Chicago Anti-Gun Propaganda

Status
Not open for further replies.

BikerNut

Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
115
Location
Illinois
This letter appeared in the Chicago Tribune yesterday:

--------------------------------------------------------------
Gun Laws
August 6, 2008

The Chicago Tribune's Aug. 1 editorial "Chicago, guns and the court" fails to mention the long-standing legal principle that the 2nd Amendment limits only the power of Congress, and that state and local laws are not subject to challenge under the 2nd Amendment.

The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision knocking down Washington's handgun ban decision did not change this well-established rule, which dates back more than 100 years. For this reason, Chicago is well within its authority, and has a strong legal basis, to defend its ordinance banning handguns. Moreover, cities must have the ability to respond to gun violence with whatever measures they deem necessary and appropriate. Chicago has not only the right but an obligation to implement laws that protect its citizens from the dangers of handgun violence.

Nina Vinik
Legal Director
Legal Community Against Violence
Evanston
--------------------------------------------------------------

I'm getting really tired of this crap...

I think the anti-gun nuts are strategizing in Chicago and Evanston to avoid the court battle with the NRA, since they would undoubtedly lose. By "giving in" and "following" the Supreme Court decision, they will be in the position to ALLOW legal possession of handguns in Chicago and Evanston... but with a lot of onerous requirements and restrictions.

Being able to have a handgun in Evanston would feel like a victory for me.

Having to register with the local police and get fingerprinted, or having to keep it unloaded, disassembled, locked in a safe and buried under six feet of concrete... would not feel like a victory.
 
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
14th Amendment to The United States Constitution.

The IDIOT Nina Vinik is restating an argument that has been made and struck down time and time again, as the above, Section 1, protects the rights of the people from infringement by any State, County, or local municipality.

LD
 
If the Supreme Court has stated in its majority opinion that the 2nd Amendment is an "individual right" then how could the 14th amendment not apply to the states regarding the 2nd amendment?

LD
 
Be aware that this Nina Vinik is the mouthpiece for a very well-funded but tiny little anti-gun group headquartered in Evanston, Il, to the immediate north of Chicago. Think Northwestern University.
Vinik was the instigator for that comical "forum" "celebrating" the one-year anniversary of the Virginia Tech shooting, held in southwest suburban Naperville, earlier this year.
Comical because it was supposed to merely have been a photo-op for the VT survivor they'd enlisted, but instead over a hundred pro-gun people showed up and dwarfed the fake forum.
This LCHV organization has been having its head handed to it, but there's no end to their money and they haven't slowed down in the least little bit.
This bit of legal claptrap is typical of their output, and the Tribune, which has become virulently anti-gun beyond imagining, will cheerfully use it to advance the cause.
They really believe that large numbers of voters read this sort of thing and will turn against the "gun lobby" if they keep up the heat.
Truth be told, in Chicagoland, it's close to true.
Hard to believe Indiana's only right over there.
 
Anti-gun people are fanatics in the definition of the word. Anti-gun people always hang out in neighborhoods that are extremely bullet ridden, with bullets flying by the microphone when they speak their anti-gun nonsense. They picture a wonderful world and believe they live in that wonderful world when the rest of us see that they live in hell on earth. Chicago, now safe! Yeah, right...
 
I think we need to be patient. We have the high ground so to speak with Heller. Now that we have the place, we need to start building the foundation, brick by brick or case by case. Scalia alluded to that in his opinion. This unfortunately is going to be a slow process, so we must be prepared for that. Chicago's day to lose their handgun ban is coming and it will be interesting to watch. While it might be frustrating to watch and wait, you can imagine how hard it's going to be knowing here in NJ we will be the potentially last state to get our 2A rights back.
 
Being able to have a handgun in Evanston would feel like a victory for me.

I think this will be fact. I am still waiting for the minutes to show up from the 7/28 council meeting but Evanston City Council seemed eager to dismiss the NRA lawsuit. They rewrote the offending law to allow unrestricted access to handguns inside the home.

To see the amendment the voted on, go to www.cityofevanston.org > Government > Agendas & Minutes (City Council) > 7/28 Meeting Packet (Edit: Now also see 8/11).

Or do a search for posts from me, I put a direct link in a post a week or so ago.

The minutes should be up soon.
 
Last edited:
FTA84-
I didn't actually read all 385 pages of the meeting agenda, but I did use the search function for both "gun" and "firearm" and got no hits.
I do recall hearing somewhere that they were putting off this vote until the Bradys and LCPHVs were able to come in with a suitably restrictive new ordinance with more nuances.
 
Posted by cherryriver FTA84-
I didn't actually read all 385 pages of the meeting agenda, but I did use the search function for both "gun" and "firearm" and got no hits.
I do recall hearing somewhere that they were putting off this vote until the Bradys and LCPHVs were able to come in with a suitably restrictive new ordinance with more nuances.

