Chicago Mayor Announces New Handgun Law
[Guest post by DRJ]
Following the Supreme Court decision in McDonald, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley announced plans to issue strict new handgun laws:
“The measure, which draws from ordinances across 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.”
Technically, it seems Daley has refused to give up on trying to keep legal guns out of lawful users’ hands.
— DRJ
He will never get it. Dumb as a box of rocks. Reminds me of the carpenter who said, ‘I dunno, I cut it twice and it’s still too short…”
Gazzer (48b1f9) — 7/1/2010 @ 11:28 pmthe game here is to use tax payer money to wear out the opposition…… if you have to challenge everything in court, time and again, and it costs you money, eventually you give up.
that’s what Mayor Douche is hoping for.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 7/1/2010 @ 11:29 pmThat’s Barry’s entire MO right there.
Gazzer (48b1f9) — 7/1/2010 @ 11:37 pmThere should be an injunction against this city making any gun laws.
Daley’s policy is getting a lot of people killed and is the reason for gun violence. He loves power so much he doesn’t care, but empowering citizens to protect their loved ones is not giving in to the lawless who ignore all Chicago laws.
I read earlier that one nutcase saying they will limit people to one gun, since the Court didn’t explicitly say people have a right to own more than one. They know that’s illegal. ‘Right to bear arms shall not be infringed’ is pretty clear.
And plural.
They are so nasty when they lose.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/1/2010 @ 11:41 pmIf he’s so anti-gun, he should get rid of his armed security detail. He should get rid of his security detail period. What does he need them for if Chicago is the safest city in the world because of their wonderfully effective gun laws?
wherestherum (d413fd) — 7/1/2010 @ 11:47 pmAnd to make matters worse, I have no doubt that the fool running Chicago has few, if any, qualms about the judicial system — state and federal — being populated with a lot of idiotic judges of leftist persuasion. The ones sitting on the bench who’ll proclaim “the perp used a handgun to kill several people, but it must be understood that the sad, poor soul was a victim of a bad school system, poor nutrition, stingy healthcare and limited after-school programs.”
Mark (411533) — 7/1/2010 @ 11:53 pmActually, this is very good for 2nd Amendment advocates.
The contours of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence are going to be established on a case-by-case basis across the several circuits over the next decade.
When the 2nd Amendment opponents stake out positions like this, they are setting themselves up to fail, thereby moving the ball farther down the field for gun owners.
Good for him.
shipwreckedcrew (436eab) — 7/2/2010 @ 1:58 amShouldn’t there be a penalty for an elected official who knowingly, willfully and deliberately tries to circumvent and subvert the United States Constitution and the rulings of the United States Supreme Court? Doesn’t that rise to the level of criminal activity? Shouldn’t the US Department of Justice be prosecuting him for civil rights violations? What Daly is doing is much worse than what Blagovitch (sic) has done.
emil (746a98) — 7/2/2010 @ 2:44 amWell, it IS safer to shoot thru the window, using the walls of your house for cover. 😉
Icy Texan (3bdfb3) — 7/2/2010 @ 3:08 amThe dumb thing from his perspective, is that he is so restrictive, the judge is likely to knock down even the reasonable parts of his proposed laws. Does he really think he can completely ban the sale of guns without running afoul of the right to bear arms?
It would be like banning the possession of a newspaper and saying, “but we aren’t violating the 1st Amendment. They are still free to publish whatever they want!”
Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e) — 7/2/2010 @ 5:32 amDaley should be made to clean up every crime scene where an innocent citizen is killed because he was prevented from defending themselves.
So if America’s dopiest mayor should invite the gang members into his office and remind them that Chicago has some serious gun laws and if they are not followed there will be bad bad consequences. That will teach those criminals to give up their guns.
MU789 (e9c5de) — 7/2/2010 @ 5:41 amObviously he can’t put two and two together. Chicago’s gun ban hasn’t stopped gun violence. In fact it has risen because all the bad guys know that all the law abiding people (or sheeple) don’t have any other way to protect themselves other than a bat or a kitchen knife. You have to get way too close to use those things in my opinion.
PatriotRider (8d9a6f) — 7/2/2010 @ 6:31 am….and that’s another reason I live in (and love) Alabama.
