i saw a brief list of the new Chicago gun laws, and thought maybe a thread was in order, to comment on and discuss them here. You thought it was bad here in Wisconsin? Thank God you don't live in Chicago!
Chicago has always been a haven for criminal activity, the government wants to keep it that way by making sure no law abiding citizen has the rights or the means to defend themselves against the criminals. (in uniforms or not)
thanks for the links doug! you ever notice how anything that begins with the words: Where as, usually means your screwed. $100 bucks for permit?!! Can you say: Revenuing?!!!!!!
Crime has become a function of government and politics in Chicago. It is not as simple as the good guys vs the bad guys anymore. Criminal activity has a very elaborate function to use fear and manipulation to control the thoughts and the actions of the people. The fees and regulations are also not all about revenue, if it were, Daley would have long ago allowed permit carry or possession. It is a very perverse method of social engineering. It is about money and power, but not from fees and taxes.
But again the Founding Fathers provided for this scenario in the Constitution and BOR including the 2nd, giving the people the power to fight back against crime and corruption in the streets and in the government Houses.
I had a long conversation with a friend last night who grew up just outside Chicago,he said it is like a war zone down there, you don't dare go outside at night in most neighborhoods. He also thought that anyone that thinks more gun laws will save lives is nuts, that area is flooded with criminals who are armed and show no remorse when innocent people are harmed. The citizens of that area need to vote out that bum Daley, his city councel, and replace them with some people who have more brains than God gave a billy goat. If the citizens of Chicago want true change it has to be done at the ballot box.
It will never fly. It is still infringement and is a blatant slap in the face of the SCOTUS.
Firearms Registration! Never!
Registration brings Confiscation!
i'm going to have to ask a 'couple of leftists i know in chi-town next time i see them; so you going to dance the dance, and spend your bucks and get a handgun?
The SCOTUS decisions in Heller and in McDonald are sure to spawn a great number of court tests of State and local gun laws. Some have already started. The new Chicago gun laws are sure to come under fire. As I study the SCOTUS decisions mentioned and as I read political responses to the decisions one thing seems to stand out. It is especially noticed in the new Chicago laws. The standout is that many people, even those in the legal community, Are taking the position that the McDonald decision that incorporated the rights of the second amendment to the states only provides that a person is entitled to keep a handgun in thier own home and that the incorporation does not include a right to carry a firearm in public. They conclude that if a person intends to carry a firearm outside their home the states or local goverments have a right to restrict and control that activity. That conclusion is of course stupid. It is only a ploy by the liberal anti-gun factions and politicians so as to sooth their wounds. The second amendment does not say keep or bear arms. It says keep and bear arms. The word and is inclusive. If the second amendment is to be incorporated to the states it must be incorporated in whole not only part way. The word keep means to posses and the word bear means to carry. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has already visited that issue. In paragraph 41 of Hamdan it specifically defines the word keep to mean possess and the word bear to mean carry. I'm certain that SCOTUS would take the same position if asked the question and I'm certain that was it's intent in the opinion, even though the words are somewhat confusing. I am of the opinion that the new Chicago laws won't stand up to a constitutionality contest.
Did anyone notice that all those dismal City of Chicago crime statistics came during the time of total firearm ban in the City of Chicago? Likewise, when one examines the statistics of States like Kommiefornia, New Jersey, Maryland, and the like, that so restrict carry permits that they might as well be called "right denied" States, the data support the conclusion that less personal firearm ownership results in more violent crime.
My personal belief is that the Democrats in Chicago want to keep anyone from owning a firearm so that the decrease in crime rate that was documented after Heller v District of Columbia won't show up in the Chicago statistics. That might be way too uncomfortable and a pro-2nd Amendment candidate for Chicago City Alderman, whether democrat or republican, might actually get elected. (Keep in mind that DC had onerous restrictions post-Heller too, but crime still went down because the bad guys didn't know which households could afford the new permit.)
My cats support the Second Amendment. NRA Life Member, NRA Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, & Personal Protection - NRA Certified Range Safety Officer, Utah BCI Certified Concealed Firearm Permit Instructor.
"Permission Slips" from Utah, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, and Florida. _ Verily, thou shalt not fiddle with thine firearm whilst in the bathroom stall, lest thine spouse seek condolences from thine friends.