Chicago's tough new gun ordinance goes into effect

[Guest jackdm3]

To put this list of "Unsafe" arms in print, is that libelous?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And that list constitutes a ban on firearms. I imagine it

will be challenged. Those people are insane.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mike.357]

that list is a big pile of ****!

They cannot ban guns period! That is well over the bounds of reasonable restriction. Good God, Hi point is on there twice. I mean they are looked down on and all but they are safe to shoot. (I am going to shoot the crap out of two of them tomorrow, just for fun.)

Someone up there needs to step up to the plate and do the right thing.

PS: even assuming every other gun on that list is a dangerous POS that will kill people within twenty feet, at random, when it explodes, how is a Walther P-22 on that list?

[Garufa]

That "list" is pimarily populated with Saturday Night Specials, homeboy favorites and guns so ancient they shouldn't be fired anyway.

What's all the hubbub?

[StPatrick]

I question the methods for making the list. First: why are all the "cheap" guns listed? It's as if the city wanted to put a de facto ban on the ownership of handguns by people of lesser means - surely the city of Chicago wouldn't create a system rewarding people of privilege and money more than others, as they're known to be a city of egalitarity, right?

Second, what on Earth is wrong with a Sig Mosquito or Walther P22? They're fairly reliable, fun to shoot, and encourage practice. Guns like them offer an inexpensive entry for the novice pistol shooter to improve their skills and their ability to defend themselves.

And they say sarcasm is a bad thing...Occam's razor still holds true, when you consider how easily both questions are answered once you guess at the motives behind the list.

I don't like cheap guns, I don't own cheap guns, and I won't own cheap guns. That doesn't mean Joe Blow shouldn't have that option. He, I, and we are all facing different circumstances. If all you can afford is a Lorcin, well, that's not the best, but you use the tools you have available.

[Oh Shoot]

That "list" is pimarily populated with Saturday Night Specials, homeboy favorites and guns so ancient they shouldn't be fired anyway.

What's all the hubbub?

But but but, the mighty Hi-Point is on there.

They can have my 995 carbine and C9 when they....you know...

- OS

[Mad_Squirrell]

that list is a big pile of ****!

PS: even assuming every other gun on that list is a dangerous POS that will kill people within twenty feet, at random, when it explodes, how is a Walther P-22 on that list?

After doing a lil digging and doing a lil math (putting 2 & 2 together) the Walther is deemed unsafe probably because it comes factory with a threaded barrel for a suppressor. I came to that conclusion because "assault" rifles are banned and a threaded barrel is part of their distinguishing characteristics of defining an "assualt" weapon .maybe I dunno?

[kb4ns]

That "list" is pimarily populated with Saturday Night Specials, homeboy favorites and guns so ancient they shouldn't be fired anyway.

What's all the hubbub?

Personally, I agree that I am highly unlikely to go possessin' one of them models. However, I'll maintain the hubbub because it's not their place to tell me I can't have a gun by a certain manufacturer. Hi-Points are God-awful looking, but how would one say they are "unsafe"? Wouldn't it be safe to assume (or am I going too far here?) that this is another way of trying to restrict the poorer residents?

The so-called "leaders" of that town are so full of

[Oh Shoot]

Personally, I agree that I am highly unlikely to go possessin' one of them models. However, I'll maintain the hubbub because it's not their place to tell me I can't have a gun by a certain manufacturer. Hi-Points are God-awful looking, but how would one say they are "unsafe"..

Hell, half the murders in Cook County are probably from HiPoints and the "Ring of Fire" manufacturers.

They've only been proven to be unsafe to all the unarmed victims.

- OS

[Guest 1010011010]

Chicago should publish a list of "unsafe" books next, y'think?

Also, how are registration fees and training requirements materially different from the unconstitutional poll taxes and literacy tests of yore?

On that topic, is the $115 HCP unconstitutional?

[Mike.357]

On that topic, is the $115 <ACRONYM title="Handgun Carry Permit">HCP</ACRONYM> unconstitutional?

No. What Chicago is doing is charging fees for you to protect yourself in your home with a firearm. There is not even any question about carry permits there.

In TN you can have all the guns you want on your person while on your property, you pay for the privilege of carrying off of it.

Kind of like a car. If you want to keep it off the streets you do not need to register it. But if you want to drive it on taxpayer payed for streets you need that license plate.

[DaveTN]

Chicago should publish a list of "unsafe" books next, y'think?

Also, how are registration fees and training requirements materially different from the unconstitutional poll taxes and literacy tests of yore?

On that topic, is the $115 HCP unconstitutional?

Literacy tests interfered with people’s right to vote; you don’t have a right to carry.

It’s a privilege, just like a driver’s license and they can charge you, just like a driver’s license.

[JayC]

No. What Chicago is doing is charging fees for you to protect yourself in your home with a firearm. There is not even any question about carry permits there.

In TN you can have all the guns you want on your person while on your property, you pay for the privilege of carrying off of it.

Kind of like a car. If you want to keep it off the streets you do not need to register it. But if you want to drive it on taxpayer payed for streets you need that license plate.

Sure, what amendment protects my right to own and drive a car?

While McDonald (and Heller) don't address the bear part of the 2nd amendment (Palmer v DC will), the $115 is probably unconstitutional under our own TN Constitution, which limits the legislature to regulating the wearing of firearms only to prevent crime.

