Daley calls for new state laws on guns

[Indy Lurker]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-daley-gun-bills-20100308,0,4581833.story

"The aggressiveness of the gun advocates is just one reason it's more important than ever that we work for common-sense gun laws focused on stopping the flow of illegal guns into our communities and keeping the guns out of the hands of the criminals," Daley said, standing next to tables loaded with weapons confiscated by Chicago police.

....


Daley backed changes to state law that would require background checks for those buying a gun in a private sale, ban assault weapons, require that gun dealers be licensed and limit the number of handgun purchases to one per person per month. Those were all ideas that failed in previous legislative sessions.

This time, the mayor also is asking the General Assembly to make it a Class 1 felony to knowingly sell a gun to a known gang member, stiffen penalties for unlawfully using a weapon and require "micro-stamping" of guns that make it easier to match weapons used in crimes.

[jody]

1. Has Daley aggressively campaigned for enforcing existing law particularly federal law? Existing laws

are more than adequate to put criminals away for enough time to become law abiding citizens or get graduate training in criminal skills.

[TPaine7]

2. Credit where credit is due

the mayor also is asking the General Assembly to make it a Class 1 felony to knowingly sell a gun to a known gang member, stiffen penalties for unlawfully using a weapon

I agree with him on those measures, they actually are "common-sense gun laws focused on stopping the flow of illegal guns into our communities and keeping the guns out of the hands of the criminals..."

The "assault weapons" ban movement, on the other hand, is an attempt to make guns illegal, not to "stop the flow of illegal guns." And it will not "keep guns out of the hands of criminals" in fact, it may create "criminals" out of honest people who never injured anyone.

But as I said, credit where credit is due. I will even agree with Daley when he's right.

[friendly_iconoclast]

4. "Stiffen penalties" will mean "another bargaining chip during plea agreements"

Looks good in the media to those unfamiliar with how the criminal justice system really works

[Tejas]

6. What constitutes a "gang member"?

And who decides that qualifier?

[TPaine7]

14. Someone whom the seller knows to be a member of the Hell's Angels, Gangster Disciples, Bloods...

[jeepnstein]

26. That's a problem.

It's hard to tell who's who unless you are in fact involved in the gang yourself. It's not uncommon for outlaw bikers, for instance, to have day jobs and go around not flying their colors. I know a few of them who are legally allowed to buy firearms because they've never been convicted of a felony. So do you just refuse to do business with white guys with a lot of tattoos? Or refuse black guys wearing red, blue, yellow, orange or whatever colors?

I would say it would be safe to run this guy out of your shop...



But what about his guy?



Or this one...



I say what the "justice" system should do is focus on actually prosecuting the laws already on the books. It's not like anyone is going out breaking new barriers in criminal and anti-social behavior that we've never seen before. The problem is the system lets these guys play along for years before they finally get sent to prison. And even prison really doesn't phase these guys. It's like getting sent to graduate school for them.

[TPaine7]

28. Apparently that is a problem.

I see your point, and concede it. The standard, at least in today's legal climate, is to not sell to a known felon. Which is nothing new.

(In TPaine7's ideal legal climate, violent gangs that claim territory in the United States and intimidate, assault or kill citizens would be treated as domestic terrorist organizations at war with the United States. Members who did not surrender could be shot on sight. Those who surrender could be held until the cessation of hostilities--until their gangs stopped existing or stopped warring against the US and unconditionally surrendered.

Selling a gun to a known gang member, convicted or not, would would be treason.)

I thought Daley deserved a shred of credit. My mistake.

[jeepnstein]

30. Due process is a bitch.

Even a vampire gets a trial in the U.S. So I have problems with the whole guilt by association war on gangs concept.

Give me a hunting license and funding for a criminal gang safari and I could easily put a dent in the problem in a matter of a year or two. It would not be pretty. It would be downright un-American. It would also not cure the root of the problem which is America's insatiable appetite for recreational drugs.

We do, however, agree completely on the issue of Mayor Daley.

[TheWraith]

31. Recreational drugs and the black market our government creates for them.

You don't see violent gangs battling for control over the cigarette market. Nor is Budweiser assassinating board members of Heineken. If we regulated those other recreational drugs instead of pushing them outside the law, then our problem would decrease hugely.

[PavePusher]

33. That may be the best example of the issue that I've ever seen.

I have stolen, ahem, borrowed it to use myself. Thanks!

[TPaine7]

32. I believe in due process, too

And I really don't want to sound like GWB or Darth Cheney, but I think that there is a distinct difference between Joe Blow stealing, robbing, assaulting or killing alone or with a few fellow travelers and broad-based sophisticated groups systematically controlling US territory and intimidating US citizens.

If hostile foreign troops were operating in the US, it would be legal for US forces to shoot them on sight. Constitutionally. It might not be pretty, but it would be quite American.

IMO there are many roots to the problem. By failing to secure their neighborhoods and take their safety seriously, America tells young, inner city minority children that we don't give a damn about them. That isn't what we intend to say, but that is what they hear. And I understand that. To many of them, joining gangs is a matter of survival, as well as of respect. Now if I were faced with the stark fact that society didn't care enough about me to protect me on my walk to school as a child and the fact that in order to protect myself and ensure my mother's, little sister's and little brother's safety, I had to join a gang, I cannot claim that I wouldn't join. Why not prey on a society that doesn't give a damn about my security but protects the suburbs?

Of the top of my head the steps would be:

0) Establish which organizations meet the definition of a gang--territorial claims, violent abuse of US citizens, sufficient membership, etc.
1) Infiltrate gangs to establish member identies
2) Declare war on the gangs
3) Give the leadership x days to surrender
4) Kill the leadership that doesn't surrender
5) Give the underlings x days to surrender and swear off all gang associations
6) Kill the underlings that don't surrender
7) Protect children in the inner cities just like middle class children and fund their educations
8) Enforce old-fashioned discipline in schools (disruption = expulsion = ruined life for one student--as opposed to entire class)
9) Legalize drugs with strict constraints (perhaps any and all drugs for sterilized non drivers).

Ok, the order may be wrong and you may be able to punch lots of holes. It is off the top of my head, after all. But that's the gist of my take on it.

PS: I am very impressed that your respect for our current due process system is stronger than mine. That is a pleasant surprise indeed, given your occupation.

[jeepnstein]

36. When the rubber hits the road...

I'm thinking you would recoil at the sight of extra-judicial executions and of police doing searches with no warrant. The gangs don't exist in some kind of vacuum. Innocent Americans would have their rights and lives destroyed. I've seen how the system works and I don't trust it with that kind of power.

Study what the French did during their little adventure in Algeria. That's what an all-out war on gangs would have to be. No way am I signing on to doing that to a fellow American.

Personally, I think your steps 7 and 8 would go a long way towards breaking the cycle. As far as the gang activity goes, I could easily clear out a neighborhood just using strict traffic enforcement. Passing out tickets and towing cars isn't glamorous but it works almost overnight. The problem is that we, as Americans, lack the resolve to take on the problem.

[TPaine7]

37. I appreciate your perspective and the education

You're probably right.

I favored my solution because I thought no milder solutions would work (and possibly because I'm so removed from the from the front lines).

It is certain that America doesn't have the stomach for what I proposed off the top of my head.

And if you could clear out gang activity using traffic enforcement--and this country is to gutless to do even that--we fully deserve our gang problem. That's eye opening. And pitiful.

(Have you considered political office? It sounds like you have some ideas that should be tried in the real world.)

It sounds like the only people who really deserve sympathy are the innocent poor folks caught up in the ghetto through no fault of their own. Especially the children.

[jeepnstein]

40. We probably deserve the mess we've created.

No, I am not a contender for political office. Being an elected official is terribly confining. I do offer my services freely to local and state candidates and never lack for work. I'm working on a real beauty right now, a classic case of hardball precinct politics.

