PDA

View Full Version : Mayor Daley wants "gun insurance".


Window_Seat
06-27-2010, 10:42 AM
That's what it says in the article:

http://www.wgntv.com/news/wgntv-daley-handgun-ban-june26,0,4308232.story

Is this why strict scrutiny would be needed rather than intermediate? If the Justices did the opinion right, wouldn't they then apply strict scrutiny, or do I still not know what the heck I'm keyboarding? This is where I'm still having trouble (and I've read all the threads, the wiki[s]), etc. but I'm thinking I get it (I think, and I have plenty of Tylenol)

So it might be something that the Justices discuss in their predictive analysis; insurance taken out to exercise the right affirmed by SCOTUS, so unlike for driving (which is a privilege), can I be forced to take out an insurance policy? Would insurance companies salivate over this concept, or would they cringe and deny anyone any kind of coverage, thus making Daley happy? This might have been discussed, if so, apologize if this is a dupe.

This said, and as others are fully aware, he will do whatever it takes to circumvent the ruling, and I'm hoping that the SCOTUS Justices fully took this into account when writing their opinion.

Incorporation of the 2nd (from what I've read in the past 3 years) should prevent these things from happening if future courts apply justice properly. Meanwhile, we might need McDonald II and III for the future, and this could pizz off the Court(s), no?

Any others have any ideas of what shenanigans Daley might pull to prevent HG ownership in Chicago?

My ideas of what he might try to impose are:


Insurance policies
LEO Training requirement standards
Mandatory one or more year long waiting period for registrations
Yearly handgun tax equivalent to the average amount of property tax (in California)
Minimum educational requirements (GED, college, proficiency exam)
Psychological testing similar to LEO hiring/training standards
Periodic surprise home inspections conducted by govt inspectors (Daley will thumb his nose at the requirement of a warrant)
No children in the household
No medical conditions of any kind
No use of prescription drugs, legal or not
No alchohol presense or use of any kind (even if you drink a glass of Merlot every other night before bedtime)
No this
No that...


Erik.

USAFTS
06-27-2010, 10:50 AM
Seems that a realistic, uniform and Constitutional definition of "Reasonable" is going to be necessary before many of these questions will have a chance of being answered.

Shotgun Man
06-27-2010, 11:02 AM
Boss Daley is going to fight any ruling.

It reminds me of Gov. George Wallace trying to bar black students from Univ. of Alabama.


WGNtv.com WGN News
June 26, 2010
CHICAGO - The U.S. Supreme Court could overturn Chicago's handgun ban Monday.

Mayor Daley said the city must continue to fight against handguns even if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the ban as unconstitutional.

Mayor Daley said Saturday he's ready to act if that happens.

Daley said legislation would immediately be introduced in city council, but he didn't give specifics.

The changes could include gun insurance, a weapons registry , and restrictions that would make it tougher to buy guns.

Daley said the violence last weekend, 54 people shot, at least 10 of those people dead, shows the need for the city's handgun ban to remain in place.


http://www.wgntv.com/news/wgntv-daley-handgun-ban-june26,0,4308232.story

stitchnicklas
06-27-2010, 11:07 AM
will someone please take daley hunting with dick chieny already,shotguns only.,,.....:oops::84:

bwiese
06-27-2010, 11:08 AM
You don't need free speech insurance to cover speech (i.e, a risk of Turrett's Syndrome occurring...)

You don't need, nor can mandate, 'gun insurance' to cover ownership of guns.

Unlike cars and driving, RKBA is a fundamental enumerated right. No rights are 100% pure, but insurance implies a
significant expense to exercise of that right. Since it's a bonafide right, if someone can't get or afford insurance,
subsidized insurance would have to be provided ;)

While gun registration is allowable per Heller under 'reasonable regulation' and with some militia handwaving, fees
charged will have to be minimal and cover the mere cost of paperwork and printing costs (say, $25ish per gun max).

Excessive fees, excessive administrative hoops, etc., signed documents from your long-lost 1st grade teacher, or
doctor's statements will not be able to be used as a backdoor method to deny gun rights. Things like "Firearms ID"
cards that expire (upon which you lose your gun rights) will go away too.

Also, the matter of insurance would not knowledgeably be underwritten by MetLife or Allstate ("You're in a good
handhold position" :) ) and would likely require a group with experience to deal with this - the NRA.

This would turn into another DISCLOSE Act-style situation - NRA involvement would end up killing it ;) as it presents
a wonderful recruitment possiblity for the NRA: discount memberships if you buy the insurance. It could perhaps
quadruple NRA memberships, activity, outreach and political influence etc. in the offending areas. Gun ownership
is unfortunately more common than NRA membership and an action like requiring insurance merely presents an
opportunity to even out those numbers :)

vantec08
06-27-2010, 11:12 AM
Seems that a realistic, uniform and Constitutional definition of "Reasonable" is going to be necessary before many of these questions will have a chance of being answered.


... . reasonable and infringe have yet to be defined. yes.

G60
06-27-2010, 11:19 AM
Reasonable = no more restrictions than those at the federal level?

a compromise for some, but would be nice in states/localities like ours and chigaco.

Kharn
06-27-2010, 11:47 AM
The more innovative he is in thinking up restrictions the more likely a future court is to just swing the hammer and knock him down to zero restrictions beyond current federal law.

RomanDad
06-27-2010, 12:19 PM
I suspect the Courts are going to grow tired of his antics in short order. Sympathetic ideologies or not, nobody likes a pain in the ***.


Ultimately, I think this amounts to the spouting off of a pampered blow-hard, who's used to getting his way, and never has to answer to anybody. Like all bullys, he'll back down when he feels hes stomped his feet and puffed out his chest enough to save face....

ScottB
06-27-2010, 12:24 PM
Maybe the citizens of Chicago should require their politicians take "crook insurance"

Oh yeah .. I forgot. They're all uninsurable due to 100% payout probability.

Besides, Daley would never be able to geta the "unctious fat arse" rider. Same reason.

Barabas
06-27-2010, 12:41 PM
You can't license a right, which is exactly what requiring insurance would do.

safewaysecurity
06-27-2010, 12:48 PM
Reasonable = No more restrictions than the federal govt but less is allowed. Restrictions will be easy to understand and not easily violated. Cannot be created for the purpose of making it harder for an individual to get any weapon that individual pleases. Idk I suck at wording.

Aegis
06-27-2010, 1:07 PM
Daley knows that the McDonald decision is not going to go his way, so he is acting like an immature child. I hope Daley is in front of a TV camera when McDonald is announced. The look on his face will be priceless.

I am not surprised by his latest antics. Daley is a member of one of the most corrupt families in the world and thinks he is royalty. This guy is no different than most third-world dictators.

krucam
06-27-2010, 1:21 PM
DC did a lot of the same 'crap' after Heller. Daley is said to be modeling his response after DC.

DC's restrictions were held in Heller II using 'Intermediate Scrutiny' (more like a Kangaroo Court) this Spring while SCOTUS was in session. I sure hope the Justices saw the writing on the wall. Heller II is being appealed.

762cavalier
06-27-2010, 1:26 PM
Daley said the violence last weekend, 54 people shot, at least 10 of those people dead, shows the need for the city's handgun ban to remain in place.

This line still kills me. Hey! King Daley! If the handgun ban is so effective how did 54 people get shot?:confused:

dantodd
06-27-2010, 1:38 PM
Reasonable = No more restrictions than the federal govt but less is allowed.

This is not how it works. Here is an example. The court may decide that Machine Guns are not protected because they have identified "self defense" as the core right protected by 2A. This means that California can ban machine guns in general even though the federal government doesn't ban them. Also, a state can (like the marijuana laws in CA or gun laws in some states) have less strict laws than the feds in some areas which would protect a resident from being prosecuted in state court but the feds can still arrest and try the person in federal court.

Serpentine
06-27-2010, 1:41 PM
Sounds like he's not the outdoors-man type. Has no concept of the fact that two porcupines can't fight.



.

Maestro Pistolero
06-27-2010, 1:56 PM
This means that California can ban machine guns in general even though the federal government doesn't ban them.Although I understand your point, I would argue the that the GCA of '68, combined with the closure of the registration for select-fire weapons in '86 amounts to a ban on FA for the vast majority of Americans. There is simply no remaining path to legal ownership left in this country that isn't either overly-burdensome, or economically prohibitive, even where state law allows it.

I believe that any ban on small arms that are suitable for militia/military use will ultimately fail any level of scrutiny. They can regulate them; may be able to require training or additional screening, and perhaps may require other regulations that are not overly burdensome or prohibitive.

Although I don't believe this is anywhere near the top of the list of the first gun laws to be challenged (post McDonald), I do believe that an outright and complete ban on any conventional small arms will eventually fail.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming . . .

dantodd
06-27-2010, 2:02 PM
Although I understand your point, I would argue the that the GCA of '68, combined with the closure of the registration for select-fire weapons in '86 amounts to a ban on FA for the vast majority of Americans. There is simply no remaining path to legal ownership left in this country that isn't either overly-burdensome, or economically prohibitive, even where state law allows it.

Yep, and if they are not protected then there is no reason the "ban" would be struck down; at this time.

I believe that any ban on small arms that are suitable for militia/military use will ultimately fail any level of scrutiny. They can regulate them; may be able to require training or additional screening, and perhaps may require other regulations that are not overly burdensome or prohibitive.

This is one of the intricacies of Heller that (I believe) Justice Kennedy brought us. The decision was written to essentially ignore the "militia" aspect of gun ownership and identified "self defense" as the core right. The effect this would have on having Militia-style weapons unprotected was clearly not lost on those who voted for the majority opinion. However; the fact that a core of "self defense" would mean CCW or open carry for all was probably a trade off to some.

Although I don't believe this is anywhere near the top of the list of the first gun laws to be challenged (post McDonald), I do believe that an outright and complete ban on any conventional small arms will eventually fail.


I actually do believe this may well be true but I don't think it can be done on the back of Heller, it will require a "broadening" of the right defined in Heller and that will have to wait for a different court.

ETA: More specifically. Because the antis have used the prefatory clause to try and limit the RKBA to a collective right it was strategically important to detach the right defined in the 2A from the prefatory clause. However; though the prefatory clause is not a limit on the 2A it does describe the desired outcome of the right to keep and bear arms being exercised. It will be for a later court, and possibly a later generation, to re-invigorate the prefatory clause under it's original meaning because that clause was abandoned to get the 5th vote in Heller.

vantec08
06-27-2010, 2:04 PM
You can't license a right, which is exactly what requiring insurance would do.

5ssssss Barabas - - - - I turn it around on liberals by asking them why not "license" and tax posts to letters-to-editors and internet forums. They reply , well the 1st amendment blahblah, then they catch themselves and assert that speech doesnt do the harm "guns" do. Then I remind them that spin, obfuscation, disinformation, misinformation, and deceit are doing FAR more damage than "guns."

7x57
06-27-2010, 2:07 PM
I think the smart money is that the full right, which of course includes first of all your M4 duty weapon, will be lost "forever." Why? We couldn't even keep OC here in California. It is too easy to lose with the wrong lawsuit or other bonehead move, and unfortunately I think that is *by far* the most likely outcome.

It will be lost by gun-owners doing stupid stuff. Ultimately obtaining it down the road would require foresight and discipline that I do not believe we collectively possess.

Feel free to prove me wrong. :D

7x57

blacksheep
06-27-2010, 2:22 PM
Dick'm Daley is a moron nothing more nothing less, but what does this say about the voters in Chicago ?
The political process in Illinois needs to be douched.

BigDogatPlay
06-27-2010, 2:39 PM
There is a benefits litigator I know on another board who has been hollering for years that we need to be licensed and be forced to carry insurance to indemnify our actions... whatever they might be, with a firearm. He is so locked into his insurance driven mentality that he has completely lost touch with Con Law 101.

It ain't a right if it has to be licensed and insurance is a compulsory prerequisite to "keep and bear".

Mayor Daley, like much of the elitist political leadership in both parties, is as wrong as wrong can be on this.

blacksheep
06-27-2010, 2:49 PM
There is a benefits litigator I know on another board who has been hollering for years that we need to be licensed and be forced to carry insurance to indemnify our actions... whatever they might be, with a firearm. He is so locked into his insurance driven mentality that he has completely lost touch with Con Law 101.

It ain't a right if it has to be licensed and insurance is a compulsory prerequisite to "keep and bear".

Mayor Daley, like much of the elitist political leadership in both parties, is as wrong as wrong can be on this.

Yes, but Dickey Daley never let's the law or Constitution get in the way of his grand plans.:eek:

tommyid1
06-27-2010, 2:55 PM
it is true that to have a car you have to be insured because its a privelage not a right. guns are a right. however they did just pass legislation basically saying you had to have health insurance. im not sure but im pretty sure breathing is a right too lol

Havoc70
06-27-2010, 3:00 PM
it is true that to have a car you have to be insured because its a privelage not a right. guns are a right. however they did just pass legislation basically saying you had to have health insurance. im not sure but im pretty sure breathing is a right too lol

Don't mention breathing. Pretty soon we'll have implants in our lungs and we'll be charged "carbon tax" for the amount of CO2 we exhale.

MindBuilder
06-27-2010, 3:09 PM
Maybe we also need expensive licenses, six months training, and $10Million insurance for kitchen knives and baseball bats.

Seriously though, the Heller minority would think it is totally reasonable to require insurance for gun possession. If Obama is re-elected then he will likely replace one of the Heller majority with an anti-gun justice, and the 2nd Amendment will effectively be rubbed out of the Constitution again. A vote for Obama is a vote to lose your guns.

USAFTS
06-27-2010, 3:10 PM
it is true that to have a car you have to be insured because its a privelage not a right. guns are a right. however they did just pass legislation basically saying you had to have health insurance. im not sure but im pretty sure breathing is a right too lol

I have been joking about an oxygen tax for years. I guess it's just not that funny any more. :-)

MindBuilder
06-27-2010, 3:26 PM
The reason gun insurance isn't justified is because almost all gun damage is intentional. Auto insurance is for accidents. It is not justifiable to expect law abiding gun owners to pay for the damage intentionally caused by criminals, or the possibility that they might decide to become a criminal. If gun insurance only covered accidents, even a multi-million dollar policy could be provided by the NRA at a small cost.

BigDogatPlay
06-27-2010, 3:40 PM
however they did just pass legislation basically saying you had to have health insurance.

And that too will ultimately be found unconstitutional, I believe. But it's going to take a dedicated bunch of people willing to fight, some very sharp lawyers and a whole bunch of money.

Hence why Calguns Foundation contributions are so important.

:D

krucam
06-27-2010, 3:46 PM
Such a firearm liability insurance does already exist...$250-330/year.

http://www.mmdbrokers.com/

The thing is that you must be "not at fault" which is the criminal/civil caveat. If you're not Criminally liable (justified self-defense action per statute) and civil actions are off the hook through various castle doctrine laws (have them in MD), there really is no need for the insurance.

Westerner
06-27-2010, 4:13 PM
When is that guy ever going to quit :confused:. Look what happened to Feinstein when she tried to do something like that over in SF..

ScottB
06-27-2010, 4:17 PM
it is true that to have a car you have to be insured because its a privelage not a right. guns are a right. however they did just pass legislation basically saying you had to have health insurance. im not sure but im pretty sure breathing is a right too lol

Not true. You only need to have insurance, register the vehicle and be licensed to drive IF you operate the vehicle on public streets and roads.

An unlicensed 7 year old (or 2 year old, whatever) can drive an uninsured unregistered vehicle all over the family ranch with impunity and the DMV, etc has nothing to say about it.

That nexus with the public and the use of public facilities is a crucial distinction. Absent that, they cannot compel insurance or licensure. Now, they may be able to require a liability policy in exchange for a CCW

Sinixstar
06-27-2010, 4:23 PM
Daly doesn't want gun insurance.
Daly wants a gun ban.

Daly is settling for gun insurance because his gun ban is about to get struck down by the courts, the courts have support from the people, and he's trying to figure out some way to advance his misguided agenda without pissing too many people off.

He doesn't want insurance. He's on his heels and grasping for a foothold. There is a HUGE difference.

hoffmang
06-27-2010, 4:55 PM
Machine guns are to the 2A as porn is to the 1A.

Insurance requirements will be destroyed by the fact that the poor can't be denied the right to self defense.

-Gene

dantodd
06-27-2010, 5:00 PM
Machine guns are to the 2A as porn is to the 1A.


I wish! Maybe we can someday say the CGF and SAF are to Machine Guns what the Internet is to porn.

dantodd
06-27-2010, 5:01 PM
When is that guy ever going to quit :confused:. Look what happened to Feinstein when she tried to do something like that over in SF..

She got promoted to Senator?

hill billy
06-27-2010, 5:14 PM
When is that guy ever going to quit :confused:. Look what happened to Feinstein when she tried to do something like that over in SF..

When he's dead or in jail.



















Even then, he'll still be voting.

mrrsquared79
06-27-2010, 5:46 PM
Machine guns are to the 2A as porn is to the 1A.

-Gene

That is sig worthy!

Serpentine
06-27-2010, 6:27 PM
Maybe we also need expensive licenses, six months training, and $10Million insurance for kitchen knives and baseball bats.

Seriously though, the Heller minority would think it is totally reasonable to require insurance for gun possession. If Obama is re-elected then he will likely replace one of the Heller majority with an anti-gun justice, and the 2nd Amendment will effectively be rubbed out of the Constitution again. A vote for Obama is a vote to lose your guns.


Yep, you're absolutely right - but I would bet dollars to donuts that your average American gun owner DOES NOT SEE past his self centered nose and doesn't care one bit what anyone else's gun rights are but his own (not talking about collectors, or enthusiasts, sportsmen types, or the people here on CGF that are paying ATTENTION!).

What I see are the proverbial "head in the sand" types that want their gun rights secured by "others," but who don't care, nor give a RAT's ARSE about voting in the interest of the rights of the whole people because they are basically complacent, lazy, security-delusional sleeping sheep in wolf country.



.

cdtx2001
06-27-2010, 6:50 PM
This line still kills me. Hey! King Daley! If the handgun ban is so effective how did 54 people get shot?:confused:

I second that!!!

Roadrunner
06-27-2010, 7:36 PM
Well, if Daley wants gun insurance, tell him to go buy his own. This makes me wonder if Daley and the Aldermen of Chicago carry guns. I think it would be priceless to find that out.

dunndeal
06-27-2010, 7:42 PM
Someone posted here very recently that all Chicago politicians are honorary policemen and therefore can CCW.

GaryV
06-27-2010, 8:13 PM
Don't mention breathing. Pretty soon we'll have implants in our lungs and we'll be charged "carbon tax" for the amount of CO2 we exhale.

The tax will be from the Democrats. The Republicans will lease the "oxygen rights" of the air to their own private companies which will use the same implants to charge us for the oxygen used.

Roadrunner
06-27-2010, 8:35 PM
Someone posted here very recently that all Chicago politicians are honorary policemen and therefore can CCW.

Is that state law or is that just another example of corrupt Chicago politics?

RomanDad
06-27-2010, 8:43 PM
Machine guns are to the 2A as porn is to the 1A.

Insurance requirements will be destroyed by the fact that the poor can't be denied the right to self defense.

-Gene


Yep.... Comes from the same line of thinking of "They gave black men the right to vote? We'll institute a POLL TAX to make sure they DONT!"

This time it wont take 100 years to eradicate.

Window_Seat
06-27-2010, 8:46 PM
The EPA once proposed a "flatulence tax" (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/05/tech/main4651448.shtml), so it's possible that an "oxygen tax" could happen, and it smells bad...

Erik; waiting & plugging nose.

Rossi357
06-27-2010, 8:47 PM
Yep.... Comes from the same line of thinking of "They gave black men the right to vote? We'll institute a POLL TAX to make sure they DONT!"

This time it wont take 100 years to eradicate.

They also kept them from schools and then made them take a literacy test to vote.

rrr70
06-27-2010, 9:48 PM
Daley said the violence last weekend, 54 people shot, at least 10 of those people dead, shows the need for the city's handgun ban to remain in place


Is he really that retarded??

tiki
06-27-2010, 9:51 PM
I think we should take up a donation for a billboard in Chicago taunting Mayor Dumbass.

Sleepy1988
06-27-2010, 9:59 PM
Boss Daley is going to fight any ruling.

It reminds me of Gov. George Wallace trying to bar black students from Univ. of Alabama.



http://www.wgntv.com/news/wgntv-daley-handgun-ban-june26,0,4308232.story

Send in the 101st and a team of US Marshals to arrest the petty tyrant.

:mad:

30rdMag
06-27-2010, 10:39 PM
anyone think these clowns are going the wrong way?

Batman's parents were killed by a handgun. He didnt go after the handgun now did he..
He goes after the criminals...

If these dumb asses spent the money in law enforcement that they do in stupid laws. They wouldnt have 54 shootings in a weekend. Sounds like he blaming guns for his ****ty leadership in his city... maybe we should send him a batman light for his roof...

30rdMag
06-27-2010, 10:50 PM
Oh wow.. pointing guns at reporters.... lol

----------------------------------------------------


“Oh!” Daley said. “It’s been very effective!”

He grabbed a rifle, held it up, and looked right at me. He was chuckling but there was no smile.

“If I put this up your—ha!—your butt—ha ha!—you’ll find out how effective this is!”

For a moment the room was very, very quiet. I took a good look at the weapon. It had a long bayonet. (Was it seized during the Civil War?)

“If I put a round up your—ha ha!”

The photographers snapped away. Suddenly everybody started cracking up.

Daley went on. “This gun saved many lives—it could save your life,” he said—meaning, I think, that getting that gun off the street might have saved many lives, including mine.

And he went on some more. “We save all these guns that the police department seizes, you know how many lives we’ve saved? You don’t realize it. First of all, they’re taking these guns out of someone’s hands. They save their own life and they save someone else’s. You cannot count how many times this gun can be used. Thirty, forty times in shooting people and discharging a weapon. I think it’s very important.


http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2010/05/20/mayor-daley-threatens-to-shoot-the-messengernamely-me

30rdMag
06-27-2010, 10:56 PM
He's also been quoted as saying...

You have to have confidence in the Supreme Court, Maybe they'll see the light of day," Daley said at a City Hall news conference. "Maybe one of them will have an incident and they'll change their mind overnight, going to and from work."

http://www.examiner.com/x-2581-St-Louis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d22-Is-Chicagos-Mayor-Daley-guilty-of-terroristic-threats

Wow.. this guy is nuts.......

Maestro Pistolero
06-27-2010, 11:12 PM
The court may decide that Machine Guns are not protected because they have identified "self defense" as the core right protected by 2A.No. They can't just eliminate the first clause because they decided to clarify the second clause. The specifically enumerated part still means military small arms if it means anything.

Scalia:
"Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have lim-
ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right."

stan
06-27-2010, 11:40 PM
Machine guns are to the 2A as porn is to the 1A.


THEN YOU CAN CALL ME LARRY FLYNT! :chris::43::D

N6ATF
06-27-2010, 11:54 PM
In other words, Mayor Daley wants "criminal insurance." Insurance that his fellow criminals aren't going to have a hostile and possibly fatal work environment.

yellowfin
06-28-2010, 2:55 AM
Machine guns are to the 2A as porn is to the 1A If only that were true. If MG's could be as quickly and easily obtained as porn, most of us wouldn't need the latter. And I can guarantee you that if there were a ban on porn made after 1986, in 30 seconds or less there would be a war in this country that would make 1861 look like a water balloon fight.