134 Comments - Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 10:19 am: I wonder how much Chicago spent on legal fees defending the recently SCOTUS overturned ordinance. As you can see, we’re headed to SCOTUS again, and the costs will be duplicated. Since I think SCOTUS will overturn the new ordinance, I wonder if the Chicago taxpayers will be again overjoyed defending Daley’s overreach. - Nieva - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 10:20 am: I make this comparison, If Chicago attempted to make it’s own rules for the First Amendment as it has for the Second The press would be screaming bloody murder! I understand the problems that Chicago has with gun violence,on the other hand The Mayor needs to understand that people that jump through the hoops already in place to be allowed to own a firearm are not the ones he needs to worry about. Maybe Chicago needs to handle gun violence the way Southern Illinois handled the problem with Meth. Let the Feds do the prosecuting and send them to federal prison for extended stays! - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 10:25 am: The Supremes telegraphed their decision long ago, so both sides were ready to go. - Reformer - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 10:25 am: Citizens under 21 may not purchase handguns. In trying to permit teens to own firearms without parental consent, the gun lobby is trying to repeal a long-standing gun restriction. Attempts to pass bills to this effect have always failed in Springfield. - Steve - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 10:31 am: Alderman Ed Burke must be happy. He’s the guy that will decide if the Corporation Counsel’s office has the expertise to defend this law suit. Politically connected law firms can defend the city of Chicago and rake up a bill legal bill. It’s not Alderman Burke’s money he’s handing out. So, this will probably become a big legal bill. Mayor Daley could care less, he’s got his paycheck. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 10:31 am: What we are seeing here is what happens when citizens lose faith in their government’s ability to protect them. We live in a society of traditions and laws, one of which is the right to protect yourself. It is a basic law. The Founders recognized this basic right and created a limit to which a government can deny that right through the use of fire arms. As citizens witness rampant lawlessness around them, they expect that the structural law enforcement and legal system to step in to end it. They do not expect the structural law enforcement and legal system to step in to end their basic right of self protection. Who are the criminals here? What is the reasoning behind these gun laws? There is a theory that a government can demilitarize a region and lessen gun fire deaths, yet after 28 years of banning handguns within the Chicago city limits, we are seeing an increase in gun deaths, which demonstrate clearly the failure of this theory. Americans are not lemmings. When things need to be done, and our social structure fails to do them, Americans have traditionally stepped in. Unlike other societies, Americans are empowered to do this. We are a culture of citizens with rights that cannot be taken by our governments. Among those basic human rights, is the right of self protection. As long as Chicago city government fails, it’s citizens will step in. They do this already without the aid of handguns through other civic methods to reduce crime. As it’s gun deaths increase, there is a recognition among Chicagoans that they must take their own personal protection into their own hands. Yes, this is the admission of a failure of government. Yes, this is the admission of a failure with our society. On the other hand we must recognize that it is also the exercise of an empowered people willing to take charge in a hopeless situation that has been worsening annually to this point. It is wrong for the City to demand a total monopoly on crime prevention and personal safety when it clearly fails to provide either. Instead the City should recognize the harsh light of reality within it’s city limits, and work with it’s empowered citizens to make Chicago a safer place to live. When governments fail to provide, it is right and proper for it’s citizens to exercise their rights. As soon as the government starts to provide the safety needed, then it’s citizens will see that they no longer need to take on that level of personal safety. This is how it has always been done, and we have a long record of success when we handle each crisis in this way. - bored now - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 10:48 am: Cincinnatus: i’m sure that the taxpayers of chicago will gladly pay whatever it takes to prevent the city from becoming the o.k. corral. gladly. the scotus has made chicago unsafe, and daley is fighting to protect its residents. - The Doc - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 10:53 am: ==Since I think SCOTUS will overturn the new ordinance== If you have particular and credible insight as to how the Supremes (if and when it gets that far) will rule, please share. My broader concerns are that a) Daley and his minions crafted this ordinance in secret, so we have no idea who outside the administration was involved in lending their expertise, and b) the city council unanimously approved the ordinance within a day or two of having first laid eyes on it. The city has known for several months that the ban would likely be struck down, and still seems to have been unprepared to respond. And while one could argue that any statute limiting gun ownership would have been challenged regardless of its restrictions, it appears as if Daley is shooting for the moon rather than considering, perhaps, a more modest package. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 10:54 am: VM, It’s warm enough today without you adding all that hot air. You could have just wrote your 6th paragraph and spared us your philosophy lesson. - Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 10:57 am: - bored now - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 10:48 am: “Cincinnatus: i’m sure that the taxpayers of chicago will gladly pay whatever it takes to prevent the city from becoming the o.k. corral. gladly. the scotus has made chicago unsafe, and daley is fighting to protect its residents.” Please site a source for your claims that Chicago (or any other jurisdiction) has seen an increase in safety as a result of restrictive gun rules. - nick - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 10:57 am: VanillaMan-I rarely agree with your comments,but your post today is absolutely spot on.Very well said.Our institutions have failed, causing a considerable lack of confidence and security that won’t easily be remedied. - shore - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 11:01 am: what’s the cost of the cities legal bills for this whole charade? - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 11:16 am: “Nieva - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 10:20 am: I make this comparison, If Chicago attempted to make it’s own rules for the First Amendment as it has for the Second The press would be screaming bloody murder!” Hate to bring reality into this Nieva, but Chicago has many laws that impact the First Amendment. The onethat comes to mind first is the regaulation of noise levels and street musicians. Neither the first or second is absolute. - Amalia - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 11:43 am: have not yet read the lawsuit itself, but if the stories hit the main points, the part about the cost for registration, and the per gun costs are not there. I thought the better course for the NRA types would be to point out that the Chicago ordinance creates two classifications of guns, hand and other, which is not supported by Heller and McDonald. Also, I thought that you could have more than one gun at a time, just not bringing in more than one handgun at a time. so have at shotguns, which are more useful. on the assembled and operable part, I’m totally with that. it reads that the City expects that you will only have one gun in one piece and therefore ready to go. that is not reasonable. - grand old partisan - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 11:49 am: bored now – your fears are completely at odds with the experiences of other cities. The murder rate in Washington DC actually dropped 23% the year after their gun ban was repealed. What factors lead you to conclude that Chicago would see the opposite? - Mike Ins - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 11:58 am: If you call the Chicago gun registration desk and ask for the new forms to get the CFD card and how to register your guns, you will be told they are “hoping” to have some forms by next Monday, but they really dont know as they havent been told anything… … and of course, the classic catch-22, the new ordinance grants the city up to 120 days to respond to applications on the CFD (which is needed PRIOR to registering individual firearms)… but if you dont apply for your individual gun registration within 90 days, you’ve missed your chance… … so, to summarize, the city can wait to day 120 to grant your CFD, but if you dont have the CFD in hand and your firearm registered within 90 days, sorry, cannot register it. Hmmmm. Hmmmm. Game playing. … oh, and try asking the registration desk exactly whom or what qualifies as a “state certified firearm instructor”… … legally I dont know how it will play out, but on the ground level, it will be a total mess again, of course. - Todd - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 12:55 pm: Reformer “Citizens under 21 may not purchase handguns. In trying to permit teens to own firearms without parental consent, the gun lobby is trying to repeal a long-standing gun restriction. Attempts to pass bills to this effect have always failed in Springfield” The speaker wouldn’t let the bill get called for vote this year. We can pass it if we get it to a vote. You can’t strip adults of their right to own a firearm. they can vote, they can get married, they can sign contracts and join the military. If we get a straight up or down vote on the bill we can pass it. And your use of teens is suspect as we are talking about those 18 or 19 as in adults. Not 13 or 15 — adults who are recognised by law as having rights to make their own decsisions - Melancton Smith - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 12:56 pm: I was present in the Police and Fire Committee meetings and the Full