Virtual Insanity (1d2640) — 7/2/2010 @ 6:45 amDaley defies the Supreme Court like on civil rights and reminds me of segregationist governors defying the court’s efforts to end Jim Crow.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/2/2010 @ 7:13 amSPQR
We shall overcome…
Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e) — 7/2/2010 @ 7:20 amThere are no gun stores in Chicago.
nk (db4a41) — 7/2/2010 @ 7:24 amToo much competition in back alleys…
GeneralMalaise (9cf017) — 7/2/2010 @ 7:46 amNalert links to a Suntimes story that sez Hizzonner blinked, and now it’s one handgun per month. I think he wants to be as restrictive as possible without getting sued too much.
Red County Pete (1eca79) — 7/2/2010 @ 7:53 amOne of the things on the to-do list for the next GOP Administration is to put the entire corrupt Daley administration in jail along with their donors and supporters.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 7/2/2010 @ 8:10 am^yep, he caved almost immediately after opening his blowhole for the umpteenth time on this one. It doesn’t matter anyway, most potential gun owners will ignore this law and just buy their guns in teh ‘burbs.
Dmac (ab1849) — 7/2/2010 @ 8:12 amThus making the world safe for marauding minority gangbangers.
Patricia (160852) — 7/2/2010 @ 8:14 amnk
Were gun stores legal in chicago before MacDonald?
Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e) — 7/2/2010 @ 8:20 amNot for at least thirty years.
nk (db4a41) — 7/2/2010 @ 8:29 amAlways made me wonder whether the gun shops in Lincolnwood, Oak Park, Elmwood Park, Niles, and Lyons, might not have made some “campaign contributions” to aldermen and mayors of Chicago.
nk (db4a41) — 7/2/2010 @ 8:35 amStanding in the schoolhouse doorway.
Socratease (cc27e3) — 7/2/2010 @ 9:07 amIt’s legal to own a product. It’s just illegal to sell that product. Nevermind the fact you who can legally own it are incapable of manufacturing it yourself.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 7/2/2010 @ 9:10 amAlso, illegal to manufacture it yourself.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 7/2/2010 @ 9:11 amTrue to form, Chicago pols – like their brethren elsewhere – don’t “embarrass easy”.
GeneralMalaise (9cf017) — 7/2/2010 @ 9:15 amDaley will, like DC, fall back on the restrictions already in place in CA
(though DC has had to liberalize somewhat from relying on the CA “safe gun list” to the somewhat more expansive MD list).
But, he has to realize (sarc alert) that some of the more restrictive aspects of CA gun-law are in the courts now
(on hold waiting for McDonald) and were filed by the same lawyer – Alan Gura – who filed the McDonald case,
and these are precisely the items of CA law he wants to emulate in Chicago.
Also, he hasn’t gotten the bill yet for Gura, and all the other lawyers who fought this case on behalf of Mr. McDonald (and the NRA), since it is on remand, and we will have to wait for a final dispostion by the circuit court, and then the subsequent appeal of that decision by Chicago to the Supreme Court, and then the court’s award of lawyer fees – which I’m sure the taxpayers of Chicago will be overjoyed about.
Plus, after Blago is disposed of, could Daley be next in Fitz’ crosshairs?
AD - RtR/OS! (688ffe) — 7/2/2010 @ 9:25 amIt’s legal to own a product. It’s just illegal to sell that product
Which is precisely the case in CA with “high-cap” magazines (those that hold more than 10-rounds, either handgun or long-gun); The possession of such magazines is lawful as long as they were lawfully purchased in CA prior to the ban; new magazines cannot be sold by dealers except to LE or Mil; and cannot be imported into the state by anyone except for LE or Mil purposes; nor can they be manufactured within the state except for LE or Mil purposes, or for export from the state.
AD - RtR/OS! (688ffe) — 7/2/2010 @ 9:31 amAD – How is that law enforceable? Non of the magazines I own for any of my weapons has a serial number. In fact the only markings (I just went to get a fifteen round mag for a Beretta semi) on this mag are 5, 10, 15 nest to the cutouts in the rear and the words “PB CAL 9 PARA MADE IN U.S.A.” stamped on the side. So if I take this magazine to California, or had FEDEXed it to someone living there how does California show that it was obtained after the prohibition was put in place?
