"We're not going to roll over," Chicago Mayor Richard Daley said.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
407
Location
PA
Chicago's game plan - To ban without banning...

Daley said he's encouraged by what has happened in Washington, D.C., where relatively few guns have been registered since the ban was lifted and new regulations were put in place.
Here is the full article:

Chicago prepares for losing its handgun ban

City might do what D.C. did: Issue slew of regulations and requirements

CHICAGO - If the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Chicago's handgun ban, the city will likely do what Washington, D.C., did when its own ban was overturned two years ago: Put in place all sorts of regulations and restrictions to make it tougher to buy guns and easier for police to know who has them.

"We're not going to roll over," Chicago Mayor Richard Daley said.

Daley and city officials would not say specifically what plans they have in mind if the Supreme Court rules against the city next week. But what's obvious to pretty much everyone involved is that a ruling favorable to Chicago gun rights supporters will lead to a new round of legislation — and lawsuits.

"Just like they did in Washington, D.C., the city of Chicago is going to try to make it as difficult and discouraging as humanly possible to keep people from having guns in their homes for personal protection," said Dave Workman, spokesman for the Bellevue, Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation.

He can count on it.

Tough new requirements
Since the ban was lifted in D.C., just over 800 guns have been registered in city. The relatively low total comes as the district has passed a slew of new requirements such as training, a test for prospective gun owners and ballistic tests for the guns they buy.

"The Supreme Court tore down the wall, and D.C. built up 95 percent of it again," said Richard Gardiner, who is suing the district over the new laws on behalf of Dick Heller, the plaintiff in the original case.

Another reason Chicago will likely follow D.C.'s lead is Daley himself. The mayor is one of the nation's most vocal gun control advocates and has shown a willingness to wield his substantial power.

For example, a few years ago he ended the debate over whether a small airport along Lake Michigan should be turned into a park as he wanted by dispatching bulldozers in the middle of the night to carve huge X-shaped divots in the runway.

Daley will be even more motivated to act now. For one thing, while the city's murder rate has dropped in recent years, it is still one of the highest in the country. Also, the possible lifting of the ban comes at time when residents could be eager to arm themselves.

Incidents boost ban opponents
While Washington, D.C.'s police chief, Cathy Lanier, said the city has "yet to have a case where someone was about to be the victim of a crime where someone pulled a handgun and saved themselves" — that's not the case in Chicago.

In May, a retired police officer shot two men, one fatally, after, police say, the men gunned down his son during the theft of his motorcycle. Days later, an 80-year-old Korean War veteran shot and killed a burglar who'd broken into his West Side home after the armed intruder had fired his gun at the man and missed, relatives said.

Not lost on Chicago residents is the fact that the elderly man shot the intruder with an illegal gun and the reason the other man could legally own a gun was because he was a retired Chicago police officer.

"If (the elderly man) didn't have that gun ... all of them would have been dead," said Charlene Figgins, 50, who lives nearby. "That's the bottom line."

Daley counters such talk by pointing to other cases, including one in which a suburban Chicago man shot and killed a neighbor because the neighbor's dog urinated on his lawn, as examples of the dangers of handguns in the home.

"We just had two women playing cards and one pulled a gun and (fatally) shot the other one," he said, referring to an incident this month on the city's South Side.

But he said he and others expect gun advocates and manufacturers to capitalize on the shooting involving the 80-year-old man.

"People will begin to think that since you had a couple high profile cases, they might think (buying a handgun) might be a good thing," said Tio Hardiman, a spokesman for CeaseFire, an anti-violence program in the city. "They don't know if they're going to be the next victim or not."

Daley said he's encouraged by what has happened in Washington, D.C., where relatively few guns have been registered since the ban was lifted and new regulations were put in place.

Lanier, D.C.'s police chief, said she believes the change has not had any effect on crime. The number of accidental shootings in homes, domestic violence shootings and suicides did not go up as a result, she said. Nor, she said, has the homicide rate gone down as a result of lifting the ban, a frequent claim by gun rights advocates.

"I just hope that there's not a thought that allowing people to legally register guns is going to have a big impact on crime," she said. "It certainly hasn't here."

If the court reverses the ban, Chicago most likely will create a weapons registry and make that information available to police, firefighters and others who respond to emergencies. Gardiner said the pending lawsuit he filed is fighting a similar registry in D.C.

