Ignorance in Action
- Chicago’s gun laws have been challenged in federal court since the Supreme Court’s decision on the D.C. ban. But, City Corporation Counsel Mara Georges has told two City Council committees she’s confident Chicago’s law will stand.
Georges tells Aldermen the Supreme Court’s decision on Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban shouldn’t apply to Chicago, because previous Supreme Court rulings have said Second Amendment "right to bear arms" doesn’t apply to local governments, like Cities. She says D.C. is a federal jurisdiction.
The right to bear arms doesn't apply to local governments? Are these local governments not part of the United States? Is the United States Supreme Court not the ultimate law of the land? And then she's spoon feeding this bullshit to aldercreatures, each of which is authorized by local ordinance (without regard to training or criminal record) to carry a firearm.
This must be what happens when you spend too much time believing the bullshit that comes out of Daley's mouth rather than actually reading and understanding the rule of law as intended by the Framers.
UPDATE: A question for our legal eagles - If an officer enforces the Chicago gun ban based on Mara's stupid comments, and the NRA prevails in court, what liability is there on the part of the Officer?
This must be what happens when you spend too much time believing the bullshit that comes out of Daley's mouth rather than actually reading and understanding the rule of law as intended by the Framers.
UPDATE: A question for our legal eagles - If an officer enforces the Chicago gun ban based on Mara's stupid comments, and the NRA prevails in court, what liability is there on the part of the Officer?
Labels: gun issues, silly people
posted by SCC at 12:33 AM
86 Comments:
..."The right to bear arms doesn't apply to local governments? Are these local governments not part of the United States? Is the United States Supreme Court not the ultimate law of the land?"...
Just a question...wasnt the "Red Light Cameras" ruled Un-Constitunal?
Sadly there are people that believe federal laws do not apply to the states and Supreme Court rulings only apply to a 50 mile radius surrounding Washington, DC.
It sounds like the same arguments morons use to convince others to stop paying taxes because of a secret loophole, or that marijuana is not illegal because it grows naturally. They have fallen prey to "legal experts" such as Irwin Schiff who purport legal knowledge for unsubstantiated conspiracy myths.
“The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National. ...” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).
There are countless decisions that establish federal law applies to the states and local governments.
Georges, please stop making Chicagoans look stupid.
I think the next time they charge a Chicago cop with the Federal charge of Violation of Civil Rights, the defense should be, sorry, it happened in the City of Chicago and not on Federal land.
I hate to admit it but she does have an argument here. I am a strong supporter of the second amendment and have been a member of the NRA for 10 years, but her legal argument holds some water.
The second amendment still hasn't been extended to the states through the incorporation of the 14th amendment's "privileges and immunities" clause. While we are at it, neither has the grand jury clause of the fifth amendment or the seventh amendment(which gives the right to a jury trial in civil lawsuits for an amount over $20). While Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg was going through her confirmation hearing, she was asked by Senator Orrin Hatch about this very issue. She stated that she "see[s] no reason why it shouldn't be." That answer was part of the reason she was confirmed by such a large margin.
The point is, that if the second amendment hasn't been extended to the states (which it still hasn't) then there is a legal argument to be made as to why the Supreme Court's ruling in Heller vs. The District of Columbia doesn't apply to Chicago.
That being said, this may be the case that ultimately incorporates the Second Amendment into the 14th Amendment's "Privileges and Immunities" clause, and thus finally extends the right to bear arms to the states.
Of course a lot can change depending on who the next retiree from the court is and who names their successor.
It sucks, but she's right as far as she goes. The only reason any of the Bill of Rights applies to local governments is that it was found after the 14th Amendment was ratified that it "incorporated" the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc. under its requirement for equal protection under the law.
The catch is that the courts have had to establish the "incorporation" of each amendment in the BOR separately, and guess which one never got incorporated?
The other catch is that a LOT of people think incorporation for the 2nd Amendment is the next logical step, and although the Heller decision didn't incorporate the 2nd (that question wasn't before the court, so that's proper) it DID leave the door wide open.