Council meeting that passed the ordinance. I was greatly dismayed during the committee meetings to find out how ignorant the Aldermen were of their own existing ordinances as well as what is already covered by State and Federal law. Also they were adamant about finding a way to keep people from opening gun ranges in the City but also adamant about having a training requirement. Dichotomy? Question: Can the City or State encroach upon Federal gun control laws? Isn’t there a new high profile lawsuit regarding such violations of Supremacy? - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 12:58 pm: Nice to see Todd stand strongly for the rights of 18 and 19 year olds to have guns, since in Chicago, young males with guns do not present any problems at all. - Bud - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 12:59 pm: With Monday, June 28’s Supreme Court decision that the Second Amendment of the United States does apply to the states and the municipalities, Illinois is now just one governor and one mayor away from being a free and democratic society. Mayor Daley’s long-standing draconian rules against the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms are now history. But are they? Daley already announced, prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, that he was ready to introduce new restrictive guns laws to apply by ordinance to the residents of Chicago. Could it be that Daley always knew that the handgun banning ordinance was unconstitutional? It gives one pause. Daley wasn’t the mayor of Chicago when the ordinance was passed in 1982, Jane Byrne was. When elected to office, she had been a member of the first Mayor Daley’s cabal, and Richard M. Daley was then the state’s attorney of Cook County. As state’s attorney, Daley could have stopped the ordinance if it wasn’t legal, couldn’t he? In 1969, when the Illinois Constitution was written, it included an amended paraphrasing of the U.S. Second Amendment. The new Illinois Constitution read, “the right to keep and bear arms, subject to the police power, shall not be infringed.” Those extra words allowed prohibitive bans of firearms and also forced Illinois residents to apply for a “Firearms Owners Identification Card” before being allowed to purchase firearms or ammunition. Guess who was a delegate to that convention? Richard M. Daley, now mayor of Chicago. It is obvious that Mayor Daley could care less about citizens’ constitutional rights. He feels his absolute control of Chicago is more important because the safety of the citizens is more important. He refuses to acknowledge that in every state of the onion where firearms are permitted to be owned and even carried by law-abiding citizens, the crime rates has fallen. That’s because their citizens are not defenseless victims like the citizens of Chicago, and — to a lesser extent — the citizens of Illinois. Chicago has had a total ban of handguns since 1982. Three Chicagoans were killed last weekend, another 29 wounded. As residents of Chicago, none of them had the right to self defense. How’s that gun ban working for you, Mayor Daley? - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 1:02 pm: Here’s a question I’d like to see answered by all you gun rights folks: How many of those shooting victims would’ve qualified for a gun license, even in another state? - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 1:09 pm: Along with Rich’s question, I would like to know the thoughts of the “more guns” people on the fact that most of the shootings occur in gang-heavy areas, where it is pretty likely that both offender and victim were armed. The idea that more guns equals more safety sure does not seem to apply in Englewood. - Melancton Smith - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 1:12 pm: Rich, Isn’t it worth it if it saves one life? Seriously though, that is hard to say. Shooting a gun isn’t all that difficult…it is basically a point and click interface. We just had a case of an 80-yr-old man use his handgun to save his family from who knows what. Sure he was a Korean War Veteran, but plenty of other elderly and/or disabled people have learned to use a firearm for self-defense. It doesn’t make sense to prevent one qualified person from saving their life and/or the lives of their family members just because others can not or will not do the same. - Melancton Smith - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 1:14 pm: Skeeter, we could isolate the violence problems in Chicago more accurately than by age using some other demographic information. That would be both morally and ethically wrong. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 1:18 pm: No, Smith, I’m pretty comfortable with the idea that young males commit a disproportionate share of crimes. That seems to be beyond any doubt. There is nothing moral or ethical wrong about it, any more than it is morally or ethically wrong to say “The sun rises in the east.” Merely stating facts. That being said, I continue to view it as odd that Todd and ILNRA wants to uy - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 1:19 pm: Computer error. The last line should read: That being said, I continue to view it as odd that Todd and ILNRA wants to put more guns in the hands of young people, as they seem least able to handle them responsibly. - Melancton Smith - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 1:23 pm: Skeeter, I find your conjecture on the motives of Todd and the NRA to be highly offensive. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 1:26 pm: Smith, there is no “conjecture.” Read Todd’s post. He wants more guns in the hands of 18 and 19 year olds. Am I missreading his note? That sure seems what the last line seems to say. If you don’t want 18 and 19 year olds to have more guns, tell Todd. Don’t insult me though. I didn’t tell Todd to support more guns for young people. - Bud - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 1:30 pm: The asrmed 18 yearold American teenagers in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be doing just fine. If they’re old enough tovote and get drafted why aren’t they old enough to enjoy full protection under the US Constitution. Can’t have it both ways. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 1:31 pm: Bud, how many hours of training do those young men and women get? - dupage dan - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 1:32 pm: While I agree with what VM said for the most part I would not agree with the characterization that any particular law enforcement agency has failed in their duty to protect the folk. I would, instead, say that no law enforcement agency can provide the kind of body guard protection that would be required to make people feel as tho they are getting the help they need especially in some of the more dangerous neighborhoods of the cities. It is important to note that the job of law enforcement is not necessarily to protect individuals from specific criminal acts, rather, it is the job of law enforcement to protect a community thru vigourous apprehension of those who are suspected of committing a crime and collecting evidence to prosecute the crime. I do not assume that any law enforcement agency can predict that any particular person will commit a crime and somehow prevent the crime. I do not expect that any law enforcement agency will be parked outside my home 24 hours a day to make sure that no one will try to commit a crime in my home. That is what the gun is for. My gun. So, I don’t agree with the idea that any particular law enforcement agency has failed because they weren’t able to be there immediately if the bad guy is breaking into my home. That’s my job. If I choose to not own a firearm in order to protect myself and will await the arrival of law enforcement to protect me, so be it. I choose the former, thank you. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 1:32 pm: Interesting point, Bud. Do you think that those 18 year olds received any training before they were allowed to use their weaapons? You know, training of the sort that the ILNRA believes is unconstitutional? - Melancton Smith - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 1:34 pm: Sorry, I read your comment to imply that he wants them to have the guns *because* they are least able to handle them responsibly. I fail to see why an 18yr-old without parents or guardian to sign off doesn’t have the right to defend themselves. A noted Con-Law professor agrees with me. http://volokh.com/posts/1229729947.shtml - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 1:36 pm: Smith, I don’t think he cares. If he did, he would do something to get guns out of the hands of gangbangers. Instead, his response is “arm everybody” and we can see how that solution works in Englewood. - dupage dan - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 1:39 pm: I am somewhat concerned about the use of the training for persons to own a firearm. I fear it will be used as some type of barrier to ownership for those who can’t afford the cost of the training session. Reminds me somewhat of the pol tax or citizen test that some required before some folk could vote. How many folk in a low income/high crime area can afford the time and effort necessary to complete the training course especially since the law also seeks to prevent the establishment of any gun shops, which is where most gun training takes place. It smacks of the same kind of elitism that led to the banning of the firearms in the first place. I know I had said I thought that training would be appropriate in a post from a week or so ago but I was thinking more along the lines of concealed carry rather than simple ownership. I think training is a good idea (as does the NRA, BTW) but making it mandatory troubles me for the aforementioned reasons. BTW, what prevents someone who didn’t purchase the gun and has not completed the training course from picking up the gun when the bad guy breaks in and uses same to protect himself. Do you really think the SA will prosecute that victim for not having completed the training course? Unenforceable, just like the SCOTUS said. - Melancton Smith - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 1:46 pm: Skeeter, that is where you cross the line to offensive. Todd is a decent human being. Rich, I don’t know if requiring training will be upheld. I certainly favor voluntary training. Most gunners I know train more than cops and probably most military. I do think Chicago can’t be allowed to require training and simultaneously ban training facilities from city limits. For many that will be a de facto ban and also it doesn’t serve the public interest. More training available is a net good thing. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 1:46 pm: How many of those shooting victims would’ve qualified for a gun license, even in another state? What if people advocated car ownership to reduce the number of fatal pedestrian accidents? Instead of crossing a street on foot and being hit by a car, these people could have driven across and be saved when the car struck them. Then you countered by asking how many of the fatal pedestrian victims were old enough to drive, in order to counter that argument. Or boat advocates tell us that there would be fewer drownings if everyone owned a boat. These are weak arguments. That isn’t what rights are all about anyway. Does a government have a right to deprive it’s citizens of their basic freedom of self-protection? No. Especially in the US. We specifically say it within our constitution. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 1:50 pm: Now I could be an atheist, but still support Freedom of Religion. I could be illiterate, but support Freedom of the Press. I could be mute, but support Freedom of Speech. The fact that I am not capable of utilizing that freedom, doesn’t mean it isn’t vital to an individual’s life. The fact that I may not exercise some of those rights, doesn’t diminish them. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 1:52 pm: So, to those demanding that gun right advocates justify the need for guns is going at this backwards. Gun control advocates need to tell us why a government should deny us our most basic freedom of life and liberty. - grand old partisan - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 1:56 pm: To answer your question Rich: I don’t know how many of them would have qualified for gun ownership, but I don’t think it’s relevant. Maybe it’s none of them. But if so, why should that affect my ability to exercise my individual rights as a law abiding citizen? It seems to me that your question is asked as a rebuke to an argument that no one is actually making: that every shooting in Chicago can and will be prevented by increasing gun rights. Earlier today I did reference the fact that DC saw a drop in its murder rate after Heller. But I said it was a 23% drop, not 100%. The tragic fact is that gun violence is going to be a part of daily life for some people in some communities, whether guns are banned or legally available to qualified owners. Unless you can demonstrate that there is a high likelihood that increased gun rights for law abiding citizens will worsen that reality, there is no moral justification for infringing on those rights. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 1:56 pm: Smith, you can come with any conclusions you want regarding Todd’s character. I’ve never met him in person. I can’t say. All I know is that if he has his way there will be more guns in Englewood, and likely, the situation in Englewood will expand to other areas. He’s clear that he wants young people to have more guns, and more guns generally. I’m not judging his character for taking those views. If you judge his for that, raise it with him, since I don’t care. Nothing here is personal. And VMan, can’t we all stop with this absurd idea that the 2nd Amendment is without limits? - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 1:58 pm: “Gun control advocates need to tell us why a government should deny us our most basic freedom of life and liberty” Because without reasonable restrictions, a lot of people die. How’s that? - Ghost - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 1:59 pm: To add to Riche’s question: how many drive by shootings and gun deaths have been stopped in LA by allowing handguns and conceal carry VM has a point, our founding fathers reconized the right to own as many black powder muzzle loading weapons as you wished. - Melancton Smith - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 2:02 pm: grand old partisan wrote: “Unless you can demonstrate that there is a high likelihood that increased gun rights for law abiding citizens will worsen that reality, there is no moral justification for infringing on those rights.” Not true. Even if you can’t violate the core right protected by Heller and McDonald any more than you can put up road blocks and search residents coming into and out of certain neighborhoods. - grand old partisan - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 2:03 pm: Skeeter: (a) A lot of people were dying when there was a complete ban. (b) NO ONE is talking about repealing any and all restrictions on gun rights (as far as I can tell). The debate is about what restrictions are reasonable. That’s a fair question that deserves a debate based on facts and principles, not unfounded fears, conjecture and prejudice. - Melancton Smith - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 2:04 pm: Ghost…please. That dog won’t hunt. We don’t limit ‘Freedom of the Press’ to broadsides. - dupage dan - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 2:18 pm: Ghost, =To add to Riche’s question: how many drive by shootings and gun deaths have been stopped in LA by allowing handguns and conceal carry = Read John L Lott Jr’s book, “More Guns, Less Crime” for statistical analyses of what happens when more guns enter a community. Interesting stuff. - Gene - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 2:27 pm: A few posters seem to believe that eliminating the possibility of 18/21 yr olds from buying guns would eliminate the shootings by that age group. “Nice to see Todd stand strongly for the rights of 18 and 19 year olds to have guns, since in Chicago, young males with guns do not present any problems at all.” Guns in Chicago are banned now, are they not? Does anyone really believe that a law/code preventing 18/19 yr olds from purchasing handguns would have kept said handguns out of the hands of those 18/19 yr olds presently doing the shooting? Dream on, friend! - Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 2:31 pm: Ahh.. isn’t a factor that if one law abiding person can defend himself that is important, especially when weighed against the use of guns illegally by the lawless. Chicago’s and others bans restrict the individual law abiding citizen with an argument that the lawless criminal will not continue his lawless behavior if the ban is in place. I fail to see the logic. There are ABSOLUTELY NO DATA to link lawful gun ownership and increased crime by the illegal use of guns. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 2:35 pm: Gene, It would be helpful to the debate if you would respond to what people actually wrote. You quote me, but then you add a strange conclusion. I never said “eliminate.” That’s your word. In fact, I never praised the gun ban. In fact, I have consistently taken the view that a gun ban that does not go beyond the borders of any city is destined to fail. Todd, however, does want to get more guns into the hands of young people. He said so. The restrictions in the Chicago gun ordinace regarding the access to guns by youth does not amount to a ban. - Gene - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 2:37 pm: Skeeter: IMO a ban or restriction that isn’t working is unreasonable. So, I have to ask, are you suggesting the present Chicago gun bans are unreasonable restrictions? That’s the way I interpret it, as they certainly aren’t working! So, what would be reasonable ones THAT WOULD WORK; that is, bans that would keep firearms out of the hands of criminals?? - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 2:40 pm: Gene, These restrictions are brand new. They have not yet been implemented. How can you say they are not working? - How Ironic - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 2:44 pm: @- Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 1:36 pm: Smith, I don’t think he cares. If he did, he would do something to get guns out of the hands of gangbangers. ************************************************** Skeeter, this is the most inane, idiotic posting I’ve seen in quite some time. Neither Todd, nor I, nor any other supporter of ‘gun rights’ supports gangbangers usage of firearms. Secondly, when you say ‘do something’ about the gangbangers having guns…what exactly are you proposing? I’ve never read a lede in the newspaper that started with “A lawabiding legal aged citizen carrying his FOID card hosed down a crowd of children in a shocking drive by”. They normally are “A suspected gang member shot and killed 2 people in a driveby”. Try not to confuse your histronics with actual facts. ‘Gangbangers’ already can’t own firearms. Don’t you get it? The lawbreakers are doing just that. Breaking the law. Do you really think they are swayed by the ‘new’ regulations in Chicago? They don’t get FOID cards. They don’t get background checks. They don’t care that it’s illegal. More laws are NOT going to change that. And give up the ‘OK Corral’ and ‘Wild West’ analogies. They have been disproven over and over. It only makes you appear even less knowledgeable. No city/state that has passed either open carry OR conceal carry has had a ’shootout’ that you fear. Nor are the streets running red. Curiously though…it appears that Chicagos are. And they have the most stringent rules. Odd isn’t it? - Gene - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 2:49 pm: Skeeter: Nowhere in the paragraph that included the word, “eliminating” did I use your name. I wrote, “A few posters…” …and instead of your choice of words, “young people,” “youth,” how ’bout, “young adults”; unless, of course, you want to use the VPC concept of “children,” which would include up to 24 yrs of age! But that’s BTP. The point is, that no ban, city-wide, county-wide, state-wide, nation-wide, world-wide, will keep guns from the folks that would use them to willfully do harm to others! - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 2:52 pm: “Skeeter, this is the most inane, idiotic posting I’ve seen in quite some time. Neither Todd, nor I, nor any other supporter of ‘gun rights’ supports gangbangers usage of firearms. Ironically, I think you beat me on the “most idiotic” test. Please point out what steps Todd advocates to keep guns out of tehe hands of gangbanger. Don’t waste your time looking. He’s done nothing. He has opposed each and every regulation of guns, no matter how minor. His group even wants people on the terror watch lists to have guns. And with regard to your allegations regarding the Wild West — instead of just insulting me, why