Chicago mayor offers gun store law, critics pounce
Source: AP
CHICAGO (AP) — Forced by court order to allow long-banned gun stores to open in Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Wednesday introduced an ordinance that is so strict and so dramatically limits where the stores can operate that critics say it is little more than a continuation of the city's longtime ban.
In a city that for years has been at the center of national debate over gun control and gun violence — even before its decades-old handgun ban was invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 — the ordinance will almost certainly trigger a legal fight.
After the ordinance was introduced at the City Council meeting without comment, Emanuel said he believes he is on solid legal ground with what he called a "tough, smart and ... enforceable" ordinance. It comes after a federal court ruling in January gave Chicago until July 14 to put gun store rules in place.
Emanuel said that in Chicago, where gun violence remains a headline-grabbing issue, "gun control is essential to our public safety." But in recent years courts have struck down city gun laws as well as the state's ban on concealed-carry permits.
Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/chicago-mayor-offers-gun-store-law-critics-pounce
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)
NutmegYankee
(16,200 posts)Both the anti-abortion and anti-gun groups believe that a right isn't actually a right (both affirmed by the Supreme Court), and they act accordingly.
randys1
(16,286 posts)What happened in Chicago was smart and mature and adult and an attack on nobody.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)is hyperbole. that being said you missed the point. the point was that this tactic that rahm used is similar to the one the gop used in texass and that was as far as that statement went
randys1
(16,286 posts)that isnt an attack?
Now I may stop posting on guns and bibles, cuz it aint worth it anymore, but this one I cant back down from
that is bullshit
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)the option in cases of rape. that being said I ,again, am not making a statement about the use of abortion only the tactic rahm used on the gunners. this is about that and not about abortion itself. no one is trying to get you to back down, you came in here gun blazing over something I didn't even say
randys1
(16,286 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)I said this is not a thread about abortion. are you even reading or are standing around with youre fists all balled up in rage looking for a fight - cause im not interested like I said women need the option in cases of rape so youre wrong so calm down
randys1
(16,286 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)
former9thward
(32,029 posts)The federal court will overturn the ordinance sticking Chicago with more legal bills. Emanuel thinks he is above the federal court but he will find out otherwise.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Did you read it?
former9thward
(32,029 posts)Did you read it?
Under the ordinance sent to the council's Public Safety committee, gun shops would be prohibited in 99.5 percent of the city. Stores also would not be allowed to sell more than one handgun to individual buyers per month and must open their books to police for inspection "at all reasonable times."
So effectively gun stores will not be allowed. If you think a federal court will allow those games then dream on.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)As per the U.S. Constitution.
former9thward
(32,029 posts)"Well regulated" meant "well trained and well equipped" in the English of the late 1700s. Were you home schooled?
The equivalent ordinance for bars would be 'A bar is not allowed in 99.5% of the city and it can only serve one drink to a customer'. Do you think that would survive a federal court?
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Gosh, only able to buy one handgun a month. How can you gun nuts tolerate that?
As EVERYONE knows, there are too many guns in Chicago. Adding more is not going to help.
Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #15)
Post removed
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Yeah, that sounds like a great plan.
You gun nuts sicken me -- you have LaPierre saying that the answer to gun violence is more guns. That is REALLY STUPID, even for a gun nut.
What we need are FEWER guns, not more guns. And certainly fewer gun dealers.
warrant46
(2,205 posts)me ---Saigon 1968 Tet
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)In An Khe and Bong Song (ie, Central Highlands) in 68-69. Why do you ask?
former9thward
(32,029 posts)Lets only allow bars in 0.5% of the city.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Guns do. Why is it you gun nuts want to ignore this clear fact?
former9thward
(32,029 posts)And the Public Health people argue alcohol does either kill you or lead to serious health issues. But go ahead. Defend Emanuel and his bs ordinance. It will be tossed in the garbage by the federal court. Why do enemies of the Bill of Rights like to defy federal courts?
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)The primary purpose of guns is KILLING PEOPLE. Yes, other things can be dangerous -- I have about half a dozen very sharp knives in my kitchen; and they could be used as weapons. But their primary use is not KILLING PEOPLE, unlike guns. Your guns are a danger to you, your family and the community in general, since the primary purpose of guns is KILLING PEOPLE. Yet you want more of these implements of death in the community. As I keep saying, you clearly don't give a damn about the lives of others, with your "let's have even MORE guns around".
former9thward
(32,029 posts)You want to ban guns. That wasn't so hard was it? Don't have to dance around some city of Chicago ordinance. Well, we are not going to ban guns. Not in my lifetime or any lifetime now around. Hundreds of years in the future I don't care about. It is their problem. Yes people with guns can kill people. Why would I dodge that obvious fact?
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)I can see a use for long guns -- hunting -- but not all of them (an AR-15 is useless for hunting). However, there are NO, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA reasons for civilians to have handguns. You say "Yes people with guns can kill people", but you are STILL avoiding the fact that the only purpose handguns have is killing people.
Yes, we are not going to ban handguns. That's because gun nuts like you refuse to consider the lives of others. You are too attached to your penis substitutes to even consider the question "Why do I insist on having something whose sole purpose is killing?" Well, why do you insist on it? Don't give me that "It's for my safety" crapola -- having a gun in your house makes you less safe.
No, I support the Swiss stance on handguns: Unless you can show an actual need for one -- you are a security guard or something like that -- you cannot get a license. So what is your need for handguns? Be specific.
Incidentally, here is just one example of why handguns in civilian hands is a bad idea: Chicago Teacher Killed in Gang Crossfire. Yesterday, Betty Howard, sitting in a real estate office, was fatally shot in the head by a stray bullet. Your "let's have more guns on the street" attitude is at least partially to blame for this innocent woman's death. You should be so proud at your handiwork.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)The NRA's penchant for redefining the English language when common words prove inconvenient is laughable.
Have a nice day.
former9thward
(32,029 posts)He was the author of the 2nd amendment and discussed the issue in the Federalist Papers. It may be an uncomfortable read for you however.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Madison clearly states that common citizens are not entitled to the character of a well-regulated militia:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
and that militias were intended to be regulated by States to keep in check the power of the federal government:
But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Here's the link you (understandably) failed to provide
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/FEDERALI.HTM
Unfortunately it's just yours, Antonin Scalia's, and Wayne LaPierre's private little myth.
former9thward
(32,029 posts)You can't. None of them in their opinions on the gun cases have tried to distort the issue like you do. Again the term 'well-regulated' does not mean what you think it means. The word "regulations" did not even exist as we know it in the late 1700s. Well-regulated mean well equipped and well trained.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)But you gun nuts just want to keep your penis substitutes. You consider that the killing of children by the more extreme members of your group is a small price to pay. You really don't give a damn about the lives and safety of others. Do you applaud driveby shootings, by members of street gangs -- the present-day version of a "well ordered militia".
Rahm Emanuel wants to keep guns off the streets. You gun nuts want to add to their number.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)This bias is especially prevalent in group settings where one thinks the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population. Since the members of a group reach a consensus and rarely encounter those who dispute it, they tend to believe that everybody thinks the same way.
Additionally, when confronted with evidence that a consensus does not exist, people often assume that those who do not agree with them are defective in some way...
...The false-consensus effect, as defined by Ross, Greene, and House in 1977, came to be the culmination of the many related theories that preceded it. In their well-known series of four studies, Ross and associates hypothesized and then demonstrated that people tend to overestimate the popularity of their own beliefs and preferences.[8] In each of the studies, subjects or "raters" were asked to choose one of a few mutually-exclusive responses. They would then predict the popularity of each of their choices among other participants, referred to as "actors". To take this a step further, Ross and associates also proposed and tested a related bias in social inferences: they found that raters in an experiment estimated their own response to be not only common, but also not very revealing of the actors' "distinguishing personal dispositions".[9] On the other hand, alternative or opposite responses were perceived as much more revealing of the actors as people. In general, the raters made more "extreme predictions" about the personalities of the actors that did not share the raters' own preference. In fact, the raters may have even thought that there was something wrong with the people expressing the alternative response.
http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/why-we-all-stink-as-intuitive.php
By all means, keep up the insults and dick jokes. Personally, I would find them
a poor substitute for political efficiacy.
On the plus side, a proclivity for posting spittle-flecked screeds
on Internet message boards seems to have diverted many of you lot
from actually doing something.
So insult away...
NoGOPZone
(2,971 posts)what did it mean if the present definition of "a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority" did not exist in the late 1700s?
"the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such REGULATIONS, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."
how would that be interpreted in the late 1700s?
former9thward
(32,029 posts)I asked the question. No one answered it.
NoGOPZone
(2,971 posts)How should that use of 'regulations' be interpreted if the present definiton fails?
former9thward
(32,029 posts)Because neither one of us thinks the other is honest. I do find it amusing that the very posters who are always so critical of Emanuel for being a DINO dictator in Chicago are the very ones praising his proposed ordinance.
NoGOPZone
(2,971 posts)Nothing I've said so far has anything to do with Emanuel. I simply asked a question based on a statement you made. Since the Constitution used the word ' regulations' in its present sense several times, I'm satisfied that this definition existed back then. This is a simplest and therefore most likely explanation. The thought that authors invented a new meaning seems ridiculous, but that's just me.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Ballast_Point
(27 posts)The same reason you can't have a poll tax or tax newspaper at 10,000%...
More money down Chicago's tubes...
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)to save money on legal fees.
DonP
(6,185 posts)The waiting periods, of 24hours for a long gun and 72 hours for a handgun, are state laws already.
I'm not sure why the video taping, since you have to show a FOID cared with your picture on it and every FFL makes a copy of your FOID and driver's license when you buy a gun? Theater? But every gun store has cameras set up anyway.
Judge Chang is likely going to spank Rahm again when Chicago has to submit their plan for his OK and Rahm will get to write another big check with tax payer money to the NRA and SAF.
But it's not like he was going to use the money for the cop or firefighter pensions anyway, so just shovel a few million $ more to the big connected law firms that contribute to his campaign fund.
trublu992
(489 posts)DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)Non-too-subtle a distinction. The ordinance violates no one's rights. For every Chicago, there's a dozen other jurisdictions that'd be more than happy to let gun stores set up shop. If you "need" a gun so badly you're willing to travel far to buy one, it's more likely you need to more carefully reconsider why you need one in the first place. Very few people would actually benefit from having a gun. And before someone says it, women victims of abuse who own a gun end up more often than not shot and/or killed by their own gun fired by their abuser.
*Disclaimer: I do not own a gun, I'm not terribly interested in or compelled to own one, but I've grown up around them. They're fun adult toys when used properly, but they really have no reasonable public place outside of "a well-regulated militia." Modern gun culture in this country is getting wildly out-of-hand.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Strip Clubs and porno shops of the 1970s and 1980s used the fact that what they were "Selling" was legal, to get court rulings that unreasonable restrictions as to where such stores could operate were unconstitutional (Not so active today, the net has killed the old porno stores).
The basic ruling from the Supreme Court was a City impose reasonable restrictions on such sales, but such restrictions can NOT be an de facto ban. Thus the regulations MUST be reasonable and directed at the harm the city is trying to prevent. Excluding 99.5% of the City from such stores may be constitutional, provided other similar stores that do not sell firearms face similar restrictions. (It is reasonable to restrict fire arm stores or an abortion clinic in an area where no one can set up a store or medical clinic, but NOT reasonable to ban them in areas where similar stores operate, i.e. clinics or hardware stores). The problem is 99.5% is enough for the Courts to rule the restrictions are to much.
The US Supreme Court has long ruled that a City can impose reasonable restrictions as to porno and other similar shops, provided such stores can still operate some place in the city. The City can not pass a law the effectively prohibit such legal stores. For example a city was found to have illegally restricted porno stores by imposing so many restrictions (must be so far from any school, church, park, residential area etc) that they is no place for such a store to open. That is unconstitutional and the same rulings have been used by Abortion Clinics and will be used by Firearm Stores.
Side note: In most Zoning cases where a Zoning Law is ruled unconstitutional, the courts will then return the issue to the same zoning board to set up new zoning rules. The Zoning Board will then issue a new Zoning, barely different then the one the court ruled unconstitutional and the person challenging the Zoning has to start all over again. After a couple rounds of this most people who are fighting such zoning laws give up (or never start the litigation, they have better things to do with their money). Thus a Zoning law can be on the books and enforced even if on its face it is unconstitutional. Zoning boards do this all the time and is the main reason you have a group in the US on left and right who wants these laws ruled to be unconstitutional in total, i.e. they have always wanted the Court to rule Zoning Unconstitutional.
Like firearms, zoning law tend to break up the left wing and right wing coalitions on the Supreme Court. Some liberals want to strike them down as restricting where low income people can live, while other liberals want to uphold it for they see Zoning was a require local government to provide housing via zoning to the poor. On the Right, some on the right see Zoning as restrictions on how one can use one's own property, while others see zoning as a way to keep housing values up. Do to this dual splits in the Left-Right coalitions on the Court, the Court has a long history of avoiding Zoning cases.
As to the sale of one pistol to any one person per month, I see the Court ruling that constitutional. I do not see any court striking it down and then someone actually filing an appeal. Remember to be a litigate you have to be someone living in Chicago who wants to buy two pistols, in a one month period. By the time the case gets to a Trial Judge it would be over a month later and the court will rule that the rule permits someone to buy one pistol a month, and the litigate can go a buy a second guy for it is another month. The case would be dismissed as moot. Somehow you have to get around this issue of mootness to survive to get to court. This was a problem with rulings involving Abortion, by the time any case reached an appellant court, the woman would have either gone some place to have the abortion, or the child was born. Either way, the case would have become moot. i.e the court would no longer have a person in front of them that actually has something in litigation. Now in Roe vs Wade the Court did get around the issue of mootness (the plaintiff had all given birth) but one of the attacks on Roe was the Case was technically moot when it reached the US Supreme Court.
I bring up the issue of mootness for I can see a Court holding a hearing over a month after the refusal to sell a second pistol, and then ruling the person could on the date of hearing buy a pistol so the request to be able to buy a second pistol is moot. The same if the person bringing the litigation is a seller, he has to show that someone came into his shop to buy two pistols in a month and he could not do to this city Ordinance. By the time the court hears the case, I can see the trial judge rule that since a month has gone by, the gun store owner can now sell that second pistol and the case is moot.
Thus I see the Court forcing the City of Chicago to adopt less restrictive laws as to where a firearm store can be located, but also making no ruling on the one gun a month rule.
former9thward
(32,029 posts)He ordered it. There is a constitutional right. Take it up with him.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The Chicago Clerk's office where such proposed laws are kept:
https://chicago.legistar.com/Legislation.aspx
Report on Guns issued by the Chicago Police to support the proposed law:
http://dig.abclocal.go.com/wls/documents/Tracing-the-Guns-Full-Report.pdf
Some of the proposed laws are just asking for litigation:
500 feet away from parks and schools is taken straight from laws dealing with Pedophiles. Could be ruled to be constitutional in regards to pedophiles, but when was the last time someone went into a gun store and then to a park or school and shot someone? I question that being reasonable.
The Video Taping of all transaction, I can see being ruled constitutional if included with other areas where sales had to be video taped, such a bars, saloons, and cigarettes stores. Many if not most retailers video tape them now (through the Video tape is on the Cashier and the customer). Justifying such a requirement based on the fact ATM machine use video taping of users is not the same. Video Taping of ATM users is NOT required by law. Thus if a transaction was not video taped for any reason, no criminal charge can be filed. That would NOT be the rule where the City REQUIRED such video taping, thus a break down in Video taping would be a criminal offense. If carefully written for example, all transaction shall be video tape and such machined will be inspected by the Police to make sure their work, but if no video taping occurs do to problem with the video tape system, not criminal charges on the gun dealer, would pass constitutional muster, but the ordinance states a sale without video taping for any reason is a criminal offense, I see Constitutional issues.
If it was my proposed law, I would required such video taping of all fire arm transaction AND Cigarette sales and Alcohol sales. By spreading out who must video tape, you are showing you are concern about illegal sales in general, not to keep tabs on people buying firearms in general. I like the idea of video taping, but if restricted to sales of Firearms you are asking for a court challenge. If you spread it to other potential illegal activities, less likely court will strike the law down.
I can see the courts upholding the one pistol a month rule. It is reasonable on its face (and by the time anyone gets to court over the issue it would be another month and any trial Judge could then rule the action to strike down the law is moot for the petitioner would be able to buy his second pistol by the time the case gets in front of a Judge).
Record keeping in excess of Federal law, could be a problem. Federal Law has governed the sale of Firearms since at least the Gun Control Law of 1968, thus if someone is operating outside the law the Feds have the personal to check those records. If the proposed rules are restricted to sales record and review of the video tapes, I do not see a problem, but if more then that I can see a federal judge ruling the City is interfering with Federal Law. Duplicate regulations are permitted, but they have to be reasonable and then not used to harass the gun store. If the law is as carefully written as is claimed not a problem, but given the 500 foot rule mentioned above, I have my questions if it is carefully written as claimed.
I can see the courts upholding reasonable restriction to prevent thrift, including that all weapons be locked in a safe or other secured means. Thus how the store is set up if reasonable, is within the power of the city. The big issue would be how reasonable are the building requirements? If up to bank standards (including bullet proof glass) not a problem, but if the City requires more then it does banks I see problems. The City's rules can not make the Gun Store look like a fort or guardhouse (unless that is what the store owner wants) but if reasonable will be upheld. For Example if the City requires solid steel doors on all entrances, those are just ugly and store owners will NOT want them. On the other hand bullet proof glass doors and windows I can see a court upholding even if a Store Owner objects to them.
A rule that all weapons be behind a counter, would be upheld by most courts (and I have been in gun stores where that rule WAS not the rule). A rule that all guns be kept in a safe every night, I can see being ruled unconstitutional down on the simple grounds they are alternatives that are as secure and does not require the weapons to be hauled into a safe every day (i.e. chain the weapons up, have the weapons in lockable cases should be sufficient if the doors and windows are all bullet proof and when locked it is difficult to break into the store).
I would write more on this proposed ordinance but all I can find are reports about reports of the Ordinance. The proposed ordinance may satisfy my concerns, but I have my questions if they do given the 500 foot rule.
randys1
(16,286 posts)everybody else
No jobs bills, no infrastructure happening, but everybody has got their gun and bible and a hootin and a hollerin
stupid god damn americans
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)so I imagine Chicago's will too; SCOTUS has indicated it will give states pretty broad latitude for this.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)A politician is actually doing something to make it harder for people to buy guns, and DUers are complaining? And I think that requiring a video record of all sales is extremely smart. What responsible, law-abiding gun purchaser would object to this?
billh58
(6,635 posts)Second Amendment absolutists, and NRA extremists -- i.e., the cold-dead-hands crowd.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I know you love to use the word absolutist and all, but really?
A tragedy happens in a state with strict gun control, brady campaign A- rated, which has an assault weapon ban, waiting periods, universal background checks, magazing capacity limits, and registration of guns...
And the hard core gun control types like yourself scream for yet more gun control out of one side of your mouth, and say that those on the other side are absolutists out of the other side of your mouth.
Like you just did.
Glass house much?
derby378
(30,252 posts)Now we have a few DUers who are talking about managing the public perception of gun owners, scapegoating them with buffoonish media stereotypes and subjecting them to an Amish-style shunning in public. All because of Elliot Rodger.
Rodger is an albatross hanging around the neck of California's gun laws, and gun-control advocates know it. The local authorities let him slip through their fingers; let them answer for it, not us.
hack89
(39,171 posts)the law as written makes 99.5% of Chicago off limits to gun stores.
Why can't he comply with the spirit of Illinois law and allow gun stores in the city - instead Chicago will end up writing another large check to some pro-gun organization and the law will be overturned.
I have no problem with video taping sales.