She's whistling past the graveyard. She's right about the situation at this moment, but she's ignoring the fact that this moment is a snapshot. A moving picture would show those facts tending to change.
Georges is claiming that "incorporation" does not apply here (the doctrine that the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states). The SCotUS did not in fact rule that the 2nd Amendment applies to the States, since the Keller decision was for DC, which is Federal territory.
However, there is essentially no case law suggesting that the 2nd Amendment would not be incorporated. The opinion in Keller strongly suggests SCotUS will rule that it is incorporated when a relevant case is decided.
Wilmette, Morton Grove, and Oak Park have all decided not to waste money fighting this.
As to personal liability of an officer: nil, I would say. I have never heard of police being held liable for enforcing a law later held unconstitutional.
Just a Civilian (who is not a lawyer, but reads the Volokh Conspiracy lawblog).
Hi SCC, I posted some of this in your comments a few weeks ago, but here ya go.
one, what Mara Georges was saying is something the gun-grabbers were arguing before Heller. THere is nothing in that decision that would support the argument, so I'm more than a little comfortable saying she is flat-out wrong.
two, I don't see any liability for the officer in enforcing a local law, as long as there isn't something far beyond standard enforcement (i.e., street stop). I do, however, see liability potential for the city if they don't do anything to follow the law.
third, although the media is characterizing the decision as merely supporting a basic right to keep arms in a home, Heller seems to pretty-clearly insinuate that the right is also to bear arms for purposes of self defense.
Heller allows local communities to regulate guns by requiring registration, by allowing registration bans for (examples) felons and the mentally ill, by allowing registration bans for guns not ordinarily used in America for self defense (such as sawed off shotguns).
Two of the key examples given in Heller is that local governments may ban (example) concealed carry and carry bans may be instituted for places like schools, sensitive government institutions and private premises at the designation of the owners. However, given the entirety of the content in Heller, these examples strongly insinuate that these are merely exceptions to an otherwise expansive right to bear arms in addition to the right to keep arms.
I'm not sure why the media is missing the part about the right to bear arms, but this is a world of trouble for the city and the county if they don't do something to repeal the gun ban and rewrite the registration laws. They ain't alone though, as DC itself has already redrafted a law that seems squarely contrary to what is in Heller by again requiring gun locks and disassembly, and by banning guns outside the home entirely.
God damn America! Fuck the Constituion! We do what we want here. The people have no rights other than what we tell them they have! That old document is out of touch! We'll tell the people what's good for them and how to live by our standards over here in Chicago, Illinois. We'll take their hard earned money and spend it on little projects that they don't want. Projects that we want is what counts. We didn't need that airfield on the lake, we wanted a park. And fuck Burham and his open areas. I want a museum. Fuck what Chicago history said. Fuck what the US founding fathers said. It's all about what I say.
Your King,
Richard Daley
She is the reason that the City hires the worst in the class . In order to be a C.C you have to finish in the BOTTOM 1% of your class to be a Corp. Council. They are the DUMBEST of the DUMBEST. Where do they find these ignorant fuckin' lawyers ?
Keep watching your back. Daley will see this too....
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/jul/22/police-director-sues-find-identity-blogger-critica/
Keep up the good work!
UPDATE: A question for our legal eagles - If an officer enforces the Chicago gun ban based on Mara's stupid comments, and the NRA prevails in court, what liability is there on the part of the Officer?
=====================================
Probably very little. He is enforcing an existing law, which has not YET been overturned in that specific instance.
On the other hand, if he enforces the law AFTER it's overturned (which Daley may well order), he's acting outside of the scope of his duties by enforcing a law which he knows or reasonably should know is invalid and is swimming in the shark tank with his porkchop swimming trunks on.
There are some cops in PA who falsely arrested and physically assaulted (and injured) a man for openly carrying a handgun. Open carry is perfectly legal in PA, which has preemption of gun laws at the state level. The legality of open carry was a widely discussed topic at the time the false arrest was made. There will be no presumption of good faith. Expect them to be sharing a refrigerator carton.
She is right the second amendment does not apply to local government it is an INDIVIDUALS right. That what the Bill of Rights are, Individual rights that government can not take away!
I hear crap like this and it makes me sick! Somebody needs to fotoshop these as*holes heads on top of the bodies of Hitler's command staff.
You can survive in this country being called anything: ignorant, stupid, commie,radical,etc..
Except being labled racist(witch),
like the st.prick called anyone who opposed the museum in Grant Pk, or a Nazi.
If him and his staff are compared to the Nazis, they will fall...
Pull this persons Law License for incompetence!
Is there a chance lawsuits might come out against police for forcing gun turn ins on citizens? You know, cops go to a domestic, wife or child is mad, she tells police about the guns, police tell them to turn in or go to jail. Even though the guns had nothing to do with the disturbance. Cops just like to have a high guns taken number on their stats.
Does any of this really surprise any of us? I wouldn't let M.G. represent me on a parking ticket.
If it all wasn't so sad, it would be funny.
Mara Georges is more proof that there's Too Many Dummies!
Shows what it takes to obtain a law degree. She reminds me of one of Pacinos Henchwomen from Hell in the Devils Advocate.
She's IS the embodiment of the Devil incarnate.
"because previous Supreme Court rulings have said Second Amendment "right to bear arms" doesn’t apply to local governments, like Cities."
they have???Where do they get this crap from.
Out of a class of 250 law students , she finished 251 . I will say no more .
SCC: If a supervisor orders you to enforce the gun laws, you gotta do it. Let the supervisor be the dummie. If both of you decide it's a great idea to enforce the bullshit laws, it's more proof there's Too Many Dummies!
Holy De-Constitutionized Batman!!!
Guess the only guns coming in now are from crime scenes and weapons turn-ins.
Until a formal order is written or officers are otherwise ALL duly notified that the local ordinance is recinded or that officers are otherwise no longer allowed to enforce the ordinance for any reason, ALL liability rests with the City.
Of course the lawsuit has to name the arresting officer, but will likely contain everyone in the chain including Daley himself. The City is liable for any ordinance it requires officers to enforce until officers are duly notified of it being stricken or that officers are to suspend enforcement pending outcome of a lawsuit.
Most likely the progression will be an injunction filed to suspend the City's ordinance which will likely be granted. Officers will then be told not to enforce the ordinance pending outcome. After at least a year or more, the City will lose if there is in fact no prior case law that proves the City's case. The ordinance will be stricken down, Daley will never admit he was wrong and there will never be an "official" statement to the officers telling them Daley was wrong, as far as officers are concerned, the last order given to suspend enforcement will be the last official thing they hear about it and it will die a costly death for the taxpayers of this city.
Mara Georges is an incompetent sycophant. At City Council meetings, her eyes are riveted on Daley like he's Christ the Savior.
Benna Solomon for Corp. Counsel.
Enforcing the current Chicago ban (in good faith obviously) should shield you from civil liability for the time being. Once the Supreme Court overrules the gun ban depending on their opinion beware arresting people with firearms. Stay tuned.
My question to you guys, and SCC in particular is...DO the cops enforce the gun ban without any probable cause? Obviously if you find a gun on a gangbanger, or on a suspicious person, or on someone running down a gangway with a pillowcase full of DVDs - you stop them, arrest them and throw the book at them.
However, what if you arrive on scene and find a dead burglar in someone's house, their unregistered handgun on a table nearby with a hot barrel?
What if you make a traffic stop and notice a small black case in the back of someone's hatchback..do you even say anything?
I've often wondered what cops think of people lawfully defending themselves, gun laws be damned. I have one registered long gun, and a handgun I keep outside the city, but as you all know, it's nearly impossible to clear narrow hallways with a shotgun almost 4' long. I think the handgun laws are bullshit but still, I obey them for fear of legal ramifications should something happen where I have to use it and/or I get caught with it while transporting it - even in a case, unloaded.
100 years ago this post would make no sense, as people then didn't blame inanimate objects on crime. We've really gone downhill as a country.
I guess I don't have to pay income tax. That's one of the ammendments too, right? It only applies to federal juristictions, right?
UPDATE: A question for our legal eagles - If an officer enforces the Chicago gun ban based on Mara's stupid comments, and the NRA prevails in court, what liability is there on the part of the Officer?
Absoulutely none, the law on the books is good law until officers are notified by General Counsel to no longer enforce the law. This has occurred in the past with certain sections of the Mob Action law and Tampering with Auto statute. Until told otherwide, any officer enforcing the law is protected by immunity. The ones on the hook are Georges and General Counsel.
Don't trust our Chicago lawyers, these city hall shysters will screw you, the street coppers, in a second all in order to please the chief idiot, Daley.
After the United States Supreme Court declared these anti-American,anti-Second Amendment gun laws to be illigal the Corporation Councel Mara Georges says she (and the Mayor) want the coppers to keep arresting people for toting guns. If they are gangbangers with history, go ahead but she includes the legit people, collectors etc. THe Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, says these laws are illegal. She is telling us to violate the law. Is she going to stand behind you, no way, she will be the first, along with her whore lawyer friends, to STICK IT TO YOU.
Just another shyster who talks out of both sides of her mouth, Oh by the way, Daley is a lawyer too.
I've had enough of this liberal asshole, will work against him and so should all of you pro-Daley yellow cowardly 35th St type. coppers.
She is as any good toadie just spouting the "Daley law" party line.
There is "Daley law" and then there is the rest of the country.
If an officer enforces the Chicago gun ban based on Mara's stupid comments, and the NRA prevails in court, what liability is there on the part of the Officer?
___________________________________
Come in at checkoff with goose eggs and you don't have to worry about nutin.
100 years ago this post would make no sense, as people then didn't blame inanimate objects on crime. We've really gone downhill as a country.
sad but true.
Unfortunately she is right. Traditionally the federal government lets municipalities operate under home rule. Which lets them create and enforce their own laws.
King Richard has spoken the US Constitution doesn't apply to us. (At least that Bill of Rights part). Apparently nor do any other federal laws apply to Richie and his whole family.
Too Many Dummies said...
Mara Georges is more proof that there's Too Many Dummies!
7/25/2008 08:01:00 AM
Who is her clout?
This is bullshit and you'll get your ass sued. If you get a gun pinch get a supervisor to sign the complaint and appear in the report as the "victim". And supervisor means Sgt. to superintendant.
Your excuse is that you swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States, you can't do that by violating it and denying someone their 2nd Ammendment Rights.
www.chicagotribune.com/news/local
Hard to find good reason to buy back guns
Eric Zorn
July 24, 2008
Here are six reasons I’m wary of gun buybacks, such as the one scheduled for Saturday in Chicago in which those who turn in firearms at any of 25 locations get a $100 prepaid credit card per gun, no questions asked.
1. I can’t imagine criminals disarming themselves for a lousy $100.
Sure, they might dump their excess, scrap or stolen piece for the bounty. But if having a gun is integral to their criminal activities, it’s absurd to think a buyback would inspire them to give up the tools of their trade.
2. I don’t see the economic sense of offering law-abiding people a flat fee for their guns.
If you own a firearm worth more than $100, as most firearms are, the only reason to take less for it is if you have no use for it. In that case, your gun is probably not contributing to the gun violence these programs are supposed to address.
3. I worry about buyback programs subsidizing crime and weapons traffic.
Excerpt
Attorney Benna Ruth Solomon is an outspoken and eloquent advocate of concealed carry gun laws, an iconoclastic Hyde Park conservative and a friend of the working police.
She is a passionately committed crusader against political patronage and racial quotas.
As a strict constructionist with outstanding credentials, she would be an excellent SCOTUS nominee.
Do us proud, Benna! We've got your back.
ANSWER TO YOUR UPDATE QUESTION: None.
Love,
The Amazing Legal Eagle
Fuck that moron political hack Corp. Con. If we don't arrest em, she can't charge em. Case closed
100 years ago this post would make no sense, as people then didn't blame inanimate objects on crime. We've really gone downhill as a country.
7/25/2008 08:45:00 AM
================
Amen. We've gone downhill as a nation as well as globally. Too many people trying to take away too many rights from people that are law abiding citizens, just to extend them to those that couldn't give a shit less about anyone other than themselves.
Anonymous said...
She is the reason that the City hires the worst in the class . In order to be a C.C you have to finish in the BOTTOM 1% of your class to be a Corp. Council. They are the DUMBEST of the DUMBEST. Where do they find these ignorant fuckin' lawyers ?
7/25/2008 06:01:00 AM
Hey Loevy troll - get back to work. Arthur needs some new rims for his Lexus.
Anonymous said...
I guess I don't have to pay income tax. That's one of the ammendments too, right? It only applies to federal juristictions, right?
7/25/2008 08:49:00 AM
______________________
Exactly my point. Lib-tards love using arguments like this when it fits their needs, but would certainly fight us not paying taxes. Without our tax money, they have none for their defunct social programs... but that's another argument.
If we made the same claim to stop paying taxes because federal law does not apply, they would present the numerous case law decisions that struck down that very argument.
Double standards; one of the many tools of liberals.
Hey scrotes, the first 10 Amendments are called the Bill of Rights...got it. They were written for the People (read individual) not the state.
- Roscoe Rules
Just a question...wasnt the "Red Light Cameras" ruled Un-Constitunal?
7/25/2008 01:03:00 AM
So was the residency requirement!!
I hope that some of you aren't missing the point here. The D.C. gun ban reversal does not address right to carry. Before you mouth breathers get too worked up think about what you are arguing here.
If you call yourself a police officer you should know that UUW is a state charge, the weapons ban (handguns) is a Municipal Ordinance. The weapons ban is what was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court. They intentionally chose not to consider right to carry, instead they left that decision to the individual states.
Although related, these issues are different. Don't forget that there are something like 32 states that allow right to carry in some shape or form. If you can count that leaves Illinois as one the minority.
Get the issues staight, don't fall into this trap being set by the media who dilute this issue by failing to split them into distinctly seperate entites.
Before you shoot you load in your pants, understand that I know the legal experts and the NRA will tell you that this decision will lead the way to right to carry in Illinois, don't get ahead of yourself it's a long way off and will require numerous legal challenges to succeed.
So, while we wait for the legal issues to settle, you could at least get the argument right.
Since the Court's decision in Heller emphasized that owning a gun was a fundamental and personal right, I'd be shocked if the 2nd Amendment weren't "incorporated" via the 14th amendment to apply to state and local gun bans. The only other part of the Bill of Rights that hasn't been thus incorporated is the Fifth Amendment's right to a grand jury and that's because grand juries no longer serve their original function of acting as a check on the prosecutor, but are just free discovery for the prosecution at which the defense attorney does not (traditionally, anyway) get to be present. I'm sure you've all heard that a competent prosecutor can get a jury to indict a ham sandwich.
She would not dare tell mayor midget that this is a lost or unjust cause and get fired. No need for integrity here.
Better for her to spend millions and collect her 6-figure salary for years until a really good offer comes along.
Make you think of Henry VI...
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". - (Act IV, Scene II).
WE B IN-DEM-DA-FIED
MEANING IF THE CITY MAKES WEARING YOUR PANTS BELOW UR ASS A FELONY AND J-FED STARTS DOING SWEEPS WE R NOT ON THE HOOK....
BUT THE CITY MIGHT HAVE TO PAY SOME CASH OUT OF R CITY STICKER FUND
CPD awards mean nothing. Deal with it.
thats another problem with this department. people get life saving awards for ringing doorbells. traffic stop of the month. I have a few awards that are going on 2 years, wanna talk about morale? perhaps this should be a topic of its own.
Just a question...wasnt the "Red Light Cameras" ruled Un-Constitunal?
**Only if there are NO signs posted stating that is a camera intersection. Just like the cell phone ban. It has to be posted.
She's got an argument SCC. She really does.
You may disagree with her. But she is not out in left field.
I can draw it out a bit if you are interested. But it boils down to this... the 14th Amendment made the Constitution applicable to the states (remember the Constitution only empowers and restricts the Federal Gov't - not the state Gov't) ... BUT THE 14th AMENDMENT DID NOT MAKE EVERY AMENDMENT APPLICABLE TO THE STATES.
That's it in a nutshell.
Remember the purpose of the COnstitution was to form a union of states. The states went to the table to form this union very hesitantly. The Articles of Confederation were an expression of this hesitancy. THe Articles left a LOT of power with the states. THe COnstitution of 1789 actually gave much more power to the federal government, as that was what was thought necessary to run the United States. THe COnstitution limited the federal power, that was the agreement that kept the individual states secure. This assured the states that the fed would not grab too much power. Therefore the thinking is that the 2nd Amendment said the Federal GOvernment could not take away your guns. But this IN NO WAY implied the indiviual states could not take away your guns. Now enter the 14th Amendment. THere is a lot going on with the 14th Amendment, mostly it was to force the protection of the recently freed slaves from individual states messing with them. THat's right, the 14th Amendment changed everything. It was passed somewheres around 1865 (after the Civil War) for the protection of slaves - but with the twist that it RESTRICTED state power. But ... and this is the most important part ... the amendments still have to be incorporated in that SCOTUS must, sort of individually say that each amendment now applies to the states. The 1st AMendment has been incorporated, meaning that STates CANNOT limit free speech. Prior to incorporation, theoretically, the states could have restricted free speech ... bizarre, but that is what the 14th Amendment does. Some people feel that incorporation is unecessary and that the 14th Amendment AUTOMATICALLY forces the states to respect all 27 amendments. But, regardless, this GOERGES may be dead wrong, but she makes a common argument amongst the gun-grabbers, namely that the 2nd Amendment has never been incorporated and therefore does not apply to the states. I don't know if she is right or wrong ...
To 0601 a.m.
They find the dummies through the Ward Comedians, oops, committeemen.
In contrast to Chicago, Wilmette sees the handwriting on the wall and has suspended its gun ban. See, in Wilmette the government works FOR the taxpayers, rather than the other way around, and Wilmette won't waste tens or hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars trying to defend a law that is unconstitutional and indefensible. In Chicago, on the other hand, Daley will spare no expense (spending our money) to defend the indefensible.
Man, Oh Man;;; why do we always have the STUPIDEST of the STUPID representing us here in Shit-Cago????
Hey Gee-off, go fuck yourself
Now that stupid, stubborn cocksucker Daley is going to throw millions of taxpayer dollars down a rat hole on such frivolous bullshit.
Georges tells Aldermen the Supreme Court’s decision on Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban shouldn’t apply to Chicago
Does that mean the Aldermen have to give up thier guns??
What is everyone so worried about? The 4th Amnd still supersedes (sp?) everthing else. And with ho-hum L.E., who is going to come get your gun? Da Mayor himself??
All rights are individual rights or we don't have any at all. A state or City is not an individual and therefore can not have rights.What is it in the water that gives these libtard city politicians the ideas they come up with? Two wars over rights have already been fought; the Revolutionary war and the Civil war. I wonder if Americans would have the backbone to stand up for their rights again, maybe the rural Americans, but from the cities? I doubt it.
1231, other than the insults, your thoughts are appreciated. Nevertheless, you are wrong. Read the majority opinion.
The court very specifically stated that concealed-carry could be prohibited, but in the context of the fundamental right there is the very clear implication that open-carry then must be allowed.
The court also very specifically stated places where government could ban guns.
Please read the opinion carefully before lecturing anyone on this topic, and definitely before insulting people for their lack of knowledge when only your own lack of knowledge and understanding is on display in your comment.
Seriously, read the opinion. Its a bit legaleze, but not really that bad or that long.
GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE LACK OF KHARMA KILLS PEOPLE.
I am at the point of coloring my skin purple and wearing deerantlers while sneering at children.It would make more sense than trying to figure out how our local/state government function.The CITY OF CHICAGO has put a big poopy skidmark on the Constitution and the Mayor had elotes for lunch.
11:31 AM
Are you insane or just a smartass?
Benna Ruth Solomon is Daley's mouthpiece for city litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Georges is just a ceremonial figurehead as Corporation Counsel. Solomon is gun-grabber Daley's actual "braintrust".
In all likelihood, she's a flaming, bleeding heart liberal whose politics are to the left of Obama.
When are you all going to learn. Daley is exempt from federal law or so he thinks!
Sadly there are people that believe federal laws do not apply to the states and Supreme Court rulings only apply to a 50 mile radius surrounding Washington, DC.
___________________
Try a three mile radius. 50 miles would put you in Baltimore
I think you are missing the point here.
The ruling does not mean every one in DC can own and carry a fire arm. There will still be many restrictions. They still may not be able to tote that gun around on the street with or without a permit.
It only means they have the right to own that firearm. Get caught with it on the street you get locked up.
If it comes to Chicago the only thing that will change is you will be able to own a hand gun in Chicago not carry one.
It will cost you $500.00 a year to register it. 0nly the politicly conected will get carry permits after a generous cotribution to the Daley crime family of course and nothing else will change.
Any one who thinks you will be walking the streets with your shit tucked in yoiur belt in Chicago or Illinois is smoking crack.
Although related, these issues are different. Don't forget that there are something like 32 states that allow right to carry in some shape or form. If you can count that leaves Illinois as one the minority.
------------------
48 states have some form of CCW. IL and WI are the only two left.
I like how the mayor has said we'd need a new ordinance to protect police and fire responding to locations with guns.... Huh?????? Maybe I am really stupid but I thought assaults and batteries against police and fire were already felonies??? Oh yea that's right, Chicago is in Cook County where nothing is a felony...
You know for a guy who is so passionate about gun control you'd at least think he put pressure on the State's Attorney for more felony approvals...
I am starting to think that most Americans are to dumb to live in a free society..Not saying Georges is wrong, besides she cute, but just the way people in Mass believe what politicians tell them...
Anonymous said...
Unfortunately she is right. Traditionally the federal government lets municipalities operate under home rule. Which lets them create and enforce their own laws.
7/25/2008 10:11:00 AM
Does that mean they can take way my 1st 4th & 5th amend. rights also???
Whether the 14th Amendment makes the Heller decision binding on Chicago is kind of a secondary point.
The real point is the Little King Richie has decided what the law will be in Chicago and he will defend his dubious legal position and hold to his fixation to last dollar in the city budget.
Willmette had the good sense to realize that their gun ban was an ineffective symbolic gesture that was not worth spending a lot of tax payer money to fight and quite probably lose.
Richie is not that smart. Or he is just more arrogant.
Mara Georges takes her marching orders from Daley.
Of course what passes for watchdog media and investigative journalism in this city is a pathetic joke.
George's best press conference was when the new media was questioning her how Torres became the head of the Hired Truck Program. She just stood there and said "I don't know" over and over with a smug SEG on her face.
She bitch slapped the media and they let it go.
No wonder this city is going down the drain.
UPDATE: A question for our legal eagles - If an officer enforces the Chicago gun ban based on Mara's stupid comments, and the NRA prevails in court, what liability is there on the part of the Officer?
------------------------------
until the courts make a ruling, the law stands.
I'm TIRED...
Why doesn't the ISRA or the NRA push for an Illinois referendum on the ballot to let the voters decide upon the 2nd Amendment and the right to carry.
Let the people decide,and convicted felons won't be able to vote.
UPDATE: A question for our legal eagles - If an officer enforces the Chicago gun ban based on Mara's stupid comments, and the NRA prevails in court, what liability is there on the part of the Officer?
The answer would be: none whatsoever. And technically if an officer enforces the "gun ban" he/she does so based on a valid City law, not Mara's comments. As of right now, the City's law is in full force and effect.
"I am starting to think that most Americans are to dumb to live in a free society..Not saying Georges is wrong, besides she cute, but just the way people in Mass believe what politicians tell them...
7/25/2008 09:28:00 PM"
You're just starting to think?
That's the problem.
Along with the many who haven't even started yet.
And the many who think they've already figured out everything they need to figure out and think there's no need to think beyond what they've already thought about.
"You know for a guy who is so passionate about gun control you'd at least think he put pressure on the State's Attorney for more felony approvals...
7/25/2008 09:26:00 PM"
That would remove too many 'loyal' voters from the rolls, potentially swinging the ratio of 'loyal' voters to 'disloyal' voters in the opposite direction.
Can't have that now, can we?
"All rights are individual rights or we don't have any at all. A state or City is not an individual and therefore can not have rights.What is it in the water that gives these libtard city politicians the ideas they come up with? Two wars over rights have already been fought; the Revolutionary war and the Civil war. I wonder if Americans would have the backbone to stand up for their rights again, maybe the rural Americans, but from the cities? I doubt it.
7/25/2008 07:05:00 PM"
How many city dwellers have gardens of edible plant life, wells for their water supply and don't depend entirely on electricity and natural gas for their utility needs?
"Seriously, read the opinion. Its a bit legaleze, but not really that bad or that long.
7/25/2008 07:26:00 PM"
A few tips on deciphering legalize:
1- Locate and highlight the affirmative and negative words; ie. those that mean 'will' and 'will not', 'shall' and 'shall not, 'must' and 'must not', etc.
2- Locate and highlight the ambiguities; ie. those that mean 'may' and 'may not', 'might' and might not', 'can be construed', etc.
3- Always remember that the sequence of those words or phrases relating to the above determines the meaning of each sentence, the sequence of each sentence determines the meaning of each paragraph, and the sequence of each paragraph determines the meaning of the whole.
4- References to prior case law usually abound, so you must have the ability to reference and analyze said referenced case law, if you want to thoroughly understand the meaning of any decision you are considering.
5- The use of words in law is supposed to be rigorously logical, no matter how convoluted, twisted, complicated or contrived those words seem, on first reading, to be.
6- When you begin to feel as if you've wandered into a maze that has no exit, stop reading, take a break, do something that's simple, relaxing and satisfying, then return and give it another try.
7- If, after careful and thorough analysis, you find that you still can't figure out what the fuck the lawyers are saying, you can safely conclude that that was their intention from the git go.
In the immortal words of The Bard:
"First, we kill all the lawyers."
Daley is a ventriloquist. He's so good you didn't see him behind her pulling the strings.
Anonymous sic of facism said...
.........
If him and his staff are compared to the Nazis, they will fall...
This poster does have a point. Put a mustache on King Rich and he does resemble Hitler..... We know the aldercreatures are his guestapo.
Why doesn't the ISRA or the NRA push for an Illinois referendum on the ballot to let the voters decide upon the 2nd Amendment and the right to carry.
Let the people decide,and convicted felons won't be able to vote.
7/26/2008 01:26:00 AM
What a great idea! A tip of the hat and a wave of the hand to you sir or madam! I salute you! And this would have Mumbles doing the SILLY!
Anonymous said...
Try a three mile radius. 50 miles would put you in Baltimore
7/25/2008 08:39:00 PM
_____________________
Not my argument, but you're right. That is one of the many ridiculous arguments I've heard about, especially from tax protesters.
However, the government uses case law and supreme court decisions to enforce tax laws on the people... and they never lose. I am confident that the courts will side with the people because of the similar decisions that establish that federal laws apply to the states.
"Mara Georges...besides, she's cute..."
Yes, she is cute. I would like to meet her.
SpankDaddy
As early as 1811 Chief Justice Marshall ruled in Piek vs Georgia that the federal courts have the right of review over acts of state and local legislature.
Where do they find these idiots?
<< Home