Posts Tagged ‘IL’
Yet more than twice as many people have been murdered this month in the president’s hometown of Chicago than were killed in the Aurora shooting. They are just statistics for whom there will be no presidential visits or flags flown at half staff.
Via Instapundit, who writes
Well, since Chicago already has very strict gun control, these deaths can’t be turned to political use.
The district court reasoned that even a total ban on carrying guns for self-defense outside the home should be judged under “intermediate scrutiny,” and the ban passes because “[t]he State of Illinois has determined that, for purposes of protection of its residents, a citizen’s interest in carrying a firearm in public should be subject to the governmental interest in safeguarding the welfare of the public at large from the inherent dangers in a loaded firearm.”
“Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society?” [Chicago Mayor Richard] Daley asked while speaking at a Navy Pier event. “If [the justices] think that’s the answer, then they’re greatly mistaken. Then why don’t we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we’ll settle it in the streets?”
Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn’t rise after the bans were eliminated — they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate…
In the first six months of this year, there were 14% fewer murders in Chicago compared to the first six months of last year – back when owning handguns was illegal. It was the largest drop in Chicago’s murder rate since the handgun ban went into effect in 1982.
Meanwhile, the other four most populous cities saw a total drop at the same time of only 6 percent.
Similarly, in the year after the 2008 “Heller” decision, the murder rate fell two-and-a-half times faster in Washington than in the rest of the country.
Shockingly, this doesn’t seem to have registered on the national media’s radar.
A Chicago television station is being blasted by civil rights leaders and news media professionals for airing edited video of a 4-year-old boy that took his statements out of context, violating the basics of journalism ethics.
The Maynard Institute published a story on July 21 detailing how Chicago CBS station WBBM ran a story about the June 29 shooting of two teenagers in the Park Manor neighborhood.
A freelance photographer interviewed the youngster about whether the shooting frightened him. The station aired the portion of the interview in which the boy responded by saying he was not afraid and wanted his own gun.
However, it failed to air the portion of the child’s quote in which he said he wanted a gun because he planned to be a police officer.
But not so easy to get people scared of guns that way.
Shandra Kidd didn’t realize her gun was empty when she tried to shoot a Chicago Police officer.
All the bullets fell out when she was running from the officer.
Unfortunately for her, the officer’s gun was loaded. And the officer shot her in the buttocks.
That was in 2007. She tried twice to shoot the cop at point-blank range. Kidd was just sentenced to 55 years in prison.
Again, I say, GUNS MUST BE BANNED.
And as for this jai term-55 years seems excessive.
Um, in Chicago guns ARE banned.
The commenter thinks a more “reasonable” jail term with “education and counselling” would be a better way to go.
Meant to post this a while back but didn’t get around to it until I noticed it linked somewhere today:
The Unconcealed Truth About Carrying Guns
Steve Chapman writes about the discussion of concealed carry in Illinois and the predictions of blood running in the streets that the antis are making. Murdoc hasn’t always agreed with everything Chapman has written, but on this one I’ll give a thumbs up.
36 states now have “shall issue” concealed carry and 4 more don’t require a permit at all. Only 2, Illinois and Wisconsin, have no form of concealed carry permit available for normal folks.
Not Detroit, but not good: Chicago has apparently been hemorrhaging population
Via Snowflakes in Hell, who writes:
This will mean loss of representation for the city, which strengthens the pro-gun position in Illinois, and weakens the anti-gun position.
Sooner or later, Chicagostan is going to be allowed back into the Union.
The headline makes it sound like good news, but check out some more details in the Sun-Times:
It prohibits possession of those handguns outside the home. The home is specifically defined as the inside portion “traditionally used for living purposes” — not the garage, yard, porch, deck or walkway.
No more than one firearm in the home could be “assembled and operable.” The rest must be secured by a trigger lock or locked box or “broken down in a non-functioning state.”
