Chicago to Continue Pissing on Residents' Rights

[Kennedy 0]

From NYTimes and other sources.

Quote

Chicago Mayor Offers Strict Gun Rules
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 30, 2010

CHICAGO (AP) -- With the city's gun ban certain to be overturned, Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday introduced what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States.

The measure, which draws from ordinances around the country, would ban gun shops in Chicago and prohibit gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun.

Of course most of the sources they are "drawing from" are already being challenged in court, but hey, with massive budget shortfalls and hundreds of public safety positions unfilled, yeah, let's blow more taxpayers' money.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

let's blow more taxpayers' money.

If he could save up he could buy a congressional seat.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[kelpdiver 2]

My comments and more detail from his press conference today in a separate post - Daley's response to the Supreme Court.

[skybill 19]

Quote

From NYTimes and other sources.

Quote

Chicago Mayor Offers Strict Gun Rules
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 30, 2010

CHICAGO (AP) -- With the city's gun ban certain to be overturned, Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday introduced what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States.

The measure, which draws from ordinances around the country, would ban gun shops in Chicago and prohibit gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun.

Of course most of the sources they are "drawing from" are already being challenged in court, but hey, with massive budget shortfalls and hundreds of public safety positions unfilled, yeah, let's blow more taxpayers' money.

Hi Ken,
"Fergetit' Jake, it's just Chi-town!"

"AUDENTES FORTUNA JUVAT"

SCR-2034, SCS-680

III%,
Deli-out

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

From NYTimes and other sources.

Quote

Chicago Mayor Offers Strict Gun Rules
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 30, 2010

CHICAGO (AP) -- With the city's gun ban certain to be overturned, Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday introduced what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States.

The measure, which draws from ordinances around the country, would ban gun shops in Chicago and prohibit gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun.

Of course most of the sources they are "drawing from" are already being challenged in court, but hey, with massive budget shortfalls and hundreds of public safety positions unfilled, yeah, let's blow more taxpayers' money.

Altho I agree that these gun restrictions are ridiculous regardless of budgets, to me a silly reason to argue gun rights as too expensive, it's fun to watch you jump back and forth about state's rights. I guess state's rights are cool when it comes to abortion, they suck when it comes to gun prohibition. You guys need to understand major issues like state's rights are simply convenient cop-outs to strawman the real issue being discussed.

Let's argue this as a gun issue, not an issue of cost. Legislators are there to argue/vote on issues, so the cost is already built in.

[futuredivot 0]

I've never been to the state of Chicago.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

it's fun to watch you jump back and forth about state's rights. I guess state's rights are cool when it comes to abortion, they suck when it comes to gun prohibition. You guys need to understand major issues like state's rights are simply convenient cop-outs to strawman the real issue being discussed.

First, you must understand the Constitution, and which issues belong to the federal government, and which are the purview of the states. You don't seem to recognize the difference. The 2nd Amendment overrides a state's desire to ban guns. Abortion is an issue not covered by the constitution, and is an issue reserved to the states.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I've never been to the state of Chicago.

I'm sorry that your understanding of government is too limited to understand that, "State" means any level of government.

A little free education here: The courts, other than the lower courts that handle traffic tickets and forceables, etc are stratified by counties, which are overseenby the state, so a state action is actually done at the county level. Hell, for that matter, a traffic matter is cited as:

State of Illinois

vs

Guy who has no clue of the workings of the goverment, et al

And that is adjudicated at the city / municipal level. Next time don't make yourself look silly by failing to understand that, "State" means, "The government."

As an aside, this is one reason why I'm so against the death penalty; it is handed down at the county level. Oh sure, the governor rubber stamps it, and if that governor is like Gov Ryan of Ill., and he actully does something besides rubber stamp it, then he is persecuted. Some neck counties in Texas and all over the south are very small and unregulated, par that with typical Texas trash govs like Bush and you have a recipe for state-sanctioned murder...... oh wait, I've never been to the state of _______________ (list your own Texas county here).

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

it's fun to watch you jump back and forth about state's rights. I guess state's rights are cool when it comes to abortion, they suck when it comes to gun prohibition. You guys need to understand major issues like state's rights are simply convenient cop-outs to strawman the real issue being discussed.