Have Blue (854a6e) — 7/2/2010 @ 10:06 amHave Blue, I suspect a gun store that sells that product would be discovered and the owner prosecuted.
You’re right, you can’t actually ban this stuff. You can make a gun out of a good pipe and a nail and scraps. You can make gunpowder out of some relatively common stuff. There’s just no way to actually eliminate guns from America from someone who rejects obeying laws.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/2/2010 @ 10:11 amComment by Have Blue — 7/2/2010 @ 10:06 am
CA LE has been known to visit “gun shows” held in adjacent states and observe who is buying large quantities of hi-caps, follow them out to the parking lot to check the plates on their vehicle. If the plates are CA, they follow them and when the cross the state line, they bust them for illegal importation.
Also, if you’re subject to a weapons search, and you have hi-caps that were not in circulation/production at the time of the hi-cap restriction, you are a priori assumed to have evaded/broken the law in acquiring them.
It is a silly law (thank you, DiFi) and it’s only use seems to be as harrassment, or as an enhancement on whatever else you’re getting charged for.
As a gun seller, to deal in hi-caps, I have to have a special permit issued by the CA DoJ (amazingly, no cost involved), but must keep a detailed Acquisition & Disposition log just like for firearms themselves, with copies of authorizing letters from PD’s, LE ID, etc. to justify the purchase.
AD - RtR/OS! (688ffe) — 7/2/2010 @ 10:24 amThe biggest joke in California remains the faux “assault weapon” law, with its current work-around – the “tool” operated magazine release.
Perhaps we’ll get the Ninth Circuit to apply McDonald to that ridiculous joke law.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/2/2010 @ 10:32 amSo, California has determined that Law Enforcement needs hi-cap magazines to protect the citizens.
However, citizens who elect to defend themselves (because law enforcement can’t) are not availed of the same technology that is deemed necessary for someone ELSE to protect them?
If I were a Fembot, I’d spark and collapse.
Virtual Insanity (d93c26) — 7/2/2010 @ 10:37 amVirtual Insanity, hence the story of Barrett Firearms refusal to sell or service banned rifles for California LEO’s.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/2/2010 @ 10:52 amFOX just now announcing these rules passed.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 7/2/2010 @ 10:53 amspqr
it will be interesting to see how the 9th circuit reacts. A while back kosinski (sp?) wrote an absolutely classic defense of the 9th amendment. i mean it was gorgeous and eloquent, explaining why the right to bear arms is arguably the most important among the bill of rights, because if all other rights fail, this one is our safety net.
Problem was, it was the dissent.
So now his dissent has mainly become good law, how will the 9th circuit react? will they give in, and get robust. or will they continue to uphold every restriction on gun ownership.
Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e) — 7/2/2010 @ 11:21 ammmm yeah and here it is.
http://openjurist.org/328/f3d/567/silveira-v-lockyer
The money quote:
> The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
The idea that the founding fathers, having just shook off the shackles of tyranny and fearful that the new government would tyrannize them, would then willingly give up their weapons is insanity.
Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e) — 7/2/2010 @ 11:28 amKozinski remains my favorite appellate court judge.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/2/2010 @ 11:29 amAnother nice link, AW.
There’s a reason slimeballs hate Kozinksi. He is one of those horrible monsters who wants to leave other people alone.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 7/2/2010 @ 11:33 amactually rereading the opinion, i think the whole thing counts as a money quote. its really well done.
Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e) — 7/2/2010 @ 11:33 ambtw, its my understanding that the part about the holocaust in Kozinski’s opinion has personal weight for him because as i understand it many of his family fell victim to it. but that is just going off of memory.
Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e) — 7/2/2010 @ 11:35 amLaw enforcement officers who attempt to enforce this new handgun law may find out the hard way that they do not enjoy immunity from civil rights lawsuit liability when their actions violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer should have been aware. Harlow v. Fitzgerald. Now that there are two U.S. Supreme Court decisions on the subject, I would say that an individual’s right to keep and bear arms arguably has been clearly established.
grs (e65644) — 7/2/2010 @ 11:38 amDaley doesn’t appear to be abiding by his oath to “uphold and defend” the constitution of Illinois and of the United States of America. I think emil is right, there should be a law …
MOG (7d2a2c) — 7/2/2010 @ 11:44 amComment by grs — 7/2/2010 @ 11:38 am
First, state & local laws will have to be challenged in court, and a judge or judges at least at the appellate level will have to rule them in conflict with the 2nd Amendment, and therefore Unconstitutional. It is only at that point that individual departments and/or officers will be in jeopardy for liability.
