Posted on 06/29/2010 6:57:23 PM PDT by lex33
Chicagoans should be limited to one handgun for every eligible person living in a home — and gun dealers should be banned within the city limits — in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to shoot down the city’s handgun ban, the city’s top lawyer said today.
One day after Chicago’s strictest-in-the-nation handgun ban was rendered unenforceable, Corporation Counsel Mara Georges argued that it’s “critical to public safety” to at least draw the line on the number of handguns in Chicago.
One day after Chicago’s strictest-in-the-nation handgun ban was rendered unenforceable, Corporation Counsel Mara Georges argued that it’s “critical to public safety” to at least draw the line on the number of handguns in Chicago.
“One handgun is sufficient for self-defense. We believe that a limitation on the number of handguns to one-per-person-per-residence would be consistent with Supreme Court” rulings overturning handgun bans in Chicago and Washington D.C., Georges told the City Council’s Police Committee.
» Click to enlarge image
“One handgun is sufficient for self-defense. We believe that a limitation on the number of handguns to one-per-person-per-residence would be consistent with Supreme Court” rulings overturning handgun bans in Chicago and Washington D.C., Georges told the City Council’s Police Committee.
“Limiting the number of handguns to one-per-person would reduce the number of handguns in circulation, reduce the ability of people to act as straw purchasers of handguns for others who are not entitled to possess handgun and reduce the number of handguns that would be available to children in the home.”
A Chicago ban on gun dealers would be similarly motivated, Georges said. She noted that there are 45 dealers within 13 miles of the city’s limits and ten within one mile.
“Gun dealers have access to large quantities of guns. Gun stores, therefore, present a serious risk of guns flowing quickly into the community and into the hands of criminals through theft or through illegal trafficking,” Georges said.
“In a large city like Chicago with plenty of criminals who want guns, there is a higher likelihood that a gun sold by a legitimate gun dealer to a legal purchaser will nonetheless end up in the hands of a criminal.”
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court signed the death warrant for Chicago’s strictest-in-the-nation handgun ban.
Two years after shooting down Washington D.C.’s handgun ban, the high court’s five-member conservative majority ruled that the Second Amendment right to own a gun for self-defense extends to all Americans, no matter where they live.
With no guidance on what kinds of gun regulations might pass legal muster, the Daley administration is on its own to figure out who should be allowed to register a handgun, how high the registration fee should be, how often and how long gun owners should undergo firearms training and how much liability insurance they must purchase.
During Tuesday’s Police Committee meeting, the replacement ordinance started to take shape.
Georges said Mayor Daley has insisted on a first-in-the-nation insurance requirement to protect Chicago taxpayers from an avalanche of gun-related lawsuits. She noted homeowners and renters policies already cover accidental shootings and shootings in self-defense.
Police Supt. Jody Weis talked about prohibiting people from owning handguns if they’re under 18, visually impaired, have two drug or drunk driving convictions, a history of domestic violence or past convictions for unlawful use of a weapon.
“Compliance with licensing requirements is so important that substantial fines, some jail time and revocation of one’s ability to own a weapon are appropriate penalties,” he said.
The superintendent also talked about following Washington’s lead by requiring revolvers to be unloaded and either disassembled or secured with trigger locks unless homeowners have reason to fear a home intruder.
“It’s extraordinarily dangerous to have a weapon in any state of operability when you have teenagers or young children inside a home and they could get it and, just out of curiosity, injure themselves or one of their brothers or sisters or friends,” the superintendent said.
Earlier Tuesday, George told reporters the Daley administration would take its time before approving a replacement for Chicago’s “unenforcible” handgun ban to avoid providing more legal ammunition for gun control opponents.
“We’re just trying to get it right. ... We’re trying to figure out how far we can go and survive a challenge because we know it’s gonna be challenged right away. So, we’re being cautious,” she said.
A well armed citizenry is “critical to public safety”, because THAT is the only way to convince punks there is a risk and a consequence to their lifestyle!
It's plural.
Well you’re just allowed one husband at a time so I guess .../sarc
Limit the city council to one meeting per year for 1 minute.
How about a hand gun AND a rifle AND a semi-auto shotgun?
Just askin’
Thwey don’t care. They will spend millions to avoid granting people their rights and they will be re-elected.
Nice!
Can I come over to your house to play?
:)
Hows about 1 vote per person?
Laura Croft will not be pleased.
How about only one tax per city....
Yep, no mention of the number of “arms” per household. ;-)
EXACTLY. They have absolutely no Constitutional right to even suggest a restriction on how many guns I own. But this goes straight to the heart of who Democrats really are. These Marxists honestly hold the Constitution in disdain and are totally convinced within themselves that they actually know better and are determined to foist their own beliefs by any
eans necessary, just like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, all, of course, for the ‘good’ of everyone else. Of course all this is done under the cover of the corrupt MSM.
Do my split personalities also get one each?
If I were to make pithy responses to the idiotic comments in this article I’d be posting all night.
What? No limit on the bullets?
What? No limit on the bullets?
Why, certainly. I mean, if both criminals and victims can own guns and we take them away from the victims, that means that the violence will be halved, right?
Idiot.
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
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.