Daley unveils new gun restrictions
Thursday, Jul 1, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Mayor Daley outlined his response today to the US Supreme Court’s ruling that struck down the city’s handgun ban…
* following DC ordinance and registration of no more than one handgun per month,
* two step process to own and register
* no ownership for anyone convicted of a violent crime
* no ownership for anyone with 2 or more DUIs
* no ownership for anyone convicted on a domestic violence charge
* bans assault weapons
* bans gun shops
* requires firearms safety training
* requires city firearms permit, state FOI card and registration with the Chicago Police Department
* Sun-Times…
Mayor Daley today backed off his plan to limit Chicagoans to one handgun and dropped the idea of requiring liability insurance altogether in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to shoot down the city’s handgun ban.
The replacement ordinance outlined by the mayor was considerably weaker than Daley and top mayoral aides had initially described. […]
No more than one firearm in the home could be “assembled and operable.” The rest “must be broken down in a non-functioning state or shall have trigger lock or other mehanism making the firearm temporarily inoperable.”
As expected, gun shops would be prohibited in the city of Chicago, under the ordinance.
Chicagoans would be required 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.
Also, if a gun owner “knows or has reason to believe” that a minor is present, the one operable gun would have to be “held by the person” or “physically seucred on the person’s body” to avoid falling into the hands of children. If not, that one gun would also have to be secured or disassembled.
* Tribune…
* Assault weapons are banned, as is the possession of ammunition by anyone who does not have a valid FOID card and registration for a gun of the same caliber.
* Applicants must be at least 21 years old, unless a parent signs for a child age 18 or older.
* To protect the city against costs for a lawsuit in case a police officer shoots an armed person while responding to a home, Daley also said the city will pursue legislation at the state and federal levels granting liability immunity for first responders and the city.
* The ordinance bars anyone from possessing a handgun outside a home, which excludes garages, outdoor areas, hotel rooms and group-living quarters.
Daley’s press release is here.
* Thoughts?
- Leroy - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 12:18 pm:
Wow…wish he was that gung-ho about preventing political graft & corruption…
- Team America - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 12:22 pm:
Where does it say that we’re going to take the guns away from the gangbangers?
- Jimmy - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 12:23 pm:
By Chicago Police Dept. statisitics 85% of all crimes committeed with a gun are done by previously convicted felons, so none of this stuff works. Like John Kass said several weeks ago, Daley has lost control of the city. It would be interesting to see where more deaths occured in 2010 in Chicago or Afganistan???
- Greg B. - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 12:24 pm:
Some of that is all ready illegal. Felons can’t own guns. Must be 21 to purchase a pistol in Illinois.
Some of it might not survive a court challenge.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 12:27 pm:
This is actually pretty reasonable. I was, frankly, expecting something more clearly unconstitutional. This proposal actually seems like it might pass muster.
I don’t understand the ban on gun shops though. People are going to buy them. We may as well get the tax revenue.
As much as I hate DUIs, I don’t see the connection between guns and DUIs. Because you do one thing bad while drunk means you do everything bad while drunk? I don’t think that follows.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 12:29 pm:
Jimmy, why don’t you take a stroll in Kabul and find out for us?
- Jimmy - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 12:31 pm:
Skeeter, why the streets of almost all our major cities in certain areas are just as dangerous
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 12:37 pm:
No, Jimmy, they are not. Any suggestion that are is pure stupidity.
- Da Ship Be Sinking - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 12:38 pm:
Rod also hired alot of those suit store employees.
Check out “suit salesmen” employees at DCEO and CMS. They had no prior government experience. They were merely sold suits. Now they are Senior Staff.
The $400k in suits is only part of the sad story. Rod paid that out of pocket (I guess). When you look at the salaries of these jokers - that involves taxpayer dollars. That is more important, right?
And by the way, those guys are still working for Quinn.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 12:41 pm:
Wrong post, dude.
- How Ironic - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 12:46 pm:
The restrictions seem much less than intital proposals. I think that the proof will be in the pudding as the saying goes.
How long are the police going to drag their feet dispensing registration?
How exactly is one to get training if there are no gunshops in the city? Where is this training going to be held?
All in all, if the expense is low, and the ‘hassle factor’ is low for obtaining the permits it will at least allow honest citizens the right to own a firearm in their homes.
It’s a good first step.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 12:57 pm:
The gun debate is kind of surreal. Everyone wants to disarm the gangbangers, yet we yammer on and on day and night about everything but.
- Wumpus - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 1:00 pm:
So a lot of aldermen and politicians will be barred since they do not meet the criteria?
The 21 year old requirement is silly.
- Mike Ins - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 1:12 pm:
Initial reaction - way less onerous than what had been talked about to the press by Mara Georges and Daley and Weis earlier this week… I guess with the city law department personnel each taking 24 furlough days (ie., 10% plus pay-cut this year) the person-power to fight an obviously losing battle again just wasnt there
How Ironic:
“Proof in pudding” - agreed - journalists are describing the proposed regulations in extremely broad strokes - I’d like to see the actual ordinance regarding the “hassle/discouragement level” involved here.
Wordslinger:
“Surreal” - agreed - the people posting here and anxiously awaiting to digest, challenge, comply, etc., with the new ordinance are hardly the types whom everyone wishes were not shooting at each other. It is surreal.
- OneMan - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 1:15 pm:
== bars anyone from possessing a handgun outside a home ==
Is transporting considered possessing. So if I drive into the city with a handgun in my trunk am I breaking the law? What if a resident has a handgun and wants to go shoot target practice outside of the city, can they do that?
