Mayor Daley Charges After Control

[Guest SUNTZU]

Chicago moves quickly to draft new gun ordinance - Yahoo! News

CHICAGO – Chicago Mayor Richard Daley will push for a strict handgun ordinance to replace its doomed gun ban that will likely include limiting each resident to a single handgun, requiring gun owners to have insurance and prohibiting gun stores from setting up shop in the city, his top lawyer said Tuesday.

A day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live — a ruling that certainly means the end of Chicago's 28-year-old gun ban — Corporation Counsel Mara Georges moved quickly to alert a City Council committee of plans to propose a new gun ordinance.

Her appearance before the committee was the latest step in an effort that Daley's office has been working on since the court struck down a similar ban in Washington, D.C., two years ago.

Daley clearly wants to put a new ordinance in place quickly, perhaps well before an appellate court does as instructed by the Supreme Court and reviews the city's gun ban. Georges said she hopes to present an ordinance to the council committee by the end of the week.

Georges also said any new provisions the city puts in place will be able to withstand legal challenges that are sure to crop up when the new ordinance is ultimately passed, pointing out that the court ruled that "reasonable restrictions" on firearms do not violate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

She said that limiting Chicago residents to one handgun would pass constitutional muster. Nowhere has the court determined that "a person is entitled to more than one handgun," she said. "And one handgun is sufficient for self defense."

She said banning gun shops in the city is another reasonable restriction. She said studies have shown a disproportionate number of shootings near gun shops and because there are dozens of gun shops in the Chicago area — 40 in Cook County alone — a ban would not inconvenience gun buyers.

But one gun rights supporter said many of Georges' suggestions all but assure a legal battle, calling them "preposterous" and a violation of gun owners' civil rights.

Owning a gun, said David Workman of the Bellevue, Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation, "is a civil right and you can't limit a civil right." He also said it would be illegal to single out gun shops just because the merchandise they sell might poise a danger to residents.

"Ask her how many drug stores in Chicago were ripped off in the last few years by somebody who needs a high," he said.

Council members seemed eager to pass a tough new ordinance that Georges also said might prohibit those convicted of two or more times of drunken driving or drug offenses from possessing a handgun and could require Chicagoans in homes with children to secure guns in a locked box or equip them with trigger locks.

One alderman, Edward Burke, suggested that Chicago follow the lead of some other cities by requiring those convicted of gun offenses to register with the city just as convicted sex offenders are required to do.

Another, Fredrenna Lyle, voiced her support for requiring gun owners have some kind of insurance, saying that the city already requires those with dogs deemed dangerous to beef up their insurance.

"I don't think there is anything that is more dangerous than a firearm in the hands of someone that has no training and no ability and no knowledge," she said.

Except someone who has no training, some ability, and is looking to do you harm.

When the court's decision was announced Monday, gun rights supporters said they would challenge any attempt to require insurance, saying, for example, that if it costs too much money it would amount to discrimination of the city's poorer residents. On Tuesday, Georges said the city was still grappling with such a requirement and has not yet figured out how it would work in way that is not too expensive.

[Smith]

I agree with her. It is dangerous to have people who are obviously not intelligent enough to make decisions and don't have enough money to vote ....... Oh we've talking about 2A rights.

[Mike.357]

there is nothing in that article that suprises me. I am suprised those are the only restrictions being proposed.

What did people expect?

it's not like Daley is going to follow common sense.

The restrictions will be as elitist as they ( Daley) want them to be.

Basically who cares what SCOTUS did.

[Guest jackdm3]

This brings up an obvious question to ponder: If they stick you with only owning one "handgun", what is your one choice?

[Mark@Sea]

Trigger lock / lockbox requirement? See Heller. What does the SCOTUS have to do to get the tyrants to understand?

Better question - when will the Supremes figure out what 'infringed' means? Should we send 'em a dictionary?

[JayC]

This is nothing more than a delaying action... It took 30 years for our parents and grandparents to get us into this mess... short of another revolution it will take us at least that long to get us out.

[Guest jackdm3]

I'm 39. I don't have that long!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think their gun ban was probably to protect themselves

from being shot by the people. The poor old Chicago

machine.

[Ebow1]

Hopefully it won't take long for someone to challenge the one handgun statute. I think that's the one that bugs me the most.

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

I dont see how they can be so sure those restrictions (read Infringements) can withstand a legal battle?

One handgun?.....Like anything else it could break could it not?

People driving cars kill people, do they limit people to only one car?

I am also not sure where they got their info about more shootings near gun stores, even if it is true since there are none in the city what would that have to do with having one in the city? Since it has been so long since there was one in the city how the heck can they know what will happen near one. Other than it being Chicago they have no way of knowing.

