Posted on 02/19/2003 8:15:26 AM PST by SJackson
Seasoned observers of gun control battles can be forgiven for not spilling their coffee, in excitement or dismay, over Mayor Daley's newly proposed gun control legislation. Much in it is familiar, including measures that previously failed to gain approval in the General Assembly. Once again, new laws are being pushed when existing ones aren't always being enforced as vigorously as we would hope.
But while we certainly would like to see a greater commitment to prosecuting owners of illegal handguns in the city--and not only gang-bangers and career criminals, but anyone in wrongful possession--there's a lot to be said for turning up the heat on gun law violators by fortifying and expanding the measures aimed at them.
Limiting gun purchases to one a month (there is currently no limit) is a practical way to bring down the number of guns in the wrong hands. It permits authorities to go after straw purchasers, who buy them on behalf of felons and others who cannot pass background checks. It stands to reason that the more difficult it is for criminals to get guns, the less shootings there will be. Exemptions could be allowed for anyone with a legitimate reason to exceed the limit.
A "cooling-off" period of 10 days before a buyer can take possession of a gun, up from three, is another measure worth supporting. We also are in favor of requiring gun makers to conduct test-firings to compile the "fingerprints" left on bullets by individual guns, instituting background checks on guns bought at gun shows and classifying as a felony having a secret gun compartment in a car. And in the absence of a system of federal licensing of gun dealers, Daley's proposal to have the state license them makes sense.
Whether we need to join California, New York and other states in banning assault weapons when a federal ban already exists (albeit one that will expire in 2004 if not renewed by Congress) is open to debate. But raising the price of a Firearm Owner's Identification cardfrom $5 to $25 is a reasonable hike to cover FOID administrative costs. Gov. Blagojevich unsuccessfully campaigned as a state legislator to raise it to $500 but abandoned that during his gubernatorial campaign. The governor, who likely will support Daley's other gun control proposals, says raising the FOID even "a penny" has "no hopes of passage."
The mayor hopes to prove him wrong.
===============================================
Governor Blagojevich
EMail: governor@state.il.us
Office of the Governor
207 State House
Springfield, IL 62706
Locate and E Mail your representatives in the general assembly
Illinois General Assembly: Senate--Democrats 33, Republicans: 25
Illinois General Assembly: House--Democrats 66, Republicans: 52 or
Um, if people are limited to one per month, then no one could be involved in "straw purchases" really. How would it help authorities go after such things? Idiot.
Exemptions could be allowed for anyone with a legitimate reason to exceed the limit.
And the person in charge of making this decison will decide that no one other than his buddies have a "legitimate reason".
A "cooling-off" period of 10 days before a buyer can take possession of a gun, up from three, is another measure worth supporting.
Or ten months, or ten years. Why not! Seriously, this is just a step to outlaw altogether(of course). No one is going to "cool down" more over 10 days than 3 days.
And in the absence of a system of federal licensing of gun dealers, Daley's proposal to have the state license them makes sense.
No federal license to be a gun dealer? Say what? This person is on crack.
Five bucks is a significant bite if you're trying to stretch a paycheck. 25 starts to limit the gun-owning demographic a bit; five hundred dollars is simply a blatant and transparent attempt to tax gun ownership out of existence and will function in the short term to make criminals out of people who can't come up with that kind of money to exercise a right they've always exercised for free. If this doesn't qualify as a "tax break for the wealthy" then I don't know what does.
Fortunately cooler heads prevailed and Illinois gun owners are safe from that sort of stealth prohibition forever...or at least until the next election.
But what does this "in the absence of federal licensing of gun dealers" mean? Has this newspaper never heard of a Federal Firearms License?
Gun control fanatics do not base their positions on truth and logic, but rather emotions and lies. Their position is taken as a matter of faith; therefore any lie or distortion that promotes their position is OK because it helps to advance their final goal, - a country where only the police and military are armed.
This editorial is nothing but a tissue of lies and logical fallicies, but it makes the freedom haters feel good.
Oh and BTW Blowjerkovbitch was Sara Brady's point man in the US House.
You must remember, rule #1 of the gun grabbers is outright lies to generate support for their position. Not only isn't there any federal licensing program for gun dealers, but eeeeevil NRA types are giving lessons in schools how to be gang bangers, with the deceptively-named "Eddie Eagle" program, and 13 "kids" (0-25 yrs old) a day are killed by guns. Etc.
AMEN BROTHER!!
Got to get anti-gun nuts out of Congress and elect some Americans.
This is hard to do. Apparently the electorate in the cities keep electing large contingents of betwetting looters who promise them more pelf and more plunder from their hard working fellow citizens.
Since both the electorate who votes for them and the communists they elect know that stealing from one person and giving it to another is wrong, and that those who work for a living resent the robbers and parasites, they fear resistance. Their answer is to disarm the victims and leave only the robbers with the means to enforce their robbery.
The second amendment says"the rigt of the peple to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
People: The masses of a commujnity as opposed to a specialized group. That is you and I the individual Citizen.
When a law is passed curtailing one of our rights we need to not only protest that law, but to openly disobey that law.
Of course, but this isn't like bogus statistics that would take some time(without available resources such as GOA) to find out are untrue. All people with any interest in guns knows there is federal licensing. This is a pretty bold lie.
Exactly, but this approach won't advance a political career and it will expose the fact that there are not enough police officers. And the police the cities have, are too busy engaged in activities of revenue enhancement for the city. Democrats, career political "persons" and gun controlers do not want the voting public to understand the above facts.
For a politician, getting a law passed in your name puts your name in the public record, forever, and is free campaigning. Whether it is enforced or not is irrelevant because the law will not have the intended effect, that is the reduction of criminal shootings.
The new law will, however, look good in a prominent place on a re-election brochure.
Exactly!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.