Be on the lookout for DC's current laws to appear in Chicago . . . DC's "attorney general" (no caps on purpose) claims they are a "model" for the country based on the Heller opinion.
 
FTA84-
I didn't actually read all 385 pages of the meeting agenda, but I did use the search function for both "gun" and "firearm" and got no hits.
I do recall hearing somewhere that they were putting off this vote until the Bradys and LCPHVs were able to come in with a suitably restrictive new ordinance with more nuances.

That is because it is not a PDF of text. It is a PDF of scanned images so search will not work.

My original post in the a related thread:

Update

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just an update, FYI

http://www.cityofevanston.org/govern...ket7-28-08.pdf

Page 157

It appears that the major amendment to be voted on is that they will allow unrestricted access to personal handguns in the home for self defense. I don't think one could expect anymore in a state with a CCW ban.

Of course, as usual, it appears they left out any possible legal way to get them into the home. They left out amending (A)11 by accident because it still references (A)15 which is now (A)14. Perhaps someone should e-mail them....

If they were going to put in restrictive clauses they would have already done it ala D.C. Instead, they put in no limitations on owning guns in the home.


The Northern subburbs of Evanston, Morton Grove, and Wilmette don't have the stomach to fight for these gun bans. That is why even the filing of a lawsuit caused all three bans to fall down. They don't have enough violent crime to care strongly either way (see original quote by Wilmette official in another thread). They won't require trigger lock blah blah 9 shot nonsense that D.C. requires because they all allowed unrestricted shotguns/rifles.


They don't have to address CCW locally because it is not a right even recognized by the state.

Why can't some people accept victory?

D.C. doesn't want anyone to have any weapons. That is why the push to have weapons disabled, disassembled, and so forth.

EDIT: I just read the new packet for 8/11 that they put up today. It appears that the proposed law on 7/28 was sent back to comittee but the new one they will vote on for 8/11 seems to be the same as the one from 7/28.
 
Last edited:
Here's the reply I sent to the Tribune yesterday. Anyone wanna bet that they print it ??

RE: Nina Vinik LTTE regarding gun laws.

How quickly the Gun Control advocates have reverted to their racist origins. Gun Control was part and parcel of the Jim Crow laws to keep firearms out of the hands of those people. It’s hard to intimidate and terrorize the target of your hatred when they just might shoot back.

Ms. Vinik uses the same legal argument that George Wallace did when he stood in the schoolhouse door and announced “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” That legal argument is that the “select parts” US Constitution do not apply to the states and municipalities.

The simple fact is that defense of ones self and loved ones is a basic human right that has been infringed upon by the City of Chicago. What is truly amazing is that in those places that have the most liberal gun laws have the lowest crime rates while those with the strictest gun laws (Chicago, to name an example) have some of the highest crime rates and not just violent crime, but property crime as well. It seems that criminals rethink their career choice if there’s a strong chance they could end up shot or dead.

I do agree that Ms Vinik that cities and states have an obligation to protect citizens from handgun violence. However, the best way to do that is to give those citizens the right to protect themselves and their loved ones not only in their homes but everywhere they may be, as crime visits us not only in our homes but also when we are out living our lives.

Scout26
Wheaton, IL
 
I do agree that Ms Vinik that cities and states have an obligation to protect citizens from handgun violence. However, the best way to do that is to affirm and honor the right of citizens to protect themselves and their loved ones not only in their homes but everywhere they may be, as crime visits us not only in our homes but also when we are out living our lives.

One small change suggested, but otherwise very good.
 
Unfortunately, the 14th Amendment does not yet apply to the 2nd....or the 3rd. Darn those soldiers muddy boots!

Yep, but as another poster said, Heller was not the big deciding case many had hoped for, but rather the first step in a series of legal actions that will hopefully result in overturning years of legal maneuvers to restrict the individual right to own firearms for self protection. One of those steps (an arguable point) IMHO is incorporation. A Motion for Summary Judgement is before the Chicago court not that asks for that incorporation. The thread on "Of Arms and the Law" has more info here:

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/08/movement_on_chi.php

The brief actually is a pretty good read.

I do agree that Ms Vinik that cities and states have an obligation to protect citizens from handgun violence. However, the best way to do that is to give those citizens the right to protect themselves and their loved ones not only in their homes but everywhere they may be, as crime visits us not only in our homes but also when we are out living our lives.

A debatable position depending on your definition of "obligation" and "protection" but if talking about an obligation for a city to provide a police force, or for the police to protect any individual, you'd be wrong. I agree that the best way to protect the citizens is to allow them to arm themselves should they so choose.
 
Last edited:
I dont like hearing this 'they think they can achieve a utopia' nonsense. that makes it sound like that a zero crime rate would still justify taking away the second amendment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top