Daley Blames - Who Else? - The Media For Oprah-geddon
Chicago Gets Googled
Friday Flashback - Old School Oprah
Today's Transgender Day of Remembrance Honors the Dead
Review: Paramount Room
U.S. District Judge Milton Shadur today rejected two lawsuits challenging Chicago's handgun ban. The ban has been in place since 1982 but came under fire recently when the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to overturn Washington D.C.'s ban in June. Multiple lawsuits were filed by the National Rifle Association and the Illinois State Rifle Association in towns and cities across Northern Illinois, and Wilmette and Morton Grove repealed their bans.
But even today's decision doesn't mean the battle is over. Said Law Department spokeswoman Jennifer Hoyle, "We believe this decision will ultimately end up in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a victory for us, but, it’s just one step in what is probably going to be a long battle.”
Speaking at a conference on school violence today, prior to the tossing of the lawsuits, Daley outlined a plan he hopes to implement soon.
The mayor said he plans to hold a gun conference early next year to consider current trends in gun violence and how they might be addressed within the legal parameters established by the nation’s highest court.For it's part, the D.C. City Council just this week passed "new regulations that require gun owners to receive five hours of safety training and register their firearms every three years."“I believe the court’s ruling presents us with an opportunity to continue our efforts to enact reasonable, common sense gun laws that put conditions on gun ownership and sales and that also puts limitations on where guns are permitted, all of which the court’s ruling allows,” the mayor said.
Asked point-blank whether he intends to use the city’s sweeping home-rule powers to mimic the D.C. changes, Daley said, “That’s what we’re looking at. You’re not gonna rush into something so quickly. That’s why you have a conference and listen to people.”
Photo by DamianD23
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Yet Chicago taxpayers pay for armed bodyguards for certain local elected officials, including at least one alderman; certain local officials are legally allowed to carry guns; and at least one alderman recently rewrote the city's gun rules to benefit himself and his apparent illegal actions.
Yeah, that's fair.
Shadur has now proven himself to be an idiot that can't read & understand the Supreme Court's opinion.
This will be overturned at great cost to the taxpayers, of course, not Daley.
Gee, I wonder why certain elected officials would need armed bodyguards. It's not like anyone would ever try to target politicians or anything.
As much as I hate Mell, he only changed the law about reregistering, and I'm fairly sure he didn't have any handguns.
If the ban is lifted, I will consider leaving Chicago. That's how scared I am of this issue. There are enough guns in Chicago as it is, and I for one feel somewhat safe that immediate action can be taken against anyone found with a handgun.
We called a friend in NC on his birthday last week, and he told us they had just gotten back from a gun show. They had to wait 3 hours just to get in.
Why? We asked.
"Becuase, you know, Obama's going to take away all the guns."
Oh, and he bought an AK-47.
Disclaimer: Not all people in NC are gun nuts (although we didn't realize our friend was). And, after all, NC did vote for Obama.
Wow, talk about a law that's not working. You mean it's illegal to own a handgun in Chicago? Damn, from our murder and armed robbery statistics who could tell!
http://chicagoist.com/2008/08/07/chicagos_murder_rate_up.php
a wu, unless someone's already using their handgun (waving it around to threaten someone counts), you won't know they have it. And using the handgun in that matter is already illegal. A citywide ban (vs state or federal wide) doesn't make it that hard to get a gun outside the area of the ban and bring one in. It only increases the penalties if you're caught. And noone thinks they'll be caught.
My friend used to have a bumper sticker that I loved: "They can have my penis when they pry it from my cold dead hands."
Handguns, no handguns, it doesn't really matter to me. This country of ours is so goddamn nasty we have bigger problems to worry about than law abiders having handguns. Sure, there are the morons that will accidentally shoot people, but that would probably be eclipsed by armed law-abiders who take out bad guys. The bigger issue to me is that we all collectively hate each other. We're so competitive. We're nasty to one another. We incarcerate more people than most or all other civilized societies, we blow gobs of money on the criminal justice system and law enforcement but we always have trouble funding education ... and none of it works. Today's felon is tomorrow's nextdoor neighbor, only worse-off because he's been in prison. I've been a victim of gun violence but I doubt I'd ever own a gun. Going out on a Saturday night in many parts of this city is sort of like hiking in Yellowstone ... you'll probably be fine, but you just may walk up on a bear and get mauled. I hate that about America. Arming or disarming law-abiders will not affect any of that. It's more complex.
@garlic You aren't telling me anything I don't know already. My opinion is still exactly the same.
@mickly1 Are you serious? A few morons will accidentally shoot people, but "law abiders" will kill bad guys? Statistic after statistic says that you are far more likely to kill a family member than any "bad guy" if you own a gun. Any weapon you carry on you can be and will be used against you. They can easily be stolen or found by a child in your home... I just honestly don't understand how people can feel safe with guns around. Until we start addressing gun violence and completely ban hand guns and assault weapons, i.e. anything designed JUST TO KILL PEOPLE, this will continue to be a problem.
Ugh. Stupid Second Amendment.
Ugh. Stupid Second Amendment.
Yeah, letting normal citizens own guns is so uncivilized and unreasonable.
Beyond the snark, I do see your point: I'd rather live in a society with no guns and feel like I do when I go to big cities in Europe--yeah, I have to watch out, and yeah, I might get robbed, but I don't really have to worry about getting shot.
But that's not happening in America, with its abundance of guns and its ingrained gun culture. I'd rather give responsible citizens--that means, regular training/certification and such, and very high standards for misuse, and high taxes on ammo--the option to protect themselves just like the more important people have.