Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: '4 gun backers suing Chicago', The WashingtonTimes.com

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    '4 gun backers suing Chicago', The WashingtonTimes.com

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...suing-chicago/

    Quote Originally Posted by Excerpt
    The city's law department defended the ordinance Wednesday, saying the Supreme Court's rulings recognized that some restrictions on the possession of firearms are appropriate.

    "We believe that Chicago's ordinance is a reasonable attempt to balance the right of individuals to possess handguns in the home for self-defense with the substantial risks to public safety that are associated with the proliferation of firearms," the law department stated.
    From John R. Lott, "So what motivated the new Chicago gun control ordinance?" Quotes from Plaintiff's COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

    http://207.41.16.133/rfcViewFile/10cv4184.pdf 101 KB 21 pages

    Quote Originally Posted by John R. Lott
    Alderman Mary Ann Smith echoed her fellows on the City Council, vowing to limit gun ownership with new legal restrictions and thanking “everyone who has worked to try and create as restrictive a tool as possible.” In describing the new Ordinance on July 1, 2010, Chicago Corporation Counsel Mara Georges lauded the restrictions and concluded that “[w]e’ve gone farther than anyone else ever has.”
    Last edited by Doug Huffman; 07-08-2010 at 06:57 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Angry Bull !!

    "We believe that Chicago's ordinance is a reasonable attempt to balance the right of individuals to possess handguns in the home for self-defense with the substantial risks to public safety that are associated with the proliferation of firearms," the law department stated.


    All well and good! Except, the RKBA is fundamental and affirmed by the supreme court. Meanwhile the "substantial risks to public safety that are associated with the proliferation of firearms" has been disproved categorically. It has even been proven to have the exact opposite effect. So I'm confused as to where the balancing act comes in.

    Not even going there.

    If your concern is for the public safety, why are you restricting peoples right to bear arms in their own homes?
    Last edited by simmonsjoe; 07-08-2010 at 06:57 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647
    If your concern is for the public safety, why are you restricting peoples right to bear arms in their own homes?
    Because they're not concerened with the safety of the public, they're concerned about retaining control/power over the public.

    I sure hope Daley is one of the defendants in that suit. He deserves to be nailed to the barn door.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Huck View Post
    Because they're not concerened with the safety of the public, they're concerned about retaining control/power over the public.
    Yep.

    I sure hope Daley is one of the defendants in that suit. He deserves to be nailed to the barn door.
    Like father, like son. His dad supported this unconstitutional measure, and his son is keeping up family traditions.

    Tell you what? Let's nail 'em both to the barn door, along with any and all others who support unconstitutional measures such as these which seek to strip honest Americans of their civil rights. Might as well go for the family jewels, er, treasures while we're at it - Lord knows both of them have made fortunes off the backs of honest, hard-working citizens. They, like a few others, forget that government service means serving the people, not themselves.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  5. #5
    Regular Member johnny amish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    High altitude of Vernon County, ,
    Posts
    1,025
    Daley is not the only problem in Chicago, the article stated that the city councel voted unanimously to approve these gun laws. The citizens of Chicago need to fire the aldermen and the mayor.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by johnny amish View Post
    Daley is not the only problem in Chicago, the article stated that the city councel voted unanimously to approve these gun laws. The citizens of Chicago need to fire the aldermen and the mayor.
    Some of the aldermen conceded that the ordinance would do nothing to stop the criminals, and only harm law abiding citizens. o then, why did they vote for it?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •