PDA

View Full Version : Mayor Daley is feeling the love...


Centurion_D
08-04-2008, 8:52 PM
Heller style..

http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/1087669,CST-NWS-guns02.article

Daley hints he may drop fight to keep handgun ban

August 2, 2008
Recommend (6)

BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter/fspielman@suntimes.com

Mayor Daley on Friday cracked the door open to abandoning the costly fight to uphold Chicago's 1982 handgun freeze -- if he can fashion a replacement ordinance that protects the safety of first-responders.

Until now, Daley had promised to defend Chicago's ordinance all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, despite what he called the dangerous precedent set by the court.

On June 26, the Supreme Court overturned a Washington, D.C., handgun ban on grounds that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to possess a handgun in your home for self-defense.

The National Rifle Association then filed lawsuits seeking to overturn handgun bans in Chicago, Morton Grove, Evanston and Oak Park.

Wilmette and Morton Grove preemptively repealed their bans.

Now that both suburbs have thrown in the towel, and newspaper editorials have urged Daley to do the same to save millions in legal costs on a fight he can't win, he appears to be having second thoughts.

At a news conference called to tout the 6,848 guns collected at last week's gun turn-in program, Daley was asked point-blank whether he would continue the legal fight to keep Chicago's handgun ban.

"We don't know yet. ... We're not gonna run away. We're gonna try to figure this out," he said.

Under further questioning, the mayor said city attorneys would simultaneously contest the law and work on a possible replacement.

Chicagoans with guns in their homes might be required to have insurance to protect taxpayers from frivolous lawsuits, he said.

"We're talking about putting first-responders in a very, very delicate position of people being armed without being notified how many guns they have in their homes," Daley said. "We have to be able to fashion a law that truly protects first-responders and protects the citizens."

Guntech
08-04-2008, 8:59 PM
Daley is a moron like a lot of people who think criminals are going to buy guns legally. And then after the murder rate and crime rate with guns goes up when they ban guns like in D.C. they come up with some bs

Solidmch
08-04-2008, 9:02 PM
What a moron. Now he is protecting first responders. Protect them by putting bad guys in jail, and quit making our cities out of cutody prisons for people on probation and parole.

Saigon1965
08-04-2008, 9:05 PM
Wish more cities would follow suit and throw in their towels -

yellowfin
08-04-2008, 9:22 PM
My guess is that he's just going to do what DC did and make it still a 95-99% ban so it can't be held in court that they have a 100% ban. No way is that slimy despot going to let freedom ring above a stuttering whisper.

chris
08-04-2008, 9:32 PM
what a douche bag.

Builder
08-04-2008, 9:42 PM
This collapse may not be such a great thing.
It would be advantageous to have a court ruling that Heller is incorporated to the states, ie. Heller applies to the states.
Failing Chicago, the challenge to the S. F. handgun ban should get it incorporated for us.
Thanks,
Builder

56Chevy
08-04-2008, 10:37 PM
what a douche bag.
How do you really feel about him?:D

This year has been a great one for seeing people get what's coming to them.

M. Sage
08-04-2008, 10:41 PM
This collapse may not be such a great thing.
It would be advantageous to have a court ruling that Heller is incorporated to the states, ie. Heller applies to the states.
Failing Chicago, the challenge to the S. F. handgun ban should get it incorporated for us.
Thanks,
Builder

Don't worry. Newsom is too stupid and vain to let the issue drop.

Builder
08-04-2008, 10:50 PM
Don't worry. Newsom is too stupid and vain to let the issue drop.
:D I hoped that was the case!!
Thanks,
Builder

Bizcuits
08-04-2008, 11:01 PM
Well the guys obviously anti-gun and as a result not someone I'd give the time of day, if he's willing to throw in the towel to save money the tax payers money, then at least he's doing something half right.. Although I doubt that's the true meaning..

56Chevy
08-04-2008, 11:48 PM
Don't worry. Newsom is too stupid and vain to let the issue drop.
Thank goodness for the stupid.

tombinghamthegreat
08-04-2008, 11:57 PM
Don't worry. Newsom is too stupid and vain to let the issue drop.