Quote

First, you must understand the Constitution, and which issues belong to the government, and which are the purview of the states. You don't seem to recognize the difference. The 2nd Amendment overrides a state's desire to ban guns.

I see, I don't understand the supremacy clause and you aren't willing to state it (because you don't understand it).

Quote

Abortion is an issue not covered by the constitution, and is an issue reserved to the states.

Really? And here I thought the SCOTUS decided that is 1973 and is recognized as stare decisis.

Abortion IS federally protected as per Roe v Wade, let's not be fundamental. Is it directly constitutional? No, but under the 14th Amendment it is.

See, you're a typical conservative and if you like the way an issue has gone, it's thumbs up constitutional. If you disagree then it's an abomination to the Constitution. Sorry, both guns and abortion are constitutional, guns more directly.

And you make my point about state's rights; connies want them to be supreme to the gov and libs want them subordinate to the fed. This is tired and age-old, but we know when small factions get too much power how shit goes and I'm just not an anarchist.

• Quote

[captain1976 0]

Chicago is a sanctuary city for illegals that has been broken for 40 years. The voting district’s are drawn, as to keep his criminal and dysfunctional politicians in office.

The city is huge on entitlements. The city is bankrupt, mayor Daley ignores the huge dangerous gangs. Spends all the taxpayers money to make the loop a police state on weekends and at night.

The high-rises are empty as business’s leaves the city. He does nothing about the gangs and continues to blame guns for his problems. IOW, he's a piece of shit!

You live more in the few minutes of skydiving than many people live in their lifetime

[JohnRich 4]

News:

Mayor Daley backs off plan to limit residents to one gun

Mayor Daley today backed off his plan to limit Chicagoans to one handgun — and dropped the idea of requiring liability insurance — in a watered-down replacement to Chicago’s “unenforceable” handgun ban.

The mayor’s ordinance — approved by the City Council’s Police Committee and poised for approval by the full council at a special meeting on Friday — was considerably weaker than Daley and top mayoral aides had initially described.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/2454140,mayor-daley-drops-one-gun-plan-070110.article

On the other hand, these things remain:

Instead of limiting possession to one handgun for every qualified person living in a home, it allows those persons to each register “one handgun-per-month.”

It prohibits possession of those handguns outside the home. The home is specifically defined as the inside portion “traditionally used for living purposes” — not the garage, yard, porch, deck or walkway.

No more than one firearm in the home could be “assembled and operable.” The rest must be secured by a trigger lock or locked box or “broken down in a non-functioning state.

The ordinance requires Chicagoans to register their weapons, but only after obtaining firearms safety training comprised of at least four hours in the classroom and one hour on a firing range.

The Chicago Firearms Permit would cost $100 and have to be renewed every three years. In addition, gun owners would have to pay an application fee of $15 for each firearm registered and an annual reporting fee of $10-per-firearm.

Chicagoans would be prohibited from obtaining firearms permits if they are: under 18; over 18 but under 21 without parent’s permission; been convicted of a violent crime, two or more drug or drunk driving offenses; lack vision sufficient for a driver’s license or lack a valid Firearm Owners Identification Card (FOID).

Gun shops would be prohibited.

Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis would develop a “roster of safe handguns” that would be posted on the Police Department’s website. Only those handguns listed would be “permissible.”

[rhaig 0]

Quote

I guess state's rights are cool when it comes to abortion, they suck when it comes to gun prohibition.

please re-read the 2nd and 10th amendments.

You might then understand why gun prohibition can not be considered a states rights issue, but abortion was (at least until SCOTUS ruled).

--
Rob

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

I've never been to the state of Chicago.

I'm sorry that your understanding of government is too limited to understand that, "State" means any level of government.

Nice back peddle.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Guy who has no clue of the workings of the goverment, et al

And that is adjudicated at the city / municipal level. Next time don't make yourself look silly by failing to understand that, "State" means, "The government."

If you're going to talk about lack of clue, don't use word's like state's rights in a Constitutional discussion and try to claim state = government. It doesn't. State's rights versus Fed is a key issue in this subject area. There is nothing ambiguous about what 'state' means.

The distinction of city versus state is quite relevant, too. San Francisco tried passing a handgun ban for the second time in 2006. Just as the time before, it was struck down because only the state may do so.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I've never been to the state of Chicago.

