+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 01/18/2018 10:59 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  2.790 Visits   1 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality: Good
Back to Overview  
06/28/2010 07:23 PM ID: 84595 Permalink   

US Supreme Court Limits Gun Control Restrictions


In a 5-4 vote, the US Supreme Court has ruled that Chicago´s ban on handgun ownership violated the second amendment rights of its citizens and was thus unconstitutional.

This is the latest victory for gun rights proponents who filed suits after a 2008 ruling that saw a similar ban lifted from the Washington, D.C., area. They argued that the US Constitution specifically allows them to bear arms for self-defense.

The official ruling was that second amendment rights applied equally between the federal and state governments, but were not directly aimed at the Chicago area laws. The court did however order a previous appeals court to review its former ruling.

    WebReporter: NicPre Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  by: syoware   06/28/2010 08:00 PM     
One more city about to experience a drop in crime. Sure gun incidents may go up because now thieves and criminals will need to start buying armor.
  by: DRK   06/28/2010 08:00 PM     
One more step closer to anarchy.
  by: Lurker     06/28/2010 08:04 PM     
  Its about damn time  
Though the city will now make a bunch of "Reasonable" restrictions which will pretty much continue to limit anyone from being able to own a hand gun until a future court will need to decide what the definition of "Reasonable" is.
  by: bala_mt   06/28/2010 08:40 PM     
  This Will Give An Opportunity  
To Test The Gun Lobby´s Claims About The Rate Of Crimes With Guns And Without Guns.

If the crime rate increases after this ruling takes effect the pro gun lobby statements about guns deterring crime are false, conversely if crime is reduced then the anti gun lobby claims about guns are false.
  by: ichi     06/28/2010 09:06 PM     
Yes because all states that handguns legalized are in states of total anarchy. You know, because they have been legal for....let´s see....a couple hundred years? So they would have to be in total anarchy by now, right?
  by: moxpearl   06/28/2010 09:09 PM     
Another ignorant, uninformed comment. Not surprised.

It has been proven time and time again that more guns in lawful citizens hands correlate to lower violent crime. Then there are countries like Switzerland where everyone is armed yet violent crime and ´gun violence´ is unheard of.

Gun regulation takes the guns out of law abiding citizens hands. Nothing will stop the criminals from possessing. Look at the UK.

You´re just projecting your own personal fears and complexes about how you would poorly handle the responsibility of a firearm.

Firearms are the foundation this country. Far from anarchy. Maybe you feel that if you had a firearm you´d help contribute to anarchy or you´d accidentally injure someone?

Cars are by far more dangerous than firearms and used far more often.
  by: Sasquatches_United   06/28/2010 09:12 PM     
I´m surprised the local government didn´t take the hint when they had the same problems while the ban was in place.

I still don´t understand some peoples need to give criminals an advantage over themselves. Seems like they think if they tie their hands as tightly as possible behind their backs it means they´re safer.
  by: splicer   06/28/2010 09:20 PM     
  Correlation Between Gun Ownership And Crime  
I searched the web for information on the statement "It has been proven time and time again that more guns in lawful citizens hands correlate to lower violent crime."

And found no proof at all for it. What I keep coming up with is that there is no corralation between gun ownership and crime.
One convenient site to look at is the CATO Institute for its information.
  by: ichi     06/28/2010 09:22 PM     
Actually ichi the test was already done. They had guns before, then banned them, now they have guns again. They had the ban for twenty seven years. During that time they had some of the highest murder and gun violence incidents in the country.

In the end criminals just are not concerned with laws. No matter what law is put in they will continue to do what gets them what they want.

Oh and food for thought. When D.C. removed their gun ban the homicide rate did go down.
  by: splicer   06/28/2010 09:43 PM     
I know after the passage of the 1998 gun laws in Massachusetts homicide and violent crimes committed with illegal firearms has increased substantially. This was the same laws which mirrored the federal assault weapon ban.
  by: Sasquatches_United   06/28/2010 10:01 PM     
I´d post this because of my unique political position. I´m liberal on everything but gun rights and the death penalty. I´m glad to see this go through.

