New Chicago Gun Laws

[G26ster]

One more time - It's the American Way and it's called "majority rule".

Are you saying that majority rule trumps minority "rights?"

[Oldgringo]

One more time - It's the American Way and it's called "majority rule".

Are you saying that majority rule trumps minority "rights?"

I ain't sayin' nothin'; however, it has been my observation over the past half century that it takes a majority to elect the people who make the rules that the electorate live/exist under.

What do you think, is it different where you live?

[G26ster]

One more time - It's the American Way and it's called "majority rule".

Are you saying that majority rule trumps minority "rights?"

I ain't sayin' nothin'; however, it has been my observation over the past half century that it takes a majority to elect the people who make the rules that the electorate live/exist under.

What do you think, is it different where you live?

Nope, not different, but the people elected by the majority are not (supposed to be) permitted to make rules that violate anyone's rights, including the minority that did not elect them. If any new Chicago gun laws are deemed to infringe on the minority (or majority) rights, it won't matter who elected them. If you are simply addressing that majority rules, as long as minority rights are respected, then of course I agree.

[Oldgringo]

G26ster wrote:

...the people elected by the majority are not (supposed to be) permitted to make rules that violate anyone's rights, including the minority that did not elect them...

Therein lies the purpose of the courts.

[jester]

Sadly there seem to be four Supreme Court inJustices who still don't like the idea of Blacks having guns.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

"It would give to persons of the negro race, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

[C-dub]

What do you suppose the ration of BG:GG vote is in Chicago? Maybe the BG keeps voting for Daley because he keeps the guns out of the hands of the GG.

Of course, I'm half kidding.

BTW, he expects his new rules to be challenged. I hope most of them are overturned, but sadly it will take time and money to do so.

[Purplehood]

*Only one firearm can be kept in immediately operable condition in each home. Other guns must be broken down or have trigger locks in place.

What happened to Individual rights? I do not interpret that to mean you have to share a firearm.

On the issue of majority rule: That has absolutely no bearing on an individual right.

[katybsrt]

Makes perfect sense to me. We wouldn't want guns in the hands of law abiding citizens would we. That may cause... less crime

[jimlongley]

Another thing to consider:

With Daley's new rules, residents of IL outside Cook county are still disenfranchised of their rights, along with citizens of the rest of the nation.

The requirement that only one gun may be kept in the home, means that you must be an owner or renter of a home. If you are a visitor, then you are at the mercy of the criminals.

The requirement that you must have a FOID, means that if you do not live in IL, you are at the mercy of the criminals. I tried to fight the out of state FOID thing when we moved to TX. I had a valid FOID, but when I tried to change the address it was revoked. When I tried to argue with them about it, I was told it was not revoked, it was merely canceled, and I could not get them to tell me the difference (there are some very specific rules about revocation, but nothing about cancelation in the law.) IL state law does not madate FOIDs to be canceled because one moves out of state, but there is no provision for out of state FOIDs either, which the state police interpret as "There ain't none."

I talked to my IL attorney about it and he convinced me that we could win, but it would be expensive, and that IL would then find some other reason to "cancel" (rather than revoke) my FOID anyway so it was not a good investment. It may be time to revisit that issue.

[Oldgringo]

Another thing to consider:

With Daley's new rules, residents of IL outside Cook county are still disenfranchised of their rights, along with citizens of the rest of the nation.

The requirement that only one gun may be kept in the home, means that you must be an owner or renter of a home. If you are a visitor, then you are at the mercy of the criminals.

The requirement that you must have a FOID, means that if you do not live in IL, you are at the mercy of the criminals. I tried to fight the out of state FOID thing when we moved to TX. I had a valid FOID, but when I tried to change the address it was revoked. When I tried to argue with them about it, I was told it was not revoked, it was merely canceled, and I could not get them to tell me the difference (there are some very specific rules about revocation, but nothing about cancelation in the law.) IL state law does not madate FOIDs to be canceled because one moves out of state, but there is no provision for out of state FOIDs either, which the state police interpret as "There ain't none."

I talked to my IL attorney about it and he convinced me that we could win, but it would be expensive, and that IL would then find some other reason to "cancel" (rather than revoke) my FOID anyway so it was not a good investment. It may be time to revisit that issue.

I'm glad we live in Texas.

I was kinda' thinkin' about visiting my old stompin' grounds way down in southern Illinois this fall. Now, I'm thinkin' I neither left nor lost anything in Illinois when we moved from Harrisburg back to Nashville, TN the middle of my JR. year in HS in '58.

[ELB]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/2 ... 10.article#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mayor Daley today backed off his plan to limit Chicagoans to one handgun — and dropped the idea of requiring liability insurance — in a watered-down replacement to Chicago’s “unenforceable” handgun ban.

...


Instead of limiting possession to one handgun for every qualified person living in a home, it allows those persons to each register “one handgun-per-month.”

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 liability insurance component was absent entirely amid concern it would establish a financial barrier.

...Daley plans to seek state and federal legislation that would shield taxpayers from lawsuits tied to shootings by first responders of armed residents.

...Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis would develop a “roster of safe handguns” ...

...

But the new law still would allow residents to amass a virtual arsenal. ... [ flat out anti-gun editorializing by the newspaper reporter.]
...

But the National Rifle Association (NRA) still took immediate aim at the watered-down ordinance.

Todd Vandermyde, the NRA’s legislative liaison in Illinois, said mandatory classroom training, parental permission for those over 18 and under 21, and the limit of one-handgun-per-month for every responsible adult are all “patently unconstitutional.”

...

“The mayor has got to understand that, no matter how much he stamps his feet and has a tantrum, the Supreme Court found there is a fundamental individual right to keep and own a firearm,” Vandermyde said. ["tantrum" is exactly right.]

...

“Look at what it takes to drive a car in the state of Illinois, what you have to go through to get a license, take a course, pass a test and pay a fee. Yet, we’re going to say you can own a gun without doing anything? That’s absurd.’’ [said by Corporation Counsel Mara Georges. BTW, the line for First Amendment licenses is two doors down. Debit cards accepted.]

The NRA guy got it exactly right: Daley is throwing a tantrum. More at the link.

[A-R]

Another thing to consider:

With Daley's new rules, residents of IL outside Cook county are still disenfranchised of their rights, along with citizens of the rest of the nation.

The requirement that only one gun may be kept in the home, means that you must be an owner or renter of a home. If you are a visitor, then you are at the mercy of the criminals.

The requirement that you must have a FOID, means that if you do not live in IL, you are at the mercy of the criminals. I tried to fight the out of state FOID thing when we moved to TX. I had a valid FOID, but when I tried to change the address it was revoked. When I tried to argue with them about it, I was told it was not revoked, it was merely canceled, and I could not get them to tell me the difference (there are some very specific rules about revocation, but nothing about cancelation in the law.) IL state law does not madate FOIDs to be canceled because one moves out of state, but there is no provision for out of state FOIDs either, which the state police interpret as "There ain't none."

I talked to my IL attorney about it and he convinced me that we could win, but it would be expensive, and that IL would then find some other reason to "cancel" (rather than revoke) my FOID anyway so it was not a good investment. It may be time to revisit that issue.

Very good points. Hope you'll forward ths list of grievances to NRA and SAF so they can add them to the long list of lawsuits they're surely planning.

[A-R]

This story is so sad and tragic. Ridiculous that American school children have to walk through a war zone to get to school. ONLY 218 students were shot this year and that's a vast improvement! Read that sentence again. 218 students shot is a VAST IMPROVEMENT over the 258 who were shot last year. This is a travesty!

Mayor Daley and everyone else who wastes time trying to make life difficult for law-abiding citizens instead of taking out the gang bangers who are causing this problem have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS.

If I lived in Chicago and had the guts and the money, I would escort my children to school wearing a bullet-proof vest and carrying my AR-15 and my Glocks. Let the Chicago police arrest me and plaster it all over the 6 o'clock news. Then fight the arrest all the way to the Supreme Court. But of course, I'm not that brave and don't have that much money (few are and few do). And I thank God every day that my children and I don't live in a war zone like this.



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/us/02chicago.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

July 1, 2010
Graduation Is the Goal, Staying Alive the Prize
By SUSAN SAULNY
CHICAGO — The bonding moment between Veronica Tinajero and the student she calls Big Sunshine came during one of their first meetings.

“Have you ever been shot?” the student, a high school senior, asked. When Ms. Tinajero replied no, he looked genuinely amazed and said, “Wow, almost everybody I know’s been shot.” Later, he ticked off a list of his own bullet wounds: upper thigh, left hand, scalp.

“I should have been dead already,” he said.

With that, Ms. Tinajero, 24 and a public schools employee, gained a fuller understanding of what she was up against. A professional advocate, she is in Big Sunshine’s life for two reasons: to help keep him alive and on track to graduation, and now college. She is part of an ambitious but untested project born of crisis, a project that may take on added significance after a Supreme Court ruling on Monday that appeared to doom Chicago’s ban on handguns.

Last school year, 258 public school students were shot in Chicago, 32 fatally, on their way to or from school, traveling through gang-infested territory and narcotics wars on the South and West Sides. In an effort to get ahead of the next killings, the schools conducted an analysis to identify the 250 students most at risk of being shot (by studying profiles of 500 recent victims). Since December, each of those students has had an advocate like Ms. Tinajero on call to offer caretaking and support 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

National experts consider it to be perhaps the most intensive safety intervention tried in big-city schools; its results are being watched nationally.

“I don’t know of anything like this either in scope or scale or intensity,” said Michael Casserly, the executive director of the Council of the Great City Schools, a research and advocacy group in Washington. “It is strikingly well-planned at the strategic level, backed with really unique data and followed all the way down to the kid level with 24/7 coverage. I don’t know anything in the country quite like it, that has the promise that this initiative does.”

Students in the high-risk category — mostly black and Hispanic boys, some homeless dropouts and some formerly gang-affiliated — are also given jobs. The array of interventions is financed by federal stimulus grants through 2012, part of an overarching $60 million safety plan developed by Ron Huberman, the schools chief who was appointed last year by Mayor Richard M. Daley with a mandate to improve students’ safety. There are 409,000 students in 675 public schools here.

The 60 advocates hired so far function like a high-energy amalgam of parent, tutor, friend and life coach, sometimes tackling simple assignments like homework. But more often they delve into the heart-wrenching details of the students’ lives. More than one has sat bedside in a hospital emergency room after bullets ricocheted through a charge’s body.

Others have worked to help rival gang members get along in class, counseled bereaved students after a parent was killed and helped homeless students find safe places to live.

The plan acknowledges the harsh reality that troubled children are often on their own. So, trying to reach them through their families can be futile. Hence the need to hire advocates.

“Giving them a meaningful adult relationship, advocating for them and giving them incentive is the key to changing their behavior,” Mr. Huberman said, since some of the students most at risk of being shot are also most likely to perpetrate violence.

Here, Youth Advocates Programs Inc., a nonprofit based in Philadelphia with a record of success helping at-risk youth, recruits and trains the advocates in the same communities where the students live.

Each advocate is assigned no more than four students and is paid $12 an hour for one-on-one time with the students. The program is not limited by school time or the school year; it functions year round. Some advocates hold other jobs or work on degrees on the side. Jonathan Moy, the school system’s project manager for mentoring and interventions, said that more people had applied to be advocates than positions were available and that most who were accepted had social-service backgrounds.

Of the 210 young people reached so far, about half were not in school. Now all are enrolled. Although three students with advocates were shot in the school year that ended June 18, there were no deaths. (Systemwide, 218 students were shot this school year, 40 fewer than last year, and 27 of the shootings were fatal.)

Compared with a year ago, this is success. Monique Bond, spokeswoman for the Chicago Public Schools, said that attendance was up and that suspensions and misconduct were down among students with advocates.

Officials were so encouraged by the results that last week the school district announced that the program would be expanded next year to include 1,500 students.

Other parts of Chicago’s $60 million intervention plan include the creation of a high-tech security center at administration headquarters that facilitates communication between the police and school officials, and creation of an environment in the schools that officials call a “culture of calm.”

Because so many of the high-risk students are still targets of their rivals and former gang associates, school officials and the students’ families asked that the students contacted for this article remain unidentified beyond their initials or nicknames. Big Sunshine, 20, the student being mentored by Ms. Tinajero, still fears retaliation.

He said he started carrying a gun at age 12, to fit in with the boys in his neighborhood. Since then, he has been in and out of school and in and out of trouble with the law.

Big Sunshine did graduate two weeks ago, and Ms. Tinajero will work with him through the summer to help him make the transition to college: he plans to study sociology at Harold Washington College here this fall.

The intervention in the students’ lives has gone far beyond school.

For instance, Ms. Tinajero and Samuel Garcia, 26, another advocate, helped move Big Sunshine’s family to a safer block, and they began working with his 17-year-old brother, also a gunshot victim, who was not gang-affiliated but heading in that direction. They found Big Sunshine a minimum-wage job and gave both brothers, who have young children, classes for parents. They also held group family therapy with the young men’s parents, created rules and set long-term academic goals.

“I learned to stop caring about what other people think,” Big Sunshine’s brother said in an interview about how the advocates had influenced his behavior. “You’re a gangbanger and you want to drop that? That doesn’t mean you’re a punk.”

Ms. Tinajero made sure Big Sunshine had safe passage to school, even if that meant picking him up in her Toyota. She secured college applications and counseled his parents who are minimally educated immigrants from Mexico. For a treat, she took him to eat at a restaurant for the first time, an Applebee’s.

Days before Big Sunshine became the first member of his family to finish high school, he bought a suit in the men’s department of Carson Pirie Scott. Ms. Tinajero pointed him in the direction of a lavender shirt and tie, black jacket and pants and made sure they fit.

“A suit,” he said, looking admiringly at himself in a mirror. “Never thought I’d be standing here like this.”

[jimlongley]

He said he started carrying a gun at age 12, to fit in with the boys in his neighborhood. Since then, he has been in and out of school and in and out of trouble with the law.

What the article doesn't mention is that a large proportion of the "children" supposedly "shot on the way to school" were mini gang-bangers who were arguably not really on their way to school and were not innocent bystanders, but actually targeted and some were even actively involved in gunfights.

Typical Bradyista distortions meant to incite rather than truly inform.

[A-R]

He said he started carrying a gun at age 12, to fit in with the boys in his neighborhood. Since then, he has been in and out of school and in and out of trouble with the law.

What the article doesn't mention is that a large proportion of the "children" supposedly "shot on the way to school" were mini gang-bangers who were arguably not really on their way to school and were not innocent bystanders, but actually targeted and some were even actively involved in gunfights.

Typical Bradyista distortions meant to incite rather than truly inform.

Totally agree. And this is why Daley's gun control stance is so insane to me - even more insane than gun control normally would be. YOU HAVE 12 YEAR OLDS CARRYING GUNS. Meanwhile honest citizens can't even own a handgun in their home. YOUR "GUN CONTROL" ISN'T WORKING!