Yahoo.com: Mayor Daley lays out strict gun rules for Chicago

[killerbee99]

Pretty restrictive in my opinion, but if his constituents voted for him on this platform of gun control, oh well......

CHICAGO – 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.

Daley announced his ordinance at a park on the city's South Side three days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live. The City Council is expected to vote on it Friday.

"As long as I'm mayor, we will never give up or give in to gun violence that continues to threaten every part of our nation, including Chicago," said Daley, who was flanked by activists, city officials and the parents of a teenager whose son was shot and killed on a city bus while shielding a friend.

The ordinance, which Daley urged the City Council to pass, also would :

• Limit the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.

• Require residents in home with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.

click link for rest of article.......

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100701/ap_on_re_us/us_chicago_gun_ban

[Destino]

Why not just demand that hand guns be buried in the backyard in a treasure chest that can only be opened during a full moon?

... oh wait that would mean you'd be outside the confines of your home with the gun while burying it. My mistake.

stupid law.

[Teller]

Ridiculous. And then some.

[sacase]

dumb, I am sure their will be challenges. The new law is stupid, it targets people who would be responsible gun owners in the first place. Criminals already ignore gun laws, so this means nothing to them. Delay is a complete tool.

[ardowling]

This moron is just too stupid to get it:mad:

[visionary]

Delay is a complete tool.

Poor Tom.

But yeah, the law seems pretty overboard.

[Hubbs]

dumb, I am sure their will be challenges. The new law is stupid, it targets people who would be responsible gun owners in the first place. Criminals already ignore gun laws, so this means nothing to them. Delay is a complete tool.

You clearly don't get it. The kind of people who aren't afraid of the consequences of killing someone are actually very afraid of a minor sentence for carrying a gun in the wrong place. It's science.

[Popeman38]

Require prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.

So, if you are not allowed to possess a gun outside your home how are you supposed to get to a range? How do you transport a gun? And how in the hell does he think it will be legal to provide a list of gun owners to the police, emergency workers and firefighters?

[#98QBKiller]

Wow what an idiot. He's just throwing **** at the wall to see what sticks. With the SC's ruling, I doubt much of it sticks in the long run.

[Hubbs]

So, if you are not allowed to possess a gun outside your home how are you supposed to get to a range? How do you transport a gun? And how in the hell does he think it will be legal to provide a list of gun owners to the police, emergency workers and firefighters?

This reminds me of that story that came out a few weeks ago about a state (I believe it was PA) outlawing unregistered firearms in public parks, only to later realize that it had just banned police officers from carrying their guns into public parks because the state didn't actually have a firearm registry. Every single gun there (including every legal gun) is technically "unregistered." :doh:

[MisterPinstripe]

If this passes watch the crimes in Chicago skyrocket.

Its actually not a bad idea to have people take a class, I think that is something that should be put into place everywhere for people buying a gun for the first time.

[Hubbs]

Its actually not a bad idea to have people take a class, I think that is something that should be put into place everywhere for people buying a gun for the first time.

Agreed. Deadly weapons deserve the proper respect. If you have to spend X hours learning how to safely drive a car, then it's hard to say you shouldn't have to spend any time learning how to safely handle a gun.

[#98QBKiller]

If this passes watch the crimes in Chicago skyrocket.

Its actually not a bad idea to have people take a class, I think that is something that should be put into place everywhere for people buying a gun for the first time.

Agreed. Deadly weapons deserve the proper respect. If you have to spend X hours learning how to safely drive a car, then it's hard to say you shouldn't have to spend any time learning how to safely handle a gun.

I agree 100 percent.

[Popeman38]

Its actually not a bad idea to have people take a class, I think that is something that should be put into place everywhere for people buying a gun for the first time.

I have no issue with making people take classes and spend X hours on a range actually handling the weapon.

HOWEVER, I vehemently disagree with compiling a list of gun owners and distro-ing to all public safety employees.

[The Evil Genius]

Why would crime skyrocket if the city is going from a total handgun ban to no ban with strict rules?