I own a firearm because of my profession and it doesn´t bother me that the legal and good people can have them in their homes. But I´m from Missouri, everyone here has a weapon - and I´ve grown up knowing that I could always run to my gun safe or a neighbors house for protection. Guess I´ve just never seen anything personally that would sway me toward any kind of ban.

  by: NicPre     06/28/2010 10:25 PM     
  The true definition of the "state" is...  
a group that has a monopoly over violence.
this of course flies in the face of the fact that though america is constitutional semi-democratic state, it allows for the indirect influence of the people in governance. This "the people" by some is taken to be a select few, but by other it includes all who wish to be governed.
Those that believe in the select few concept, created the police as a protector of that select few. The state became a self maintaining monopolizer of violence without input from the people... a sort of fourth branch of government which include secret police and intelligence agencies.

I am not as the cattle and believe in the governance of the people by consent of the people. But the people can be a scary beast that rises out of the many waters... Therefore, i´m damn glad to be able to carry a weapon to defend myself against the tyranny of the masses.
  by: mexicanrevolution   06/29/2010 12:13 AM     
I owe you another beer :)
  by: Sasquatches_United   06/29/2010 12:30 AM     
  say what you want  
it still wont change the fact that gun control is sexist.

a 90 year old grandmother deserves the right to protect herself just as much as a 300lbs MMA champion.
  by: Trevelyan   06/29/2010 12:48 AM     
Not only sexist but it is also racist to its very core.

The first gun laws were written to limit blacks access to firearms. Today blacks in inner cities are denied in large numbers the right to self defense. They are the people that need firearms the most to protect themselves from illegal guns in gang violence.

You won´t see many liberals jump on that societal inequity.
  by: Sasquatches_United   06/29/2010 12:59 AM     
  @ichi... Did you read the link you provided?  
Excerpted from the article:

"4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don´t.

True. The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns."

It goes on further to explain that there is no correlation between crime rates and mandatory wait times...

"5. Waiting periods lower crime rates.

False. Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of waiting periods, both before and after the federal Brady bill was passed in 1993. Those studies consistently show that there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck analyzed data from every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 and found that waiting periods had no statistically significant effect. Even University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell found that "waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides."

  by: bbeljefe     06/29/2010 01:21 AM     
for any one that is anti gun. when you hear a break in happening in your home. from more then one spot. say the front door and kitchen door/back door. whose gonna save you? ADT?

are you gonna put your spouse/kids at risk cause you didn´t have some steel at home?
  by: drk   06/29/2010 02:26 AM     
  Now we need to have concealed carry  
declared a constitutional right.
  by: walter3ca   06/29/2010 02:35 AM     
solution to gun problem.

allow guns by all to all...

anybody committing a crime with a gun, execute immediately.

problem solved!
  by: mexicanrevolution   06/29/2010 03:03 AM     
  @drk (drk ka derr)  
the USA must be crazily dangerous, you have thevies raid you homes like assault squads?!? I guess that what happens when you let everyone have guns and amour.
the problem in the USA is there is already so many guns in you country that it would be to hard to ban and limit their existance. In Australia where guns are hard to get thevies generally sneak in and out a quick and quietly as possible. 90%+ people robbed dont know it till the morning.
of course theives know they are looking at a being belted if but not shoot if they are caught in the act and as the legal penalty is significantly worse if you have any sort of weapon on you while committing a crime so most are actually unarmed so they cant be charged with a violent crime and get out of jail in months not years.
  by: veya_victaous     06/29/2010 03:03 AM     
  by: H. W. Hutchins   06/29/2010 03:13 AM     
No, veya_victaous, when armed they are usually just a pair of assholes with a couple guns. Not to say there are not burglars who are good at what they do and are done before anyone notices.

While it is hard to ban something that legal before, it´s damn near impossible to completely get rid of something in countries that are connected.

During the buyback in your country armed robberies, in fact all robberies/burglaries, increased during that period and didn´t calm down for about four years.

All in all your people seem far more concerned about firearm suicides then anything else, rightfully so I may add since it was a far higher number.

Your country literally has half the robberies then it did twenty years ago so that may be part of the reason you don´t often hear about break in´s with firearms.

I do have to tease you on your typo, if it is one, though. "guns and amour" Guns and love huh. ;p

Last I checked we were at two hundred and eight million registered gun owners and with eleven thousand five hundred and thirty three gun related deaths in 2006 show we can handle our guns quite well. I think your home had seven hundred thousand owners in 2005, can´t quite remember the number.
  by: splicer   06/29/2010 07:28 AM     
Did you ever notice police officers or their homes do not get robbed? Do you think that is because they are a cop or they have a gun?
  by: hellblazer     06/29/2010 09:00 AM     
  The Problem with Guns  
Is that those who want them the most are the ones who should have them the least.
  by: Jim8   06/29/2010 05:41 PM     
The REAL problem with guns and gun control is that the bad guys will ALWAYS get them if they want them. Gun control only hurts the legit people who follow and obey the laws.

