Neo-Luddite
Member
Read for fun and insight into how those in Chicago somehow assume that gun rights should be 'compromised' to suit their needs on the state level--and that somehow this would be 'middle grpound'. My question--if it's a compromise--what do I get in return???
http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/965963,CST-EDT-HUNT23.article
Middle ground in trench war over guns?
May 23, 2008
BY STEVE HUNTLEY
The idea of a powerful alderman in a city with one of the nation's toughest gun-control laws proposing special legislation to make sure he doesn't lose his guns opens itself to some easy ridicule. But here's another take on this episode: Could this be an opportunity for the gun-rights and the gun-control factions to reach across their angry divide and engage in a rational discussion of their opposing views?
This opportunity -- if it indeed exists -- arises from the embarrassing situation of Ald. Richard Mell (33rd). In case you missed Fran Spielman's story Tuesday, it seems that Mell forgot to re-register his collection of shotguns, rifles and pistols. When he realized his oversight a year later, he went to the Chicago Police Department's Gun Registration Section, but, thankfully, it refused to bend the rules to allow him to re-register after his deadline had passed.
Mell responded by introducing a proposed ordinance that would create a one-month amnesty for gun owners who tried to re-register their weapons between May 1, 2007, and April 1, 2008, but were rejected because their registrations had lapsed. No one seems to know how many people that applies to, but it fits Mell's predicament to a T.
Mayor Daley, an outspoken advocate of tough gun control laws, defended Mell: "A lot of people go back and forth to their summer homes. . . . A lot of people move their shotguns. A lot of 'em are bird hunters, gun collectors."
It's hard to see what any of that has to do with Mell's failure to re-register his guns on time. But what Daley's comments do constitute is an acknowledgement that there are legitimate reasons for law-abiding citizens to own guns.
Yet Chicago's handgun ban says, in effect, there is no legitimate reason for owning a pistol, unless you happen to be one of the people who possessed one before the 1983 ordinance was passed and whose ownership was grandfathered in.
It's a simple fact that the overwhelming majority of law-abiding gun owners do not use their weapons to commit crimes. Chicago's gun problem is with criminals and with the unlawful trafficking that supplies them.
Here's where I see the glimmer of an opportunity in this episode.
Perhaps Daley could have his representatives in Springfield sound out Second Amendment advocates to see if they are open to discussing their differences. Daley could put on the table the idea of opening handgun ownership in Chicago to law-abiding citizens who pass a tough screening. To this explicit gesture to gun rights, the Illinois Rifle Association and its legislative supporters should be open to new ways to disrupt the illegal gun trade. One of Daley's suggestions, requiring background checks in private sales of handguns, was recently rejected by the Legislature. While it would add bureaucratic hassle to such sales, this measure doesn't seem unreasonable. Nor does the idea of limiting gun sales to one a month. Any such law could be fashioned to allow someone with a legitimate reason to buy more than one in a month to petition local law enforcement for an exemption.
Chicago's gun law already may be endangered. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a similar District of Columbia handgun ban, and there's widespread belief the justices will overturn it. The gun-rights crowd may feel they have nothing to lose by waiting. But even if the court tosses out the ban, Chicago, wracked by violence claiming so many precious young lives, will impose the most severe handgun restrictions it can.
Given how polarizing the gun issue is, the notion of the two camps negotiating may seem Pollyannaish. No doubt hardliners on either side will reject the idea out of hand. Gun-control absolutists think any pistol is one too many. Gun-rights absolutists denounce any restrictions as treating lawful weapon owners like criminals. Still, getting the two factions together might produce laws that neither side could love but that they could live with. Then again, maybe they'd prefer to keep ignoring each other's valid positions and frustrating their own goals.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/965963,CST-EDT-HUNT23.article
Middle ground in trench war over guns?
May 23, 2008
BY STEVE HUNTLEY
The idea of a powerful alderman in a city with one of the nation's toughest gun-control laws proposing special legislation to make sure he doesn't lose his guns opens itself to some easy ridicule. But here's another take on this episode: Could this be an opportunity for the gun-rights and the gun-control factions to reach across their angry divide and engage in a rational discussion of their opposing views?
This opportunity -- if it indeed exists -- arises from the embarrassing situation of Ald. Richard Mell (33rd). In case you missed Fran Spielman's story Tuesday, it seems that Mell forgot to re-register his collection of shotguns, rifles and pistols. When he realized his oversight a year later, he went to the Chicago Police Department's Gun Registration Section, but, thankfully, it refused to bend the rules to allow him to re-register after his deadline had passed.
Mell responded by introducing a proposed ordinance that would create a one-month amnesty for gun owners who tried to re-register their weapons between May 1, 2007, and April 1, 2008, but were rejected because their registrations had lapsed. No one seems to know how many people that applies to, but it fits Mell's predicament to a T.
Mayor Daley, an outspoken advocate of tough gun control laws, defended Mell: "A lot of people go back and forth to their summer homes. . . . A lot of people move their shotguns. A lot of 'em are bird hunters, gun collectors."
It's hard to see what any of that has to do with Mell's failure to re-register his guns on time. But what Daley's comments do constitute is an acknowledgement that there are legitimate reasons for law-abiding citizens to own guns.
Yet Chicago's handgun ban says, in effect, there is no legitimate reason for owning a pistol, unless you happen to be one of the people who possessed one before the 1983 ordinance was passed and whose ownership was grandfathered in.
It's a simple fact that the overwhelming majority of law-abiding gun owners do not use their weapons to commit crimes. Chicago's gun problem is with criminals and with the unlawful trafficking that supplies them.
Here's where I see the glimmer of an opportunity in this episode.
Perhaps Daley could have his representatives in Springfield sound out Second Amendment advocates to see if they are open to discussing their differences. Daley could put on the table the idea of opening handgun ownership in Chicago to law-abiding citizens who pass a tough screening. To this explicit gesture to gun rights, the Illinois Rifle Association and its legislative supporters should be open to new ways to disrupt the illegal gun trade. One of Daley's suggestions, requiring background checks in private sales of handguns, was recently rejected by the Legislature. While it would add bureaucratic hassle to such sales, this measure doesn't seem unreasonable. Nor does the idea of limiting gun sales to one a month. Any such law could be fashioned to allow someone with a legitimate reason to buy more than one in a month to petition local law enforcement for an exemption.
Chicago's gun law already may be endangered. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a similar District of Columbia handgun ban, and there's widespread belief the justices will overturn it. The gun-rights crowd may feel they have nothing to lose by waiting. But even if the court tosses out the ban, Chicago, wracked by violence claiming so many precious young lives, will impose the most severe handgun restrictions it can.
Given how polarizing the gun issue is, the notion of the two camps negotiating may seem Pollyannaish. No doubt hardliners on either side will reject the idea out of hand. Gun-control absolutists think any pistol is one too many. Gun-rights absolutists denounce any restrictions as treating lawful weapon owners like criminals. Still, getting the two factions together might produce laws that neither side could love but that they could live with. Then again, maybe they'd prefer to keep ignoring each other's valid positions and frustrating their own goals.
