• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Chicago's Anti-gun Forces Dealt Setback in Court

I'm shocked gun nuts haven't started a process to make guns free. Since clearly the cost does infringe on the poor's right to keep and bear arms.
 
RJKarl said:
WQOW...Gumby would be proud...comparing a tax on shooting to poll taxes is like making mother's milk a controlled substance since probably 95-98% of all heroin addicts start on mother's milk. It must be a gateway drug.

Further if taxes limit free speech, then all taxes must be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about simple taxes, but prohibitive taxes and taxes clearly geared to deny somebody a Constitutional right. Your Chris Rock Tax, while clearly hyperbolic, would do just that.
 
Then guns have to be free. Any costs will deny some a constitutional right.
 
RJKarl said:
Then guns have to be free. Any costs will deny some a constitutional right.
Click to expand...

That's absurd. All that is relevant is that the Feds not infringe upon the right to bear arms. Sig Sauer selling a gun for $700 doesn't apply because Sig Sauer is not the Feds. Now if the Feds were to apply a gun specific tax that was clearly designed to discourage gun ownership, that would be an interesting debate to have.
 
Shooshmoo said:
Good, I agree -- then there should be 100 hours of live range training before one can get a permit. Safety and all. One hour is useless

Or folks could go to one of the many ranges immediately outside city limits. Or they could engage in other types of training, as the concurrence suggests:

But the City has not banned all firearms
training; it has banned only one type of training. There is no
ban on classroom training. There is no ban on training with
a simulator and several realistic simulators are commercially
available, complete with guns that mimic the recoil of
firearms discharging live ammunition. See e.g.
http://www.virtrasystems.com/law‐enforcement‐ training/
virtra‐range‐le (last visited July 6, 2011);
http://www.meggitttrainingsystems.com/main.php?id=25
&name=LE_Virtual_Bluefire_Weapons (last visited June 24,
2011); http://www.ontargetfirearmstraining.com/
simulator.php (last visited July 6, 2011). It is possible
that, with simulated training, technology will obviate
the need for live‐range training.
Click to expand...

You need to train with your own gun. What is the reason to prohibit training with live ammo?
 
Marietta Deac said:
You need to train with your own gun. What is the reason to prohibit training with live ammo?
Click to expand...

There isn't one, other than to be an anti-gun Nazi dick.

Those training simulators are also for law enforcement and are very expensive. The average Joe doesn't need to be going through a law enforcement simulator to learn when to and when to not shoot at bad guys in a shopping mall or other public setting.

As you said, people need to shoot with their own gun because that is the one they are probably going to use if, god forbid, they ever have to use it.
 
Marietta Deac said:
You need to train with your own gun. What is the reason to prohibit training with live ammo?
Click to expand...

The reason is to keep handguns out of Chicago as much as possible -- I think that's pretty clear. 100 hours in the live range to get a permit if there's a need to shoot with your own gun.
 
Last edited:
Shooshmoo said:
The reason is to keep handguns out of Chicago as much as possible -- I think that's pretty clear. 100 hours in the live range to get a permit if there's a need to shoot with your own gun.
Click to expand...

Wait, 100 hours to what? Shoot in a Chicago gun range?

Cost prohibitive between the range fees and cost of ammo.
 
What's cost-prohibitive? Where are you going to draw that line? If it's truly necessary for safe gun ownership, I don't think an hour would cut it. 50 hours, 10 hours? 1 hour a month? Should they have a coach/trainer with them? Live range shooting is so important we need to make sure we don't give permits to people who haven't been properly trained.
 
Shooshmoo said:
What's cost-prohibitive? Where are you going to draw that line? If it's truly necessary for safe gun ownership, I don't think an hour would cut it. 50 hours, 10 hours? 1 hour a month? Should they have a coach/trainer with them? Live range shooting is so important we need to make sure we don't give permits to people who haven't been properly trained.
Click to expand...

For reference, getting a CHL (concealed handgun license) in Texas requires that you receive some classroom training and pass the shooting test. The whole process takes about a day. Gun safety pretty much consists of using your head and knowing how to properly handle a firearm. You can familiarize yourself with such things in very short order, and learn how to shoot one effectively in short order as well.

100 hours? I'll go through a box of 50 rounds in 15 minutes if I take my time. Let's say for the sake of argument that I'll go through 100 rounds in an hour of range time (assuming that the range time is actually timed and not just rented by the hour so that I can leave after shooting my box of ammo in 15 minutes). That's $20 of ammo in an hour, not counting range fees. $2000 of ammo for 100 hours, not including range fees.

It's just a ridiculous proposition that clearly has no basis in practicality or in gun knowledge, which I guess makes it in line with most other gun restrictions.
 
Milhouse said:
1 billion hours
Click to expand...

I'd be fine with this.

I've shot a gun at a range for an hour and was in no way proficient after that hour. It was also so long ago that I would have no idea how to handle it now. I think a 5-10 hours per year requirement, in addition to other classroom training, etc. would be reasonable and scare off enough people who aren't serious enough about gun ownership from getting or keeping a permit.
 
I can see training requirements for concealed carry licenses, but for mere ownership, not so much. Of course, it would behoove one to know how to use what one owns, but Chicago's requirements have little in common with what is seen in the rest of the country. And what Chicago is requiring is for mere ownership, not a concealed carry license. "One assembled and operable gun per home", indeed. What a farce.
 
Shooshmoo said:
I'd be fine with this.

I've shot a gun at a range for an hour and was in no way proficient after that hour. It was also so long ago that I would have no idea how to handle it now. I think a 5-10 hours per year requirement, in addition to other classroom training, etc. would be reasonable and scare off enough people who aren't serious enough about gun ownership from getting or keeping a permit.
Click to expand...

You don't have to be proficient to hit a target at 10-20 feet. Not anticipating the recoil is about the only trick there is to shooting a gun. Handling a gun, OTOH, just requires the common sense notion that you keep it pointed downrange and your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot it downrange.

I probably haven't shot my gun in a couple years, but I certainly haven't forgotten how. It's like riding a bike. 5-10 hours in a gun range per year is a long time. But again, how are you going to force people to go to a gun range for 5-10 or 1000 hours per year if you don't have gun ranges in Chicago? I'm a bit confused by your hypotheticals.
 
shoo's main argument

mmmkay.jpg
 
EatLeadCommie said:
You don't have to be proficient to hit a target at 10-20 feet. Not anticipating the recoil is about the only trick there is to shooting a gun. Handling a gun, OTOH, just requires the common sense notion that you keep it pointed downrange and your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot it downrange.

I probably haven't shot my gun in a couple years, but I certainly haven't forgotten how. It's like riding a bike. 5-10 hours in a gun range per year is a long time. But again, how are you going to force people to go to a gun range for 5-10 or 1000 hours per year if you don't have gun ranges in Chicago? I'm a bit confused by your hypotheticals.
Click to expand...

They have to have gun ranges. If they're going to have gun ranges and have a live range hours requirements, I'm just trying to assess what's reasonable.
 
For the first handgun, 2 hours of actual range time is enough to put through at least two boxes of ammo. 1 hour if you don't waste time is enough. For any additional guns, there really shouldn't be a requirement. I also think a separate safety class of maybe 1/2 hour would be reasonable if that is going to be a requirement.
 
Shooshmoo said:
I'd be fine with this.

I've shot a gun at a range for an hour and was in no way proficient after that hour. It was also so long ago that I would have no idea how to handle it now. I think a 5-10 hours per year requirement, in addition to other classroom training, etc. would be reasonable and scare off enough people who aren't serious enough about gun ownership from getting or keeping a permit.
Click to expand...

Is it appropriate to point out that you have apparently been reading for 25+ years (I have no idea about your age) and after hearing your interpretation of Scalia's writings and the second amendment you apparently you aren't too proficient in that either.

I kid...I kid...

I have no problem with something like a 5 hour a year training requirement. I certainly believe in the 2nd amendment, but I also think that owning a gun comes with certain responsibilities. Obviously, I also think there should be an exception for people that can demonstrate a high level of proficiency on a one time basis. People that spend their lives around them/using them (Former cops, former soldiers, people that have used guns their whole lives...) aren't going to necessarily benefit from that type of requirement. Of course, they are also the people most likely to spend far more than 5 hours a year practicing and honing their proficiency
 
Marietta Deac said:
For the first handgun, 2 hours of actual range time is enough to put through at least two boxes of ammo if you're a really, really slow loader. 1 hour if you don't waste time is enough if you're a really, really slow loader. For any additional guns, there really shouldn't be a requirement. I also think a separate safety class of maybe 1/2 hour would be reasonable if that is going to be a requirement.
Click to expand...
FIFY

I go through a box of 50 pretty quick.

Oh, and you can tell it has been a while since I've priced ammo. I estimated $10/box (which it is for 9mm), but it's more like $15 for .40 cal.

And I think if you're going to have a safety class, 1/2 hour is not enough. Half a day (4 hours) seems more like it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top