not address my issue? In Englewood, most have guns. Does that make the area safer? Does the fear of return fire seem to have stopped any of these gangbangers from firing? Yes, there are shootouts there. Yes, too often, the streets do run red. - Ghost - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 2:57 pm: Dupage Dan, read it, it mises a number of critical points and has many lawed data sets. People in different environments an social settings have different reasons and motives to ngage in violent acts. Gang violence usually does not occur becuase the gang members feel their victims are unarmed and easy prey. Just the opposite, many of the hardcore bangers assume they are going to be killed. They already expect armed resitance. On the first amendment broadside thing; that is a red herring. The first amendment was not created to protect my rights vis a vis attacking other private citizens. in fact speech against private citizens can subject you to all kinds of liability. It was created to prevent the governemtn from stopping me from speaking out against the govt. The second amendment was no created to protect and support private citizens shooting each other; it was created so that citizens could effectuate an armed overthrow of their govt. if it became corrupt. the ability to conceal weapons and carry them to fight with ourselves is not a constitutional right. - How Ironic - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 3:05 pm: @Skeeter 1. Todd hasn’t advocated against longstanding prohibitions of felons owning guns, the mentally ill or other federal rules. If the ‘gangbanger’ as you suggest has a felony record Todd (or any other gun owner) wouldn’t support their owning a firearm. Furthermore, you don’t seem to be able (or perhaps it’s a willingless to overlook the facts since they don’t support your blind zeal to skew the arguement to your favor) to understand that the SCOTUS didn’t rule in favor of either open carry OR conceal carry in Chicago. So drop the baloney about being able to suddenly own a gun and wave it around willy-nilly in Englewood. If a responsible, law abiding FOID card holding citizen wants to now own a firearm IN THEIR OWN HOME it’s been supported by SCOTUS. The people that are engaging in ILLEGAL possession/usage of a firearm in Englewood are still acting illegal. I’ve not seen a posting from Todd suggesting that those citizens that are currently breaking the law should be made legal. If he has, please post the date/time of his suggestion. 2. The topic of the ‘terror list’ is a red-herring. Perhaps you should start your own blog. Call it “Skeeters Blog of Red Herrings and Half-Truths”. Then you can engage in all sorts of conspiracy theories and subterfuge to promote your ideas. The fact is that Chicago has had a ‘Gun Ban’ for over 20 years. And the ban has done ZERO to alleviate the killings. All it has done is allowed the criminal element to operate with impunity since the legal-law abiding citizen isn’t given the opportunity to protect themselves. - Gene - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 3:05 pm: Skeeter wrote: “Please point out what steps Todd advocates to keep guns out of tehe hands of gangbanger.” He doesn’t. Now, figure out why! Oh, I’ll answer it for you: With all the restrictions placed on Chicago citizens to date, how successful have they been? Are you suggesting more would be “more” effective? - grand old partisan - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 3:06 pm: “And with regard to your allegations regarding the Wild West — instead of just insulting me, why not address my issue” Why don’t you do the same, skeeter. Washington DC saw a 23% reduction in it’s murder rate the year after their gun ban was enacted. How does that square with your argument?? - grand old partisan - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 3:07 pm: excuse me - that should have been “after their gun ban was repealed.” - dupage dan - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 3:11 pm: Ghost, =The second amendment was no created to protect and support private citizens shooting each other; it was created so that citizens could effectuate an armed overthrow of their govt. if it became corrupt.= =VM has a point, our founding fathers reconized the right to own as many black powder muzzle loading weapons as you wished. = Both comments from you on this one day. Do you propose that citizens be allowed only to have black powder muzzle loading weapons to fight against the tyranny of the modern federal gov’t? Your posts contradict each other and are, therefore, a waste of our time. - Melancton Smith - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 3:11 pm: Simple logic dictates that if a ban on 18-130 yr-olds didn’t work to prevent violent crime then a ban on 18-20 yr-olds won’t work either. Bad actors are going to commit crimes regardless. All gun prohibition does is create more defenseless victims. Had that 80-yr-old veteran not had a handgun who knows what the fate of he and his family would have been. Are they supposed to be sacrificial lambs in the aim for some gun-free utopia. If someone 21+ can own a handgun and someone under 21 with parent or guardian permission, it seems like there is a gap for ADULTS aged 18 to 20 who don’t have a parent or guardian to sign off. Their lives are worth as much as anyone elses. - Melancton Smith - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 3:13 pm: Ghost wrote: “On the first amendment broadside thing; that is a red herring. The first amendment was not created to protect my rights vis a vis attacking other private citizens. in fact speech against private citizens can subject you to all kinds of liability. It was created to prevent the governemtn from stopping me from speaking out against the govt. ” Attack? Now who’s tossing out red herrings. - dupage dan - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 3:14 pm: Ghost, Do you propose that personal firearms only be allowed to be used once the tyrannical federal gov’t tries to take over? Do you really believe that we are supposed to consider your argument seriously? How do you propose to enforce such a ridiculous law if such was enacted? Do you really think it would be supported by SCOTUS? You are way over your head here. Better to regroup at the grade school blog. - Reformer - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 3:14 pm: Todd’s logic in arguing for 18-20 year olds to own guns without parental consent leads to an 18-year old drinking age as well. Ditto for casino entrance, for driving a school bus, and for being a bartender — all of which currently require an age of 21 or older. - Skirmisher - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 3:14 pm: A few days ago, someone noted in a posting that the entire ordinance is a fraud because it requires time training on a firing range, and there are no firing ranges in the City where this training can take place. To my mind, this is a part of the ordinance that ought to be subject to legal attack. If the new ordinance were anythign other than a ban in sheep’s clothing, the same ordinance would have appropriated adequate funding to establish and staff adequate training range facilities within Chicago. The problem with this new ordinance is that it is blatantly an attempt by the Mayor and his administration to circumvent the law as interpretted by the Supreme Court and of-course it cries for legal challenge. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 3:16 pm: Ironic, Could you do me a favor? Could you point out where in the Chicago ordinance there is a complete ban on people owning weapons in their homes? That’s not in my copy of the ordinance. You keep rambling about a ban. THE NEW BILL IS NOT A BAN. Is that not clear? Regading Todd’s view — I’ve actually posed that question to him a number of times. He’s always refused to answer. Seriously, Ironic, do some reading and then post. - Gene - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 3:19 pm: Ghost: “The second amendment was no created to protect and support private citizens shooting each other; it was created so that citizens could effectuate an armed overthrow of their govt. if it became corrupt.” Heh! I reckon “shooting each other” is one way of putting it! If that refers to the Chicago gangbanger shootouts, I would agree with you; however, if your statement also refers to such as the 80 yr old man who was trying to protect his son, I have to disagree! - Gene - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 3:20 pm: Ghost: neglected to add: define, “private citizens”! - Todd - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 3:30 pm: Rich — the question was asked of a chicago police officer at committee — how many of the people you arrest have FOID cards? he could remember a single one. No in order to be able to buy a long gun, rifle or shotgun, you can’t be a felon, can’t have been adjudicated mentally deffective, can’t be addicted to drugs, no DV convictions and be over the age of 18. Thats the short form. Very few of the people doing the shooting are legit owners as to they coul dhave a rifle or shotgun, then go outside the city with their FOID and buy the guns or ammo. don’t see that happening. We know that 50& of the guns being picked up come from out of state. And to the question of training, I signed up for the Army when I was 18. I was old enough to make that decision including jumping out of airplanes, and I was old enough to own a rifle or shotgun. In the military we went through weeks of training. for rifles, machineguns, grenades, rockets, explosives and all kinds of neat stuff. Question is should someone have to pay 4 taxes and jump through all these hurdels to excercise a fundamental constitutional right? would you except 5 hours of “training” before a woman could get an abortion? how about a 4 month waiting period for editorials? how about a 5 hour class before you can register to vote. A class that isn’t help in the city so you have to travel to get to it. just as an 18, 19 or 20 year old have the right to vote, enlist, sign contracts, get married, buy a $50,000 truck or $250,000 house they have the right to own a firearm. - Todd - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 3:33 pm: Skeeter what did you want me to answer? - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 3:36 pm: Todd, Assume a clean slate. No gun restrictions of any sort on the books. Without regard to how the S.Ct. might rule, what restrictions, if any, would you support? - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 3:38 pm: Also, Todd, what constiutional rights are not fundamental? And where in the constitution do you find any sort of ranking of rights? - Todd - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 3:44 pm: If its things to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys, well…. I & NRA wrote the current straw purchase statute that is on the books. Making it a state crime to lie to a dealer in the purchase of a firearm. After rick Birdsong was killed I/NRA wrote and supported the bill to make it a state crime to be engaged in the business as a dealer without a license to go after those “unlicensed dealers” We were ok with Ira Silverstien’s prohibition on guns that look like cell phones the prohibition on minors with juve records is fine too as well as felons and the mentally ill. WE wrote the armor piercing ammo ban in Illinois and are ok with the junk gun law of 800 degrees. is that enough for you? - grand old partisan - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 3:46 pm: Skeeter - If I may offer an assist to Todd…. A fundamental right is one that is explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights. A non-fundamental right is one that is implied or assumed to be maintained under the 9th Amendment. - How Ironic - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 3:46 pm: @Ironic, Could you do me a favor? Could you point out where in the Chicago ordinance there is a complete ban on people owning weapons in their homes? That’s not in my copy of the ordinance. You keep rambling about a ban. THE NEW BILL IS NOT A BAN. Is that not clear? Seriously, Ironic, do some reading and then post. ************************************************* Perhaps you should brush up on your reading. 1. The Chicago gun ‘BAN’ was in fact a gun ‘BAN’. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35568 The city of Chicago’s ordinance states that no one may possess “any firearm unless such person is the holder of a valid registration certificate for such firearm.” Also, no one may possess “any firearm which is unregisterable.” The court brief for the respondents of the City of Chicago and Oak Park Village states that unregisterable firearms include “most handguns.” In other words, for the past 28 years…if your gun wasn’t ‘registered’ then it couldn’t be registered in Chicago. And if you couldn’t ‘register’ your gun…you couldn’t legally own the firearm. Hence the term ‘ban’. Again…read the ordinance. Or were you perhaps leafing through your copy of “Red Herrings And Half Truths” again? 2. The new ordinance is by design a ‘gun ban’ disguised as ‘reasonable’. There are requirements to have all of your paperwork complete in 90 days. However, by rule the city can sit on your request for 120 days. Thus, after 90 days your original request is deemed null and void and the process needs to start again. Also there is a requirement for ‘training’. Sounds reasonable right (I’m not against some training actually). HOWEVER there are ZERO public gun ranges in Chicago. Nor are there going to be gun dealers in Chicago to give this training. How does that work? Force people to leave the city to obtain training that’s required to obtain a firearm? Might as well close all the DMV’s in Chicago and make the population go to Aurora to get their drivers license. I suppose you would support that? And driving isn’t even a ‘right’ its a priviledge. For all intents and purposes the new ordinance is just as onerous as the last set of idiotic rules. And BTW the guns are to be kept in the home. You can’t even come on your porch or even go to your garage with the firearm. It is FORBIDDEN in the ordinance. Specifically. Have you read it? I thought not. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 3:52 pm: GOP, Interesting. Justice Alito does not seem to accept your argument though. He never drew that distinction. He also did not limit “fundamental rights” to those found in the constitution. For all we know, he views the right to drive 65 as fundamental. Todd, That’s a nice list, which boils down to: 1. No guns for minors with juve records, felons, or mentally ill; 2. No armor piercing ammo; 3. No guns that look like cell phones; and 4. You can’t lie about being a felon or mentally ill. 5. You note about regulating dealers, but you don’t support closing gun show loopholes, so the regulation of dealers not really serious on your part (and I assume you agree). Have I summarized that correctly? - Melancton Smith - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 3:53 pm: And a complete ban on murder. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 3:54 pm: How Ironic, Please try to follow. The current law does not include a ban. You are arguing claim that the current law is a ban. It isn’t. - Melancton Smith - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 3:59 pm: Skeeter wrote: “The current law does not include a ban. You are arguing claim that the current law is a ban. It isn’t.” Not true. It completely bans ownership by 18-20 year olds who don’t have a parent or guardian. May not matter to me or you, but it could be a life or death difference for them. - Amalia - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 4:03 pm: Todd, we’d like you and the NRA to be for more money and resources for the ATF and that they and police can keep and check records to find information on the bad guys. Those terrorist checklists? stop protesting against them. work with the governments against the terrorsists who love the ease of buying firearms in the USA. - Mike Ins - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 4:05 pm: Skeeter: I agree it’s not a “ban” per se, the concern is that it could de facto be a ban. My analogy: You have first amendment rights to blog to your hearts content BUT your computer keyboard must be approved by me and you must get training on how to type. Reasonable? If we stop there, yes. BUT… here are the other facts: You cannot train on a keyboard in your town b/c training is illegal here. And, you must register your keyboard within the next 90 days, but before you can register that keyboard, you must first get a “Keyboard Permit”. Just submit your application and we’ll get back to you in 120 days. What? You say how can you register your keyboard in 90 days if you are not allowed to until you get your permit and the clock is already run out…? Look - there are a number of arguments going on here. The legal arguments, the practical arguments, and semantics, but I think part of the issue is we are all looking at this from different viewpoints. If we were at a bar, my friend (and anyone posting here and reading here, I’d absolutely buy you a beer and listen), and I respect different points-of-view, and I dont have my mind made up on what is the “reasonable” line myself. I am open…. BUT let’s call a spade a spade. The aforementioned keyboard analogy - ok, it’s not a ban, per se, but it goes beyond making it administratively dificult for some, it makes it prohibitive. And that’s probably the point, admittedly. Shrug. - How Ironic - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 4:05 pm: - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 3:54 pm: How Ironic, Please try to follow. The current law does not include a ban. You are arguing claim that the current law is a ban. It isn’t. ************************************************* On paper Skeeter. It’s not a ‘ban’ in the sense that after following onerous ‘registration’ requirments you may own a firearm in your home. This is of course assuming the City isn’t going to hold your registration form for 91 days (this requiring you to once again register…for a new fee) since they are allowed by ordinance to hold them for 120 days (but the citizen is required to have them completed in 90 days…how’s that work). Assuming you actually get your paperwork back in time, don’t forget that you need to get in some range practice AND training. Neither of which is available in the City. And don’t forget that you cannot take your firearm outside, even on your porch or garage. Yeah…Chicago is WIDE open for legal gunowners. - grand old partisan - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 4:07 pm: For pete’s sake, Skeeter. Todd answered a direct question of yours with a direct answer. You seem to disagree with his opinion. Fine, fair enough. But he proved that you were wrong to assume that he supports zero restrictions. And he did imply that what he provided was not an exhaustive list. So quit badgering him for a moment and answer some of the direct questions that people have asked you for once! Maybe you can start with: how do you explain the fact that DC saw a significant drop in it’s murder rate in the year after their ban was lifted? - dupage dan - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 4:10 pm: Well, Skeeter, I guess Todd did answer your question. There you have it. You may not like his answer but there it is. BTW, Todd has articulated that position more than once on this blog and elsewhere. Perhaps you weren’t paying attention. That the current law is not plainly a “ban” per se, it amounts to one. Can you imagine that elderly woman who uses a walker and has folk bring her groceries since it takes 2 bus rides and most of the day to get to a grocery store that isn’t an overpriced liquor store with a few boxes of macaroni and cheese? Can you imagine her being forced to travel to Lyons (the nearest gun store/training facility I could find) to take a one day training course (about $85 including ammo)on her fixed income? That is the person I would think would have a great need for personal protection, don’t you agree? Public transportation from inner city Chicago to that facility is tough, sir. Another facility is outside of Aurora, even farther away. Since the city has determined there will be no gun shops within city limits that amounts to a defacto ban on the weapons. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 4:19 pm: I think his list was exhaustive. I thought that was the question and answer. With regard to D.C. — you got me. Maybe everyone ignored the old ban. Maybe nobody bought one. Maybe economic conditions changed. Maybe police started enforcing other gun regulations. Could be lots of stuff. However, I do know what happens when you have an urban enviromnent with poverty and lots of guns. It is called “Englewood.” - Mike Ins - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 4:19 pm: To me the media has the ordinance and the press release and the “bullet points” (haha, I’m so punny!) are (1) registration process; (2) some nominal-ish fees (about the same as vehicle plate stickers); (3) some training; (4) some attempt to limit straw purchasing (one registration per month); and (5) certain classes of people and certain classes of weapons (but not handguns) are not available. On paper, the bullet points look pretty reasonable for probably the middle 75 % of the Chicago-area bell curve of humans. Not perfect, but probably reasonable-ish. Those are the bullet points. The actual ordinance, beyond the bullet points, beyond the headlines, for those of us who will actually apply, is a bit more burdensome. Fine, you say, it’s dangerous, it should be burdensome. Ok, I can even buy that. Really, I can. Others cannot, I can. … but it’s beyond burdensome, it requires acts to be completed in “catch-22″ time frames, it requires training that is outlawed (alot of city dwellers rely on public transportation and cannot just jump in the car to head to a training range in Ottawa, Aurora, etc). So that’s my issue - it allows for “game-playing”… and in my experience giving the City the ability to play games… ummm… ’nuff said. - soundguy - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 4:27 pm: The gun laws of Chicago should be identical to those of the state of Illinois. Later… the gun laws of all states should be the same. I would choose Vermont as a model. I expect that until one of those two things happen, Chicago residents will continue to keep quiet about gun ownership and the City ordinances won’t really matter to most. - Reformer - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 4:28 pm: “just as an 18, 19 or 20 year old have the right to vote, enlist, sign contracts, get married, buy a $50,000 truck or $250,000 house they have the right to own a firearm.” They can’t buy a handgun under current law. Nor can they buy alcohol, enter a casino or drive a school bus. They also can’t get a CDL for interstate trucking. The fact is there is no one magic age signifying readiness for all adult responsibilities. Since 16-yr olds can drive, next we’ll hear they should be able to buy a handgun, too. - dupage dan - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 4:32 pm: So, Skeeter, you would condemn those law-abiding folk in Englewood the right to protect themselves because the neighborhood is filled with gang bangers and other, assorted, criminals? Perhaps we should wall in that particular neighborhood. Oh, wait a minute, isn’t that “Escape From New York”? Great movie if you like Kurt Russell and Adrienne Barbeau. But, we live in a real world. Englewood has been dangerous for years. And that is WITH the gun ban. All those gang bangers may not necessarily fear an armed public but that is not the point. An armed public can defend their LIVES and live to see another day. That little old lady can hold her grand baby in her arms. She doesn’t have to wait for an hour for the CPD to come to her home while she waits for the thugs to finish ransacking her home and terrorizing her. It is that scenario that Justice Thomas referred to in some of his remarks. That is the real world, not some discussion on a blog happening in the safety of your home or office. - Mike Ins - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 4:36 pm: Skeeter: If you personally lived in your oft mentioned Englewood with your spouse and family, and this is not a “gotcha”, would you want the ability to own a handgun? Assuming present conditions in Englewood. I understand and also wish there was less violence in Englewood (and my own Albany Park neighborhood!). That’s where all my legalistic and hypothetical arguments break down, personally. Hell yes I want one. Mock away about me being paranoid and what-not, but you cannot have it both ways, you cannot hold up Englewood as an out-of-control example of scary violence, and then mock me for being “nutty” about wanting to protect myself from you/others are describing as out-of-control scary! - Mike Ins - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 4:37 pm: I am sorry last, sentence should read: “… about wanting to protect myself from what you (or maybe others) are yourselves describing as a horribly scary and violent place”. - Mike Ins - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 4:42 pm: … in other words, you come out here to Albany Park and disarm those with firearms and I’ll gladly, extremely gladly, be happy to live firearm free as well. … until that happens, I deserve a chance to protect myself in my home. Thank you Supreme Court for that, and shame on you, City of Chicago, for playing games with that right. It’s easy to decry the violence in Englewood, who is for that? No one. No one wants that. So we dont live in a perfect world. Let’s give citizens a “fighting chance” in their own home, please. The guns cannot be made to disappear from Englewood any more than the government can make marijuana disappear (or alcohol in the 20’s, insert your ban of choice here). - grand old partisan - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 4:44 pm: Skeeter, Economic conditions in DC didn’t change and the idea that no one exercised their newfound right is just wrong. You are also wrong that everyone ignored the old ban – only criminals did that, law abiding citizens did not. You might, however, be on to something when it comes to the idea of “police enforcing other gun regulations.” Maybe because they didn’t have to enforce an ineffective complete ban they were now able to target the real threats to violence. But I don’t think even that explains the significant rate of decline. Funny, though, how you can’t even bring yourself to entertain the possibility that evidence that contradicts what you “know” should give you pause before reverting back to tired, worn out talking points. Yes, Englewood is dangerously violent. It was before the gun ban; it was during the gun ban; it will probably continue to be so after the gun ban. There is no reason to believe it will be more so, in fact there is evidence from similar urban centers that it might be less so. So how is Englewood relevant to the question of whether law abiding citizens should be allowed to exercise their right to gun ownership? - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 4:48 pm: Actually, Mike, because there are so many guns on the streets in Englewood, I would avoid living there. If that many guns were on the streets of Lincoln Park, I would avoid Lincoln Park. Those guns don’t make anybody safe. And GOP — are you really claiming tga - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 4:50 pm: Typo — GOP, are you really claiming that nothing else changed in that year? Ridiculous. I don’t have time for stupidity. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 4:56 pm: Take a momment and consider this – You have a tough day at the office, you come home and you find a pile of overdue bills. There’s a gun in the house . . . Stats are pretty clear that the presence of a gun in a house dramatically increases the incidence of suicide and domestic violence. - Mike Ins - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 4:57 pm: Skeeter: Totally agree - guns are a problem in Englewood (or wherever). But that’s a reality already, that ship has long since sailed, perhaps unfortunately. ANYONE rational with the ability to leave Englewood obviously would, be it b.c of the violence, or the schools, or what have you. I think that’s a given. But, let’s say your family did not have the economic ability to leave Englewood… I believe that to be the reality of many families already there. The Jeffersons “moved on up” as the intro song went. I guess my point is, some people are stuck in Englewood. They dont want to be there, but that’s reality. They are. Perhaps some of them want to have what they percieve as added protection. And it’s all fine and good to have a spirited debate about the meaning and role of government and what not, seriously, it is, or we wouldnt be here… but if you are in that environment what would you want, given that leaving is not an option? You cannot just wash your hands of it that easily and log-off. I think it’s totally reasonable to say “I still would not have a handgun, study X Y and Z show that it would be more likely to be used by a neighbor child and have an accident than ever save my family”. And that’s legit, I respect that. But some might come down elsewhere on that equation of if they wanted one, and “moving to Lincoln Park” isnt an option. - grand old partisan - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 4:58 pm: Skeeter –You claim that “an urban enviromnent with poverty and lots of guns” is the recipe for violence. DC became no less urban, nor less poor during the year after its gun ban was lifted and the number of guns in the District increased. And its murder rate went down by almost a quarter. How do you explain that?? You admit that you can’t, so better to just call me stupid and move on. Brilliant. Nice chatting with you today!! - Melancton Smith - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 4:58 pm: Reformer wrote: “They can’t buy a handgun under current law. Nor can they buy alcohol, enter a casino or drive a school bus. They also can’t get a CDL for interstate trucking. The fact is there is no one magic age signifying readiness for all adult responsibilities. Since 16-yr olds can drive, next we’ll hear they should be able to buy a handgun, too. ” Slippery slope much? As much as I like hoisting a brew now and then and drinking alcohol is near and dear to the American heart, I don’t think anyone has elevated drinking to a fundamental right. - Melancton Smith - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 5:02 pm: Skeeter said: “However, I do know what happens when you have an urban enviromnent with poverty and lots of guns. It is called ‘Englewood.’” Been there? I have. We have family living there. I kinda doubt you know much about the reality there. - dupage dan - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 5:03 pm: Bud, Folk like Skeeter and Ghost don’t want to address real life situations such as you describe. They hide behind tired talking points that don’t compare to the real world. The real world is that elderly gentleman who shot an intruder who entered his home while fleeing the police. That is such a real world story that the SA office declined to prosecute him. That just happened a few weeks ago. In a neighborhood much like Englewood. I bet if Skeeter found out how many folk are armed in the neighborhood where he lives he might want to consider moving to a place where he can live in peace. A place where no firearms are allowed. Like China. - dupage dan - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 5:05 pm: Good grief, Skeeter, too many bills and a gun nearby. Sounds like the population of the USA just went down by 150 mil. A ridiculous statement. Better ban tall buildings and sharp knives cause they can be used for suicide as well. Is this your logic? Is this what you are reduced to? Silly. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 5:05 pm: Mike, If I couldn’t leave, then I would want the police to get illegal guns off the streets. I would want strong regulations so that guns would get out of the hands of the bangers. I would be asking my alderman why he/she (not sure who has that ward) has failed to crack down on illegal weapons. Would I want one myself? Probably not. I know that the odds of it being used for my defense, as opposed to being stolen and then used against my family, are about the same. I don’t think it would make me any safer. Mike, let me also point out that I’ve never favored a complete ban. Under the ordinance passed Friday, I would be able to legally obtain one if I wanted. - Mike Ins - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 5:06 pm: I admit freely I have never been to Englewood, like Skeeter, I sensibly avoid to the extent I can, such violent places filled with illegal guns, poverty and drugs. I dont know squat about Englewood. I just feel that those people desperate to get out of Englewood, if they in fact exist, have the right to protect themselves in their homes without facing persecution by the City, if they so chose. I dont want to make the decision for them sitting in some less-violent place. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 5:10 pm: Thanks for the insults, Du Page. You might want to addres the issues though, rather than just raving. 1. Does the presence of a gun in the house increase the odds of suicide? 2. Does it increase the odds of domestic violence. The answer to both is affirmative. So take your “silly” and shove it all the way up to Du Page. - Mike Ins - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 5:11 pm: Skeeter and others - Ok, I’m out for the night. I think we’re probably closer in viewpoint than this chat would let on - honestly, I dont want a gun shop to open in my Albany Park neighborhood. Are you kidding me?! What can you say, I’m not “pure”, I can be contradictory. I’m on the slippery slope. I also think it is pretty easy to advocate for gun shops in the city when you live elsewhere. Oh - and - for the record, the racial description (color and dreds) in Bud’s post above made me uncomfortable, is that weird? Alright - have a goon one everyone… we’ll be back solving the state’s problems again tomorrow no doubt! - Melancton Smith - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 5:16 pm: Mike Ins, I live in Albany Park too. My daughter was robbed at by armed gang members on Lawrence Avenue. I think right next to the Admiral would be a good spot for a gun shop. Aso for Bud’s description, he used that because, IIRC, that was the description given for the still-at-large Lany Bryant murderer. - Gene - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 5:17 pm: Skeeter: “Stats are pretty clear that the presence of a gun in a house dramatically increases the incidence of suicide and domestic violence.” A statement that those with your inclination like to use, but completely false! It doesn’t complete the “incidence,” it only increases the chances of success! A firearm is a very efficient tool, for whatever purpose it’s used: to provide food, self defense, recreation, and yes, for the gang-banger/criminal; thing is, you can attempt to keep it out of the hands of all the friendly citizens, but it will still be the tool of choice and in the hands of those that would do harm to friendly citizens! - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 5:23 pm: And that’s a distinction that you believe SUPPORTS your position, Gene? You admit more people die by suicide when a gun is in the house (and there is also more domestic violence incidently) and you are happy about it? I think successful suicide and domestic violence are bad. Gene apparently disgrees. I guess we are not going to find any common ground. - Gene - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 5:28 pm: Need to add: No laws/bans have thus far succeeded in keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, why do you “assume” more of the same would? - smackdatskeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 5:28 pm: Skeeter how can there be soooo many guns ? chicago had a handgun ban for 28 years … i actually laffed out loud at the Skeeter comment about rough day and bills and handgun in the house what is next ? cars cause drunk drivers ? baseball bats cause assault ? no one is telling you that you have to have a gun put a sign in your yard - gun free resident…. - Melancton Smith - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 5:36 pm: Skeeter, you really like straw-man arguments and ad hominem attacks. - Gene - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 5:40 pm: Skeeter, you are very adept at spinning words. Anyone that can read understands that is not what I wrote. I did not in any way indicate that more people die by suicide when a gun is in the house. I stated very simply, that when a firearm is present, that’s the tool of choice. If it weren’t present, the job would get done by some other means. You are implying that if a firearm weren’t present, a person would not attempt to commit suicide, am I correct? Then, how do you explain those suicides where there was no firearm used? There IS a difference! To deny that those how used that tool would have completed the task with some other tool if a firearm weren’t present, is out of touch with reality! I make no bones about it being a very efficient tool. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 5:48 pm: Actually, Gene, the stats are pretty clear and undisputed. The job does not getone. This line (to the extent that I can figure it out) is just plain wrong: “To deny that those how used that tool would have completed the task with some other tool if a firearm weren’t present, is out of touch with reality!” Could they? Sure. Do they? No. That stats on this are clear — where there are guns in the house, suicide goes up. As does domestic violence. - Todd - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 5:52 pm: Skeeter — that was a short list of things we have supported or introduced. The gun show bill is a red hearing. Illinois has a FOID card requirement to own or purchase a firearm. What you and other argue about is regulating private sales — between two individuals who are not FFLs. WE don’t support additional regulation on such sales. And it is simply another attemtp to try and regulate gun sales as much as possible. Case in point — after the gun show bill passed in Illinois anti-gunner have spent the last couple years trying to regulate and ban all private sales. So everytime we give an inch, gun hating individuals want a mile. So we are not giving any more. We did try a compromise on gun shows in Illinois but the other side was not interested. So after that attempt, I’m better off not compromising and killing off all the regulations I can while now using a 2 SCOTHUS to roll back things we don’t like and think infringe upon the right. As for fundamental, I thinkt he bill of right is a good start. Trial by Jury, right to confront your accuser, the 5th, jury of peers, free speech — I disagree with McCain/feingold, freedom from search and seazure. And i do find a right to privacy in the 4th amendment. As well as supporting the 9th and the P or I clause of the 14th which I think was wrongly decided in slaughterhouse. I think that as technology changes rights evolve with them. eavesdropping is one along with no expectation of privacy in a public place. Not a complete list but space here is a bit limited. - Gene - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 5:53 pm: BTW, you might want to check out suicide rates per 100,000, comparing the U.S. with its millions of firearms, to the rest of the world…Japan, for instance, where firearms are banned! - Gene - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 6:05 pm: Skeeter: “Could they? Sure. Do they? No. That stats on this are clear — where there are guns in the house, suicide goes up. As does domestic violence.” I want you to document that statement: “Guns in the house cause suicide rates to go up” The presence of a firearm does not increase the rate! It merely provides a more convenient tool for success. I don’t deny that more suicides are committed in the U.S. with a firearm than by any other means, but for you to imply that those who used a firearm to do so would not have were a firearm not present is unrealistic! You want to compare the rate here with that in Japan, where firearms are banned? - Todd - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 6:12 pm: Skeeter — what would I support? Background check akin to a Terry stop. Once the form is filled out at the dealer and background check complete, off you go. I can go for a license to carry a handgun in public i.e. concealed/open carry. But it will be a reasonable standard. Training the laws of deadly force of about 2 hours and a range test. The court set the bar at the NFA which seems reasonable. Above it you can regulate it below it you can’t touch it with out a strict scrutiny test. And yes it is the Government’s burden of proof to prove that the regulation is the narrowest to address the problem, which must be meet a compelling governmental interest not just we think so. Restrictions by private property owners are ok, but if they ban RTC then they get all the liability if a person with a permit is harmed. I think a large number of the current federal laws and regs are fine, guns must have serial numbers and the markings of the manufacturer. Dealers must keep records. I’d limit it to 10 years. Background checks at point of retail sale. Knowingly delivering a firearm to a felon or other prohibited person is ok. Prohibition while on certain forms of bail/bond/probation After an OP with a showing of cause. We know divorce attorney’s tell clients all the time to file for one for leverage. I could support the ownership of SBRs and suppressors with something more than a FOID. Requirement that real dealers/manufacturers/distributors be licensed. I’m probably missing a few but off the top of my head. Understand that I may support other versions of these things simply because that is the nature of the legislature to compromise on issues. I won’t let the perfect stand in the way of the good. But I will stand in the way of Mayor Shortshanks and Messer Osterman’s agenda. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 6:22 pm: Todd, You brought up the tort system. What do you believe would be a fair way to compensate victims of legally owned guns? When some person shoots four innocent people because he feels threatened, should he be held to a negligence standard, or should he be strictly liable? And should he be able to wipe out any judgment by filing bankruptcy? - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 8:02 pm: Not that it matters to this debate, but a Chicago Police officer was shot and killed tonight. Now, what were you guys talking about again? - Todd - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 8:11 pm: Guys sorry for the connected posts but I’ve been in meetings most of the day and working on things like a new lawsuit and a strike that have kept me away from the computer. Ghost – The right does not stop at black power of muzzle loading rifles. If it did the First Amendment would protect nothing more than the printing press. Not the internet, not the TV or Cable networks not the radio airwaves as they could have not conceived of them in 1776 when they started down this road. The Court actually addressed this in Heller: “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Pg 8 The Court specifically rejected just such an idea. And right to carry was addressed in the decision: “c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .” Heller pg 19 Get that — Keep and carry in case of confrontation and nowhere in that definition is the word HOME. As in limited to. Reformer – not until the Courts find drinking, and gambling to be fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. I see your argument, but it is a straw man as we are talking about a right affirmed in the Bill of Rights, not a recreational or social activity. Amalia – Not going to support a national record keeping system of guns or gun owners. EVerytime is been tried, it’s been abused by gun hating politicians and hopalaphobes. If ATF would follow the law and not make it up as they go along there would be some common ground. But so long as they don’t then we will cast a skeptical eye on the agency. As for the no fly-lists is a matter of due process and how you get off a list you don’t know you’ve been put on or for what reason. Ted Kennedy was on it as well as a 8 year old cub scout. You don’t go to jail because you’re thought of doing something. If they are that dangerous, then file charges and put them in jail. Skeeter – on the guns in Englewood. The vast majority of them are being used in criminal acts. Not being kept in homes for lawful purposes. The fact is the gangs there run with impunity. They are at war with each other because they have no fear of cops or the law. Not the average joe keeping one in their home. Not the average person with a carry permit. If all the stats about guns causing violence were true, then my neighborhood would be among the most violent and crime prone. For the sake of argument let’s take the figure a gun in the home is 33 times more likely to be used against me or my family – not true and debunked but for the sake of argument. IF I had 25 guns in my home then 25 x 33 means my house would be 825 times more likely to have something happen. I have two small children, 10 & 6. Nothing has happened. And I’m not the only house on the block with guns. I would bet that there are more gun on my block and ammo say at least 100,000 rounds that it should be like Beruit. It isn’t because of other reasons. So Skeeter I reject your premise that more guns simply equal more crime. More people with criminal intent and no respect of the law or human life with gun means more crime. - Gene - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 8:27 pm: Todd: Are you sure they understand the term, “hopalaphobe”? For clarification: “mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons”. Very accurate, I think! - Gene - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 8:29 pm: Understand, I’m not accusing anyone here of being a “hopalaphobe”. But, if the shoe fits…..! - soundguy - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 8:40 pm: - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 5:05 pm: “Under the ordinance passed Friday, I would be able to legally obtain one if I wanted.” Skeeter, unless you were a felon, mentally ill or admitting to serious drug use, you could ALWAYS buy a gun legally… you just couldn’t keep it in the City without violating a Chicago ordinance (a really serious parking ticket). - soundguy - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 8:58 pm: - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 5:48 pm: “That stats on this are clear — where there are guns in the house, suicide goes up. As does domestic violence.” Skeeter, dude… Where do you get this stuff? In homes where guns are present, suicide by gun is more likely than in homes where guns are not present. A tendency towards domestic violence has ABSOLUTELY NO correlation to gun ownership/access. Suicidal people kill themselves. Violent people are violent. Each use whatever means available. Guns are not the cause… that’s why felons and crazy people cannot legally buy guns. Sure, it would be interesting if firearms had never been invented. The crazy and violent folks would use some other method of furthering their madness. - Chicago guy - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 9:11 pm: I’ve seen several comments about the money the city has spent (or wasted) defending an unconstitutional gun ban. I guess both sides should rest easy, as Mara Georges said on wttw that the Joyce Foundation has given a grant that about covers it. What a shock! The Joyce Foundation funds all the anti-gun groups in the midwest. Well, since these groups are not getting money from the public they need to take it where they find it. Too bad the EVIL NRA has to rely mostly on the money it collects from membership dues; (not the gun manufactures, as the “control freaks” suppose) - Gene - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 9:35 pm: Soundguy… Thanks! You put in in far more understandable terms than I was able to… not that it will make a difference in the comprehension by some. - borzoi - Wednesday, Jul 7, 10 @ 11:01 pm: Rich Miller wrote:How many of those shooting victims would’ve qualified for a gun license, even in another state? I ask: How many of the criminal shooters would have qualified for a gun license, even in another state? - Don Gwinn - Thursday, Jul 8, 10 @ 3:12 am: Rich, I’ll bite: There are only three other states that require FID cards as far as I know–New Jersey, Massachusetts and Hawaii. Whether “the shooting victims” would qualify in those states depends on exactly which shooting victims you’re talking about. If we’re talking about all the victims in Chicago in the last few years, I’d say many probably wouldn’t, and some certainly would. Now, here’s what I find intereting: no one is asking the question, “Would the homeowners and business owner who so famously defended their homes and businesses against criminal intruders in the last few weeks–and escaped prosecution–be able to own their firearms legally under this new ordinance?” I don’t think any of them had five hours of documented training, though I could be wrong. They seem to have managed to point the loud end at the bad guy even without earning a degree. The gentleman who used a pistol to defend his business would be right out of luck, though, as the new ordinance allows handgun possession only in the home . . . only long guns in the “fixed place of business.” People were outraged that these people had to break the law in order to defend themselves . . . has that changed? - dupage dan - Thursday, Jul 8, 10 @ 9:06 am: 47th Ward, You are right - the horrific tragedy of a CPD officer being shot and killed is not relevant to this debate. I learned this morning that the officer was shot with his own gun by a person who has been described by people who claim to know him as someone with some type of mental disability. Not relevant to this stream. My prayers are with his family and fellow officers of the CPD who serve and protect. - dupage dan - Thursday, Jul 8, 10 @ 9:11 am: Todd, I have read your comments here as well as elsewhere. You have maintained a consistent stance and have repeated it many times. I appreciate your careful attention to these matters as they relate to a fundamental right enshrined in the bill of rights. Thank you. Skeeter, perhaps you should print this stream and laminate it so the next time this discussion takes place you can refer to what has been written here and be confident that Todd has responded. Add some links to some creditable research that supports your statements and we can have a better debate on the matter. - Skeeter - Thursday, Jul 8, 10 @ 11:07 am: Du Page, for a guy who tosses around unsupported opinions, you sure are big on demanding citations. In any case, how about this: “Although most gun owners reportedly keep a firearm in their home for “protection” or “self defense,” 83 percent of gun-related deaths in these homes are the result of a suicide, often by someone other than the gun owner. Firearms are used in more suicides than homicides. Death by firearms is the fastest growing method of suicide. Firearms account for 50 percent of all suicides. or this: Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home. - Melancton Smith - Thursday, Jul 8, 10 @ 12:15 pm: Skeeter, Those aren’t citations they are quotations. For a citation you would provide a link or some other information that can be used to verify the cite and, if desired, determine the validity of the results and methodology. See the disasterous Kellerman study and the book by Bellesiles. I can buy into the fact that there is a danger inherent in owning a firearm. But such must be balanced against the positives. Each of us must weigh for ourselves that cost/benefit equation. Government has no business deciding that I’m better off without a gun. As for suicide, a lot of us don’t consider that an important issue given it’s a choice made by an individual. It makes sense that gun owners would tend to use a gun for suicide since it seems like a pretty sure thing. But lacking a gun, there is nothing to prevent them hopping into their 4000 lb automobile and driving off a bridge into rush hour traffic or jumping off a tall building. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.