Posted on 08/04/2008 11:13:58 AM PDT by neverdem
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.
RELATED STORIES Daley pushing new gun ban measure
Chicago continues to enforce gun ban
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Wilmette and Morton Grove preemptively repealed their bans.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."
Aint that special!
Duh. Bright guy...
I knew it! The Second Amendment was always to be subject to protecting police.
Do I need a sarcasm tag?
Large areas of his city have been made war zones by such gangs at the Gangster Disciples, the Latin Kings, the Vice Lords, the Cobras, and the El Rukn’s. These gangs, and criminals in general, don’t care what the gun laws are, because they won’t abide by them anyway.
I couldn’t agree more Dilbert. Laws of these types on citizens simply means the gangs have nobody to fear.
Look up the word INFRINGED, you worthless tub of puss!
If the RAT idiots would make it legal for law-abiding American citizens to defend themselves, the crime rate would drop like a rock. And as far as these gang punks killing each other, that’s fine with me. Apparently the Chicago cops are too busy beating up female bartenders to do anything about the gangs.
I think the Illinois state constitution is the only one in the Union that states the right to bear arms is subject only to law enforcement.
Yes. When will we end this epidemic of senseless shootings of first responders by armed homeowner lunatics? What? There have been only two in the last 30 years? Then, when will we end this epidemic of senseless shootings of homeowners by first responders?
Looks like Hiz Honor’s moneymen have told him that it looks pretty damn likely that the City will lose - and that the gun banners will find the 2nd Amendment incorporated. It’s unlikely that they would lose on trial or appeal, but the Supes have dropped some HUGE hints in Heller. Now, if he works out another law, then the incorporation issue goes away until Obama can pack the court, then the gun-banners get another bite at the apple. You can read the filings for McDonald vs. City of Chicago here...
http://www.chicagoguncase.com/
I doubt Obama will be packing anything besides his wallet and pie hole. Thanks for the link.
Your have to read carefully,
essentially he is saying he will pass a new law which DOES THE SAME THING.
Unfortunatly for Daley the standard is now STRICT SCRUTINY officially and ANY ordinance will have to pass the strict scrutiny test in order to survive.
Of course Daley is just going to pass ANYTHING and say it is different even if it is identical.
Yer welcome. Gura (same atty as Heller) is on the case. That man would be unable to buy his own drinks if he lived anywhere near me. We gun owners owe him. Big time.
Yer gonna have to show me where in Heller (or elsewhere) where it says strict scrutiny (and I’m not talking about dicta, if’n ya don’t know what that is, then you need to learn).
“Chicagoans with guns in their homes might be required to have insurance to protect taxpayers from frivolous lawsuits, he said.”
Calling a pig an eagle doesn’t make the pig able to fly - this is nothing more and nothing less than a tax on a constitutionally-protected right, which is forbidden by “Murdoch v. Pennsylvania” (1943):
http://nesara.org/court_summaries/murdoch_v_pennsylvania.htm
Guess the lawyers told him that inspite of him thinking he is King of Chicago that in reality the Supreme Court of the USA has more say in this then he does. :)
“Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”
The fact is that Mayor Daly, who rides in an armored limousine and has a 24/7 personal bodyguard, feels, along with the other gun grabbers, that citizens dead at the hands of criminals is preferable to them being able to defend themselves when and where needed.
Criminals are classic predators. They all have a cost-benefit calculus running and that formula tells them to prey on the weak because it is less dangerous than preying on the strong.
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.