Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

King Daley lays out his proposed new gun laws for Chicago

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Cougfan2, Jul 1, 2010.

  1. Cougfan2

    Cougfan2 Hillsboro, OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,792
    Likes Received:
    597
    Well, here he goes. Looks like almost a mirror image of what DC did after Heller.

    CHICAGO -- With the city's gun ban certain to be overturned, Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday introduced what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States.

    The measure, which draws from ordinances around the country, would ban gun shops in Chicago and prohibit gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun.

    Daley announced his ordinance at a park on the city's South Side three days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live. The City Council is expected to vote on it Friday.

    "As long as I'm mayor, we will never give up or give in to gun violence that continues to threaten every part of our nation, including Chicago," said Daley, who was flanked by activists, city officials and the parents of a teenager whose son was shot and killed on a city bus while shielding a friend.

    The ordinance, which Daley urged the City Council to pass, also would :
    -- Limit the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.
    -- Require residents in homes with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.
    -- Require prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.
    -- Prohibit people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Residents convicted of a gun offense would have to register with the police department.
    -- Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

    Those who already have handguns in the city -- which has been illegal since the city's ban was approved 28 years ago -- would have 90 days to register those weapons, according to the proposed ordinance.

    Residents convicted of violating the city's ordinance can face a fine up to $5,000 and be locked up for as long as 90 days for a first offense and a fine of up to $10,000 and as long as six months behind bars for subsequent convictions.

    "We've gone farther than anyone else ever has," said Corporation Counsel Mara Georges.
    Still, the mayor, whose office is trying to craft an ordinance that will withstand legal challenges, had to back off some provisions he'd hoped to include, including requiring gun owners to insure their weapons and restricting each resident to one handgun.

    Georges said it would be expensive for homeowners to include guns on their homeowners' and renters' insurance policies, so such a requirement could be seen as being discriminatory to the city's poorer residents. Limiting the number of handguns could be seen as discriminatory to people who owned weapons before the city's ban went into effect in 1982 or before they moved into the city.

    "We can limit the place in which those handguns can be located," she said, before adding a not-so-veiled swipe at the court: "For instance, the Supreme court does not want them coming into the courthouse."

    Still, Daley indicated that no matter what was included in the ordinance, he expects legal challenges.

    "Everybody has a right to sue," he said.
     
  2. gnarkill

    gnarkill Richland, WA Member

    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    1
    wow.
     
  3. Cougfan2

    Cougfan2 Hillsboro, OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,792
    Likes Received:
    597
    This really isn't surprising. Just another target for the NRA-ILA and SAF. Let the games begin.
     
  4. DERGLOCKINMEISTER

    DERGLOCKINMEISTER SPRINGFIELD OREGON Member

    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    21
    What a complete tool .
     
  5. 56kninja

    56kninja Portland Member

    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    1
    Wow. I'd rather just not have a hand gun to be honest.

    I bet even California and New York are surprised at this one...

    I seriously hate Daley, he just CANNOT accept that he was wrong. I hope he gets the boot.
    Pro-gun, anti-gun, the Supreme Court made it clear that it was a right..
     
  6. Sasquatchvnv

    Sasquatchvnv Port Orchard Active Member

    Messages:
    719
    Likes Received:
    171
    Coming soon to a city near you - the supreme court left the door wide open for these tactics.
     
  7. Cougfan2

    Cougfan2 Hillsboro, OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,792
    Likes Received:
    597
    True, but SCOTUS takes a very dim view of people who thumb their nose at their decisions and then try to get around them by passing laws that render their decision moot. I wouldn't be surprised if Daley and crowd get their pee pee's slapped pretty hard a couple of years down the road because of this.
     
  8. Sasquatchvnv

    Sasquatchvnv Port Orchard Active Member

    Messages:
    719
    Likes Received:
    171
    I wish I could agree with you, but I believe that this is the intended outcome by SCOTUS. Undercut 2A without openly seeming to...
     
  9. Cougfan2

    Cougfan2 Hillsboro, OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,792
    Likes Received:
    597
    The intended outcome for justices like Scalia and Roberts? I don't think so. Reading the dissenting opinions I would agree with you, but they were in the minority.
     
  10. Chee-to

    Chee-to Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,292
    Likes Received:
    1,711
    Ha ! How friggin' "liberal" of him..........:cheer:
     
  11. ZachS

    ZachS Eugene/PDX Active Member

    Messages:
    1,119
    Likes Received:
    11
    The intended outcome was to create a broad standard and let the lower courts work out the details, only getting involved when there's a disagreement between the circuits.

    Which is exactly what will happen over the next 5-10-20+ years, exactly like every other "new" constitutional right that gets discovered. It's how our system's designed to work.


    The new Chicago law won't stand up.


    Scalia seems to have found a constitutional standard very similar to what we currently have in states like Oregon, or perhaps a smidgen more regulated. It'll take another Supreme Court decision to determine whether a right to carry exists. Probably two decisions - one for concealed carry, one for open carry. It'll take more decisions, at different levels, to answer questions about registration, transportation, magazine capacity, etc.

    For those who aren't law geeks, Scalia knows more about the founders' (etc.) "original intent" on this issue than everybody on this forum - probably everybody in the Pacific Northwest - put together. He may well be the smartest judge in the country, and the research he does for cases like this is comprehensive, to put it mildly. Different types of regulations have existed in different states since this country was founded, and Scalia wants future jurisprudence on this issue to be guided by those historical factors.

    Anyway, we'll eventually wind up with consistent national rules, and we won't like all of them.
     
  12. Cougfan2

    Cougfan2 Hillsboro, OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,792
    Likes Received:
    597
    Well stated.
     
  13. Just Jim

    Just Jim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,828
    Likes Received:
    6,267
    Notice again it's progressive liberal democrats you have to fight for your rights that are guarenteed by the constitution. Same kind of democrats we have here, and some of you voted for them.



    jj
     
  14. PMKN_PI

    PMKN_PI Milwaukie, Oregon, United States Active Member

    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    187
    Id pay serious money to force feed Daley HIV infected used hypodermic needles.
     
  15. YFZsandrider

    YFZsandrider Tacoma, Wa Member

    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    4
    His armed personal security would never let you get away with that. :cool: