Rahm's new Police Chief on gun rights

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,597
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
Fact is, gun laws that are fine and dandy for country folk and affluent neighborhoods are not real popular in the ghetto.

Some folks just can't figure out why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation.
They are not allowed to ban handguns in the home because the second amendment was rescued from legal oblivion by gun nuts. That doesn't seem so terrible to me, but I'm a gun nut. Maybe you can explain why it's terrible.

What other things are they not being allowed to do? It seems to me that gun laws vary widely by location, yet some ghetto hands are being tied? How and by whom?
Did those questions seem like demands? Poor baby.

What other things are they not being allowed to do?
I suspect they do not feel the need for another reason to feel the way they do.
Just so there are no more misunderstandings, by "another reason" do you mean to say that the reason under discussion is that they are not allowed to ban handguns in the home because the second amendment was rescued from legal oblivion by gun nuts?

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,597
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
Here's another guy who was armed when thugs busted into his house. It didn't work out too well for him.
It worked out about as well as can be expected for this guy...

(Police) report on the incident explained that at 2 a.m. Sunday Mitchell was asleep in his residence in the 14200 block of Olympic Drive when Quinn allegedly drove a 1994 Chevrolet Silverado pickup into the front of Mitchell's home.

Hobbs said Mitchell armed himself with a handgun and went to the area of his residence where he heard the crash. When Mitchell went into the room he reportedly was confronted by Quinn, who had gotten out of the pickup.

Quinn allegedly advanced toward Mitchell in a threatening manner while making threats to kill him, Hobbs said.

Mitchell attempted to flee his own residence, and as he was trying to get out of the house Quinn caught up to him, Hobbs said.

Mitchell fired his handgun at Quinn and struck him multiple times
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,597
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
Self defense stories work out a bit differently over in England...

Having confronted travellers cutting down trees on her farm, terminally-ill Tracy St Clair Pearce found herself subjected to a terrifying ordeal.
Some of the group pelted her with rocks while a youth threatened to slit her throat and slaughter her cattle.

When she dialled 999 she expected the full weight of the law to be on her side.

Instead, however, police officers criticised her for inflaming the situation and confiscated her legally held shotguns – even though they had been locked away in a cabinet at home throughout the incident.
It's not just shotguns locked in cabinets that are scary. Kitchen knives too! :rolleyes:

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,597
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
Looks like Rahm is in favor of gun ranges in the city all of a sudden!

Or at least smart enough to know when the game of fucking with the court rulings is up and it's time to retreat before you get your ass handed to you again. The courts were not going to buy the requirement that owners go to a range coupled with the ban on ranges in the city, so he just hung onto the range ban until he could not any more.

Chicago's decades-old campaign against handguns was dealt another blow Wednesday when the City Council was forced to approve an ordinance allowing residents to practice becoming better shooters.
At the urging of Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the council voted to allow gun ranges in the city, anticipating that the federal appellate court in Chicago would strike down a provision of Chicago's year-old gun ordinance that requires residents to get training at firing ranges but prohibits ranges in the city.

Coincidentally, the appeals court ruled temporarily against the ban on ranges on the same day, signaling Wednesday that it would likely find the provision unconstitutional in response to lawsuits challenging it.

Emanuel said he pushed for the new gun measure even before the court handed down its ruling after his legal team told him the ban on ranges was likely to be rejected and might jeopardize other parts of a larger gun ordinance the council adopted last year after the U.S. Supreme Court went against the city's more sweeping gun ban.

"I did want to protect the other parts of the ordinance," Emanuel told reporters after the council voted to allow the ranges.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,597
1,743
Punta Gorda FL

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,597
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
It is likely to start happening in Wisconsin, where upcoming concealed carry legislation is already proving popular with citizens.

It's a bit more affordable than San Francisco...

Under the legislation, a concealed carry permit would cost no more than $37 plus $13 to cover the cost of a background check. The permit would be valid for five years. Renewing a license would cost $25.
Training classes typically cost $125 to $150.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,597
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
Ezell v Chicago

The right to arms includes the right to practice with arms: “The right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use; the core right wouldn’t mean much without the training and practice that make it effective. The Ezell court pointed to the Supreme Court having “quoted at length from the ‘massively popular 1868 Treatise on Constitutional Limitations’ by judge and professor Thomas Cooley: ‘[T]o bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them . . . ; it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order’.” In addition, “‘No doubt, a citizen who keeps a gun or pistol under judicious precautions, practices in safe places the use of it, and in due time teaches his sons to do the same, exercises his individual right.’
...