End of story.
  by: NicPre     06/29/2010 06:06 PM     
I just find it funny that all these foreigners label us all gun crazed.

More US citizens die from car crashes every year.

Switzerland and Israel have lower crime rates and have a similar gun ownership % to the US.

The problem with our country is we are too lenient on real criminals and too hard on non-violent or non-victim crimes.
  by: Sasquatches_United   06/29/2010 06:30 PM     
  @ Sasquatch  
lol, FINALLY i hear an American admit it... "firearms are the foundation of this country". that sounds so pathetic i dont even know where to begin. When you get right down to it, the amount of violence in a country depends only on one thing, the ATTITUDE of its citizens.

Until your country (and mine, Canada) stop harboring little gangster wanna-be´s and encouraging alcoholism and "wiggers" (pardon my French), violence is the only result.

The reason other countries have alot of guns AND their crime rate is low is because the attitude of their citizens is more mature, and "respect" is actually a meaningful word there.
gangster wanna-be´s and little punks are not encouraged there, but rather punished for being so stupid.

when i went to Texas to visit my parents, i was absolutely horrified to see people walking around spinning their guns on their finger on the way to the shooting range, like it was a f*cking toy!!

all in all, i am absolutely terrified of texas (dont know about other states), as any little stupid punk with $300 could kill you at any given moment.
  by: radso1   06/29/2010 06:58 PM     
  One More Thing...  
Please stop using "more people die in the USA from cars than guns" as an argument. How are the two related in any way???

Car accidents are just that - Unintentional accidents, very different from purposely getting yur head blown off by an 18 y/o wigger.

  by: radso1   06/29/2010 07:22 PM     
How is a gun ´accident´ different than a car ´accident´ when people are injured. The means are different but the end is the same. We are valuing human life here aren´t we?

"lol, FINALLY i hear an American admit it... "firearms are the foundation of this country""

Dude...welcome to 200 years ago. Are you for real? I don´t think any American would disagree....but I´d say they helped lay the foundation. They are not THE foundation. That is the Constitution.

I´m not in disagreement with you on the fact that gun education is the primary reason for accidents. We treat guns in this country as something scary then romanticize them at the same time.

They are a tool....nothing more...nothing less. They are ultimate arbitrators of power and authority. Subject to the morals of the wielder. I´m sure you´ve seen Spider-man. "With great power comes great responsibility"

You´re obviously scared of firearms so you´ve failed the education portion. I have no fear from a 18y/o ´wigger´ who has fun with their cheap $300 piece. I have ultimate assurance in my mind that in a toe for toe confrontation, my trigger finger and muzzle control would be far superior to any punk.

That sideways grip...doesn´t work.
  by: Sasquatches_United   06/29/2010 07:40 PM     
  @ Sasquatch  
lol, "that sideways grip... doesnt work"
But chief, it looks so much cooler!

OK, if were discussing manslaughter as opposed to murder, i guess your points are valid.

Still staying the hell out of Texas though...
  by: radso1   06/29/2010 08:07 PM     
  The only difference between....  
a citizen and a serf is the ownership of weapons.

As F´ed up as our government has gotten a little anarchy may be a good thing.
  by: valkyrie123     06/30/2010 04:01 AM     
  Tip of the hat to NicPre.  
As time goes on and your life experiences increase, I trust that your respect for liberty will wash out the misconceptions you have, my friend.

  by: bbeljefe     06/30/2010 04:24 AM     
I´m a native Texan who lived most of my life in one of the most backward thinking cities in Texas. I´ve traveled to many corners of my home state and have dear friends from just about every walk of life Texas has to offer and I can honestly say that I´ve never encountered a person walking down the street twirling a handgun as if it were a toy.

Don´t get me wrong, I´m not calling you a liar. I´m just saying that if you actually saw that happen once, you´ve seen something very rare and if you´ve seen it twice, you should probably buy a lottery ticket.

  by: bbeljefe     06/30/2010 04:51 AM     
  Instead of Gun Control Bickering.  
We should start going after those that own a gun without a state permit/permit to carry a concealed weapon and have way harsher penalties/fines/jail time. It would deter criminals from having guns granted some would still take the chance but if you say anyone who possesses a firearm will get 10 years hard time no parole... I think that would send a message.

