Chicago Celebrates in the Streets
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.
So, If you were Married and Both of you had a Registered Weapon in your Chicago home.
Would you be in violation of the Ordinance If you killed your Spouse?
Because then there would be Two guns and only one person.
Better ask Daley about that.
My personal thought is that every law abiding household should have at minimum a shotgun, a rifle, and a handgun.
AMEN!
Damn! A 10-second burst of that thing would eat up my entire year’s income!
“How about a hand gun AND a rifle AND a semi-auto shotgun?”
She said only One Handgun.
I’m sure they will fill in the Details later.
My question is Does she really think that a Handgun is more Dangerous then My 18 1/2” Mossberg Cruiser?
How many $dollars$ per minute does that puppy fire? ;^)
You forgot your Sunday morning going to church pistol (sarc)
What part of “shall not be infringed” do these communists not get? Now we’ll need ANOTHER court case!
You're not exaggerating here either. Two weekends ago, 54 people were shot, 12 were killed.
Last weekend, 25 people were shot, 6 were killed. That's almost 75 in just two weeks.
Here's another "fun fact" -- more people were murdered in Chicago in 2009 than we lost soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan - combined.
Scary when one thinks that they may actually be safer on the streets in Iraq or Afghanistan than in an American City known as Chicago.
Lets see, one gun each per major caliber, multiply that by three for weapon size, add three for for hunting calibers, and then discount the ones with sentimental value.
I say there should be no less than 20 handguns per person per caliber. I say that with as much authority as anyone in the government or media.
I currently have 5 members in my household, I better get to buying.
I already have a Chicago-compliant handgun. If they "allow" me only one, I'll settle for this:
Before they were bitch-slapped by the USSC, their "reasonable" number of guns was zero. Now they say "one and only one" is the "new reasonable". And their powers just come out of thin air (or their @ss).
Among the many things they got wrong, this ruling will make it much easier to bury them under lawsuits when they try to get "cute".
Me like! If you only get one (until that rule is overturned), then that looks like a great option to have, and to carry proudly.
Bet you don’t get robbed when that’s slung on your chest!
If I, for some unlikely reason, ever found myself on the ground in Chicago, perhaps I could understand a local ordinance limit of seven concealed handguns of various calibers, two open carry shotguns, one rifle, and three medium length knives.
Any more than that would invite suspicion by local authorities regarding my intent of self defense... Any less than that, I would not consider myself minimally armed for self-defense in Chicago. OK, yes the above is exaggerated. I would feel perfectly safe in Chicago with five concealed handguns and two knives.
You would be insane to travel the streets of Chicago without at least one crew serviced artillery piece.
I wonder if that lickspittle piece of crap: “Da Mare,” of Sh*tcago thinks that the new law says that citizens have the right to keep and bear only an arm. He’s so delusional that he needs to have the ever-living bejeezus sued out of him, and his worthless,corrupt administration. I really hope this oxygen thief is now losing sleep, and crying in his pillow.
When will these idiots understand that their little experiment in “public safety” has failed miserably, and that the best approach to solving rampant crime is an armed citizenry?
Let me help out... You cannot charge a fee for exercising a fundamental constitutional right.
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.