My guess is once the dust settles over the next 3 to 4 years (maybe sooner) we'll see HCP's become a right not a privilege. The only reason it's called a privilege now is because some groups wanted to be able to restrict that privilege if you fall behind on child support payments under TN law. Those restrictions are almost for sure unconstitutional under TN and the federal Constitutions but we'll have to wait for the next case.

Also another reason TN's HCP fee is probably unconstitutional (and this also applies to Chicago's new law) is the level of fee's are more than the administration cost of registration. As a general rule it's against the law for rights to be taxed... For example SCOTUS recently heard a case where door to door salesmen were required to register with the city and pay a $15 a year license to sell door to door, the court ruled this unconsitutional because it placed a tax on the right of free speech.

It's very likely that TN can require a HCP (shouldn't be allowed but it's unlikely the courts will overturn the entire program), but the cost of the program will likely be found to be too high and therefore unconstitutional (Since the current program is making a profit!).

The real mind bender is under our state Constitution... how is the TN background check and $10 fee legal?

Edited July 17, 2010 by JayC

[gnmwilliams]

Literacy tests interfered with people’s right to vote; you don’t have a right to carry.

It’s a privilege, just like a driver’s license and they can charge you, just like a driver’s license.

I believe you do have a right to self defense, constitutional or not. While I believe that you shouldn't just be able to carry a gun without first be trained in proper firearm handling and laws, I personally don't believe that any government should have the ability to restrict the means of defending your own life or the lives of others.

Edited July 17, 2010 by gnmwilliams

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I believe you do have a right to self defense, constitutional or not.

It's a natural right:D

Regulating the law abiding citizen is the wrong way to do it,

and it always fails. Regulate the criminal, instead.

[kb4ns]

Also another reason TN's HCP fee is probably unconstitutional (and this also applies to Chicago's new law) is the level of fee's are more than the administration cost of registration. As a general rule it's against the law for rights to be taxed... For example SCOTUS recently heard a case where door to door salesmen were required to register with the city and pay a $15 a year license to sell door to door, the court ruled this unconsitutional because it placed a tax on the right of free speech.

I believe the case you are referring to is Murdock v. PA - Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It dealt with Jehovah's Witnesses not door to door salesmen. Either way, you are right in that the court held it unconstitutional to place a tax on one exercising their Constitutional rights.

[mikegideon]

Chicago Police Department Roster of "Unsafe Handguns"

Sig Mosquito and Walther P22? WTF?

[Guest grimel]

Chicago needs to slide into Lake Michigan and help out the country.

[bubbiesdad]

The roster has made it official. Glocks are not unsafe.

[Guest jackdm3]

As with any brand, guns are unsafe if YOU let them be.

There was someone from my YMCA that was cleaning his Mosquito .22 and proceeded to place it 1 inch behind his right ear in an upward direction towards the middle of the brain. He had just started dating a cute girl and loved shooting AKs with his dad. We thought he was happy. He was 15.

Edited July 18, 2010 by jackdm3

[kb4ns]

The roster has made it official. Glocks are not unsafe.

[kb4ns]

There was someone at my YMCA that was cleaning his Mosquito .22 and proceeded to place it 1 inch behind his right ear in an upward direction towards the middle of the brain. He had just started dating a cute girl and loved shooting AKs with his dad. We thought he was happy. He was 15.

That sucks.

[Guest buttonhook]

the P22 has a threaded barrel....I guess that is why it is banned. same in CA. it is considered an assault weapon.

[Guest jth_3s]

Sure, what amendment protects my right to own and drive a car?

While McDonald (and Heller) don't address the bear part of the 2nd amendment (Palmer v DC will), the $115 is probably unconstitutional under our own TN Constitution, which limits the legislature to regulating the wearing of firearms only to prevent crime.

My guess is once the dust settles over the next 3 to 4 years (maybe sooner) we'll see HCP's become a right not a privilege. The only reason it's called a privilege now is because some groups wanted to be able to restrict that privilege if you fall behind on child support payments under TN law. Those restrictions are almost for sure unconstitutional under TN and the federal Constitutions but we'll have to wait for the next case.

Also another reason TN's HCP fee is probably unconstitutional (and this also applies to Chicago's new law) is the level of fee's are more than the administration cost of registration. As a general rule it's against the law for rights to be taxed... For example SCOTUS recently heard a case where door to door salesmen were required to register with the city and pay a $15 a year license to sell door to door, the court ruled this unconsitutional because it placed a tax on the right of free speech.

It's very likely that TN can require a HCP (shouldn't be allowed but it's unlikely the courts will overturn the entire program), but the cost of the program will likely be found to be too high and therefore unconstitutional (Since the current program is making a profit!).

The real mind bender is under our state Constitution... how is the TN background check and $10 fee legal?

I agree, I dont think TN should get rid of the HCP they should just make it where it isnt required for carry. Without the HCP we would have trouble carrying in other states. But as for the driving a car(right to travel), I think that is a right covered under the 9th amendment so it is protected along with many other rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution doesnt grant rights it just limits the government.

[Oh Shoot]

... But as for the driving a car(right to travel), I think that is a right covered under the 9th amendment so it is protected along with many other rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution doesnt grant rights it just limits the government.

1. you claim driving a car is a right? And it is protected?

(try it without a driver's license)

2. you claim right to drive a car is in the 9th amendment, then you say the Constitution doesn't grant rights?

- OS