Also need harsher fines/penalties against those who sell firearms. More background and in depth information is needed before allowing someone to purchase a gun. I think banning guns in cities/states is the wrong way to go. It is our right to protect your friends, families and even strangers that are in trouble.
  by: Quintessence   06/30/2010 04:40 PM     
Nowhere in the constitution does it say you have to have a permit to exercise your second amendment right.
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     06/30/2010 05:28 PM     
  @ Tetsuru Uzuki  
O snap!

I think the constituion needs the 4.0 iPhone update.

A little off topic but, IMO following this "constitution" is not much different from following the bible (Christians). You´re following a set of rules laid out by people a long time ago, which may very well not even be relevant today... just saying...
  by: radso1   06/30/2010 06:21 PM     
I´m pretty sure the SUPREME LAW of the United States is still relevant. In itself exists the method to change it, so therefor it can never be outdated, only purposely left intact.
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     06/30/2010 06:27 PM     
The constitution CAN be changed?

I always thought it was like set, and never to be changed. Ofcourse I could be wrong, my American history is not the greatest
  by: radso1   06/30/2010 06:35 PM     
Except that, sadly, the power to change it relies on career politicians with paid interests, and the ignorant masses who care more about the next American Idol and will blindly follow whichever politician yells the loudest.
  by: zyste     06/30/2010 06:48 PM     
Yes. We can change the Constitution. After an amendment is proposed, it requires 2/3 of the house, 2/3 of the senate, and 3/4 of the states to ratify it. After the initial 10(Bill of Rights), it´s only been done 17 times. And one of those(21st) undoes another(18th). So really only 15 amendments are in effect beyond the Bill of Rights.

It was purposely made to be tough to alter the document.
  by: zyste     06/30/2010 06:54 PM     
"and will blindly follow whichever politician yells the loudest."

You left out who has the catchiest slogan also! That Change bandwagon was the awesomest ever!
  by: slavefortheman     06/30/2010 07:01 PM     
I prefer the "progressivism is destroying America" bandwagon.
  by: zyste     06/30/2010 08:22 PM     
The ban was on handguns, not guns. You do not need a handgun to hunt. You can defend yourself and your home with a rifle or a shotgun more efficiently and with less risk of an injury than with a handgun. If you lack the discipline to wield a real firearm efficiently, you have no business owning a firearm. There is simply no reason to own a handgun.
  by: crazywumbat   06/30/2010 09:23 PM     
If you knew anything about firearms, you would know how ineffective a rifle would be in a home situation. Same with a shotgun if your using a slug, and if your using buckshot, you´d have a greater chance to hit an innocent or family member with the spread. Thats why police don´t use them. They use pistols and sub machine guns in urban situations for a reason. Plus if you have children, rifle rounds go through walls. A small caliber pistol round has less of a chance of going through a wall and killing your children or an innocent across the street. Your pathetic attempt to try and sound macho and have half a clue about the subject is a waste of your own, and everyone else´s time. We are all now forever scared by your idiotic statement.
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     06/30/2010 09:40 PM     
Low Recoil (velocity) buckshot is good for a home defense situation and will significantly limit over-penetration. Even target load bird shot is ´good enough´.

Winlite 00 buck is what I use in my Winchester m97. Shotguns are also good because that chamber sound is unmistakable and will deter many. My choice would be Shotgun > .45 ACP > Rifle. But, I wouldn´t want to use my Mauser, that would significantly increase chance of collateral damage.

Most buck shot is overpowered anyways. All those crazy buck hunters who think a few FPS will help lay down that gold medal buck.
  by: Sasquatches_United   06/30/2010 11:05 PM     
Its tough to handle a shotgun in a hallway. I feel safer with a Glock 22 close by. Also A shotgun won´t fit my five finger combo safe in my night table. It´s also easier to pop the clip in then needing to insert some shells, as I don´t keep it loaded with children in the house.
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     06/30/2010 11:21 PM     
That is true. It really depends on your situation and house. My Winchester is a ´trench gun´ so its shorter, not as impracticable.

I have a closet next to my bed, with a locked rack. Masterlock combo lock.

I hear you on the kids thing. I was shooting since I was 5, so I knew the lethality very early. But, that´s rare in today´s age, guns are ´scary´ now. And my dad would probably be seen as unsuitable because of it lol.

I live in a slave state (MA) so ammo needs to be locked up separately. MA specifically wrote the gun laws to prohibit self defense.
  by: Sasquatches_United   06/30/2010 11:38 PM     
We have similar defense hating laws here in California. For instance, my county doesn´t want to honor my concealed carry permit I got from another county, even though its supposed to be valid state wide. We also have that stupid container law you are talking about, but its pretty easy to get around. Keep your clip in the safe inside a sealed plastic sandwich bag, and it makes it legal. When transporting you just put your gun in a backpack on the passenger seat, and set the clip on top of the backpack.

They also just passed some new law saying guns are going to be required to have this patented bullet stamping technology or be illegal. So if you don´t already own a gun, its going to either be extremely expensive or downright impossible to get one in the future.
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     07/01/2010 12:05 AM     
Oh! I thought that was only on the ammo itself. The gun´s have to do it? SHIIIIT.

I mean, firing pins and barrels do fingerprint...but, some scotch bright pads and a steel brush remedy that.

Soon they´ll make us SN# each bullet and casing, then require sellers to record who bought what. :(
  by: Sasquatches_United   07/01/2010 12:15 AM     
You may or may not be a completely insane paranoid redneck.
  by: NicPre     07/01/2010 05:22 PM     
They already serial number the bullets here, and you have to get finger printed to buy ammo.
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     07/01/2010 05:31 PM     
  14th Amendment incorporates the 2nd Amendment  

Before you all go off on tangents maybe you should actually read the decision.

SECOND AMENDMENT (The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second
Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense).

Two years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a District of Columbia
ordinance banning handguns, holding that the Second Amendment protected
the right to bear arms for self-protection. Following that decision,
Chicago citizens challenged similar effective bans on handguns in Chicago.
The citizens argued that the right to bear arms is protected by the
Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, and that the
Slaughter-House Cases´ alternate interpretation of that clause should be
reversed. Secondly, the citizens argued that the Due Process Clause of
the 14th Amendment incorporates the 2nd Amendment as to the States. The
Seventh Circuit rejected these arguments, finding that precedent had
upheld similar gun bans, and Supreme Court has refrained from stating
whether the Second Amendment applies to the states.

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the 14th Amendment
incorporates rights that are "fundamental to the Nation´s scheme of
ordered liberty," and that self-defense is such a right. The Court
explained that history and precedent show that the central idea of the 2nd
Amendment is to allow for self-defense. The Court rejected the argument
that the 14th Amendment is an antidiscrimination rule, finding that the
14th Amendment incorporates the 2nd Amendment to the states. The Court
declined to reverse the Slaughter-House Cases.
  by: Talesman12   07/01/2010 06:01 PM     
"You may or may not be a completely insane paranoid redneck."

I´m a city dwelling, well spoken, college educated individual with a Philosophy degree, that focused on Civil Rights and Law. Redneck?

It´s great that you resort to personal attacks when someone, obviously more knowledgeable and passionate than you on the subject, is voicing their opinions. But hey, you´re covered by the 1st amendment. Fire away.

That is so ridiculous. I have sorrow for you Californians.
  by: Sasquatches_United   07/01/2010 07:52 PM     
[quote] Look at the UK.[/quote]

yes just look, we have a death by shooting it´s in all the papers, has tv coverage, politicians all comeout against guns.

the U.S. has a death by shooting, meh. the only way the incident will get in the papers is if the victim was a blonde haired blue eyed little girl

and if there is a spree charlton heston will turn up saying "we need more guns"
  by: beanos66   07/02/2010 01:17 AM     
  I like guns...  
I don´t like a government telling me i can´t have one because it´s afraid of me or because it needs to have better control of me... but!
and it´s a big but! (lol)

Here´s the problem with the u.s.a. and crime. Crime is cool. To be merciless and a liar is to be tough. To be a man that rapes other men is to be gangster. To be gangster is to solve any problem by getting your friends and attacking someone when they are unarmed or unprepared. Hate immigrants and minorities. Save yourself and kill the rest.

This reminds me of a vietnam story i heard: there was a free fire zone that a troop was assigned to protect. Anything crossed got killed - water buffalo or people alike. There was a soldier there who joined up to just kill some "gooks". He was enjoying the killing with his .50 machine gun from a helicopter until one day he was at the gate of the free fire zone and saw a hungry emaciated 10 year old girl come up to the fence to ask for food. He heard another soldier lock and load, and for a second he thought - that little girl is innocent, i should help her - next thing he heard was the soldier empty his clip into the girl who was torn to shreds right in front of him.
He is still haunted by the incident and the anger he has against those that taught him that this was ok to do for your country is obvious to this day. Guns don´t kill people: murderers do. In america we glorify murder and write laws that condone it.
  by: mexicanrevolution   07/02/2010 01:45 AM     
  At The Office Of TheThe NRA  
The Supreme Court Ruled in Our Favor.

