Chicago is going to stand up to the NRA

[question everything]

Heard on NPR. The NRA is getting ready to sue other cities with bans on handguns and Morton Grove, the first town to ban them, some 20 years ago, I think, repealed the ban, saying that it does not have the resource to mount a defense against the NRA.

But Chicago does and will. Its defense is going to be that what applies to D.C. - a federal jurisdiction, does not, and cannot apply to states and cities. That the Bill of Rights was intended to protect the citizens of Virginia and Massachusetts from the Federal Government, not the other way around.

I hope Chicago wins.

[DonP]

1. A better headline: Chicago ignores the Constitution and the Supreme Court

The NRA had nothing to do with the Heller vs. DC case. In fact they tried to stop the case from going forward several times.

The NRA tried to take credit for it after the fact but Alan Gura, of Gura & Possessky, had no contact with the NRA other than to tell them to get the hell out of the way several times.

But please, don't let any facts get in the way of your narrative.

Daley is an idiot that is going to spend millions of taxpayer $ (most likely with one of his brother's law firms), in a city with the highest tax rate in the country (10.5% sales tax) underfunded schools and stressed public transportation, to fight a battle he will not win (and shouldn't win in any event).

The issue of Federal jurisdiction versus appplication to individual states was addressed in both the lower court's and the SCOTUS decision.

It's a total dead end red-herring legally and in questioning several of the the judges on SCOTUS, including Ginsburg and Souter, brushed that point aside when Fenty and DC tried to raise it.

You really need to read the transcripts before you start cheering for an idiot like Daley.

[question everything]

3. But the NRA is going after all the municipalities that ban handguns

I am not a legal eagle, far from it, and did not pretend to be someone who is.

But I think that a city with a high crime rate - we lived there in the late 70 where there about 1000 murders a year - has a right to ban at least the "Saturday Night Specials."

I don't live in Chicago but it is up to its citizens to decide whether they want such a ban - and I don't think that it is as the D.C. was - or whether they want to hire more cops to have them at every street corner so that "guns will not kill people."

[benEzra]

6. Thing is, 97 percent of Chicago murder suspects so far this year

had prior arrest records. Most of them couldn't legally own a gun if they wanted to.

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/March08CrimeStats.pdf

Denying responsible, mentally competent adults with squeaky clean records the right to lawfully own a handgun doesn't disarm the criminals; it disarms only those who obey the law. Just as it did in the District of Columbia.

The thing is, we wouldn't take the position that it is OK for Chicago to perform warrantless searches of the innocent just because they have X murders a year. It is no different to deny the innocent the right to own a gun, without due process, just because they have X murders a year.

Prohibiting criminals from possessing or using guns is one thing; prohibiting EVERYONE from possessing or using guns is quite another, IMO.

FWIW, the concept of banning "Saturday Night Specials" (ostensibly small-caliber, inexpensive, unreliable handguns) is counterproductive unless you want to push criminals to larger-caliber, expensive, reliable handguns. But the term is pretty much meaningless today anyway, IMO.

[JMackT]

19. But banning guns does not work

I cant understand how yall cant see this.

It does nothing to reduce crime

[Lex]

20. Link to back that up?

Thanks.

[slackmaster]

21. Burden of proof defaults to the party that claims existence of some kind of effect

If you say gun bans work, then it is your responsibility to present hard evidence to support the claim.

You can start by defining terms like "work" so we can all clearly see what kind of measure is used to measure what.

The null hypothesis should be stated in the form "Gun bans have no measurable effect on ________________ as measured ________________."

[Lex]

28. I didn't claim any kind of "effect"

I simply asked for a link to back up a claim.

[slackmaster]

29. The claim was tantamount to saying "Gun bans don't do jack shit."

Sounds like a null hypothesis to me.

[JMackT]

25. Guns have been banned for decades in chicago

http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Chicago&state=IL

http://chicago.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm

First couple in a simple search.

[Odious justice]

48. Chicago Murder Rates

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/Murder2005.pdf
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/FTR.HomUpdate.pdf

The gun ban in Chicago went into effect in 1976.

These reports are taken from the Chicago Police site. Homicides his a low in 1991. The previous low was 1967. This year they are at an all time high.

The 2005 reports has a chart that shows gun use in homicides have risen as a percentage since the ban was put into place.

When looking at murder stats, it is important to mind two factors: Economic trends, and population trends. Generally, the larger the population of young males, the higher the crime rate. Birth trends to contribute to murder stats.

The data isn't conclusive-meaning that it cannot be shown that the banning of handguns has made Chicago more or less dangerous. The murder rates has shot up and down over the last 32 years.

But these are stats. Eat your heart out.

[DonP]

30. The city still has a horrible crime rate

... and for over 20 years they have totally banned all handguns and required yearly registration of shotguns or rifles with a required confiscation if you fail to re-register them by the deadline each year.

In return for all these gun controls we still have one of the worst gun crime rates in the country.

The problem is you can ban whatever you want, Saturday Night Speicals, High end 1911 Target .45s and the only people it has any impact on are the law abiding. In the meantime any gang member knows which corner he can buy or rent a 9 mm on to settle a score. Bans have no effect on criminals they don't even make it harder for them to find and acquire guns.

Controls like background checks and screening for felonies, restraining orders and mental issues are fine. But a flat across the board ban is a stupid feel good response that sucks in ignornat folks that actually think it will have some effect.

Ask an old lady that lives in the Englewood or Chatham neighborhood to see how 20+years of gun bans and gun buy backs have impacted her community.

Last Saturday Daley ran another gun "Buy Back" and spent $680,000 to buy back rusted crappy guns, most of which even his own cops said didn't work. How many cop salaries would that $680,000 pay? How many firemen could get a raise with that money? How many schools could he fix and repaint?

His obssession with trying to control guns is hurting the people he claims to want to help.

Of course he has 24/7 armed guards for he and his family.

Now he wants to spend millions more fighting a court decision he can't win but what the hell, it's not like it's his money. He can just raise property taxes one more time.


As for the rest of the folks out there foaming at the mouth about the NRA, a few simple realities...

The NRA does not sell anything exccpet T-shirts and things with their logo on them and they don't get a percentage of sales from gun manufacturers for scaring people into buying more guns.

There are over 4 million dues paying members that pay about $35 a year to belong, including a lot of Democrats.

They have taught gun safety and marksmanship to millions of American police, military and regular citizens for over 100 years. Odds are your city's police were trained by an NRA safety and marksmanship instructor. (Ask what has the Brady group and other gun control or so called gun safety organizations done?)

Their board of directors, as well as the rifle shoots they run near my home, has blacks, asians and Native Americans there. not exactly the roster for a Klan rally, but hey, a broad misconception makes for a better mindless rant.

The total US gun industry is only about $4 billion in total retail sales. America spends more on Potato chips in one month that that, to give you a sense of proportion.

There really is no "Big Gun Maker" lobby since only two or three of the US manufacturers are big enough to have any political leverage, Ruger, Smith & Wesson and maybe Springfield Armory, and they generally stay the hell away from politics.

The NRA is a powerful lobby because they have 4 million voters and their extended families (sport shooting is often a family event) in a solid block focused on a single issue in every state.

Their poltitical lobbying arm, the NRA-ILA supports a candidate based on their stated position on the 2nd amendment, and their actual voting record and rate them on their support of the 2nd amendment. They increased thier financial support of Democrats by 23% I think it was in the 2006 election. Why? Because we had a lot of gun owner supporting Blue Dog Dems running.

In short, if a Dem Candidate supports the 2nd amendment and has a track record for doing so, they get the support of the NRA-ILA over a Repug that just gives it lip service at election time. We just have a handful of loud senior Dems with safe seats in the house and senate that can't let go of the '90's and realize the tide has turned sharply against gun control everywhere.

[question everything]

42. Are you saying, then that the NRA is not going to sue Chicago

and other municipalities that ban hand guns?

And I think it was stupid for the city to pay for old rusty guns that don't work.

[slackmaster]

43. Chicago bans the guns that don't need to be banned, and doesn't ban the ones that do

They have it perfectly backwards.

[DonP]

44. Hell yes they are going to sue Chicago.

They have already filed, the day after the Heller decision.

The suburbs that are dropping their ordinances will wind up having the suit dismissed in court ... once they have actually dropped or changed the local ordinance. Evanston said they will consider changing the law as soon as the NRA drops the suit against them. That ain't going to happen. Change your laws to conform to the constitition, or start explaining to your citizens why you are spending so much of their tax money on a case that SCOTUS just decided.

Chicago will wind up fighting a losing battle by itself.

The whole gun buy back is a piece of cheap street theater to keep the media entertained and to look like he's actually doing something.

A $100 gift card for every gun turned in, no questions asked. Then the same night they announce that a number of the guns were "crime guns".

So what? Even if you could actually inventory 6,800 guns in one day by serial number, can you really determine that they are crime guns. And since there were "no questions asked", no names taken, or ID asked for, what do you do with the crime guns?

Eric Zorn, a liberal columnist for the Chicago Tribune did a whole column and 6 reason why gun buy backs don't work. If anyone is inetrersted ... http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/07/buybacks-1.html#more

[DailyGrind51]

22. Thank you! Daley and Bush are different Party tags of the same thugocracy.

We are already paying $12 million in settlements to workers who were denied jobs or promotions because Daley and his cronies violated the Shakman Decree against patronage hiring and firing.

We got stuck paying FAA fines and legal fees because of Daley's midnight raid on Meigs Field, sans the required 30 days notice prior to closing an airport.

We will be paying for litigation for Mayor Daley's decision to move the Children's Museum from Navy Pier to Grant Park.

We can't afford to take on the NRA and many of us don't want him to! And, maybe enough of us will develop the testicular circumference to overwhelm his corrupt machine on election day and throw him out, before Patrick Fitzgerald indicts him.

[PFunk]

2. Same here. It's about time the NRA faced someone who can fight back.

[marmar]

4. Good for Chicago....I'm really f**king sick of the NRA.

n/t

[ColbertWatcher]

5. Agreed. n/t

[fl410]

8. A lot of us gun owners/2nd Amendment supporters are too.

The NRA is a bunch of bullies and idiots and doesn't really do much for constitutional rights.

[marmar]

9. True....I guess I'm not so much upset by gun ownership, but by the NRA itself....

n/t

[Coexist]

14. Florida is their b***ch. It sucks.

[spin]

47. I live in Florida...

And I find the gun laws here very reasonable.

Do we have criminal misuse or irresponsible use of firearms in Florida? Yes. Would Florida be a more dangerous place to live if it had laws like Chicago? Yes, again.

When Florida allowed concealed carry in 1987 the crime rate dropped.

In Florida, which first introduced "shall-issue" concealed carry laws, crimes committed against residents dropped markedly upon the general issuance of concealed-carry licenses, which had the unintended consequence of putting tourists in Florida driving marked rental cars at risk from criminals since tourists may be readily presumed unarmed. Florida responded by enacting laws prohibiting the obvious marking of rental cars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

Florida became the example for other states who followed her example and enacted "shall issue" laws. Currently 39 states have similar laws. If these laws caused serious problems, they would have been overturned. No "shall issue" state has chosen to do so.

Interestingly enough, Florida doesn't require firearm registration. Registration is probably an unnecessary bureaucratic huddle designed only to generate money for the state.

I wouldn't live in a state that wouldn't allow me to own weapons for self defense or one that would forbid me the right to carry concealed if I passed all reasonable requirements. I would suggest that those who disagree move to states with draconian gun laws.

[DailyGrind51]

7. As a Chicago taxpayer, I think our schools and public transit system

could use the money Mayor Daley is prepared to spend on legal fees.

[fl410]

10. So if they "win", Chicago will remain a "gun-free zone" and their long-standing freedom from

firearm crime will remain intact. What's not to love about that?

[aikoaiko]

11. What if Chicago banned political speech? Would we wonder if the 1st applies to States?

Civil rights are civil rights.

[kevinbgoode]

13. The second amendment does not say "firearms" does it?

Didn't think so. Every time someone raises the argument that, if handguns were banned, a criminal could use all kind of other weapons to commit a crime. Except those weapons couldn't pack 76 rounds like the criminal at the Unitarian church killings on Sunday.

Since conservatives especally demand that the Constitution be interpreted narrowly and literally, can't the word "arms" be construed to exclude firearms? Or limited to the weaponry available at the time the amendment was written, because, in conservative-speak the Founders could not imagine automatic assault rifles?

There is another thing that peeves me. . .it's all about "self-defense". . .so people need "assault" rifles.

[aikoaiko]

15. The Second Amendment includes firearms -- are you really disputing that?

The word arms, in the context of the 2nd Amendment, cannot be 'construed' to exclude firearms, if it is to make any sense at all.

Really, imagine someone arguing that the 1st doesn't specifically state political speech, therefore it can be 'construed' to not include it.

Or how about, if someone suggested that 1st amendment doesn't protect speech on the internet because that technology wasn't "available at the time the amendment was written".

I own an AR-15 carbine for self-protection. Its the same type of weapon local, regular police use for self-defense should the situation call for it. Many police are giving up their shotguns in favor of a weapon with more precision.

[slackmaster]

26. Did the UU church shooter actually have a pump shotgun that holds 76 rounds of ammunition?

I'd like to see a picture of that.

If there is no photo, a crude MS Paint diagram would suffice.

:popcorn:

[DonP]

32. Through the door?

I want to see the YouTube video of the cops bringing that through the station house door. That must be the longest feed tube in the world?

Using 3 inch shells x 76 rounds, that would be a 19 foot long tube for that pump gun.

Might be a little nose heavy when fully loaded though.

But hell, it makes it sound scarier, so it must be true, right?

[beevul]

46. Uh...

"Except those weapons couldn't pack 76 rounds like the criminal at the Unitarian church killings on Sunday."

uh...the firearm used at the Unitarian church killings on Sunday held THREE (3) rounds.

[virginia mountainman]

53. WOW, what amazingly faulty logic..

Besides the obvious fallacy of the 78 round Shotgun..

Would you care to use the same logic of "The Founders could not imagine automatic assault rifles" to the other amendments of the Bill of Rights??

Like say the 1st??

The founders could not have possibly envisioned TV, Radio, and the Internet... So, does that mean the 1st Amendment does not apply to them???

Why not?? You set the precedent by using that logic on the 2nd Amendment..

[Odious justice]

50. Agreed.

Once you open the door to legislate against constitutional freedoms and the bill of rights-albeit unpopular ones are seemingly dated ones-we've lost.

The ACLU has defended unpopular speech since it's inception. The idea is to prevent a slippery slope. Other rights that people hold dear-such as procreation, the right to have a same sex relationship-are tied into the bill of rights. What happens when red states and cities start encroaching on these?

Liberty has to be pursued with an evenhanded resolve to protect all of us. If anyone wants to make handguns illegal, it needs to start and end with a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court interpretation of the second amendment that states as much. Legislation may get you into the supreme court, but at this point the case law and fundamental tradition of gun ownership will necessitate an actual amendment. In my opinion.

Peace.

[Pushed To The Left]

12. I think it's a good thing that the ACLU and NRA challenge laws they believe are unconstitutional

I agree with the ACLU a lot more often than I do the NRA(I'm a monthly ACLU donor), but they are both trying to protect the Bill of Rights.

[-..__...]

38. ACLU punks out on 2nd amendment.

How does an ACLU lawyer count?...

One, three, four, five...

The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

ANALYSIS
Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.

Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made.

Those questions will, presumably, be answered over time.

http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html

Sounds like they bit off more than they can chew...

http://blog.aclu.org/2008/07/01/heller-decision-and-the-second-amendment/

[spoony]

16. So they're going to waste taxpayer money fighting the Constitution

Wonderful. Just what this country needs more of. We need to kill that Bill of Rights for good and make sure it stays dead this time.

[tuckessee]

17. If Chicagoans are so irresponsible that they can not own firearms

then they should also have their powers of attorney revoked.

Prehaps they should be institutionalized, for their own safety as well as ours.

[NightWatcher]

18. gee, Chicago has a lot of gun crime AND heavy anti gun laws???

so the criminals can have guns, but the citizens cant?????

Be sure to keep the good guys from having guns. Only the criminals should have guns of course.

[slackmaster]

23. Chicago will get body-slammed the moment they present their case in any federal court

:popcorn:

[hogwyld]

24. Ohhhh, please Chicago

Win this case, and as a bonus, bankrupt the gun lobby as well. States and cities need to reserve the right to enforce their own gun statutes.

[JMackT]

27. Pipe dream

Not gonna happen

[DonP]

31. As long as we're at it ... anything else?

"States and cities need to reserve the right to enforce their own gun statutes."

How about ...

enforce their own voting statutes

enforce their own residential statutes

enforce their own drinking fountain statutes

enforce their own religious statutes

enforce their own abortion statutes

I know, all of those are silly and irrelevant. Controlling guns is a good idea ... well, just because.

But deciding that you can over ride any part of the constitution is just as silly, especially when the record shows it doesn't save any lives or even have a measurable impact on crime - like in Chicago.

"Win this case, and as a bonus, bankrupt the gun lobby as well."

Sure, why not. It's only my tax money anyway, right? So what if he pisses another $50 million or so in legal fees down a rathole with the schools and public transportation falling apart and the cops and firemen without a contract for the last 3 years.

The "Gun Lobby" is primarily 4+ million NRA members (some are actually Dems, imagine that?) that pay $35 to $40 a year to belong and an industry that's less than $4 billion in annual sales.

They are powerful not because they have huge corporations funding lobbyists but because they have a large block of voters in ever state that, with their extended families, tend to vote on 2nd amendment related issues like clockwork.

[-..__...]

35. Try "EPIC FAIL".

Daley/Chicago is going to get seriously 0w3n3d on this.

The best part is that by taking this foolish course of action, is that it's going to expedite 14th amendment incorporation.

Buh-bye (most), local and state gun control laws! :bounce: :woohoo:

[slackmaster]

45. Is the city government of Chicago really something you want making personal decisions for people?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3701936&mesg_id=3701936

[Squatch]

33. Chicago will lose this in the courts

which will result in 2 landmark cases providing "ammo" to future gun suits. The pendulum is going to swing waaaay over to the favor of national RKBA advocates if Chicago decides to fight this.

[tammywammy]

34. This city of Chicago will lose this case

As they should.

[-..__...]

36. Daley and Chicago are going to be singing a diffent tune, vey soon!

Another one bites the dust...

Wilmette... Chicago suburb repeals handgun ban
www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-wilmette-gunban,0,3102197.story

And another ones gone...

Morton Grove... Morton Grove repeals 27-year-old gun ban
www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-morton-grove-guns-both-29jul29,0,5742213.story

And another ones gone...

Oak Park... Gun rights group seeks apology from Oak Park administrator
www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-gun-ban-oak-park-argue_both_08jul08,0,2948299.story

And another ones gone...

Evanston... (I love the headline for this one!} To avoid NRA suit, aldermen vote to amend gun ban
www.dailynorthwestern.com/media/storage/paper853/news/2008/07/17/City/To.Avoid.Nra.Suit.Aldermen.Vote.To.Amend.Gun.Ban-3391932.shtml


And another one bites the dust...

Chicago...Chicago lays out handgun legal strategy
www.chitowndailynews.org/Chicago_news/Chicago_lays_out_handgun_legal_strategy,15284

"Morton Grove can do anything that it wants," Daley said at an unrelated news conference. "I don't look at this lightly—that, 'Oh, because the Supreme Court's done it we're just gonna dismiss it and all of a sudden people can arm themselves,' " he said.

:rofl:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-gun-turnin_jul26,0,6100999.story

[DailyGrind51]

37. I hope you are right!

[-..__...]

40. Unfortunately, it could take a long time...

for it to reach the SCOTUS (assuming they even accept the case).

The Heller case was originally filed in Feb, 03.

That situation makes it even more important that any future court nominees support the Heller decision and the individuals right to keep and bear arms.

[DonP]

39. Daley has been leaning on the burbs for months

Some of the local papers have reported that Daley staff have been pushing them since before the Heller decision to not let their handgun bans drop.

They have been offered moral, legal and financial support in their fight against the decision.

Most of them said, no thanks. That's part of the reason Daley is so red faced and foaming at the mouth at the news conferences and is now claiming that allowing law abiding citizens to own a hand gun will "endanger our first responders".

I'm sure that many people, when their home is on fire, take time to lock and load for a few shots at the firefighters coming through the front door.

He's desperate now and flailing. But that won't stop him from pissing away another $50 million in legal fees while the schools fall apart.

Last weekend he used up $680,000 for his gun "buy back".

[dysfunctional press]

41. who cares how much taxpayer money daley wastes on this pointless fight...

:shrug:

since i moved out of the city, and won't be footing a part of the bill, i sure don't...

[dems_rightnow]

49. And I'll never have an abortion...

So who cares about a woman's rights to choose? :sarcasm:

[virginia mountainman]

51. DELETE posted in wrong place...

[virginia mountainman]

52. Looks like it will be a slam dunk for incorporation..

Looks like we will need to send BOTH Mayor Fenty, and Mayor Daley "thank you" notes when all this is over with.

I have a feeling, when all is said and done, those two blockheads by pushing lawsuits they are doomed to loose, will have done more to farther gun rights in the US than just about anyone else in the past decade.

With the exception of Mrs Fienstein of course.

Just imagine, as Democrats, where we would be today, if she had not "awoken the sleeping grizzly bear" in 1994, that gun owners are today.