would could be challenged. I think that in looking to Terry, if I fill out the paperwork at a dealer to buy a gun that as soon as the background check clears, I’m done. As far as prohibitions, again I think the Court will find bars on convicted felons and the menatally ill will pass muster. i thikn an outstanding warrant could be considered by the court to be a prohibition especially if it is for something other than a traffic offense. Once on bail, the court could satisfy the due process requirements by a hearing if a ban on possession is warranted by the charge. DUI Nope. AG Bat with a firearm yes. Battery w/o a firearm where there is a claim of self defense in a bar fight I don’t think so. but that is what a hearing would be for. I think it gets touger when you drop below that and a current case about a DV person is up infront of the 7th circuit we’ll see how that plays. But I do think the court will find criminal use of a firearm such as ag bat with a firearm is grounds to loose the right for a period of time. Maybe not permenently. I think the court will find that the age limits on purchase and possion will hold up. they did say time and place were acceptable in the carrying of a firearm. But when you try to make 1000 feet within every public place a “sensative” place I don’t think that will fly. I think private business can post no guns allowed and I can decide not to patrolize them. But I alo believe that if they do so, and I am injured in a robbery or attack and I was deprived of my means to self defense they are strictly liable for my injuries. I do think that the NFA regs will be upheld. as the quote about it is not a unlimited right expresses, rocket launchers, RPGs, and nukes are out. But the case about numchuks has been remanded so we will see what that brings out of the Second dist. I don’t support mandatory storage but i think our law is about as far as you can go legally and stay within what is prohibited by Heller - SoIL M - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:52 pm: Just went back and read some previous posts. idiots like Steve are one of the worst voices for Gun Owners Rights. No reasonable person arguing in favor of our rights would condone utilizing Deadly Force against a Police Officer. Dont hold those arguments against us all. - Cheryl44 - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 4:53 pm: “With the librarian. And the USA PATRIOT Act gave the government access to those records.” Uh, Rich. Most libraries have software that erases that record once the book has been returned. Just so you know. I like the idea of treating guns like cars–registration, safety training to get a license to own/use, licenses that expire so you have to re-test (at least eye exams and proof of residency), mandatory insurance, and on and on. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 5:13 pm: Todd, Why is the question so difficult. I’m not asking your opinion as to what you think a court might do. I’m asking you what restrictions, if any, you support. The NRA claims to be the expert with regard to guns and gun laws. What restrictions, if any, do you think are a good idea? Again, I’m not looking for a prediction. I’m looking for either your opinion or the opinion of the ILNRA. My hunch is that the answer is zero, which is why I believe that we have so many problems on this topic. Moderates seem not to speak up much in Springfield. It is either the people who want to ban everything, or the no restrictions at all people. Seems like a great way to get bad laws. - charles in charge - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 5:20 pm: @Todd: Do you believe that the prohibition of any “arm” other than an RPG, rocket launcher or nuke will withstand scrutiny as a reasonable regulation? For instance, can AK-47’s or Tec-9’s constitutionally be prohibited or not? I am interested both in what you think is reasonable as a matter of policy and in what you predict the Court will actually do when the issue comes before it. - Jerry - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 5:31 pm: In all this debate here, where did anyone suggest shooting or infer shooting police officers? Read Steve’s posts. He never uttered the words shooting a cop. Rich, you rather intolerent today of logical reason. It’s not like you. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 5:46 pm: When he says two cops are the “best reason” for owning guns, what the heck else are we to infer? That people are gonna just throw their bullets at them? - Amalia - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 5:51 pm: Reasonable is to add handguns as eligible for ownership. No additional restrictions of insurance, training, or numbers allowed for purchase. keep machine guns, assault weapons, rockets, etc. illegal. it would be nice if the long standing ban on “junk” hand guns, in effect since the early 1970s, could stand in Ilinois as it has in South Carolina for at least that long. the annual registration in Chicago is not currently reasonable and should be struck down. it’s expensive and time consuming. unless you get a new gun, you should not have to do this each year. the existing system in Illinois with a FOID card enables law enforcement to determine whether a purchaser at that time is ineligible under any one of the many ineligible categories. this provides some measure of comfort in situations where a private seller is not doing a background check as is done in a store. it would be nice to have a system like Penn. where exchanges happen in police stations, but, probably won’t happen now. the arguments about danger, whether to a child in the home, or numbers killed in the USA or in municipalities apparently do not hold muster with the Supremes. but I do think that records, checking records, and licensing dealers provides comfort in this time of terrorism. the terrorists look at the USA as an easy place to obtain weapons. just read the documents found from Al Q around 9/11/01. since I do not believe the NRA supports terrorism, records checking and keeping records should be supported by them. I think keeping watch on terrorists is reasonable and would be supported by the court. it’s in the hands of the 7th circuit to shut down Chicago and point the way. - Excessively Rabid - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 5:58 pm: Reasonable means that if the government wants to limit citizens’ rights, there has to be a strong justification, with the benefit of the doubt always going to the citizen. Chicago probably things it has furnished justification here, but all they have provided is demagoguery. As anyone can see from the posts here, the “facts” used to justify this law are anything but agreed. SCOTUS did right to throw it out. And Chicago should quit trying and move on to something more productive. - todd - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 5:59 pm: charles — I think any firearm not covered under the NFA is protected via Heller: “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” AK-47 are full auto/machineguns, regulated under the NFA. I think they will fall outside the protection of the Second Amendment as defined in Heller. semi-auto AK variants and other semi-autos like tec-9s are protected. I think the NFA regulations are the bright line of what is protected and what is not. supressors, short barrled rifles, short barrled shotguns, full autos, rifles over 50 cal, destructive devices and such as greande launchers all seem to be fair game under Heller for regulation/restrictions/bans. Below that it is a subject for strict srutiny on a case by case basis with eh burden beingon the government to prove it’s case. I think the 800 degree law we have would pass muster or the cell phone gun ban would as well. - charles in charge - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 6:38 pm: @Todd: Thanks for the straightforward response. I assume that represents both your prediction and your view of what the law should be. I disagree that the NFA represents any “bright line,” but would agree that it at least represents a baseline of what current Supreme Court case law acknowledges as reasonable regulation. However, I suspect that the Court, even as currently constituted, would probably uphold under strict scrutiny analysis other State and local regulations not specifically found in the NFA. I also strongly suspect that the NRA will be there to argue against the constitutionality of each and every gun restriction that ends up being challenged on 2nd Amendment grounds, however sound those regulations may be from a policy perspective. - Retired Non-Union Guy - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 7:01 pm: Reasonable in my opinion - current federal FFL and Illinois FOID. Both contain restrictions on who can own weapons and what types. Proper definition of firearms … as others have noted, the “assault rifle” term is commonly misused by people who either don’t know the difference or people who want to obscure the difference. By my interpretation, “assault rifles” are fully automatic weapons (Thompson submachine gun, AK-47, US Army M-16, British Sten, Israeli Uzi, etc.) which are already banned by FFL. Semi-automatic weapons are allowed (AR-15, standard Colt .45 semi, for example). I have no problem with requiring basic NRA training class completion as part of the FOID requirement. As previously noted, the Illinois FOID already has restrictions on who can be issued a card. Anything beyond that begins to stray into the unreasonable category; it will be up to the courts to decide when that invisible line gets crossed but most the Daley proposals sound to me like they would cross it. - steve schnorf - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 7:53 pm: Todd, thanks for your thoughts and for signing your name. - Park - Wednesday, Jun 30, 10 @ 8:00 pm: Man, you can tell the hot buttons by the number of posts. This topic is hot. I’m a gun owner, but hate handguns. Unfortunately Daley’s complaints sound so hollow. XXX people get shot every warm weekend, almost none of whom where shot by people who even know about the laws in place now. New regulation will do NOTHING to stop this. I don’t know what will, but a dialogue on the issue would be a really really good idea. I don’t expect Daley, Burke et al to even entertain one. It will be the same brain dead garbage from a semi-literate mayor. I don’t know what’s reasonable. But if handguns are a contitutional right, then law-abiding folks should be able to keep one without being picked on as easy targets by the same people who can’t get to the illegal ones. Insurance? for what? you can’t insure intentional acts like shooting someone. - Todd - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 12:06 am: Steve no problem. It not like I can really hide. Ask and I’ll try to answer. CiC — I try to answer all these questions in how I think the two ruling read and may play out in court. If you listened to the anti-gunners they CLAIM McDonald and Heller were only about the right to handgun in your home. That is clearly not what the Court HELD in Heller or McDonald. And Chciago is going to findout the hard way. I also suspect the dynamics of Springfield are a changing with this ruling. And the other side’s agenda just got whittled down a bunch. It was a good week for the 2A and Gun guys - Liandro - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 12:41 am: @Rich: I was thinking of the Citizens United case and the Wisconsin Right to Life case, especially given how these cases may open the door on non-profit lobbying laws. A number of the judges wanted to throw out McCain-Feingold altogether. Another case ended up being a district court case, not SCOTUS: it struck down Ohio’s law that made legislators and aides wait 12 months before they could begin lobbying. Not sure if/when it is being appealed. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.