You morons now what are we going to do? How could you let this happen? This makes us irrelevant. We wanted to milk this not win it!

The National Rifle (Republican) Association depends on the left right division on the Second Amendment to justify their fund raising. The Supreme Court just made this mute.

I see a few more years of legal battles in the lower courts defining this and then the NRA will drift into the fog of non importance politically. Too bad, it was a good source of monetary and political support for the conservatives. It is now no longer an albatross on the back of the democrats.
  by: ichi     07/02/2010 01:46 AM     
  @ ichi  
"I see a few more years of legal battles in the lower courts defining this and then the NRA will drift into the fog of non importance politically. Too bad, it was a good source of monetary and political support for the conservatives. It is now no longer an albatross on the back of the democrats."

Far from it. The Obamacrats, etal. will now ply their trade trying to craft restrictive laws in the very best way and in the most craftily and cunningly way they can while still adhering to the rule of law (at least in their mind) and the NRA will be facing battles all across the nation city-by-city and county-by-county.

The new issue, as I see it, can the government TAX a right? Can I be forced to pay a hundred or perhaps two annually to accquire a "license" ???

There will always be a need for the NRA. Just like there is still a need for the ACLU when it comes to 1st Amendment issues.

  by: Talesman12   07/02/2010 02:26 AM     
I would love to see a time when the NRA is no longer needed. I´d also like to see, as Talesman12 mentioned, a time when the ACLU is no longer needed. In fact, if we could rid ourselves of the need for the ACLU, there would be no need for the NRA, the NAACP, labor unions and all other organizations that claim to champion human rights.

Sadly, there is little chance that any of these organizations will ever find themselves without a cause.

  by: bbeljefe     07/02/2010 04:16 AM     
  In just a few short hours  
After I made my prediction I read this:

CHICAGO — With the city´s gun ban certain to be overturned, Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday introduced what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States.

The measure, which draws from ordinances around the country, would ban gun shops in Chicago and prohibit gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun.

Daley announced his ordinance at a park on the city´s South Side three days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live. The City Council is expected to vote on it Friday.

"As long as I´m mayor, we will never give up or give in to gun violence that continues to threaten every part of our nation, including Chicago," said Daley, who was flanked by activists, city officials and the parents of a teenager whose son was shot and killed on a city bus while shielding a friend.

The ordinance, which Daley urged the City Council to pass, also would:

— Limit the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.

— Require residents in homes with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.

Story continues below More below
Advertisement | ad infoSponsored links

— Require prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.

— Prohibit people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Residents convicted of a gun offense would have to register with the police department.

— Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

Those who already have handguns in the city — which has been illegal since the city´s ban was approved 28 years ago — would have 90 days to register those weapons, according to the proposed ordinance.

Residents convicted of violating the city´s ordinance can face a fine up to $5,000 and be locked up for as long as 90 days for a first offense and a fine of up to $10,000 and as long as six months behind bars for subsequent convictions.

"We´ve gone farther than anyone else ever has," said Corporation Counsel Mara Georges.

Still, the mayor, whose office is trying to craft an ordinance that will withstand legal challenges, had to back off some provisions he´d hoped to include, including requiring gun owners to insure their weapons and restricting each resident to one handgun.

Georges said it would be expensive for homeowners to include guns on their homeowners´ and renters´ insurance policies, so such a requirement could be seen as being discriminatory to the city´s poorer residents. Limiting the number of handguns could be seen as discriminatory to people who owned weapons before the city´s ban went into effect in 1982 or before they moved into the city.

"We can limit the place in which those handguns can be located," she said, before adding a not-so-veiled swipe at the court: "For instance, the Supreme court does not want them coming into the courthouse."

Still, Daley indicated that no matter what was included in the ordinance, he expects legal challenges.

"Everybody has a right to sue," he said.
  by: Talesman12   07/02/2010 08:15 AM     
  Avoid concealed carry  
The argument is that CC is just an excuse for them to know who has guns. The least violation of CC in Ahia is a felony, which then gives them the excuse to steal all your guns.
  by: biggfredd   07/27/2010 06:22 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: