Chicago Gun Ban May Test Ruling

Status
Not open for further replies.

camacho

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
735
Location
Florida
"The main solution to this problem has got to be in the realm of behavior change." No kidding, but more guns still means more shootings:confused:

This is the problem with all bans, they threat the symptoms not the cause. Yet, folks blindly cling to them with this celestial hope that maybe, maybe one day they will start working:uhoh:


Chicago Gun Ban May Test Ruling
Challenges Follow Decision on D.C. Law

By Peter Slevin and Kari Lydersen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 6, 2008; A01

CHICAGO -- One small reflection of Chicago's bloody year is a sign outside a South Side school that says, "Congratulations Class of 2008. Stop the Violence." The school is not a college or a high school, but Carnegie Elementary in Woodlawn.

In a city where homicide rates have risen by 13 percent over the same period last year and 26 students were killed by gunfire in the past school year, Mayor Richard M. Daley (D) thinks the Supreme Court majority that overturned the District's gun ban last month is detached from urban reality.

"If they think that's the answer, then they're greatly mistaken," Daley protested after hearing that Chicago's 26-year-old gun law is at risk. "Then why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West? You have a gun and I have a gun, and we'll settle in the streets."

Chicago officials say they have reason to be concerned about the high court's decision. The city looks likely to provide the next critical test of the justices' ruling as courts decide how far the decision extends to other cities and the 50 states.

Within hours of the 5 to 4 decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, gun rights groups filed fresh challenges to Chicago's restrictions.

Scalia, who spent five years as a law professor at the University of Chicago, close to some of the city's most violent precincts, made clear that some restrictions would be permitted, but the majority opinion left unclear what standards courts should use to assess them.

"Nothing in our opinion," Scalia said, "should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.''

Daley and Jody Weis, Chicago's police superintendent, contend that strict gun laws are a needed and justifiable tool. Weis, a longtime FBI veteran, said the court's ruling will "no doubt" make police work harder in a city in which 75 percent of all murders are committed with firearms.

Chicago's murder totals, like those in many large cities, have fallen to less than half the number of the bloody early 1990s. Yet 442 people were killed in the city last year, prompting a debate about tactics, including the effectiveness of a gun ban enacted in 1982.

It was a subject widely discussed after the court's ruling.

"If you ban guns for law-abiding citizens, you will just create a black market with more profit and increase the number of guns on the street," said Tom Sibley, 38, a graphic designer who lives in a southwest Chicago neighborhood where gang violence is commonplace. He opposes the ban.

Stephanie Lewis, 16, was surprised to learn that the ban exists, considering the availability of guns.

Her mother, meanwhile, described herself as a skeptic of guns kept for self-defense, the foundation of the high court's ruling.

"People shouldn't take the law into their own hands," said Loretta Lewis, 53, noting that a Texas man was cleared of shooting to death two men he suspected were burglarizing a neighbor's home. "Innocent people usually end up getting killed -- people don't hit the person they're supposed to get."

Alderman Joe Moore acknowledges that the ban has not nearly eliminated guns, but he predicted the city's violence would grow worse if the law is overturned, as numerous scholars expect.

"Clearly, the bad guys can get guns. I think what laws like Chicago have done is made sure they've taken more guns out of the system regardless," Moore said. "I shudder at the thought of everyone packing heat."

To Gary Slutkin, executive director of CeaseFire, an anti-violence organization that operates out of the University of Illinois at Chicago, the bans in Washington and Chicago have had a limited effect on gun ownership. The desire of people to own guns is more powerful than the government's ability to stop them, he said, although he thinks easier access to firearms would lead to more shootings.

"When there is a demand for a product, whether it's legal or illegal, people get it," Slutkin said. "The main solution to this problem has got to be in the realm of behavior change."

Yoneta Littlejohn is not a constitutional scholar, but she knows about gun violence. Two friends -- teacher Erika Prince and student Chavez Clarke -- died in high-profile shootings in the past year.

"All these people I am close to have been killed by something that should have been stopped a long time ago," Littlejohn, 18, said as she prepared for a cultural exchange in Rwanda. "Just because it's constitutional doesn't mean it should be allowed. The Constitution was based in the 1700s. This is 2008."

Yet culinary student Drenetta Bagwell, 39, thinks a gun might be just what she needs to feel secure on a mean street. She suggests permitting people over 30 with no criminal records to carry a firearm.

"We as women need some type of protection," Bagwell said. "Guns should be banned for criminals, but you should be able to have one if you only use it with a good reason."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/05/AR2008070500565.html?hpid=topnews
 
This article contains so much poo that a diaper couldn't contain it.

"Just because it's constitutional doesn't mean it should be allowed
They interviewed an 18 year old to opine on this?

Littlejohn, 18, said as she prepared for a cultural exchange in Rwanda
Prepare for a cultural awakening honey....
 
....I kind of like the idea of bringing back dueling.

Oh Mr. Schumer!
 
"People shouldn't take the law into their own hands," said Loretta Lewis

Then who exactly are we going to rely on? When seconds count, the police are only minutes away...:(
 
Yoneta Littlejohn is not a constitutional scholar, but she knows about gun violence. Two friends -- teacher Erika Prince and student Chavez Clarke -- died in high-profile shootings in the past year.

"All these people I am close to have been killed by something that should have been stopped a long time ago," Littlejohn, 18, said as she prepared for a cultural exchange in Rwanda. "Just because it's constitutional doesn't mean it should be allowed. The Constitution was based in the 1700s. This is 2008."


A clear example of the brainwashing done to students in our education system...so sad. Just 22 years ago any Joe Citizen could buy a fully automatic machine gun, and we didn't have the epidemic of murders seen today. I really believe this epidemic of violence is due to a modern culture that has no idea of the value of life.
Damn, I never thought I would be just like my parents, but there it is....
 
"People shouldn't take the law into their own hands," said Loretta Lewis, 53, noting that a Texas man was cleared of shooting to death two men he suspected were burglarizing a neighbor's home. "Innocent people usually end up getting killed -- people don't hit the person they're supposed to get.

Of course, she sited a case in winch no "innocent" people were killed.

FBI veteran, said the court's ruling will "no doubt" make police work harder in a city in which 75 percent of all murders are committed with firearms.

The overwhelming majority of which, occurred in several south side neighborhoods. This is not a city wide epidemic. It would be interesting to see the crime statistics prior to the ban versus current statistics.
 
noting that a Texas man was cleared of shooting to death two men he suspected were burglarizing a neighbor's home. "Innocent people usually end up getting killed -- people don't hit the person they're supposed to get."

Actually, he hit the exact 2 people he was aiming at.No "innocent" people were killed. Two illegal aliens, with criminal records, who were in the process of committing felonies, were shot. Doesnt sound "innocent" to me.

"Just because it's constitutional doesn't mean it should be allowed. The Constitution was based in the 1700s. This is 2008."
Fine then.No more free speech for you, unless you write on parchment with a quill pen.Bye, bye internet and television.And no more voting for women or blacks. I know it's, it's in the constitution now, but "that doesnt make it right", and I'm sure theres a lot of people who dont thing it's right for those people to vote, so....
Oh, and the cops can search anyone, anplace, any time they want, with no warrant now. Remember, just becasue its in the constitution, doesnt make it right, and think of all the criminal that will get caught, and all the lives saved, if any cop could just walk into anyone's house a search on a whim? It's for the children, after all.
Oh, almost forgot, any soldier can also now force you to let him live in your house too. After all, it would save a lot of money that could then be spent on welfare,saving lives, so that would make it ok.

The ignorance and stupidity! it burns!
 
stupid, stupid stupid...

'law into your own hands', 'constitution doesnt mean its allowed'...

someone must have ran over them with the 'vote for Daley' campaign van one too many times
 
And the wisest person of the bunch is *drum-roll please* ...

Stephanie Lewis, 16, was surprised to learn that the ban exists, considering the availability of guns.

Yes, the youngest one interviewed.
 
Oh, almost forgot, any soldier can also now force you to let him live in your house too. After all, it would save a lot of money that could then be spent on welfare,saving lives, so that would make it ok.

The ignorance and stupidity! it burns!

Now hang on a second there you may have accidentally stumbled on a great idea .

How about in all housing complexes within a reasonable distance to military bases they set aside X number of units for Combat troops to live in and take their weapons home for personal protection as well as have them participate in some sort of neighborhood watch programs .

Thinking the YO YO Homies wont be so interested in trying to "Pop a cap" in a soldier with his battle rifle especially when 25 more just like him are just seconds away .

They could also offer financial incentives or perhaps college credits for the soldiers to become reserve police officers to work with the local PD's .
 