[MisterPinstripe]

I have no issue with making people take classes and spend X hours on a range actually handling the weapon.

HOWEVER, I vehemently disagree with compiling a list of gun owners and distro-ing to all public safety employees.

Definitely agree.

Why would crime skyrocket if the city is going from a total handgun ban to no ban with strict rules?

I misread the article.

[Thiebear]

So not only is Daley acting a fool over the SCOTUS decision, he's also changing home ownership definitions?

So in Chicago you have to put the knocker and the number on the screen door of the porch to be able to count that as part of your home? What is the difference between the rarely used dining room and the garage?

As stated up above: The first TRuely smart law would be to institute safety classes you must take and pass.

incrementalism says to start them as free, then add marksmanship on top of that selling other safety devices/etc.

If you don't take the classes you can't keep the guns outside a safe.

[aREDSKIN]

Well this is Chicago, historically and demonstrably, one of the most corrupt cities in the US.

This will be challenged and thrown out too IMO.

[heyholetsgogrant]

I knew this would happen, basically they are finding ways to skirt the SCOTUS decision. Someone will sue and the SCOTUS will have to make another decision, then Chicago will find ways to skirt it the decision again...rinse and repeat. We need clearer gun laws in this country.

[ardowling]

Ok now here is an elected official who gets it:

http://www.co.jackson.wi.us/html/district%20attorney/Documents/McDonald%20vs.%20City%20of%20Chicago.pdf

To bad that sorry **** Daley and the people of Chicago don't have this kind of common sense leadership.

[Commander PK]

When are people going to finally get that Gun Control does not work? Those that would use a gun for criminal activity don't give a **** what the laws are with guns. All gun laws do, is give the criminals another law to break.

This is not debatable, it's common sense.

[Commander PK]

I knew this would happen, basically they are finding ways to skirt the SCOTUS decision. Someone will sue and the SCOTUS will have to make another decision, then Chicago will find ways to skirt it the decision again...rinse and repeat. We need clearer gun laws in this country.

All we need is the one we already have. The 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Yes it really is that simple.

[ardowling]

All we need is the one we already have. The 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Yes it really is that simple.

Yea you would think so but here is a part of Beyers dissent that Sotomeyor signed off on:

“I Can Find Nothing In The Second Amendment’s Text, History, Or Underlying Rationale That Could Warrant Characterizing It As ‘Fundamental’ Insofar As It Seeks To Protect The Keeping And Bearing Of Arms For Private Self-Defense Purposes.”

Scary

[Commander PK]

Yea you would think so but here is a part of Beyers dissent that Sotomeyor signed off on:

“I Can Find Nothing In The Second Amendment’s Text, History, Or Underlying Rationale That Could Warrant Characterizing It As ‘Fundamental’ Insofar As It Seeks To Protect The Keeping And Bearing Of Arms For Private Self-Defense Purposes.”

Scary

Well for me it seems the intent of the founding fathers was quite simple, and obvious in that passage. Obviously, we don't have "militias" anymore, now there is only the "people." "the right of the PEOPLE (i.e. citizens) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Free people own guns. Slaves don't. The founding fathers recognized that the only way to keep the government by the people, and for the people, was to keep the government's power in check. That holds as true today, as it did in their time. To be banning guns, and restricting gun rights, is like restricting swimming pools, because sometimes accidents happen and people drown.

Edit: I will add that "bear arms" to me also meant, open/concealed carry. I.E. not that you can't have your weapon anywhere but your home. As if that is the only place it would ever be needed.

[HailGreen28]

Yea you would think so but here is a part of Beyers dissent that Sotomeyor signed off on:

“I Can Find Nothing In The Second Amendment’s Text, History, Or Underlying Rationale That Could Warrant Characterizing It As ‘Fundamental’ Insofar As It Seeks To Protect The Keeping And Bearing Of Arms For Private Self-Defense Purposes.”

Scary

Really. You have an explicit statement: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

I don't know how you get from that, to "well I don't think the people have a right to keep and bear arms for X" (where X is legal activity). :doh: