PDA

View Full Version : Chicago-Dailey "New gun laws coming" "Nation of Laws not guns"


problemchild
06-28-2010, 1:47 PM
OMFG!

What an *****. Someone please clue these politicians in.

.......
http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Daley-Vows-New-Gun-Ordinances-97328384.html

As expected, Mayor Daley and Chicago's City Council are circling the wagons to defend against an unfavorable (by who?)decision by the Supreme Court concerning the city's gun ban.

Daley said the city would have in place a new ordinance aimed at making it difficult to purchase and own a gun in Chicago.

"We'll publicly propose a new ordinance very soon," Daley said at an afternoon press conference concerning the gun ban.

"As a city we must continue to stand up ..and fight for a ban on assault weapons .. as well as a crackdown on gun shops," Daley said. "We are a country of laws not a nation of guns."

Fjold
06-28-2010, 1:51 PM
OMFG!

Daley said. "We are a country of laws not a nation of guns."

And the law just *****-slapped you.

Silencer
06-28-2010, 1:51 PM
What legal stance does he have to go after citizens, gun shops and propose new firearm bans? Is there something I'm missing about the recent decision?

Bhobbs
06-28-2010, 1:53 PM
How can this dude publicly say he doesn't care what the Constitution says and that he will infringe upon our rights and nothing happens to him?

Sinixstar
06-28-2010, 1:54 PM
What legal stance does he have to go after citizens, gun shops and propose new firearm bans? Is there something I'm missing about the recent decision?
How can this dude publicly say he doesn't care what the Constitution says and that he will infringe upon our rights and nothing happens to him?

If I had to sum up the McDonald decision in one line - it would be:

The 2nd applies to the states but it not limitless.


Now - what two points about that statement jump out at you?

Theseus
06-28-2010, 1:54 PM
Yeah, there was a secret code in the decision that enacted the dormant coding ingrained into anti's that disconnects their thoughts with a basis in reality.

gtturborex
06-28-2010, 1:55 PM
What legal stance does he have to go after citizens, gun shops and propose new firearm bans? Is there something I'm missing about the recent decision?

Its seems like he doesnt care whether its legal or not. He will still do it anyways. BTW I like your avatar, Chum is hilarious

gcvt
06-28-2010, 1:55 PM
Well, he did tell us, in advance, that he was going to do stuff like this so it should come as no surprise. One little SCOTUS decision is not going to change this fool's mind.

problemchild
06-28-2010, 1:56 PM
How can this dude publicly say he doesn't care what the Constitution says and that he will infringe upon our rights and nothing happens to him?

Are you kidding me?????

EVERY politician is doing the exact same thing and NO ONE says a word. I mean look at the crap the Illegal Alien President is doing as we speak. First off he isnt even a citizen. Does anyone check his papers? HELL NO!

Sinixstar
06-28-2010, 1:57 PM
Yeah, there was a secret code in the decision that enacted the dormant coding ingrained into anti's that disconnects their thoughts with a basis in reality.

Not a all, in fact nothing that is happening is even the slightest bit unexpected.

SCOTUS made it very clear that the states (and by extensions municipalities) have the right to legislate in relation to the 2nd.

All this did was open a door. Everybody who was paying attention knew that on the other side of that door was a whole new fight about what "reasonable regulation" actually means.

Why do you think states like CA have been pushing so many knowingly bad gun laws in the last year? The more laws that are on the books - the more we have to slug it out in the courts on each and every single issue...

Scott Connors
06-28-2010, 1:58 PM
"We'll publicly propose a new ordinance very soon," Daley said at an afternoon press conference concerning the gun ban.

"As a city we must continue to stand up ..and fight for a ban on assault weapons .. as well as a crackdown on gun shops," Daley said. "We are a country of laws not a nation of guns."[/QUOTE]

What he really means is that he wants to have all the guns so that he can tell us what the law is.

Bhobbs
06-28-2010, 2:20 PM
Are you kidding me?????

EVERY politician is doing the exact same thing and NO ONE says a word. I mean look at the crap the Illegal Alien President is doing as we speak. First off he isnt even a citizen. Does anyone check his papers? HELL NO!

That's my point. The policiticians are going way outside their limits but this guy told us he would do it before the ruling came out. Why isn't anything happening to him like being hanged for treason?

ErikTheRed
06-28-2010, 2:27 PM
he wants to have all the guns so that he can tell us what the law is.

Which is, after all, the foundation of a dictatorship. And can you believe there are millions of people in this country who still refuse to understand that the Democrat party is anything less?

Sinixstar
06-28-2010, 2:30 PM
Have you guys by any chance been actually paying attention to the rulings, and what all this stuff means?

Untamed1972
06-28-2010, 2:32 PM
OMFG!
Daley said the city would have in place a new ordinance aimed at making it difficult to purchase and own a gun in Chicago."


Doesn't making it difficult to exercise ones rights constitute an infringement or attempted denial of the right?


I think perhaps Daley needs to be introduced to a bayoneted rifle in the vicinity of his rectal region.

I hope the 2A defenders will seek immediate injuctions to ANY regulations they try to impose and use Daley's words against him in court to support the fact that he intends to do everything he can to continue to violate the rights of Chicago residents.

Theseus
06-28-2010, 2:34 PM
Not a all, in fact nothing that is happening is even the slightest bit unexpected.

SCOTUS made it very clear that the states (and by extensions municipalities) have the right to legislate in relation to the 2nd.

All this did was open a door. Everybody who was paying attention knew that on the other side of that door was a whole new fight about what "reasonable regulation" actually means.

Why do you think states like CA have been pushing so many knowingly bad gun laws in the last year? The more laws that are on the books - the more we have to slug it out in the courts on each and every single issue...

I know. I was making a light handed joke.

Sinixstar
06-28-2010, 2:37 PM
Doesn't making it difficult to exercise ones rights constitute an infringement or attempted denial of the right?


I think perhaps Daley needs to be introduced to a bayoneted rifle in the vicinity of his rectal region.

I hope the 2A defenders will seek immediate injuctions to ANY regulations they try to impose and use Daley's words against him in court to support the fact that he intends to do everything he can to continue to violate the rights of Chicago residents.

You understand that both Heller and McDonald held that he has the right to do exactly that, correct? Given that fact, what exactly do you propose you use to justify such an injunction? What about his words is overtly illegal and/or unconstitutional?

N6ATF
06-28-2010, 2:53 PM
Since Article III, Section 3, is no longer enforced, we're just going to have to hope that extraterrestrial forces punish genocidal, treasonous tyrants like Daley.

PEBKAC
06-28-2010, 2:54 PM
"We are a country of laws not a nation of guns."
This line is almost as good as that "guns up butts" comment in response to question as to the effectiveness of the now unconstitutional ban. :D

Untamed1972
06-28-2010, 2:56 PM
You understand that both Heller and McDonald held that he has the right to do exactly that, correct? Given that fact, what exactly do you propose you use to justify such an injunction? What about his words is overtly illegal and/or unconstitutional?


I dont recall reading anything in those decisions (and yes I've read them both) that indicated that it was acceptable for any government entity to try and make it as hard as possible for people to obtain/own firearms. Those decisions held the 2A was not an unlimited right, but they did not state that is was open to any and all regulation/restriction by the state either.

Seek an injuction if the proposed regulations are too restrictive or intentionally prohibitively onerous as to limit exercising of the right to all but a few people. Even the anti's tout the term "reasonable restrictions". In my book the terms "make it as hard as possible to own a gun" and "reasonable restrictions" do not jive with eachother.

His words by themselves are not "overtly illegal and/or unconstitutional", but his words in conjuction with a particularly onerous/restrictive ordinance could be used to show that the intent of ordinance is not one of a compelling state interest, or resonably restrictive, but merely intentionally onerous so as to serve as a defacto ban or to be intentially punative to those wishing to own guns.

To me making something as hard as possible for no compelling reason is the defintion of "unreasonable".

dfletcher
06-28-2010, 3:15 PM
I dont recall reading anything in those decisions (and yes I've read them both) that indicated that it was acceptable for any government entity to try and make it as hard as possible for people to obtain/own firearms. Those decisions held the 2A was not an unlimited right, but they did not state that is was open to any and all regulation/restriction by the state either.

Seek an injuction if the proposed regulations are too restrictive or intentionally prohibitively onerous as to limit exercising of the right to all but a few people. Even the anti's tout the term "reasonable restrictions". In my book the terms "make it as hard as possible to own a gun" and "reasonable restrictions" do not jive with eachother.

His words by themselves are not "overtly illegal and/or unconstitutional", but his words in conjuction with a particularly onerous/restrictive ordinance could be used to show that the intent of ordinance is not one of a compelling state interest, or resonably restrictive, but merely intentionally onerous so as to serve as a defacto ban or to be intentially punative to those wishing to own guns.

To me making something as hard as possible for no compelling reason is the defintion of "unreasonable".

The only difference between Fenty in DC and Hizzoner in Chicago is that Hizzoner has a big mouth and is telling us what he's going to do while Fenty was a touch quieter about it. But they'll still drag their collective feet, they'll still put up all the "reasonable" obstacles they can think of to test the limits. Worked for the Southern Democrats for a while on another issue, will probably work for Daly for a while.

BigDogatPlay
06-28-2010, 3:23 PM
A "crackdown on gun shops".... are there even any brick and mortar FFLs within the city limits of Chicago?

While this bit of bluster from the mayor was to be expected, the point remains exactly as I've been saying for a long time... now we get to litigate over what is and is not reasonable.

That's what the courage of Otis McDonald and his fellow plaintiffs along with the skill of Alan Gura and the razor sharp legal coalition that fought the case to today's ruling.

But the battle has just begun.

dfletcher
06-28-2010, 6:28 PM
A "crackdown on gun shops".... are there even any brick and mortar FFLs within the city limits of Chicago?



I don't know - but if I had a gun store from Peoria on up I think I'd be offering a discount and/or free NRA membership to any Chicagoan that buys a handgun.

Sinixstar
06-28-2010, 6:33 PM
I dont recall reading anything in those decisions (and yes I've read them both) that indicated that it was acceptable for any government entity to try and make it as hard as possible for people to obtain/own firearms. Those decisions held the 2A was not an unlimited right, but they did not state that is was open to any and all regulation/restriction by the state either.

Seek an injuction if the proposed regulations are too restrictive or intentionally prohibitively onerous as to limit exercising of the right to all but a few people. Even the anti's tout the term "reasonable restrictions". In my book the terms "make it as hard as possible to own a gun" and "reasonable restrictions" do not jive with eachother.

His words by themselves are not "overtly illegal and/or unconstitutional", but his words in conjuction with a particularly onerous/restrictive ordinance could be used to show that the intent of ordinance is not one of a compelling state interest, or resonably restrictive, but merely intentionally onerous so as to serve as a defacto ban or to be intentially punative to those wishing to own guns.

To me making something as hard as possible for no compelling reason is the defintion of "unreasonable".

And that's obviously something we're going to be fighting in court.
The fact is, there is nothing legally preventing Daly from wanting to make life as difficult as possible for gun owners. There is nothing legally preventing him at the moment from trying to take action to that regard.

...but his words in conjuction with a particularly onerous/restrictive ordinance could be used to show that the intent of ordinance is not one of a compelling state interest

and again - that's certainly an argument you're free to make - but it does not fit under any clear definition of the law as it stands today.

The point is - we know who Daly is. We know how we operates. We know what he will try to pull. My guess is so does SCOTUS. All that said - they still left the door open for him to try and work his magic. There's no sense in getting worked up. We all knew it was coming - all we can do now is fight it.

Maestro Pistolero
06-28-2010, 6:43 PM
Apparently we now have a "gun shop" loophole as well. This guy is dumb as a rock.

yellowfin
06-28-2010, 6:44 PM
How about if we shoved his gun laws up his ***, then he'd know how effective they are. Per his recommendation from a week or two ago.

glbtrottr
06-28-2010, 6:56 PM
Apparently we now have a "gun shop" loophole as well. This guy is dumb as a rock.

Not long ago, my girl had been excited about a picking up a gun when we lived in Chicago. At the time, I was in California.

As she walked in to have a conversation with the store attendants specific to a model she was going to pick up, she decided to call me to ask a question.

The store declined her purchase.

Why?

We found out later from another Chicago area gun store owner...

Apparently Daley had been having the Police Department and others regularly visit the stores undercover, to try to entrap and otherwise elicit or find things that could be construed as "straw purchases", "illegal sales", or anything to put them out of business. This isn't paranoia - it's survival for both of these stores. Every day they have to put up with Daley's crap.

Today was a huge day for them.

I can only hope they get tons of business going forward. :)

BroncoBob
06-28-2010, 8:15 PM
Stupid is as stupid does. As long as they keep electing the POS into office in Chicago there will be the likes of Daley.

Sgt5811
06-28-2010, 8:39 PM
As a father, I'm used to hearing all sorts of interesting temper tatrums from kids who don't get things that they want. It's funny that even adults who are looked upon with great respect and admiration (not by me, of course) as well as looked to for leadership, are no more "mature" than a two year old whining about why he doesn't get candy before eating breakfast or dinner. Even a woman with PMS exhibits more rationality than Daly. This man should act like a grownup and go hide in his bedroom and cry softly while he rocks himself to sleep in the corner.

N6ATF
06-28-2010, 8:40 PM
How about if we shoved his gun laws up his ***, then he'd know how effective they are. Per his recommendation from a week or two ago.

That might be fatal. It's one thing to shove feces in someone's digestive tract - see wiki on fecal bacteriotherapy - yes, it's a real medical treatment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal_bacteriotherapy), but it's another to shove Constitution-print toilet paper covered in feces back in...

cmaher55
06-28-2010, 8:45 PM
The guy is even a bigger idiot than his dad was.....! I bet the guys that drive him around in his limo and escort him are packing some pretty serious iron. Of course he's one of the "progressive elite and enlightened" ones in society so his life is much more important than yours and mine and must be protected.

CitaDeL
06-28-2010, 8:49 PM
"As a city we must continue to stand up ..and fight for a ban on assault weapons .. as well as a crackdown on gun shops," Daley said. "We are a country of laws not a nation of guns."

Mayor Daley badly misquotes a distant relative of mine- twisting its meaning to suit his own selfish tyranny. The irony is that he is likely not aware of the fact that what he is saying is in direct opposition to his despotism.

I quote;

"If Aristotle, Livy, and Harrington knew what a republic was, the British constitution is much more like a republic than an empire. They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men. If this definition be just, the British constitution is nothing more nor less than a republic, in which the king is first magistrate. This office being hereditary, and being possessed of such ample and splendid prerogatives, is no objection to the government’s being a republic, as long as it is bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend. An empire is a despotism, and an emperor a despot, bound by no law or limitation but his own will; it is a stretch of tyranny beyond absolute monarchy." Novanglus Essays #7, John Adams

If Mayor Daley were to put the laws he wants to impose on people to a vote, I doubt that he would find the outcome satisfactory. He would have neither the support of the courts nor of his constituency.

tankerman
06-28-2010, 8:51 PM
And the law just *****-slapped you.
But he won't accept that fact until the city is forced to pay out a huge settlement for civil rights violations.

Etoshan
06-28-2010, 8:56 PM
Are you kidding me?????

EVERY politician is doing the exact same thing and NO ONE says a word. I mean look at the crap the Illegal Alien President is doing as we speak. First off he isnt even a citizen. Does anyone check his papers? HELL NO!

AMEN.....THERE...I said one word. Have I fulfilled my obligation as a good "citizen" yet?

thayne
06-28-2010, 8:57 PM
I think Daley could be our secret weapon. Just let him keep up what hes doing and he can get all the laws overturned for us :D

N6ATF
06-28-2010, 8:58 PM
But he won't accept that fact until the city is forced to pay out a huge settlement for civil rights violations.

And to force that will require Daley and Co being locked away until they wire the judgment into the escrow account.

advocatusdiaboli
06-28-2010, 9:21 PM
This is just the bravado a scared man uses to try and steel himself when he's afraid. Remember Saddam Hussein and his "Rivers of Blood" and "Mother of All Battles"? McDonald is our A-10 Warthog loaded with air-to-suface ordnance and a 30mm gatling cannon firing depleted uranium rounds--one of the most powerful airborne cannons ever flown. 40 ft spread at 4,000 feet in flight. Relax folks this is Shock and Awe (thanks Yellow fin, I think) and there is a lot of battle ahead but not much action. And I don't think this enemy has any WMDs either.

glbtrottr
06-28-2010, 10:42 PM
That might be fatal. It's one thing to shove feces in someone's digestive tract - see wiki on fecal bacteriotherapy - yes, it's a real medical treatment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal_bacteriotherapy), but it's another to shove Constitution-print toilet paper covered in feces back in...

Nothing would please me more than to have Daley willingly drink out of a colostomy bag in a desperate attempt to cure his cholera.

Wait - do I feel contempt for him now for his continued disrespect for gun rights, or am I familiar with my disdain towards him stemming from his using federal funds to show down Meigs Field airport so he could eventually build a casino there to further ensure his continued reelection?

What a scumbag.

dantodd
06-29-2010, 1:39 AM
The fact is, there is nothing legally preventing Daly from wanting to make life as difficult as possible for gun owners. There is nothing legally preventing him at the moment from trying to take action to that regard.


There is a ton in both opinions that say those sorts of laws will not be tolerated. But, as you said there is nothing preventing him from trying. Just as there is nothing in the laws of physics that prevents him from trying to fly by simply flapping his arms really really hard.

Have you guys by any chance been actually paying attention to the rulings, and what all this stuff means?

It would appear that you are not seeing the forest for the trees. The court decides only the issue before them they will not randomly pick out some "other" issue to settle inside their opinion. However; SCOTUS will sometimes give guidance to lower courts in how they should approach similar cases in the future. This guidance helps keep their docket clear of very closely related cases. Do a quick count of how many times the word "fundamental" is used in the McDonald opinion. That would give the astute reader a good indication of the type of scrutiny they are going to expect lower courts to use in judging future cases. You seem to be much more focused on the specific holding than the clear message the court is sending.

Second Amendment Jurisprudence is sparse. It essentially has been limited to only containing Heller and McDonald with little bits of Cruikshank and Miller likely left in tact. This fact makes understanding the opinions beyond the specific holdings very important. Let me repeat VERY IMPORTANT. If the court didn't expect lower courts to read and follow such writings it would really not be necessary to publish anything beyond the holdings in a case.

demnogis
06-29-2010, 6:39 AM
I think what every state (with pre-emption) needs is a law that prevents City, County and State governments from passing new gun laws without a 9/10ths public vote.

tenpercentfirearms
06-29-2010, 7:33 AM
This is so clearly a civil rights issue. When they finally recognized blacks rights to vote, they passed laws to make it harder for them to vote. Guess what? They were struck down! These laws will be too. It just takes time.

paul0660
06-29-2010, 7:34 AM
Chicago will probably try to outdo DC:

After SCOTUS eliminated the D.C. ban, the city put in place dozens of regulations surrounding handgun ownership. Prospective gun owners in D.C. now are required to take training courses that include spending one hour on a firing range and several hours in a classroom learning about gun safety. They also must pass a 20-question test based on D.C.'s firearm laws.

Since the ban was lifted in D.C., just over 800 guns have been registered in city. The relatively low total comes as the district passed the slew of new requirements that also include being fingerprinted and taking ballistic tests, which could help police track bullets back to specific guns if needed

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Daley-Vows-New-Gun-Ordinances-97328384.html#ixzz0sFjITvVZ


http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Daley-Vows-New-Gun-Ordinances-97328384.html

vantec08
06-29-2010, 7:38 AM
How can this dude publicly say he doesn't care what the Constitution says and that he will infringe upon our rights and nothing happens to him?

Because the voters of Chicago that voted him into office, especially of those violence-plagued neighborhoods, dont care what the Constitution means and he is nothing more than representative of them. They know who the troublemakers and bangers are because its their sons, nephews, neighbors, cousins, brothers, etc. They dont want to deal with the work and effort of the very change THEY THEMSELVES must make to clean up a ****ed up culture. Its much easier to kick back and blame inanimate objects which delays the very changes they must make. Using their logic, flies cause garbage and pencils cause spelling errors. Politicians that offer reality dont stand a snowball's chance in hades of getting elected when up against that brand of denial. For representing his constituents desires, the mayor gets an A. For actual leadership, F.

Cobrafreak
06-29-2010, 7:55 AM
I don't know - but if I had a gun store from Peoria on up I think I'd be offering a discount and/or free NRA membership to any Chicagoan that buys a handgun.

Let me know if ANY gun shop or gun range offers any discounts for NRA members. As far as I know , none do.

dwtt
06-29-2010, 9:52 AM
Nothing would please me more than to have Daley willingly drink out of a colostomy bag in a desperate attempt to cure his cholera.

What a scumbag.

you have an interesting way with words.

Mulay El Raisuli
06-30-2010, 8:30 AM
This is so clearly a civil rights issue. When they finally recognized blacks rights to vote, they passed laws to make it harder for them to vote. Guess what? They were struck down! These laws will be too. It just takes time.


Yup. And my thinking is that it won't take all that much time. We have a template to follow: The example you gave of black's Right to vote. All we have to do is follow the lines painted on the street by those who came before & we'll be in like Flynn.


The Raisuli