The City’s firing-range ban is not merely regulatory; it prohibits the ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens’ of Chicago from engaging in target practice in the controlled environment of a firing range. This is a serious encroachment on the right to maintain proficiency in firearm use, an important corollary to the meaningful exercise of the core right to possess firearms for self-defense.”In short, the Second Amendment is part of normal constitutional law.
So far, the restrictions on local governments that resulted from gun extremists rescuing the second amendment from legal oblivion are that they cannot ban handguns in the home, and if they are going to insist that people go to firing ranges to qualify, they must allow firing ranges to exist. We're up to two restrictions now, but they seem reasonable to me.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,597
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
Another reason banning handguns in the home is a bad idea. My sources provide me with a few of these each day...

Police say two armed men approached the woman’s boyfriend, who was sitting in a car outside the house. They forced the man inside the home and beat him. Police say the woman heard the commotion, opened fire on those two suspects. She killed one of them. The other got away, but he could be injured as well.
“She was pretty sure she shot the other one," said Bailey.

...

There is no word yet on if the woman will be charged or if it was self defense. Her boyfriend was pistol whipped by the suspects and was beaten pretty badly. Police say he will be ok.
That last line indicates that NC needs a "Castle Doctrine" passed. In Florida, I doubt there would be any question about whether she would be charged. If someone pushes your boyfriend in your house and starts pistol-whipping him down here, it's considered OK to shoot the bastard.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,597
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
More on Ezell v Chicago, in which the City is being dragged kicking and screaming to show a bit of respect for the second amendment.

When the Supreme Court told them they must allow citizens to possess a handgun for self defense in the home, they jumped right on the technicalities: But not the garage or front porch! No outbuildings, either. "Clean the damn thing in your living room, and we don't care what your wife thinks about the mess and smell!" was the message Chicago sent to gun owning residents in their new law.

As noted, they also required range time, but banned firing ranges. Knowing that such a silly contradiction could not survive in court, they quickly passed a bill "technically" allowing firing ranges just before the court was going to force that outcome.

From the article:

In a court ruling handed down Wednesday, Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals accused the Chicago City Council of passing a gun ordinance last year that was "too clever by half" and amounted to "a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court."
...

In anticipation of Wednesday's "stop-playing-silly-games" ruling, Ald. James Balcer, 11th, chair of the Public Safety Committee, introduced a 24-page ordinance that, technically, allows for the construction and operation of indoor gun ranges within the city limits.

I say "technically" because the restrictions the law places on those who want to open private gun ranges are so brazenly burdensome experts doubt anyone will even try.

Under the law, which passed Wednesday, shooting ranges must be in areas zoned for manufacturing and at least 1,000 feet from any park, day-care facility or other children's activity center, place of worship, liquor store or bar, library, museum, hospital or district zoned for residential use.

They must close at 8 p.m., have one "range master" for every three customers on the firing line, and meet a variety of ventilation and noise-reduction requirements that industry experts say are higher than those imposed on law-enforcement training ranges in the city. Further, they must pay a $4,000 business license fee every two years, more than five times the fee paid by a similarly sized bowling alley, for example.

Gun ranges under the new law will not be allowed to sell guns or ammunition that can be taken from the premises, though such sales are standard at firearms practice facilities across the country.

"I've never seen restrictions this severe and unnecessary," said Addison Sovine, executive vice president and co-founder of Action Target Inc., a 25-year-old Provo, Utah, firm that manufactures and installs range equipment throughout the world.

Typically, Sovine said, gun ranges are in areas zoned for light industrial or commercial use (and in fact there are shooting ranges in shopping centers and strip malls even here in Illinois). They pay normal business license fees and meet an established set of environmental standards.

Sovine estimated Chicago's ordinance roughly triples the normal cost of doing business for a potential range owner.

City Law Department spokeswoman Jennifer Hoyle said the high license fees reflect the cost of necessary background checks and inspections, and she defended the location restrictions as being similar to those placed on other "adult-use" businesses.

"I just think (gun ranges are) very dangerous," said Ald. Balcer. "Those restrictions are all about safety."

If so, the city has offered no proof; no statistics or studies that support treating gun ranges as though they were noisy offal-processing plants instead of recreational facilities that simply require a lot of insulation.
Possibly because there can be no proof of something that is just not true.