I've been a proponent of strict traffic enforcement for years. It works. I've seen it applied with fantastic results. You don't even need to issue citations all that much. Just making the stop and the contact will uncover a variety of problems; no license, drunk, stoned, no plates, stolen car, outstanding warrants, bong in the front seat, crack pipes on the dash. It's a target rich environment out there. The trick is to have transportation and wrecker services ramped up because it's possible to make four or five arrests per hour with very little effort. Your average criminal drives like an blooming idiot.

The problem is right now nobody is doing anything but letting the problem spiral out of control. It gets tossed around like a football. Nobody stops to think of the tremendous human toll that the gang culture takes on our neighborhoods.

[Tejas]

43. We deserve the idiots we've elected (fixed) - nt

[TPaine7]

38. "I could easily clear out a neighborhood just using strict traffic enforcement."

How would that work? I take it that you would be stopping gang-bangers and their customers--the folks who drive into the 'hood to do their shopping. But why couldn't gang-bangers and their customers drive the speed limit, wear seat-belts and obey all traffic laws?

It seems that they would adjust to your tactics quickly.

[jeepnstein]

41. They just can't cope.

Your average criminal just can't do anything right for very long. It's just not in their nature.

[GreenStormCloud]

44. Could you explain how traffic enforcement would help?

I am not being sarcastic, I am truly ignorant. Your statement interests me an I would like to know more.

[jeepnstein]

46. Not everyone agrees with this strategy.

Basically, it works on the principle that one has to make contact with criminals in order to arrest them. The best tool a police officer has for making contacts like this is through working traffic. How are drugs moved from point A to B? How do most buyers get to their source? Like everyone else in the U.S. gangstas rely on their cars or motorcycles. You'll have exceptions like kids on bikes and stuff but we're not looking for a perfect answer, just a tool to force the criminal element to flee an area.

Crooks have problems following rules. If you don't expect them to be able to not commit murder, sell drugs, rob little old ladies, or anything else why would you expect them to be good drivers? Often they don't have a license at all because of prior scrapes with the law. Or their car is stolen. Half of them will have outstanding warrants. Most of them don't bother with insurance either. You'd be surprised how many cars in areas like that don't have valid plates. If you spend a good afternoon sitting at an intersection where there is high gang activity it is relatively simple to start making good stops. It all rolls down hill from there for the typical gang member. They wind up getting their car towed, taken to jail, and hassled to the limits of the law.

If they are transporting drugs or money they lose their load, even though I think seizures are a pretty lousy indicator of success. One could go as far as to say some departments use seizure the same way Black Bart Roberts did back in the Golden Age of Piracy. The important part is dealers start losing money. Their suppliers aren't really understanding businessmen and this makes life even more difficult for them. They're shelling out money on bail, lawyers, tow bills, tickets, and everything but their inventory. They might beat the charge but they're still taking the ride.

So by applying force on our problem with traffic enforcement we make it uncomfortable. The criminals scatter and then you can more or less hold the advantage by keeping up the work on traffic enforcement. True, the problem moves elsewhere. Usually they'll settle in a place where the police are complacent at best or crooked at worst. That's the next town's problem and if they wish to confront the situation they already have the tools to do so. New laws are a waste of time and money. What we need is to use the existing set of tools we've been given better.

[GreenStormCloud]

57. That sounds reasonable. Thanks for explaining. N/T

[TheWraith]

29. Easiest answer: make it impossible to plead down most gun charges.

Eliminate the practice of pleading away charges like possession of a firearm by an unqualified person.

[Chota]

42. No parole on violent crimes and only consecutive sentences.

Armed robbery: What ever time for the robbery plus 5 years for the gun or knife.
When in prison no outside communication, you bring nothing into prison with you nor do you leave with anything.

[TheWraith]

45. I disagree with the prison conditions.

I think it would make true rehabilitation more difficult. But there's alternatives: for instance, allow parole only if the person participates in a program to get high school, college, or vocational training while in prison.

[PavePusher]

10. "Known" to who?

If Joe American sells a gun to someone he knows a little, but not enough to know they are on police lists across the state, who is at fault?

[TPaine7]

13. The seller? n/t

[PavePusher]

15. Only if there is a mechanism by which the seller can get accurate data on the purchaser.

I.e. NICS, or similar.

Currently prohibited by law, as the grabbers know full well.

[TPaine7]

16. I think when criminals sell guns locally, they often know who they're selling too.

I could be wrong.

[PavePusher]

17. O.K., I'll stipulate that that is probably entirely too common. n/t

[Indy Lurker]

20. In Illinois there is a Firearms Owner ID

Or FOID Card.

The card expires every 5 years, and must be renewed.

Every transaction in Illinois requires the buyer to show his or her current valid FOID card.

The seller must record buyer information, including FOID number, and keep the record for 10 years.


A valid FOID card should be all that's required to prove the buyer is eligible to purchase a firearm.

[PavePusher]

34. Counterfeiting could be an issue.

You'd still need a central data base that Joe average could call to ensure it was still valid. In other words, it merely becomes another piece of beauracracy that the Citizen has to wade through to get to her/his Civil Rights.

NICS should be sufficient nation-wide, if we can work out the mechanism to allow it's non-disclosure use to the public.

[paulsby]

48. that's unconstitutional

being a gang member is not illegal, any more than being a member of the commnunist party

you can't criminalize gun sale to somebody MERELY because they are a gang member

[bluestateguy]

3. They just won't give up will they

Or even be satisfied with enforcing the many gun laws already on the books.

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. I'm beginning to think King Richie might actually believe some of what he says.

IOW, he's showing the symptoms of megalomania.

[DonP]

9. He is a true believer

I've seen him go nuts in person on the subject of guns at a press conference I attended for some awards he was handing out to cops and firemen (SIL is CFD, BIL is CPD). He used the awards ceremony to go totally off his nut on guns and how he's just trying to protect people that think guns are always the answer. But don't mention his or his family's 24/7 CPD security details. That's different. They might actually be in danger.

He actually believes its his duty as mayor to "protect" the citizens from their own stupidity. We're all just simple minded children that need to be herded and directed as to the proper behavior.

I suspect he has worse motives for not putting cops in the troubled neighborhoods like Englewood, Pilsen and Chatham. If the AA and Hispanic neighborhoods stabilize they will become a powerful political force. He doesn't want that to happen. It's way too profitable for your friends and family being mayor of Chicago and controlling the entire county.

[Callisto32]

23. A Daley in Chicago...a megalomaniac?

NEVER!@@2@2@@!!@!ONE@2@!@!!!

[Tejas]

7. someone please remind that fascist that he's only a mayor - nt

edit: typed "remind that loon" but then realized how disrespectful that was towards loons!

:rofl:

[Euromutt]

8. Translation: quick, pass more restrictions before the SCOTUS rules on MacDonald

Because that way, it will probably require a brace of additional lawsuits to get those laws overturned.

To my mind, at least, it's pretty strong evidence that Daley believes the ruling will go against the City of Chicago.

[proteus_lives]

11. Corrupt douchebag.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. What does 'gang member' mean?

If a member of a gang isn't a convicted criminal, how would you know?

What if the potential buyer was a member of a motorcycle club? Or a chess club?

[cabluedem]

18. We need to get all these assault weapons off the streets too!

[PavePusher]

19. None of my weapons has ever assaulted anyone.

And neither you, nor anyone else, will get them.

Some of them do get carried on the streets though. Try not to have an attack of the vapors...

[oneshooter]

59. Some of mine may have assaulted someone

But that was before I owned them, and some have "assaulted" goblins of various types AFTER I bought them.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[benEzra]

22. There were 530 murders in the entire state of Illinois in 2008.

All rifles COMBINED, including so-called "assault weapons", accounted for THREE of them, according to the FBI.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_20.html

Tell me again how scawwy looking rifles are such a damn problem in Illinois?

[Callisto32]

24. That word, you keep using that word...

You know the rest...

[X_Digger]

25. Like you did in CA?

All these are california legal AR-15s

[PavePusher]

35. Teh stupid...

it is hideous, uncomfortable and unweildy.

Seriously, for all that the Anti's cry about "random shooting" and "spray fire from the hip", they seem to be doing their dead-level best to make firearms LESS controlable and safe.

Think they're "Stuck on Stupid", much?

[armueller2001]

27. What, specifically, makes an assault

weapon any more deadly or dangerous than a "standard" one?

Please, enlighten me.

[cabluedem]

50. They are weapons of war that shoot 30 bullets or more, Who needs those on our streets?

[armueller2001]

51. So the problem you have with the

"assault weapons" is their capacity. Wouldn't that be logic for you advocating magazine capacity limits, rather than a blanket ban on "assault weapons"?

So far you've indicated nothing about the firearm specifically that is more dangerous than standard weapons.

Oh, and you're incorrect in your statement that they are "weapons of war". The actual weapons that soldiers use are select-fire, meaning they have burst fire or fully automatic capabilities and they have nothing to do with "assault weapon bans" - they are already heavily restricted.

Civilian versions of AK47's and AR15's do NOT have fully automatic capabilities, they are semi-automatic and are not "machine guns". I know of no army in the world that uses semi-automatic rifles only. Therefore you are wrong, the firearms that are labeled assault weapons are not weapons of war.

Using your logic, we should ban Hummer H2's because they are "tools of war"...

[cabluedem]

54. The Assault Weapons ban includes a limit of ten bullets in the gun already...

if you have a gun with a big magazine, you get to take an all expense paid ride in the back of a patrol car with a new set of bracelets.

As for assault weapons, another gun-goon killed four cops in Oakland, CA last year with one of these weapons, so dont tell me these things are for hunting purposes.

They are designed to kill people, PERIOD!!!

[friendly_iconoclast]

55. SKS rifles should be made DOUBLE-illegal in California so there's not another Oakland shooting.

Because their being ordinary-illegal already didn't stop it, amirite?

[armueller2001]

60. So... just because someone killed a

police officer with one of these firearms automatically means that they are all invalidated for hunting or sporting purposes? Wow!

What type of gun was it? I'd be willing to bet it was already illegal in California... as was killing a police officer. But those laws sure didn't stop him. We need to make these types of guns MORE illegal!

[PavePusher]

61. "They are designed to kill people, PERIOD!!!"

For the life of me, I can't determine if your pronouncements are ignorance, arrogance, or willful stupidity. Hint, please?

[friendly_iconoclast]

56. Wait, are you saying my owning a field jacket doesn't make me a soldier?

It has to be said that I was wondering why my orders never showed up...

[slackmaster]

52. Wrong. Weapons of war are covered by the National Firearms Act of 1934.

They've been strictly regulated for more than 75 years.

So-called "assault weapons" (a term which has no meaning in the eyes of the federal government) were specificially configured for the civilian sporting firearms market.

[benEzra]

53. They're almost exclusively NOT on the streets, but in the homes and gun safes of the law-abiding.

Did you bother to notice that (1) the FBI tracks homicide by rifles, and (2) ALL rifles accounted for only 3 out of 530 Illinois murders in 2008?

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_20.html

You want to ban the most popular civilian rifles in the United States because the MSM has told you to fear them, NOT because they are a crime problem.

BTW, they're not "weapons of war," they're civilian guns. No military on this planet uses non-automatic Title 1 AK's, and AFAIK none use non-automatic Title 1 AR-15's; those are exclusively civilian.

[Glassunion]

58. Oh thank goodness...

This is not an assault weapon. Nor is it an assault rifle.

It does look a bit scary though.


It is even legal in CA and NJ.

[pipoman]

21. I wonder if President Obama

sees how stupid his buddies look now, being removed from the day to day nonsense as he has been for a couple of years?

[aikoaiko]

39. Daley is such a schmuck. Some close to him need to ask him the rhetorical question...

"Is this the hill you want to die on"?

[paulsby]

47. i knew he was against the constitution, but GEEZ

knowingly selling a gun to a gang member a CRIME?

now MANY (if not most) gang members are convicted felons, but being a member of a gang in and of itself is a matter of free speech and free association

that's BLATANTLY unconstitutional

[X_Digger]

49. What's next, "shunning"? n/t