He might have more tax payers money available to fight the NRA than Daley.

dfletcher
08-05-2008, 12:26 AM
Is it possible these guys will all throw in the towel, side step incorporation & set up restrictive laws - laws more restrictive than if we won in court - because they know they will lose?

aileron
08-05-2008, 5:55 AM
Daley is a moron like a lot of people who think criminals are going to buy guns legally. And then after the murder rate and crime rate with guns goes up when they ban guns like in D.C. they come up with some bs

Daley is more than a moron he is a thug himself. In bulldozing Meigs field in the middle of the night, he proved himself a criminal. Especially considering there was an agreement between the city and state to keep the airport open for another 25 years.

http://www.aopa.org/images/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/03-1-157x_3.jpg

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/03-1-157x.html

I would imagine his comments about needing to know who has guns and how many they own is because he is looking to later harass them once he knows who they are.

HowardW56
08-05-2008, 8:35 AM
Don't worry. Newsom is too stupid and vain to let the issue drop.

I hope you're right

hill billy
08-05-2008, 9:23 AM
THis kind of makes me nervous. Daley doesn't seem like the kind to back up when he's publicly announced how right he is in the past. Something like ," The enemy diversion you're ignoring is the main attack"

bruss01
08-05-2008, 9:34 AM
I think he and his lawyers just woke up and discovered they're not up against the NRA.

The folks pushing this lawsuit don't want a compromise, they don't want a deal, they don't want the rough edges of the Chicago ban sanded down smooth. They want to WIN. They want to take no prisoners. They have the Constitution, the legal process, and strong recent legal precedent behind them. Daley is perhaps realizing it is increasingly unlikely he will be able to "buy" the court nor will he be able to "strike a deal" with folks whose only interest is in a clear and decisive WIN. He doesn't often go up against that kind of opposition. (spoken by someone who lived in/around Chicagoland for a decade).

I'm hoping to see some of this type of behavior from the NRA, it's why I finally re-joined them after the Heller case.

If I were Alan Gura, I'd start wearing a bullet-proof vest. Men who can't be bought or intimidated usually get dealt with "the hard way" especially in Chicago.

CCWFacts
08-05-2008, 10:35 AM
Don't worry. Newsom is too stupid and vain to let the issue drop.

Newsom will spend the city into bankruptcy to fight against the 2A if that's what it takes. He will never give up on it. With Prop H, they kept on appealing even when it was obvious to everyone that these appeals were frivolous. He'll do the same with their gun ban.

packnrat
08-05-2008, 10:48 AM
i do not know any about this "deal".

but in reading what little there is about it. this mayor should be kissing some s for the faa not sending a stricken airplane to the field for a emergency landing.

picture this:
a airplane (like a dc10) with a full load of people (maybe even someone importent) and lots of fuel trying to land there, with NO way to abort the landing.
maybe even a smaller airplane delivering a hart to a dieing child:eek:


..

Ironchef
08-05-2008, 11:03 AM
Chicagoans with guns in their homes might be required to have insurance to protect taxpayers from frivolous lawsuits, he said.

"We're talking about putting first-responders in a very, very delicate position of people being armed without being notified how many guns they have in their homes," Daley said. "We have to be able to fashion a law that truly protects first-responders and protects the citizens."

I've been reading this over and over, and I cannot figure out what this means other than a bs reason for being able to harass or seize guns by wanting to know how many guns are in a house. If it is genuine, then it begs the question "Why does the burden of safety of first responders depend on a lawful citizen disclosing how many guns he has in his home?" Seriously, first responders (i'm assuming he means cops) are trained, equipped, and have backup to tip the scales against a lawful citizen who may or may not own a gun. Even writing this, it's bogus because it assumes a lawful citizen will become a criminal simply because he owns a gun?

This clown Daley is seriously mental. It's so sad that our civilization is plagued with so many retards..in positions of power and authority.

bruss01
08-05-2008, 11:21 AM
Ok, some of you may be unaware of the history regarding "first responders" so let me offer my recollections of the 12 years I spent living in Chicagoland.

There are some big public housing projects in Chicago. I'm thinking of the Robert Talor and Cabrini Green projects. There are instances where someone in the building has an OD or a heart attack and the paramedics come, and random froot loops take pot shots at the paramedics from the windows (buildings are 10+ stories tall IIRC). There are also occasions where, dunno why, boredom? Someone will call in a FAKE 911 call and just shoot at whoever shows up. Resentment, aggression and sociopathic racism abound in these housing developments. I have no doubt that this is what the mayor is thinking about, and I'm sure he knows his (local) audience knows EXACTLY what he is talking about, when he makes these "first responder" remarks.

Not saying he has a point (he doesn't) just trying to provide some background context.

Glock22Fan
08-05-2008, 11:37 AM
Ok, some of you may be unaware of the history regarding "first responders" so let me offer my recollections of the 12 years I spent living in Chicagoland.

There are some big public housing projects in Chicago. I'm thinking of the Robert Talor and Cabrini Green projects. There are instances where someone in the building has an OD or a heart attack and the paramedics come, and random froot loops take pot shots at the paramedics from the windows (buildings are 10+ stories tall IIRC). There are also occasions where, dunno why, boredom? Someone will call in a FAKE 911 call and just shoot at whoever shows up. Resentment, aggression and sociopathic racism abound in these housing developments. I have no doubt that this is what the mayor is thinking about, and I'm sure he knows his (local) audience knows EXACTLY what he is talking about, when he makes these "first responder" remarks.

Not saying he has a point (he doesn't) just trying to provide some background context.


Doesn't he realize that these anti-social people aren't the ones affected by regulations designed to stop law abiding people from having firearms?

If they totally ignore the part of the law that makes it illegal to shoot people, including first responders, why would anyone be stupid enough to think that they would be detered by the need to register their guns?

Sorry, I know I'm preaching to the choir.

BroncoBob
08-05-2008, 12:01 PM
Ok, some of you may be unaware of the history regarding "first responders" so let me offer my recollections of the 12 years I spent living in Chicagoland.

There are some big public housing projects in Chicago. I'm thinking of the Robert Talor and Cabrini Green projects. There are instances where someone in the building has an OD or a heart attack and the paramedics come, and random froot loops take pot shots at the paramedics from the windows (buildings are 10+ stories tall IIRC). There are also occasions where, dunno why, boredom? Someone will call in a FAKE 911 call and just shoot at whoever shows up. Resentment, aggression and sociopathic racism abound in these housing developments. I have no doubt that this is what the mayor is thinking about, and I'm sure he knows his (local) audience knows EXACTLY what he is talking about, when he makes these "first responder" remarks.

Not saying he has a point (he doesn't) just trying to provide some background context.

I'm sure the people in these large housing projects aren't getting their guns legally anyway. Why not tear down these "large" projects and make smaller units that can be controlled more easily by the LEO's responding?

scottj
08-05-2008, 12:57 PM
"Chicagoans with guns in their homes might be required to have insurance to protect taxpayers from frivolous lawsuits, he said."

That would have to be some pretty novel legal reasoning for someone to sue the city over the actions of an individual. According to Wikipedia he has a JD, or maybe he just doesn't use that part of his brain anymore...

dfletcher
08-05-2008, 2:07 PM
He's probably compiling a list of Chicago gun owners and will tell them (and their non-gun owning neighbors) that the city will not send 1st responders due to the presence of guns. As in, "You wanted to be armed & take care of yourself? Well, here's your opportunity - see you in 4 to 8 hrs". That would be in keeping with his past behavior.

He's no different now than the snot nosed little jerk that sat next to Daddy @ the '68 convention.

hill billy
08-05-2008, 2:07 PM
He's probably compiling a list of Chicago gun owners and will tell them (and their non-gun owning neighbors) that the city will not send 1st responders due to the presence of guns. As in, "You wanted to be armed & take care of yourself?
Ha ha! No problem, just send the coroner!

hoffmang
08-05-2008, 2:08 PM
Daley may be thinking of backing off to protect Obama's chances. Obama could duck the DC questions, it will be harder to duck issues about his political home town.

-Gene

nicki
08-05-2008, 2:23 PM
I have a gut feeling that someone in Dailey's inner circle took the time to read Heller and said "Oh ***t":43:

Illonis has no legal carry of any kind, so what they probably are trying to do is damage control.

The original Heller case was really very limited. Is the 2nd a individual right and can a person have a functional firearm in their home.

The SCOTUS could have given a very narrow ruling, but they didn't.

The decision is far more reaching than what was asked for and the DC is being really stupid trying to force the issue.

The SCOTUS and Fed court system will not let DC get away with their games because to do so would be to undermine the authority of the Federal court system.

I could see the Fed courts imposing massive sanctions, both criminal and civil to force DC into compliance.

Dailey is not an idiot, we should not underestimate our opponents.

Doesn't hurt to take a machinegun to a knife fight.