Chicago: Strict gun rules if ban overturned

2384 Views 47 Replies 9 Participants Last post by Colfaulkner, May 22, 2010

T.Webb

Discussion Starter · May 22, 2010

Chicago: Strict gun rules if ban overturned

Chicago gun owners could be required to take a training course, register their firearms, allow police to perform ballistics tests and even purchase liability insurance if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the city's strictest in the nation handgun ban.

1 - 20 of 48 Posts

T.Webb

Discussion Starter · #2 · May 22, 2010

Chicago: Strict gun rules if ban overturned

Chicago gun owners could be required to take a training course, register their firearms, allow police to perform ballistics tests and even purchase liability insurance if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the city's strictest in the nation handgun ban.

T.Webb

Discussion Starter · #3 · May 22, 2010

City could require gun owners get training, liability insurance if handgun ban overturned

May 20, 2010

BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter
Chicago gun owners could be required to take a training course, register their firearms, allow police to perform ballistics tests and even purchase liability insurance, if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the city's strictest-in-the-nation handgun ban.

Mayor Daley isn't saying precisely what he will do in the face of almost certain defeat.

But to protect first-responders, he's prepared to go above and beyond the replacement model crafted by Washington D.C. after its handgun ban bit the dust.

Washington requires gun owners to get five hours of safety training, register their firearms every three years and face criminal background checks every six years.

Gun owners there are further required to submit fingerprints and allow police to perform ballistic tests. They must keep revolvers unloaded and either disassembled or secured with trigger locks unless they have reason to fear a home intruder.

As sweeping as those provisions are, they apparently don't go far enough for Daley, who hinted strongly at an insurance component to protect police officers and paramedics.

"You have to think about the first-responders. You're putting them in a difficult position to make decisions. What happens if they don't make the right decision? A person has a gun, but is [it] the person in the house? Does he have a right to carry a gun or is he the person [who] broke in?" Daley said.

"I'm not laying it out, but there are gonna be many topics we're gonna talk about and who pays for it. And [the city may require] authorized people like the Chicago Police Department to train you."

Earlier this year, Daley ridiculed the Supreme Court for affirming the Second Amendment right to bear arms while sitting in a protective bubble.

On Thursday, he continued to hold out hope that the justices would have an abrupt change of heart.

"You have to have confidence in the Supreme Court. Maybe they'll see the light of day. Maybe one of them will have an incident and they'll change their mind overnight," he said.

See less See more

T.Webb

Discussion Starter · #4 · May 22, 2010

City could require gun owners get training, liability insurance if handgun ban overturned

May 20, 2010

BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter
Chicago gun owners could be required to take a training course, register their firearms, allow police to perform ballistics tests and even purchase liability insurance, if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the city's strictest-in-the-nation handgun ban.

Mayor Daley isn't saying precisely what he will do in the face of almost certain defeat.

But to protect first-responders, he's prepared to go above and beyond the replacement model crafted by Washington D.C. after its handgun ban bit the dust.

Washington requires gun owners to get five hours of safety training, register their firearms every three years and face criminal background checks every six years.

Gun owners there are further required to submit fingerprints and allow police to perform ballistic tests. They must keep revolvers unloaded and either disassembled or secured with trigger locks unless they have reason to fear a home intruder.

As sweeping as those provisions are, they apparently don't go far enough for Daley, who hinted strongly at an insurance component to protect police officers and paramedics.

"You have to think about the first-responders. You're putting them in a difficult position to make decisions. What happens if they don't make the right decision? A person has a gun, but is [it] the person in the house? Does he have a right to carry a gun or is he the person [who] broke in?" Daley said.

"I'm not laying it out, but there are gonna be many topics we're gonna talk about and who pays for it. And [the city may require] authorized people like the Chicago Police Department to train you."

Earlier this year, Daley ridiculed the Supreme Court for affirming the Second Amendment right to bear arms while sitting in a protective bubble.

On Thursday, he continued to hold out hope that the justices would have an abrupt change of heart.

"You have to have confidence in the Supreme Court. Maybe they'll see the light of day. Maybe one of them will have an incident and they'll change their mind overnight," he said.

See less See more

SteveG

· #5 · May 22, 2010

We thought Bloomberg was dangerous, but after hearing the horror stories about Daly, Bloomberg, as bad as he is isn't making the proverbial pimple on this guy's a$$
What makes it worse is that BLoomberg not being that far behind this guy, will be getting ideas from him.
If these rgulations make it prohibitive and difficult to own a gun as these guys intend it to do, it will only mean additional lawsuits to beat it. Make it expensive is what these guys are all about. Bloomberg would be the realproblem then because of his unlimited money.

SteveG

· #6 · May 22, 2010

We thought Bloomberg was dangerous, but after hearing the horror stories about Daly, Bloomberg, as bad as he is isn't making the proverbial pimple on this guy's a$$
What makes it worse is that BLoomberg not being that far behind this guy, will be getting ideas from him.
If these rgulations make it prohibitive and difficult to own a gun as these guys intend it to do, it will only mean additional lawsuits to beat it. Make it expensive is what these guys are all about. Bloomberg would be the realproblem then because of his unlimited money.

gmirsky

· #7 · May 22, 2010

The insurance requirement will never see the light of day. If Chicago is successful in requiring liability insurance for the exercise of the second amendment (a specific enumerated right -- see DC vs. Heller) then that reasoning can be applied to the First Amendment where reporters and journalist will be required to have anti-defamation and liability insurance too. As much as I hate the ACLU the ACLU will jump on that one big time if only to protect their precious First Amendment rights.

gmirsky

· #8 · May 22, 2010

The insurance requirement will never see the light of day. If Chicago is successful in requiring liability insurance for the exercise of the second amendment (a specific enumerated right -- see DC vs. Heller) then that reasoning can be applied to the First Amendment where reporters and journalist will be required to have anti-defamation and liability insurance too. As much as I hate the ACLU the ACLU will jump on that one big time if only to protect their precious First Amendment rights.

guyver0313

· #9 · May 22, 2010

gmirsky said:
The insurance requirement will never see the light of day. If Chicago is successful in requiring liability insurance for the exercise of the second amendment (a specific enumerated right -- see DC vs. Heller) then that reasoning can be applied to the First Amendment where reporters and journalist will be required to have anti-defamation and liability insurance too. As much as I hate the ACLU the ACLU will jump on that one big time if only to protect their precious First Amendment rights.

I doubt the last part. From what I have seen, the ACLU only jumps on it when it is something the progressives want done. Like when a school wants unlimited access to children in order to teach 7 year old kids about sex to include positions and various other preferences. The parents were undermined by the 9th circuit and the ACLU was nowhere to be heard. But if a gay guy is not allowed on a bus because there is insufficient room or maybe he is dressed like a freak with various parts exposed that should not, the ACLU jumped on his rights to expression and the city and that worker are sued into bankruptcy.

guyver0313

· #10 · May 22, 2010

gmirsky said:
The insurance requirement will never see the light of day. If Chicago is successful in requiring liability insurance for the exercise of the second amendment (a specific enumerated right -- see DC vs. Heller) then that reasoning can be applied to the First Amendment where reporters and journalist will be required to have anti-defamation and liability insurance too. As much as I hate the ACLU the ACLU will jump on that one big time if only to protect their precious First Amendment rights.

I doubt the last part. From what I have seen, the ACLU only jumps on it when it is something the progressives want done. Like when a school wants unlimited access to children in order to teach 7 year old kids about sex to include positions and various other preferences. The parents were undermined by the 9th circuit and the ACLU was nowhere to be heard. But if a gay guy is not allowed on a bus because there is insufficient room or maybe he is dressed like a freak with various parts exposed that should not, the ACLU jumped on his rights to expression and the city and that worker are sued into bankruptcy.

SteveG

· #11 · May 22, 2010

As much as the ACLU claims to be a defender of rights, they have, as far as I know never come to the aid of the 2nd Amendment. As far as insurance goes, there are bills right now up in Albany that would require insurance in prohibitive amounts for gun stores doing buisness in NY. It is eefectively aimed at closing all the stores.
I was speaking with one owner a few weeks back and according to him, rightnow if that does pass in Albany, there are no companies offering theinsurance and it would take at least 2 to 3 years for the NRA to set something like that up with the insurance co's. About the onyl one now that would insure at tis time would be Lloyd's of London.
If you have ever dealt withLloyd's, they are not a problem but they are prohibitively expensive.

SteveG

· #12 · May 22, 2010

As much as the ACLU claims to be a defender of rights, they have, as far as I know never come to the aid of the 2nd Amendment. As far as insurance goes, there are bills right now up in Albany that would require insurance in prohibitive amounts for gun stores doing buisness in NY. It is eefectively aimed at closing all the stores.
I was speaking with one owner a few weeks back and according to him, rightnow if that does pass in Albany, there are no companies offering theinsurance and it would take at least 2 to 3 years for the NRA to set something like that up with the insurance co's. About the onyl one now that would insure at tis time would be Lloyd's of London.
If you have ever dealt withLloyd's, they are not a problem but they are prohibitively expensive.

2edgesword

· #13 · May 22, 2010

I seriously doubt that a positive SC ruling is going to have a significant impact on the situation in Chicago, NYC, Nassau or Suffolk. The SC ruling requires state, local and county governments, as well as local law enforcement, to take action based on that ruling to put the positive aspects of the ruling into effect. They (local government and law enforcement) can drag their feet and throw up all kinds of obstacles to prevent the essence of the ruling from being practically carried out. We've seen it in DC and it is being threatened in Chicago. It's called "soft tyranny".

2edgesword

· #14 · May 22, 2010

I seriously doubt that a positive SC ruling is going to have a significant impact on the situation in Chicago, NYC, Nassau or Suffolk. The SC ruling requires state, local and county governments, as well as local law enforcement, to take action based on that ruling to put the positive aspects of the ruling into effect. They (local government and law enforcement) can drag their feet and throw up all kinds of obstacles to prevent the essence of the ruling from being practically carried out. We've seen it in DC and it is being threatened in Chicago. It's called "soft tyranny".

SteveG

· #15 · May 22, 2010

2edgesword said:
I seriously doubt that a positive SC ruling is going to have a significant impact on the situation in Chicago, NYC, Nassau or Suffolk. The SC ruling requires state, local and county governments, as well as local law enforcement, to take action based on that ruling to put the positive aspects of the ruling into effect. They (local government and law enforcement) can drag their feet and throw up all kinds of obstacles to prevent the essence of the ruling from being practically carried out. We've seen it in DC and it is being threatened in Chicago. It's called "soft tyranny".

And guaranteed it's going to happen here.

SteveG

· #16 · May 22, 2010

2edgesword said:
I seriously doubt that a positive SC ruling is going to have a significant impact on the situation in Chicago, NYC, Nassau or Suffolk. The SC ruling requires state, local and county governments, as well as local law enforcement, to take action based on that ruling to put the positive aspects of the ruling into effect. They (local government and law enforcement) can drag their feet and throw up all kinds of obstacles to prevent the essence of the ruling from being practically carried out. We've seen it in DC and it is being threatened in Chicago. It's called "soft tyranny".

And guaranteed it's going to happen here.

AkunaMatata

· #17 · May 22, 2010

I think this is nuts... but how do you guys feel about the training course? I mean most of us got our firearms training from childhood, a friend in the sport, military, police etc. but we all the the occaisional newbie at the range who make the range officers scream. I mean 3 weeks ago at calverton some guy picked up his gun and aimed down the sights at his target while the guy on the golf cart was riding past. He didn't just touch his gun to wipe something off and get yelled at, he picked it up and actually aimed as if to fire.

I assume he just was never taught how serious you need to treat guns, he might have been a newbie who just thought "well if I dont pull the trigger it's ok." Not everyone has the father, drill sergeant, or friend that taught most of us what we consider to be firearm common sense.

Sorry to be off topic, but I think a simple 1 hour safety course on how to not be an idiot may be a good idea in some cases.

AkunaMatata

· #18 · May 22, 2010

I think this is nuts... but how do you guys feel about the training course? I mean most of us got our firearms training from childhood, a friend in the sport, military, police etc. but we all the the occaisional newbie at the range who make the range officers scream. I mean 3 weeks ago at calverton some guy picked up his gun and aimed down the sights at his target while the guy on the golf cart was riding past. He didn't just touch his gun to wipe something off and get yelled at, he picked it up and actually aimed as if to fire.

I assume he just was never taught how serious you need to treat guns, he might have been a newbie who just thought "well if I dont pull the trigger it's ok." Not everyone has the father, drill sergeant, or friend that taught most of us what we consider to be firearm common sense.

Sorry to be off topic, but I think a simple 1 hour safety course on how to not be an idiot may be a good idea in some cases.

gmirsky

· #19 · May 22, 2010

AkunaMatata said:
...Sorry to be off topic, but I think a simple 1 hour safety course on how to not be an idiot may be a good idea in some cases.

As a a certified NRA firearms instructor I agree but I do not want the government specifying the vendor, date, times or methodologies and materials used for training. Otherwise mandatory training becomes another obstacle to your exercise of the second amendment.

Then again, to play the Devil advocate, no one is forced to take a public speaking, writing or sensitivity training class before they express their ideas under the First Amendment. If all amendments are equal why would you allow this restriction on the second amendment? The words of Marx, Hitler, Stalin, Lennin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Che, (pick a despot) have killed more people than inept handling of firearms.

gmirsky

· #20 · May 22, 2010

AkunaMatata said:
...Sorry to be off topic, but I think a simple 1 hour safety course on how to not be an idiot may be a good idea in some cases.

As a a certified NRA firearms instructor I agree but I do not want the government specifying the vendor, date, times or methodologies and materials used for training. Otherwise mandatory training becomes another obstacle to your exercise of the second amendment.

Then again, to play the Devil advocate, no one is forced to take a public speaking, writing or sensitivity training class before they express their ideas under the First Amendment. If all amendments are equal why would you allow this restriction on the second amendment? The words of Marx, Hitler, Stalin, Lennin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Che, (pick a despot) have killed more people than inept handling of firearms.

1 - 20 of 48 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.