Maybe they should close all their drug stores, people are certainly shot at those.

I dont see any of their proposed restrictions standing the legal battle against infringements. And yes we do need to teach a whole lot of folks what the meaning of that word is.

It is totally amazing that those in charge of one of the most (if not the most) violent city on the planet want to restrict the good people from having a way to defend themselves:screwy:....it totally defies any logic.

But then again the loons are well know for such illogical thinking.

Jackson is sure no Rose Garden but at least I have the right to carry to protect myself, I simply could not be paid enough to live in a place like Chi-Commie-Town.

[towerclimber37]

This is coming from a Mayor that has double the number of normal security officers to protect him and has a firearm himself, as well.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, after all, it is Chicago. Mr Daley takes good care of the little people.

[ttocswob]

If God wanted us to have only one handgun, why did He make us with two hands?

nvm, Daley doesn't believe in God...or maybe he thinks he is god...

[Guest SUNTZU]

"keep and bear arms" is not singular. I agree about parents and grandparents letting this **** happen. Thanks for looking out, babyboomers! Good job. Just keep your heads down and let "politics be politics." After all, "What are you gonna do?":shrug:

I see those "interesting times" my fortune cookie told me about in the near future.

[Guest oldsmobile98]

If you are limited to one handgun, you ain't choosing a .22, and if you don't have a .22, you will probably practice less.

If they want the people to be trained and able, then they should not impose a limit.

Nevermind ... I'm expecting sense out of the senseless. Like trying to get blood out of a rock.

[Guest TurboniumOxide]

The little tyrant. I wonder who he thinks he is protecting? His ego?

These Libs confuse feel with think, or have never had a fact based thought in their lives.

In dalys case, his opinion trumps even the law of the land. Arrogant fool.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Turbonium. The libs don't confuse feel with think. It's part of their ideology. Their thoughts are based

on altruism and facism and, well, a few more "isms". Daley is just a thug. He had a good teacher. His

father.

When you think you know what's better for everyone and try to make everyone do what you think, you're

a tyrant, and everyone else is a serf. That sums up their mentality, and ideology

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

I think this is just a slow fight. Provided Obama doesn't get anymore court appointments, I see this kind of stuff slowly struck down. In DC they didn't have an actual ban, they just didn't issue permits. Well, now DC and Chicago are reinstating slightly modified de facto bans that will be eventually shot down. I'm just waiting to see registration be eventually nullified. It's unconstitutional have to register or pay fees or get tested to exercise any of the other amendments (except perhaps court costs in a trial, but I think thats unconstitutional anyway), so why would the second be any different?

Does any of this sound constitutional?

"To criticize the President, you must take a test, fill out a form, and pay a fee to get a criticizers permit"

"To invoke your fifth amendment rights, you must have legal training and pay a self-incrimination tax"

"The thirteenth amendment's 'shall exist' clause allows reasonable person control. Only those with training in a skill, a psychological evaluation, and pay a fee for a "non-servitude" permit may be exempt from slavery"

Edited June 30, 2010 by CrazyLincoln

[MCSCOTT]

Does any of this sound constitutional?

"To criticize the President, you must take a test, fill out a form, and pay a fee to get a criticizers permit"

"To invoke your fifth amendment rights, you must have legal training and pay a self-incrimination tax"

"The thirteenth amendment's 'shall exist' clause allows reasonable person control. Only those with training in a skill, a psychological evaluation, and pay a fee for a "non-servitude" permit may be exempt from slavery"

Although I don't really have much of a problem with the fact that we have to have a background check or having to take the class in order to carry in public, you do make very good points with these statements.

[Ebow1]

I'm gonna steal those questions and repost them on facebook if you don't mind.

[Guest jackdm3]

Lincoln for President!

Wait. We already had ...

Lincoln for President!

[Guest SUNTZU]

Lincoln for President!

Wait. We already had ...

Lincoln for President!

Jack....don't go there....please....

[eapking]

Hopefully it won't take long for someone to challenge the one handgun statute. I think that's the one that bugs me the most.

If you're cleaning your one and only HG, you are defenseless during that time it's down. That's infringment.

[vontar]

I want to look at all their records,

I feel she does not need more then 1 car, 1 home, 1 anything, including 1 vote.

The people of Chicago need to stand up and vote them out.

By their logic, the city does not need drug stores either?

Seriously, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I am not an English major, Nor did I stay at Holiday Inn last night, but the word arms is plural.

[tntnixon]

What I find interesting is the lack of dissent among the Chicago Aldermen. They seem to be unanimous in their insanity, which is a very dangerous prospect, indeed.

I've got an idea for a new law. The writer of this article can only write once and they just blew their opportunity on this POS.