- Levois - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 1:23 pm:
“I don’t understand the ban on gun shops though. People are going to buy them. We may as well get the tax revenue.”
Skeeter you make a good point! Allowing gun shops is more sales tax revenue for the city!.
- Mike Ins - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 1:30 pm:
One Man:
We’ll see how the ordinance is written tomorrow I suppose, but I can tell you that if you drove through Chicago or Oak Park prior to the Supreme Court’s decision with an unloaded handgun in the trunk of your car (or an unregistered long-gun), yes, you would indeed be breaking the law and subject to whatever may come your way.
I believe years ago this very point was challenged, arguing it was a local restriction on interstate commerce (federal control) to ban someone driving through Chicago on 90/94 from traveling with a legal (legal in their home jurisdiction and destination jurisdiction) firearm, etc. etc.
So - at least theoretically - they could attempt that again, and probably will. Who knows…
I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong on the above.
- Amalia - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 1:32 pm:
surprisingly reasonable.
what about those who already have weapons registered? will they have to go through training even though they already
have their weapons?
did they get rid of the annual registration requirement?
- Amalia - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 1:41 pm:
ok, still have the questions after reading the press release.
also, the two tiered thing, the $100 every three years to own
a handgun, not reasonable. Heller and McDonald did not
create two different levels for guns that are legal. and $100
is a high price for a fundamental right. you get to pick
the method if legal, not pay more for one over another.
defining some assault weapons as ok is weird. i know what
they mean, but it’s weird.
still, on the whole, reasonable.
- Mike Ins - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 1:52 pm:
… according to the press release firing ranges are banned in the city (except for law enforcement)… yet elsewhere it requires citizens in order to receive a permit to have hours of training on a firing range…
Either the training will be mandatory at police fire ranges OR residents will be forced to go outside the city, if it is as it appears based on the press release.
… that sort of thing is the “game-playing” that was rampant in the 1982 ordinance, even outside of the handgun ban. These sorts of built-in catch-22 situations where one must do or prove X to be issued permit Y, but X is elsewhere illegal or banned or extremely dificult.
The regs, if absent of game-playing, seem reasonable to me. I actually love the training aspect. With rights come duties, and a trained populace with respect for their firearm is welcome for me.
Of course, as stated above, it’s irrelevant for those shooting each other on the streets.
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 1:52 pm:
And it’s back to the SCOTUS we go…
- Say WHAT? - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 1:58 pm:
I cannot help but wonder what the administration gets by keeping law abiding citizens from arming themselves (by making it nearly impossible to do so) Other than the obvious political and financial support from anti-gun lobby. How do they benefit from this? They have to get something out of it.
If you jump through all of Chicago’s hoops, you still can only protect yourself INSIDE of your home? Okay, criminals are smart enough to wait til you get outside to attack. Unbelievable!
- fed up - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 1:58 pm:
these seem pretty reasonable to me. No fan of Daleys I expected him to have some crazy requirments. Now lets see what the regestration process is like. I could see Daley having the gun regestration office open 1 day a week in the am only 4 form of ID required cash only. then privatize gun regestration and let his nephew run it.
- Mike Ins - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 2:03 pm:
Say WHAT? @ 1:58 pm:
I am not sure what you are getting at… Illinois does not have open carry nor does it have concealed carry, so whether you are in Cairo or Chicago, Decatur or Galena, Peoria or Pilsen, you cannot protect yourself with a firearm outside the home.
I’m not following…?
- Skirmisher - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 2:46 pm:
I’m kind of curious as to how His Honor defines the term “assault rifle”. Some former “assault rifle” bans were so carelessly written as to include even the old 19th century style lever-action rifles. Most Americans cannot now own a true “assault rifle” (Capable of fully automatic fire) without a federal Class 3 license, anyhow. Sounds to me as if the City is setting itself up to lose another lawsuit.
- HW - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 3:12 pm:
It goes without saying that Daley will need to be forced by the courts to stop denying the constitutional rights of others.
It is a shame that there are no legal consequences that might come against him directly and personally to punish him for these attempts to oppose in spirit the ruling of the SCOTUS.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 3:15 pm:
HW,
Which of the proposals has you so outraged? They also seem pretty rational, and the package as a whole seems designed to appear rational.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 3:19 pm:
To expand on that last comment — I’ve been very critical of Mayor Daley for the gun ban and several related issues.
However, this proposal seems like a political master move. When Todd and the ILNRA goes up in arms over this (as they will) it will make them seem either extreme or ridiculous. There is nothing here that appears to be overly onerous.
- Conservative Veteran - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 3:23 pm:
We don’t need open carry or conceal carry laws. Because of the 2nd Amendment, all law-abiding Americans know that they can carry guns, to defend themselves.
- Mike Ins - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 3:28 pm:
Skeeter -
Agreed for the most part - but to be fair, we’ve seen a press-release thus far, not the ordinance… and not how the ordinance will actually be enforced.
… I bet the 1982 ordinance press-release looked pretty good and reasonable too. Ya know?
But I agree with you - if it is legit and as it looks on the press release, actually seems reasonable for the middle of the bell-curve.
- rick - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 8:01 pm:
Now its time for a citizen of chicago to hold Daley financially responsible for the denial of their civil rights. Maybe bankrupting him will put a stop to Daley’s insanity.
- Enemy of the State - Thursday, Jul 1, 10 @ 8:26 pm:
What is the ILNRA?
- How Ironic - Friday, Jul 2, 10 @ 8:24 am:
ILNRA is the Illinois National Rifle Association. It’s the Illinois arm of the the NRA.