• 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

Again, are not those requirements that others listed for concealed carry, rather than mere ownership? Chicago's requirements are for mere ownership, not concealed carry. Chicago believes that ones garage is not part of their property. In NJ, another state with questionable gun laws, I may walk my entire five acres with a handgun present, or concealed, simply because it is my five acres. This has become handy for me as I have encountered two rattlesnakes that will not be biting my dogs...

The point of most of this is that 2A is an enumerated right, like 1A, 4A, etc, and it should be treated as such. Some of the posters here apparently do not like that...
 
Too bad Heller and McDonald run contrary to what you think is clear...

Who said it best on the abortion thread? "Law of the land"?


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...
 
This is a blow by blow analysis of the text. Look, the district court got beat up one side of the street and down the other. More from the ruling on the idea that residents can be forced to go outside the city to practice at firing ranges.

http://joshblackman.com/blog/?p=7500

In the First Amendment context, the Supreme Court long ago made it clear that “ ‘one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place.’ ” Schad v. Borough of Mt. Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 76‐77 (1981) (quoting Schneider v. State of New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147, 163 (1939)). The same principle applies here. It’s hard to imagine anyone suggesting that Chicago may prohibit the exercise of a freespeech or religious‐liberty right within its borders on the rationale that those rights may be freely enjoyed in the suburbs. That sort of argument should be no less unimaginable in the Second Amendment context.
 
thanks for the link. Now I understand what the deal is in Chicago better. I think the city would have been fine had it not required range training and maintained its ban on ranges. However, requiring the training and maintaining the ban is about as insulting as you can get, not to mention juvenile. It's a middle finger to gun owners... What was it that Andrew Jackson said? "The Supreme Court has made its decision, now let them enforce it." I'm paraphrasing, but same idea.
 
Its funny how much extreme liberals (and conservatives) enjoy playing gotcha. What cunts.

This ruling would do absolutely nothing to increase the use the of firearms to harm people. However Shoo and RJ, after checking their inbox for direction from their overlords, couldn't hate this more.

SHOCKER!!!

So pathetic.
 
elkman92 said:
Again, are not those requirements that others listed for concealed carry, rather than mere ownership? Chicago's requirements are for mere ownership, not concealed carry. Chicago believes that ones garage is not part of their property. In NJ, another state with questionable gun laws, I may walk my entire five acres with a handgun present, or concealed, simply because it is my five acres. This has become handy for me as I have encountered two rattlesnakes that will not be biting my dogs...

The point of most of this is that 2A is an enumerated right, like 1A, 4A, etc, and it should be treated as such. Some of the posters here apparently do not like that...
Click to expand...

Cities/states are allowed to regulate. Heller and mcdonald don't change that. Chicago pushed it too far with the ranges in light of those bad decisions, and the seventh circuit had to follow them. Chicago will continue to push the limits of these opinions because that's what people who live in the city want (as evidenced by a 30 year handgun ban that was overturned and forced the city to immediately regulate handguns as much as possible to deal with that instant change, hence the range requirements).
 
Last edited:
right. people in chicago want to have guns
 
Cities and states are allowed to regulate within reason, but not to the point of having a de facto ban. New York's 1911 Sullivan law will come under fire at some point.

And McDonald is the last name of a man who lives in Chicago, so not all of the denizens of that place were happy with a handgun ban on the law abiding, hence the lawsuit.

I am surprised to see this from the Tribune...

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2011/07/range.html
 
Chicago has had a gun ban for 30 years, and there is still a ton of gun related crime in that city. What purpose has the ban served, besides making it harder to for people to legally obtain handguns? When are people going to wake up and realize that criminals don't obey handgun laws, so nothing is accomplished by shoving regulation down the throats of already law-abiding citizens. People, without criminal records, who obtain handguns with registration and licensing, are not the ones shooting each other and robbing liqueur stores. The handguns used in those crimes are stolen or purchased illegally. Unless you ban handguns in Illinois or the entire United States, you can't keep criminals from obtaining guns.
 
Last edited:
Anything which makes it more difficult for people to obtain a license for firearms than it already is, particularly something that is a continuing education plan, is going to increase the number of people who get guns without getting a permit. This black market effect is one of the biggest reasons I'm an advocate of allowing guns, even beyond any debates on the 2nd Amendment, as well as for my reasoning on why abortions should be legal and regulated.

If guns and abortion are both banned, the government loses the ability to regulate how people use them.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Some CATAM guy told me that they used to recycle the used brass used in range shooting, but that they weren't allowed to do that anymore.

Sounded to me like someone was trying to constrict the amount of ammo available, and hence raise prices. Don't know who that would be.
 
Arlington, do you think the next step for the Roberts Court will be to say taking money from a man in a divorce is taking away his free speech and thus can't be done?
 
Absurd is forcing a woman to look at a picture of a fetus Clockwork Orange style before she can have an abortion. Supposedly being anti-abortion yet voting to defund Planned Parenthood, which will lead to a bunch more abortions and more kids conservatives will abandon after they're born, is absurd. Imposing additional licensing fees and keeping a gun range a thousand feet from a school (which really isn't very far) is much lower on the absurdity scale.
 
what the fuck does abortion have to do with this thread, RJ Lite?

and yes, 1000 feet from a school is no biggie. It's that they have to be 1000 feet from about everything in the universe in a dense, metropolitan area, have to abide by a number of extraneous requirements, and have to pay additional fees that can't be substantiated by any of the esteemed members of the Chicago City Council.

Now I don't see anything that is outright illegal about this (though I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't challenged somehow as discriminatory, which it obviously is in the real world, but may not be when legal standards are applied), but it's just childish. The city lost in court, and are now being a bunch of babies about it. I can't help but laugh. It is both funny and pathetic.
 
You made a comment about absurd regulations wrt a constitutional right, RULZ lite, -- I pointed out more absurd regulation with respect to a different constitutional right. What it has to do with abortion is that I don't really give a fuck about protecting your supposed constitutional rights if you don't give a fuck about protecting mine.

Call what the city does childish all you want, but, as mentioned, they had a handgun ban in place for thirty years that was lifted completely in one day. The city will continue to do what it can to restrict handguns in the city, and will push the envelope until it's reached the limits of what it can legally do.
 
Shooshmoo said:
You made a comment about absurd regulations wrt a constitutional right, RULZ lite, -- I pointed out more absurd regulation with respect to a different constitutional right. What it has to do with abortion is that I don't really give a fuck about protecting your supposed constitutional rights if you don't give a fuck about protecting mine.

Call what the city does childish all you want, but, as mentioned, they had a handgun ban in place for thirty years that was lifted completely in one day. The city will continue to do what it can to restrict handguns in the city, and will push the envelope until it's reached the limits of what it can legally do.
Click to expand...

Everywhere you look for statistics you will see that 95-98% of gun related crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms. Chicago's attempts to curb handgun ownership are arbitrary at best. If the people who legally own weapons haven't committing crimes with them, and aren't going to, what is the purpose of Chicago's paranoid legislation?

Also, the constitution makes no mention of abortion rights. The connection of abortion to the 9th amendment (privacy) is as tenuous and objective as it's connection to murder.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top