Additionally, a $100 firearms permit good for three years would be required for each gun owner and an application fee of $15 plus an annual “reporting fee” of $10 for each gun. Mandatory classroom training and range time (cost unspecified) would be required to get the firearms permit.
Here’s an interesting bit: people over 18 but under 21 would require parental permission to obtain a gun. They want to tell 20-year-olds to go get a note from their mommy.
No gun shops allowed. Period. Buy your guns elsewhere. (Though I’ve got to think that ten thousand prospective gun shop owners are licking their chops about the possibility of setting up a store just outside the city.)
Finally, the city would maintain a list of “permissible” guns that residents could own. No word on what would be on the list.
Chicago Corporation Counsel Mara Georges, who a couple of days ago said that previously proposed restrictions, including one handgun per person, were reasonable and would stand up in court says, well, that these new proposed restrictions are reasonable and would stand up in court.
She also makes the driver’s license comparison. I keep seeing that one. I really don’t think those people making that argument have thought things through.
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley will push for a strict handgun ordinance to replace its doomed gun ban that will likely include limiting each resident to a single handgun, requiring gun owners to have insurance and prohibiting gun stores from setting up shop in the city, his top lawyer said Tuesday.
This is all part of the way things are done. Rulings are handed down, the losing side tries to make new rules that comply to the letter of the new but the spirit of the old. If it’s not good enough, the new rules get challenged and, if warranted, overturned. And establish precedent along the way.
Chicago Corporation Counsel Mara Georges weighed in:
She said that limiting Chicago residents to one handgun would pass constitutional muster. Nowhere has the court determined that “a person is entitled to more than one handgun,” she said. “And one handgun is sufficient for self defense.”
She said banning gun shops in the city is another reasonable restriction. She said studies have shown a disproportionate number of shootings near gun shops and because there are dozens of gun shops in the Chicago area — 40 in Cook County alone — a ban would not inconvenience gun buyers.
Regardless of what anyone thinks about Georges’ logic, let’s just look at her previous statements about the 2nd Amendment, gun laws, and how they’ll hold up in court:
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.
Hmmm. She didn’t quite get that one right.
Anyway, it’s probably easier for everyone if she convinces Daley to just keep trying to restrict things unreasonably. That way the challengers don’t have to travel all over the country to get stuff struck down.
On the road right now, but here are a few thoughts about the decision.
Like Heller, this is a game-changing landmark. But we didn’t get where we are in a couple of years, and it’s going to take more than a couple of years to get back closer to where we should be.
However, sooner or later people are going to have to give up on the whole “the 2nd Amendment means guns for an organized government militia” thing. We’ve been telling them for years and years that it doesn’t mean that. The Supreme Court keeps judging that it doesn’t mean that. At some point critics are going to have to accept that it doesn’t mean that.
UPDATE: Here’s something else by Reynolds. It includes:
the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decisions have made a major difference. In particular, they have offset the gun-control community’s longstanding effort to “denormalize” firearms ownership — to portray it as something threatening, deviant, and vaguely perverse, and hence demanding strict regulation, if not outright prohibition. That effort went on for decades, and received much media support. Two decades ago, it seemed to be working.
But with the Supreme Court saying that it’s clear the Framers regarded individual gun ownership as “necessary to our system of ordered liberty,” that effort must be seen as a failure now. Gun ownership by law-abiding citizens is the new normal, and the Second Amendment is now normal constitutional law.
I was asked last night what I thought this decision would mean by the person who told me that it had been handed down. I responded that since I hadn’t read any details about it, I could only say that I thought it was good and though I doubted gun laws in many places would change overnight, this decision would change the playing field and form a new foundation that future cases (and laws) would be built upon. The key is to maintain the momentum and not lose focus just because it looks like things are going well.
Two years ago, the Heller case in DC was billed as the “landmark gun-control case.” But the Supreme Court is expected rule on a bigger case next week: McDonald vs Chicago. Heller only applied to Washington DC, but if the Supremes rule for Chicago gun owners next week, that could change laws nationwide.