The obvious intent is to "allow" ranges while making them economically unviable, thus continuing to disallow them. Anything to throw a roadblock in the way of gun ownership, it seems...

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,597
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
Following a line of reasoning similar to Chicago's "you must have range time, but can't have a range" line, DC is also going to lose another costly lawsuit because they insist on playing games with the Supreme Court.

DC rules say that gun owners wishing to transfer legally owned guns from outside of the District must transfer the weapon to a licensed dealer. The only licensed dealer closed down due to their zoning rules, and they will not allow him to reopen. "You must have a dealer, but you can't have a dealer" is not going to fly in court, and the DC government is once again wasting taxpayer money in their fight against guns.

Federal and district laws require handguns crossing the D.C. border to be shipped to an FFL before the owner can take possession of them. But critics say Mendelson's new measure won't do anything to get D.C. out of a lawsuit that's about to get pricey, and won't do anything to change the strict zoning rules that are keeping Sykes from reopening in the first place.
"They need to come to terms with the fact that the Second Amendment applies to them," Alan Gura, the attorney who is bringing the new lawsuit against D.C., said.

Gura filed suit in federal court in May on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation and three D.C. residents who legally own handguns in other states but can't bring them into the city under current law. Right now the United States, Virginia and D.C. are all defendants, but Gura said that could change if D.C. would just drop its FFL rule.

"All they're doing by maintaining it is buying themselves a lawsuit -- I've told them this," Gura, who won the 2008 landmark Supreme Court case against the District forcing it to lift its handgun ban, said. "The D.C. government is playing games. ... This is going to wind up once again costing the taxpayers."
These continued games by the anti-gun crowd, "allowing" gun ownership, but making it dependent on a facility that is not allowed, do nothing to promote public safety, cost a great deal of money, and naturally make gun owners suspicious of their motives because of those two facts. All the assurance in the world that these people are not against gun ownership falls flat when they do things like this and only gun extremists are willing to call them out on their obvious nonsense.

Well, OK, gun extremists and eventually the courts, but we could all save a lot of money if they quit the nonsense.

 

Saorsa

Super Anarchist
36,781
422
Following a line of reasoning similar to Chicago's "you must have range time, but can't have a range" line, DC is also going to lose another costly lawsuit because they insist on playing games with the Supreme Court.

DC rules say that gun owners wishing to transfer legally owned guns from outside of the District must transfer the weapon to a licensed dealer. The only licensed dealer closed down due to their zoning rules, and they will not allow him to reopen. "You must have a dealer, but you can't have a dealer" is not going to fly in court, and the DC government is once again wasting taxpayer money in their fight against guns.

Federal and district laws require handguns crossing the D.C. border to be shipped to an FFL before the owner can take possession of them. But critics say Mendelson's new measure won't do anything to get D.C. out of a lawsuit that's about to get pricey, and won't do anything to change the strict zoning rules that are keeping Sykes from reopening in the first place.
"They need to come to terms with the fact that the Second Amendment applies to them," Alan Gura, the attorney who is bringing the new lawsuit against D.C., said.

Gura filed suit in federal court in May on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation and three D.C. residents who legally own handguns in other states but can't bring them into the city under current law. Right now the United States, Virginia and D.C. are all defendants, but Gura said that could change if D.C. would just drop its FFL rule.

"All they're doing by maintaining it is buying themselves a lawsuit -- I've told them this," Gura, who won the 2008 landmark Supreme Court case against the District forcing it to lift its handgun ban, said. "The D.C. government is playing games. ... This is going to wind up once again costing the taxpayers."
These continued games by the anti-gun crowd, "allowing" gun ownership, but making it dependent on a facility that is not allowed, do nothing to promote public safety, cost a great deal of money, and naturally make gun owners suspicious of their motives because of those two facts. All the assurance in the world that these people are not against gun ownership falls flat when they do things like this and only gun extremists are willing to call them out on their obvious nonsense.

Well, OK, gun extremists and eventually the courts, but we could all save a lot of money if they quit the nonsense.
But Toooommmmm, it makes them feel soooooo clever.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,597
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
Yes, finding clever ways around the second amendment does seem to be one of the main ways that Chicago and DC politicians amuse themselves. It would be very funny if they had to pay the legal bills out of their own pockets. Digging into taxpayer pockets to finance their word games is wrong.

 

A guy in the Chesapeake

Super Anarchist
23,965
1,167
Virginia
Yes, finding clever ways around the second amendment does seem to be one of the main ways that Chicago and DC politicians amuse themselves. It would be very funny if they had to pay the legal bills out of their own pockets. Digging into taxpayer pockets to finance their word games is wrong.
I'm a "rabid, gun-toting fool" who lives in VA, but, I feel obligated to add some data points to the DC portion of this discussion: The gun shop owner's loss of his lease was a bldg owner's decision, not the DC government. Right now - the DC government is actually working with the gun shop owner to help him find a new premises for his business. So - while the DC council and mayoral staff have ALL stated that they'd rather have seen the gun ban remain in place, they don't seem to be complicit in this particular shop's closure.

 

atoyot

Super Anarchist
7,612
145
Dela-where?
The obvious intent is to "allow" ranges while making them economically unviable, thus continuing to disallow them. Anything to throw a roadblock in the way of gun ownership, it seems...

Sort of like allowing people to have a gun but taxing the ammo out of reach of most people, making marksmanship practice nearly impossible.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,597
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
I'm a "rabid, gun-toting fool" who lives in VA, but, I feel obligated to add some data points to the DC portion of this discussion: The gun shop owner's loss of his lease was a bldg owner's decision, not the DC government. Right now - the DC government is actually working with the gun shop owner to help him find a new premises for his business. So - while the DC council and mayoral staff have ALL stated that they'd rather have seen the gun ban remain in place, they don't seem to be complicit in this particular shop's closure.
Thanks for filling in that info. The piece I read suggested that they were "helping" him find a new location by disapproving every suggestion he tries. I guess that's helpful by process of elimination, assuming the behavior at some point comes to a stop.

 

A guy in the Chesapeake

Super Anarchist
23,965
1,167
Virginia
I'm a "rabid, gun-toting fool" who lives in VA, but, I feel obligated to add some data points to the DC portion of this discussion: The gun shop owner's loss of his lease was a bldg owner's decision, not the DC government. Right now - the DC government is actually working with the gun shop owner to help him find a new premises for his business. So - while the DC council and mayoral staff have ALL stated that they'd rather have seen the gun ban remain in place, they don't seem to be complicit in this particular shop's closure.
Thanks for filling in that info. The piece I read suggested that they were "helping" him find a new location by disapproving every suggestion he tries. I guess that's helpful by process of elimination, assuming the behavior at some point comes to a stop.
Locally - it's actually been proffered that the DC govt act as the "licensed broker" - but - there are "liability concerns" w/r/t the local govt assuming this role. IMHO the DC govt is as self serving and intellectually corrupt as our national govt, but, if their actions are being reported honestly, they are actually behaving judiciously in this matter.

Time will tell.....

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,597
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
Locally - it's actually been proffered that the DC govt act as the "licensed broker" - but - there are "liability concerns" w/r/t the local govt assuming this role.
Yes, that was how the article I linked began:

D.C. Councilman Phil Mendelson released the text of his emergency legislation to make the District a federal firearms licensee, able to sell and transfer guns to citizens.
They just can't find a single place in DC where a gun store should be allowed, but the government can be a gun dealer?

I think they could look a bit harder to find space. <_<

Gura said they would still be liable for the coming lawsuit if they allow only the government to be a dealer, so that liability does not go away.

Handgun owners might be concerned about the fact that gun dealers have to keep firearms sale records, and this particular government has banned handguns in the recent past. We could be one Supreme Court justice away from the reinstatement of that ban...

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,597
1,743
Punta Gorda FL
Shotgun totin' redneck (grandson of D politician, so he's OK) sends home invader running.

Home invasion in rural America = not a great idea. Too many of us are armed. :p

A gunman who broke into a 77-year-old Iowa congressman’s farm and scuffled with the lawmaker was chased away by the congressman’s shotgun-wielding grandson, according to reports.
Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa) was home at his farm near Lamoni, Iowa, with his wife, Dody, his daughter, Cindy Brown, and his grandson, Mitchell Brown, at around 10:45 p.m. on Saturday when an armed man broke in through the front door, the congressman’s office said in a statement to the Associated Press.

After slipping in, the thug attacked Cindy Brown and demanded money.

When Boswell heard his daughter’s screams, he ran into the room and jumped on the intruder, trying to knock away his gun, the statement said.

As they wrestled, Mitchell Brown, 22, grabbed a shotgun from another room and pointed it at the burglar, who fled into some fields surrounding the home.
 
Top