Posted on 05/20/2010 12:19:22 PM PDT by Second Amendment First
Mayor Richard Daley today refused to concede that the Supreme Court is likely to overturn the city's gun ban, but said that he will be ready to act quickly to put in place restrictions on gun ownership if it does.
*
The mayor said if the court overturns the Chicago ban, as expected, he'll quickly present new legislation to the City Council.
*
But he talked about the possibility of ballistics tests for registered guns, so police can track them if they're used in crimes.
The mayor mentioned the possibility of some kind of registry to let police know how many guns and what types are in each house, but said nothing has been finalized. In 1982, the city barred the registration of additional handguns, but allowed those residents who already had handguns to keep them. That ordinance became known as the city’s handgun ban.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsblogs.chicagotribune.com ...
He and Bloomberg.
The imperial mayors never give up on suppressing the serfs.
You know, it’s one thing to not have any method of concealed or open carry. That’s repulsive enough.
But how do these egotistical morons think that the Second Amendment doesn’t even afford civilians the RIGHT to own a firearm in one’s own HOME?!
Tomkow look what your mayor up too
This punk thinks he is the king of Chicago. He and others like him need to be thrown out. ASAP.
I have had a gut full of city employees and politicians. They all think so highly of themselves when in fact they are incompetent goons.
Such a registration scheme would clearly violate the 5th Amendment.
From Wiki:
A statutorily required record-keeping system may go too far such that it implicates a record-keeper’s right against self-incrimination. A three part test laid out by Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 382 U.S. 70 (1965) is used to determine this: 1. the law targets a highly selective group inherently suspect of criminal activities; 2. the activities sought to be regulated are already permeated with criminal statutes as opposed to essentially being non-criminal and largely regulatory; and 3. the disclosure compelled creates a likelihood of prosecution and is used against the record-keeper.
In Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 382 U.S. 70 (1965), the Supreme Court struck down an order by the Subversive Activities Control Board requiring members of the Communist Party to register with the government and upheld an assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination, on the grounds that statute under which the order had been issued was “directed at a highly selective group inherently suspect of criminal activities.”
In Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969) the court struck down the Marijuana Tax Act because its record keeping statute required self-incrimination.
In Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968) the Supreme Court ruled that, because convicted felons are prohibited from owning firearms, requiring felons to register any firearms they owned constituted a form of self-incrimination and was therefore unconstitutional.
Congress shall pass no law......
This clown doesn’t understand the 2nd Amendment. He’s needs to be run out of town.
I don’t think it’s about understanding the Constitution, it’s ignoring it. Like most lefties, he believes certain things are for the aristocracy only.
“But he talked about the possibility of ballistics tests for registered guns, so police can track them if they’re used in crimes.”
Isn’t that done when you buy a handgun these days? I bought a 45 cal pistol about a year ago from budsgunshop.com. When I picked it up from my local FFL dealer, it contained a separately packaged spent casing, which I assumed had been fired from my new pistol by the seller, and the bullet then given to a law enforcement agency. Can anyone confirm that this is SOP?
“possibility of ballistics tests for registered guns”
New York has done that for a long time now. Millions spent, no viable results.
Usually a firearm is test fired at the factory, although some states may now require it for their records.
Because he is. The idiots that make up the voting majority of people in Chicago keep re-electing him.
If he ignores the first three, he'd better watch his ass for that last one. Him and everyone else like him.
People are getting fed up out in fly-over land. Keep kicking the hornets nest and someone is bound to get stung.
The SCOTUS is pretty much the last line on the whole "peaceful" route thingie.
Indeed, but you think that someone who disregards the 2nd Amendment would have any regard for the other amendments?
Oh yea. To hell with that g-d Supreme Court nonsense, he is the mayor and he is gonna keep that boot on the throat of those scummy peasants, damn it.
Where do these sick freaks come from?
"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 over night, going to and from work."
WTF? And this:
During the news conference, Daley reacted with the help of a prop when a reporter suggested the city's handgun ban has been ineffective, given the number of shootings that still occur in Chicago.
"It's been very effective," Daley said, picking up a gun from the dozens displayed on a nearby table. "If I put this up your butt, you'll find out how effective it is. Let me put a round up your, you know."
There just are no words ....
Heck, if I was him, I’d simply ignore the Supreme Court outright. Keep the gun ban. Tell the cops to shoot people with handguns on sight. Why not? How many divisions do the Supreme Court have?
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.