The city is also thinking about requiring anyone who purchases a gun to also buy insurance - a step Gardiner said D.C. didn't take. But, Daley said, "It's common sense."

Then there are the gun shops. Though they are legal now in D.C., none have opened, in large part because the city implemented regulations both on store owners and buyers.

In Chicago, one owner of a suburban gun store said the city would hit anyone who tried to set up shop in the city with a flood of regulations and mountains of paperwork.

"It would be a legal nightmare," said Noel Incavo, of Midwest Sporting Goods.

There's also the possibility the city won't bother with all that.

"We could seek to draft an ordinance that would ban gun shops in the city of Chicago," Mara Georges, Chicago's corporation counsel, said.
 
Nor, she said, has the homicide rate gone down as a result of lifting the ban...

Well, yeah, because the lifting of the ban has not led to any significant number of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens, and DC's enormous number of criminals had guns already. Maybe someone should ask Chief Lanier why someone can be murdered in DC and there's only about a 50-50 chance that the case will ever be solved.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/l...area-unsolved-homicides-growing-95735109.html
 
58 people were shot this past weekend in Chicago. I don't think the law abiding home owner with a handgun is the problem.
 
They will take them to court again.

This is very similer to what happend to a lot of cities in CT regarding pistol permits. Many including mine started asking for all this stuff that wasn't required by the state, and it got pretty intrusive. Just recently they were all slapped hard by the state and now have to play by the rules.

Naturaly some police departments are pissed about this, but tough.
 
They need to strip him of his ARMED guards, his cell phone and drop his tail off in the worst part of town to find out what the real world is about. There ought to be a way to force those who would rob others of self defense to undergo the exact same end result. That would be 100% fair and would put and end to this class warfare his ilk encourages.
 
After Brown vs Board of Education was decided several Southern Governors promised "massive resistance" to desegregation, so this is not surprising. We still have tough battles ahead of us.
 
I think that Mr. Mayor should be more worried about the sorry state of the finances of his city and state rather than spending money on preventing law abiding citizen from the right to defend themselves...

Talking about wrong priorities....Illinois is on the verge on bankrupcy and the guy is worried about legal firearm possession....
 
Part of the anti-gun mentality of Daley and his ilk is that they are rulers of semi-autonomous city-states that have the right to practice Cafeteria Consitutionalism and pick and choose as to what parts of the Contitution apply to their realms.
 
A handgun possessed by a non felon in his home is none of anyone's business. How does this Daley idiot think he can even enforce such a silly city ordinance...just like DC? Both are misdemeanor ordinances....do they really think this keeps people who are otherwise clean folks from keeping a pistol in the home for self defense...of course not! Good people will do what they need to do to keep their families safe and pay the misdemeanor fine if worst comes to worst and they have to use the gun in self defense. I don't see Chicago or DC police busting down doors and raiding houses looking for 'illegal' pistols in otherwise law abiding people's houses....CRAZY to even have such a nutty ordinance that can't be enforced. Thank goodness there is still a Constitution to keep little city dictator wanna-be's out of our homes and off our property....by golly if i had to live in those places what would be in my house would be my business! There is no doubt about that.
 
My personal opinion (worth every penny paid for it) is that

The SC will mention P+I but more as a placeholder for another day

The SC will state that 2A is incorporated against the states

They will have to define scrutiny

It will NOT be Strict Scrutiny (should be but very unlikely)

It will probably be Heightened Intermediate (akin to the enhanced standard applied to sexual discrimination)

NO LAW WILL FALL ON THE DAY

Each law will have to be individually challenged

As for Daley......there is, on various of the legal blogs and boards about SCOTUS an impression that post Heller, the SC is NOT best pleased with elected officials playing fast and loose with their rulings.

If Daley tries to bugger around with an SC ruling he may find out the hard way what a federal case of deprivation of civil rights under color of law feels like.
 
Just recently a DC punk, 16 years old, on a weekend pass from juvenile detention could get a gun and kill someone during an attempted carjacking. If I lived in DC I'd want to be armed too.
Joe
 
If Daley tries to bugger around with an SC ruling he may find out the hard way what a federal case of deprivation of civil rights under color of law feels like.
Daley doesn't care. It's not his money. The city regularly lays out multi-million dollar settlements and judgments for violating people's civil rights.

What could make a difference in this case is when the individual cops start taking the hit. In Chicago, cops aren't indemnified for punitive damages. They aren't in Ohio either. That's why the Cleveland FOP has advised its members to ignore Mayor Frank Jackson's order to enforce Cleveland's preempted and invalid "assault weapon" ban.

