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

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/7/4-gun-backers-suing-chicago/

Excerpt said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

John R. Lott said:

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.”

Click to expand...

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?

If your concern is for the public safety, why are you restricting peoples right to bear arms in their own homes?

Click to expand...

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.

Huck said:

Because they're not concerened with the safety of the public, they're concerned about retaining control/power over the public.

Click to expand...

Yep.

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

johnny amish said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?