Rokyudai said, "This article contains so much poo that a diaper couldn't contain it."

I have heard that farmers are complaining about the price of fertilizer. It would seem that if they would set up a collection point at the WP and Congress, they could collect more than enough to last them for years.
 
"Just because it's constitutional doesn't mean it should be allowed."

That's the motto of the Coalition of Mayors formed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City.

Mayor Daley of Chicago believes in and supports the Constitution, but not excessively.
 
I have said it again, and again, and again,,,,,
Trust NO ONE who considers themself a politician and comes from Chicagoland!

They KNOW BETTER than anyone else how to effectively lead.
This is why there is rampant crime, drugs galore, poorly educated kids, and just plain desperately poor people living in the good boroughs.
 
"Then why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West? You have a gun and I have a gun, and we'll settle in the streets."

Don't tease like that, Dick. I've got a loaner you could have for a few minutes.
 
When will people get their heads around the idea that the Constitution doesn't grant you rights, it protects the rights that you already have?

Just because it's Constitutional doesn't mean you have to go buy and carry a weapon. It's your right to choose to do so.
Nobody is forcing you to start a newspaper or attend church, are they? However, those are rights you have as well.

What if we made a law restricting church attendance? That would go over like a lead balloon, wouldn't it? Gun bans amount to the same thing, though.
 
"All these people I am close to have been killed by something that should have been stopped a long time ago," Littlejohn, 18, said as she prepared for a cultural exchange in Rwanda. "Just because it's constitutional doesn't mean it should be allowed. The Constitution was based in the 1700s. This is 2008."

I know, I'm not the first one to bring it up, but this is incredible, on so many points...
Marty
 
"People shouldn't take the law into their own hands," said Loretta Lewis, 53, noting that a Texas man was cleared of shooting to death two men he suspected were burglarizing a neighbor's home. "Innocent people usually end up getting killed -- people don't hit the person they're supposed to get."

Of all the places in this country where people should take the law into their own hands, Chicago is at the top of the list. No other city is as backwards and corrupt as Chicago.

Does this woman read the newspaper or watch Channel 9? Every day, every day there is another police scandal.

"Innocent people" getting killed? She may be referencing CPD's hit ratio. Private citizens have shown to be much better trained than police.
 
Yeah just let that little brat spend some time in Rwanda, that'll definitely change her mind on a few things.
 
All these people I am close to have been killed by something that should have been stopped a long time ago," Littlejohn, 18, said as she prepared for a cultural exchange in Rwanda. "Just because it's constitutional doesn't mean it should be allowed. The Constitution was based in the 1700s. This is 2008.

Someone keep an eye on this young lady when she runs for some political position or other and has to take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Instant perjury charge, eh?

Hope she likes Rwanda enough to stay there.
 
The Constitution doesn't grant people rights. It describes them, meaning they were already there. It is a safety mechanism to protect the smallest minority in the world: the individual.

Diversity in opinions is not a laudable thing when it comes to the rights of life, liberty and property. Anyone who disagrees with these rights does not belong in America, not because he is different but be cause he is wrong. There are plenty of countries out there that will gladly seize your guns, money, your time and your life.

The rights to life, liberty and property are to be held absolute and cannot be revoked by anyone. Not by presidential decree, nor by majority vote. Tyranny comes in many flavours; despotism, monarchy, democracy; all equally sour and bitter.

This goes especially for guns. There can be only one reason for a government to ban private gun ownership, and it isn't for the better of the citizens. Anyone who can count, speak and read knows that gun control increases crime so that's not why they want it. And if that's what they truly believe they're either clinically or philosophically insane, or lying. Take your pick.

A government who refuses gun rights prefers the status of its populace as malleable, docile subjects. A government that thinks it is the end toward which the citizens are the means - instead of the other way around - is a supremely dangerous, rabid dog that should be put down immediately and replaced.
 
"All these people I am close to have been killed by something that should have been stopped a long time ago," Littlejohn, 18, said...

There's the problem in a nutshell, she should have said "...been killed by someone who should have been stopped a long time ago..."

As long as Mayor Daley, and every other big city mayor, keeps mollycoddling criminals and gang bangers the violence will not stop, no matter how many gun bans they have; but they refuse to recognize the problem. Here's a novel idea for 'da mayor: Punish the criminals, not the law abiding! :banghead:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top