The cops already hate Daley and Weis the Police Superintendent. It's an open question whether Daley can find any street cops dumb enough to be financially destroyed falling on their swords for HIM. I'm sure there are a few, but when the first couple end up with six or seven figure judgments against them, the enthusiasm for the project will wane accordingly.

Daley's like some crazed French SS officer in the ruins of Berlin, feverishly ranting that the Charlemagne Division of the Waffen SS "won't just roll over!"... until some Russian sticks the nozzle of a flamethrower into his bunker and pulls the trigger...
 
"Just like they did in Washington, D.C., the city of Chicago is going to try to make it as difficult and discouraging as humanly possible to keep people from having guns in their homes for personal protection," said Dave Workman, spokesman for the Bellevue, Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation.

Wow, just wow
 
"People will begin to think that since you had a couple high profile cases, they might think (buying a handgun) might be a good thing," said Tio Hardiman, a spokesman for CeaseFire, an anti-violence program in the city. "They don't know if they're going to be the next victim or not."

Let's hope so!
 
Daley doesn't care. It's not his money. The city regularly lays out multi-million dollar settlements and judgments for violating people's civil rights.[/B

That's a yes and no sort of thing.

King Daley is wholly convinced of his God given right to rule and has used the Chicago tax payer as his personal defense fund for a looooooooong time.

The only real reason he has been able to get away with it is the whole "home rule" item where he is legally allowed to get away with rules and law above and beyond those of the state.

Assuming 2A is incorporated against the states it then is EXACTLY the same as any other enumerated and incorporated Constitutional right.

Home rule for 2A is legally dead, full stop, end of story. DC is a different case as the city IS (in effect) the state so the "state" level laws are applied equally across the board for all it's citizens.

The citizens of Chicago cannot (assumption of 2A incorporation) be treated in any different manner than any other citizens of IL. When Daley does try it the law is immediately challengeable.

The other side is a that deprivation of civil rights under color of law is a CRIMINAL case not the traditional CIVIL case that Daley has happily thrown taxpayer money at.

Now, the SC may come out with a ruling with sufficient gray areas that Daley will think he can play footsie with it. In some ways I hope he does as he will provide a rich seam of sound case law to apply against other states arbitrary restrictions.

No matter how he fights we win.

This opinion brought to you by the Internet and worth every penny paid......:cool:
 
The other side is a that deprivation of civil rights under color of law is a CRIMINAL case not the traditional CIVIL case that Daley has happily thrown taxpayer money at.
The problem is, who's going to charge him CRIMINALLY? Certainly not the Obama administration.

The reason why there are SO many large civil payouts in Chicago for civil rights violations is that it's nearly impossible to get a city official, nevermind a cop, indicted for any kind of criminal violation against a citizen.

In Chicago, your ONLY recourse is a civil suit. Fortunately, the city is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. They've already laid out over $100,000,000 just over police torture. The way Daley's going, he's not going to have the money to pay anybody to enforce his ban, regardless of the outcome.
 
That's like asking, "When is the next North Korean presidential election?"

What difference does it make? Do you have any reason to doubt the outcome?

Are you saying that the pro gun cause in Chicago is as good as dead?

Just because the same person has held office for forever and a day does not mean we cannot get rid of him in the next election.
 
Are you saying that the pro gun cause in Chicago is as good as dead?

Just because the same person has held office for forever and a day does not mean we cannot get rid of him in the next election.
Have you ever lived in Chicago? I was born and raised there.

The political system in Chicago is so utterly corrupt that to expect Daley to be voted out in a fair and honest election is as naive as to expect Kim Jong Il to accept a similar result.

The ONLY place for the pro-gun side in Chicago is Federal civil court.
 
Are you saying that the pro gun cause in Chicago is as good as dead?

Just because the same person has held office for forever and a day does not mean we cannot get rid of him in the next election.

The pro gun cause in Chicago is not dead, but Daley won't leave that office until he's dead or in prison. Chicago politics don't follow normal rules :)
 
The political system in Chicago is so utterly corrupt that to expect Daley to be voted out in a fair and honest election is as naive as to expect Kim Jong Il to accept a similar result.
The pro gun cause in Chicago is not dead, but Daley won't leave that office until he's dead or in prison. Chicago politics don't follow normal rules

Fair enough, obviously didn't know that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top