AD - RtR/OS! (688ffe) — 7/2/2010 @ 11:47 amI think I saw a recent case on qualified immunity where the Supreme Court decided that a police officer arresting in violation of an 18 year old SCOTUS precedent was not sufficient to blow through his qualified immunity.
Nauseating decision actually.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/2/2010 @ 11:57 amYou gotta unnerstand – the crooks ARE Daley’s constituency.
Frank Drebbin (8096f2) — 7/2/2010 @ 11:59 amThe road through Blago leads to Daley.
AD - RtR/OS! (688ffe) — 7/2/2010 @ 12:14 pmJust as Teh Won talks about immigration to distract from the Gulf and the Economy (BTW, shouldn’t he be hiring those illegals so that they can do the job in the Gulf that his minions in the Fed Govt obviously can’t, or won’t?), Daley talks about guns to distract from the ever tightening noose from the Fitz investigation.
A.W. @39 – Somebody here a few days ago told me only 1% of the population held views like that. Heh. FTNQ.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 7/2/2010 @ 12:44 pmKozinski remains my favorite appellate court judge.
that Ted Kozinski?
ColonelHaiku (9cf017) — 7/2/2010 @ 12:52 pmhaiku know justice is blind
but missing hands too?
Comment by Aaron Worthing (A.W.) — 7/2/2010 @ 11:28 am
Silveira was decided upon existing 9th-Circus precedent, which did not hold that the 2nd was an individual right. That will have to be looked at again in light of McDonald.
AD - RtR/OS! (688ffe) — 7/2/2010 @ 12:53 pmWe have loosed the genie from it’s lamp, and a lot of crow will be on the menu.
A.W., thanks for a very good link.
Daley … [shakes head] Ignorance can be corrected, stupidity is forever.
htom (412a17) — 7/2/2010 @ 12:58 pmCOMPARE & CONTRAST Now that the weasels of the City Council have passed King Richard’s propsal I give you Utah. From Deseret News
Proposed Utah bill could eliminate concealed-gun permits
And people ask me the reason why a former Chicago Police Officer would move to the Beehive State.
SaintGeorgeGentile (aa85b2) — 7/2/2010 @ 1:13 pmLove it. Concealed Carry permits are optional and not needed within the state, but if you want one and qualify and pay for it, you can have it!
htom (412a17) — 7/2/2010 @ 1:20 pmhtom – I believe the issuance would be so that Utahans could still carry concealed in states that have reciprocity agreements with Utah. If they did not issue valid permits then those citizens would be out of luck.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 7/2/2010 @ 1:28 pmThat would match Alaska and Arizona.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/2/2010 @ 1:33 pmI understand, I just think it’s officialdom run amuck.
htom (412a17) — 7/2/2010 @ 2:03 pm#58 htom:
I don’t see it as inappropriate for each state to set their own standards~and I think it was good thinking on the part of Arizona and now Utah to ensure that their citizens are able to carry in other states should the need arise. Something that Vermonters can’t do without first getting a license/permit from a state that allows nonresident licensees.
Is it more paperwork than required to exercise a fundamental right? Probably. But we can’t win all of our battles all once…achieving perfection will probably have to wait until Tuesday.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 7/2/2010 @ 2:17 pmConcealed carry will never be seen as a constitutional right. Alaska and Arizona ( and perhaps Utah ) style concealed carry rights are an immense improvement over where we were just a few short years ago. Praise rather than silly criticism is more appropriate.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/2/2010 @ 2:20 pmLaw enforcement officers who attempt to enforce this new handgun law may find out the hard way
I’m not worried in the least that the local cops here will even bother with enforcing this law, since they mostly winked at the prior ones. They’ve got more important things to worry about, such as actual crimes in progress. Not to mention their intense hatred for all things Daley these days.
Dmac (ab1849) — 7/2/2010 @ 2:46 pmSince the SCOTUS struck down a 48 hour waiting period for a “fundamental constitutional right” ( abortion ), obviously California’s waiting period is unconstitutional…
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/2/2010 @ 5:51 pm