I'm sorry that your understanding of government is too limited to understand that, "State" means any level of government.

Nice back peddle.

he's a pro at that.

--
Rob

[futuredivot 0]

And Lucky babbles

Quote

I guess state's rights are cool when it comes to abortion, they suck when it comes to gun prohibition

So Divot replies

Quote

I've never been to the state of Chicago.

Lucky responds

Quote

"State" means any level of government

So, in context State means one of the 50-Now I would love to continue your education but it is vacation time.

Oh-Vacation...it's a work incentive in the same vein as "insurance" that companies give to employees they feel are worth keeping around.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I guess state's rights are cool when it comes to abortion, they suck when it comes to gun prohibition.

please re-read the 2nd and 10th amendments.

You might then understand why gun prohibition can not be considered a states rights issue, but abortion was (at least until SCOTUS ruled).

Please read the supremacy clause and you'll understand what I mean.

Of course abortion used to be a state's issue, just as slavery used to be until the 14th came along, as southern states said it was federal so they didn't have to comply as long as they didn't make it federal; it (14th) unfucked a lot of state's rights issues.

The point I was making is that when SCOTUS decisions are made, people decide if the court was activist or perfect and brilliant based upon the outcome rather than the reasoning.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I've never been to the state of Chicago.

I'm sorry that your understanding of government is too limited to understand that, "State" means any level of government.

Nice back peddle.

How so, "state" means any level of government, I didn't change my position 1 inch. The person I responded to thought, "state" meant 1 of the 50 different entities that make up the USA when in in reality the state is any level of government authority; show me where I changed.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Guy who has no clue of the workings of the goverment, et al

And that is adjudicated at the city / municipal level. Next time don't make yourself look silly by failing to understand that, "State" means, "The government."

Quote

If you're going to talk about lack of clue, don't use word's like state's rights in a Constitutional discussion and try to claim state = government. It doesn't.

State does = government at any level. If a city cop violates your 4th as he unreasonably searches your vehicle, it does have federal implications. without babbling on, actually address that point. With a jaywalking ticket, state vs defendant. The origin of this ridiculous tangent is that futuredivot claimed that he had never been to the state of Chicago in response to me pointing out that state's rights or other SCOTUS decisions are subjectively adored, based upon the ideology of the person viewing the decision.

Quote

State's rights versus Fed is a key issue in this subject area. There is nothing ambiguous about what 'state' means.

Right, it means any action taken by any level of government against a citizen, corporation or other entity. The state sup ct oversees actions taken at lower jurisdictions, actions these lower courts take on behalf of the state.

Quote

The distinction of city versus state is quite relevant, too. San Francisco tried passing a handgun ban for the second time in 2006. Just as the time before, it was struck down because only the state may do so.

I thought that only the fed gov could do that according to other posters here.

• Quote

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

And Lucky babbles

Quote

I guess state's rights are cool when it comes to abortion, they suck when it comes to gun prohibition

So Divot replies

Quote

I've never been to the state of Chicago.

Lucky responds

Quote

"State" means any level of government

So, in context State means one of the 50-Now I would love to continue your education but it is vacation time.

Oh-Vacation...it's a work incentive in the same vein as "insurance" that companies give to employees they feel are worth keeping around.

So are you saying an action taken by the city of Chicago isn't a state action? Or are you just gonna keep running, telling us about your meaningless vacation? Perhaps that's your excuse to not revisit this thread; you were on vacation.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

So are you saying an action taken by the city of Chicago isn't a state action?

That's correct.

"MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL."

"Chicago (hereinafter City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chi-cago suburb, have laws effectively banning handgun possession byalmost all private citizens."

I'm sure it was just an oversight by the Supremes, seeing as how they're deprived of your incredible legal acumen.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

So are you saying an action taken by the city of Chicago isn't a state action?

That's correct.

"MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL."

"Chicago (hereinafter City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chi-cago suburb, have laws effectively banning handgun possession byalmost all private citizens."

I'm sure it was just an oversight by the Supremes, seeing as how they're deprived of your incredible legal acumen.

Maybe this will help with your legal education. Also, reading is fundamental.

I said an action taken by the City of Chicago is a state action, not a lawsuit brought by private individuals/orgs against the City of Chicago as being state actions. See, if you quit wetting your pants when you think you have me and actually read what I write you will understand.

The case:

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-1521

On June 26, 2008, one day after Heller was decided, Petitioners, McDonald, et al. (“McDonald”), brought lawsuits in the Northern District of Illinois against Respondents, City of Chicago and Village of Oak Park (“Chicago”), challenging municipal laws similar to the federal laws struck down in Heller. See McDonald v. Chicago, 2008 WL 5111112 at *1 (N.D. Ill. 2008).

See how McDonald is listed first? That means they filed the action and that it isn't a matter initiated by Chicago. Look at DC v Heller, that means the case, a criminal case, was originally filed by D.C.

Also, the consolidated cases, McDonald v Chicago and NRA v Chicago, certified seperately and consolidated, are actions not from Chicago, but against Chicago. See, it is possible for a private entity to name a city, but a city'a action is on behalf of the state if criminal.

So go back and address what I asserted about a city acting on behalf of the state in criminal matters and some civil matters. In AZ most traffic tickets are: State of AZ vs Defendant, so they are basically suing you on behalf of the state of AZ.

Lesson over, let's see your morphing of what I wrote to make your ill point.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Maybe this will help with your legal education. Also, reading is fundamental.

I said an action taken by the City of Chicago is a state action, not a lawsuit brought by private individuals/orgs against the City of Chicago as being state actions. See, if you quit wetting your pants when you think you have me and actually read what I write you will understand.

Maybe you should do a little fundamental reading, yourself.

From the complaint:
"Defendant Richard M. Daley is the Mayor of the City of Chicago, and as such is responsible for executing and administering the City of Chicago’s laws, customs, practices, and policies. In that capacity, Mr. Daley is presently enforcing the laws, customs, practices and policies complained of in this action, and is sued in both his individual and official capacities."

I'm sure that you, with your immense legal knowledge, are aware that Chicago muni code != state law.

Quote

So go back and address what I asserted about a city acting on behalf of the state in criminal matters and some civil matters. In AZ most traffic tickets are: State of AZ vs Defendant, so they are basically suing you on behalf of the state of AZ.

Goody for you - when I got a traffic ticket it was from the city and not the state. Guess you need to get with San Antonio and let them know they're wrong, too, after you straighten out the Supremes and the Seventh Circuit.

Quote

Lesson over, let's see your morphing of what I wrote to make your ill point.

The Supremes have held that that the Second Amendment *is* binding against the the feds (Heller) and the states (McDonald) and have remanded the case back to Seventh Circuit for them to get it right, this time.

Lesson over, indeed.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I guess state's rights are cool when it comes to abortion, they suck when it comes to gun prohibition.

please re-read the 2nd and 10th amendments.

You might then understand why gun prohibition can not be considered a states rights issue, but abortion was (at least until SCOTUS ruled).

Please read the supremacy clause and you'll understand what I mean.

Of course abortion used to be a state's issue, just as slavery used to be until the 14th came along, as southern states said it was federal so they didn't have to comply as long as they didn't make it federal; it (14th) unfucked a lot of state's rights issues.

The point I was making is that when SCOTUS decisions are made, people decide if the court was activist or perfect and brilliant based upon the outcome rather than the reasoning.

the point I was trying to make is that states rights don't apply when it comes to prohibiting guns, because the constitution protects those rights at the federal level.

--
Rob

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I guess state's rights are cool when it comes to abortion, they suck when it comes to gun prohibition.

please re-read the 2nd and 10th amendments.

You might then understand why gun prohibition can not be considered a states rights issue, but abortion was (at least until SCOTUS ruled).

Please read the supremacy clause and you'll understand what I mean.

Of course abortion used to be a state's issue, just as slavery used to be until the 14th came along, as southern states said it was federal so they didn't have to comply as long as they didn't make it federal; it (14th) unfucked a lot of state's rights issues.

The point I was making is that when SCOTUS decisions are made, people decide if the court was activist or perfect and brilliant based upon the outcome rather than the reasoning.

the point I was trying to make is that states rights don't apply when it comes to prohibiting guns, because the constitution protects those rights at the federal level.

which is the exact same argument the left makes regarding abortion (since lucky has seen fit to equate these two topics)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln