AP: Judge gives Chicago 6 months to OK gun sales law

An update to a couple of posts done here on this subject about a court ruling that deemed a Chicago ordinance banning gun sales in the city illegal:

A federal judge on Tuesday approved Chicago's request for a delay of six months to allow the city time to craft a new gun sales ordinance.

Federal Judge Edward E. Chang approved the 180-day delay. Chang had ruled Jan. 6 that the city's ban on gun sales was unconstitutional, and Monday was deadline for the city appeal the ruling.

Instead, Mayor Rahm Emanuel's administration decided to seek the six month delay in its implementation, rather than fight Chang's ruling.

Monday was the last day for the city to appeal the ruling, but in yet another example of the city's recognition that it cannot keep guns out of the hands of its residents, attorneys instead filed a motion asking for the 180 days "to enact reasonable and comprehensive regulations governing firearms sales and transfers that will protect public safety while also respecting Second Amendment rights."
...
 The city said it needed the six months to allow gun sales because any ordinance will "have many detailed components, including zoning, licensing, and operational requirements for gun dealers, as well as robust regulations targeting illegal sales and transfer practices ..." The motion also said it will take time for the City Council to enact an ordinance.

PREVIOUS POSTS

• Ban on gun sales in Chicago overturned...
• Sun-Times: City to ask for six-month delay on gun store ruling

Sun-Times: City to ask for six-month delay on gun store ruling

In light of a recent federal court ruling you may have seen a post about here recently.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants more time — six months, to be precise — before the city has to comply with a recent court ruling that requires Chicago to allow gun stores within its limits.

Emanuel on Thursday asked the city’s law department to make that request in court, to give the city more time to develop a law regulating the sale of firearms, according to the mayor’s office.

“The law will aim to be the strongest in the nation, to ensure that illegal guns don’t find their way into the hands of criminals and straw purchasers,” according to a statement from Emanuel’s office.

I wonder if this could be a rosy prediction:

Though Chang stayed his ruling to give the city a chance to appeal — and said a less restrictive ordinance than the unconstitutional blanket ban could yet pass muster — lawyers for the Illinois Association of Firearm Retailers were quick to predict that neighborhood gun stores could now open before the end of 2014.

So a gun store near you in the near future!

Wortham family sues seller of gun used in killing

The Chicago Tribune reports that the family of Officer Thomas Wortham IV is now suing the gun shop that sold the weapon used in the slaying of their family member.

The gun was sold to a straw purchaser, who in turn sold it to a trafficker who sold it to the gang members. The purchaser and the trafficker have already been convicted, but also named in the lawsuit.

Here's the video from WGN news:

Capitol Fax: McCarthy wants a record of the loss, sale, or transfer of guns

Photo by James Brigham

It was hinted this past summer when McCarthy attended a Q & A with the Greater Chatham Alliance. He mentioned that there was a gun used in a shooting of a police office and this gun was first purchased in the early 1970s, but no one was sure what happened to the gun since that time. It seems reasonable to know where a gun has been before being utilized in an incident. I would still say it seems sensible to make this a state law as reported over at CapFax. What do you think?

State Senator Donne Trotter free from jail - but not criticism

from Prairie State Report

* Thanks to Facebook Friend Joe Lake for these links and updates on the 2nd Congressional District and their candidates. Joe has several Facebook groups, including Chicago's Chatham Connection and and ILCD 2nd District


Several news reports have noted that Donne Trotter is free on $25,000 bail. According to reports, such as the Tribune's Chicago Breaking News, Trotter still had the clothes on that he was arrested in.

DNAinfo also reported that a) the gun was not registered in Sen. Trotter's name, b) the FOID lists his Springfield office address, not his home in Chicago,  and c) that Allpoints declines to confirm or deny Trotter's employment.

However, despite being free form jail, Sen. Trotter is not free from criticism.

For example, The Prairie State Report, a conservative IL blog, claims that Donne Trotter does not  actually work for Allpoints Security, as Trotter claimed, and gives reasoning why that is so.

(to learn more about The Prairie State Report, from their website)

Guns and Race: A Frank Conversation

 

This upcoming Wednesday and Thursday, ICE Theaters will host their monthly presentation of Black World Cinema. But unlike most of their other presentations, this month's will stir a bit of controversy. The film "Negros with Guns: Rob Williams and Black Power" will be the monthly presentation. The trailer reads

Negros With Guns tells the dramatic story of the often-forgotten civil rights leader who urged African Americans to arm themselves against violent racists. In doing so, Williams not only challenged the Klan-dominated establishment of his hometown of Monroe, North Carolina, he alienated the mainstream Civil Rights Movement, which advocated peaceful resistance. Robert F. Williams was the forefather of the Black Power movement and broke dramatic new ground by internationalizing the African American struggle. Negroes with Guns is not only an electrifying look at an historically erased leader, but also provides a thought-provoking examination of Black radicalism and resistance and serves as a launching pad for the study of Black liberation philosophies. Insightful interviews with historian Clayborne Carson, biographer Timothy Tyson, Julian Bond, and a first person account by Mabel Williams, Robert’s wife, bring the story to life.

Also, there will be a screening of a follow up documentary "No Guns For Negro's" The trailer reads

The historical record provides compelling evidence that racism underlies gun control laws — and not in any subtle way. Throughout much of American history, gun control was openly stated as a method for keeping blacks and Hispanics “in their place,” and to quiet the racial fears of whites. This film provides a brief summary of this unholy alliance of gun control and racism, and to suggest that gun control laws should be regarded as “suspect ideas,” analogous to the “suspect classifications” theory of discrimination already part of the American legal system.

While the films will be thought provoking, the community forum on Thursday August 2, 2012 afterwards will be insightful and explosive, as a panel moderated by WVON radio's Cliff Kelley will discuss Stand Your Ground, Conceal and Carrry and other gun law issues.
The scheduled Panel Discussants:
Chris Cooper, Candidate for States Attorney
David Lemieux - Retired Chicago Police Detective
Lori Meriweather - single mom and stalking victim
Gimbu Kali, Pres & Shawn Gowder, VP, Chicago Firearms Safety Association
Radie - home invasion survivor

  Organizations:
 Chicago Firearms Safety Association
 IllinoisCarry.com
The Illinois State Rifle Association
The Second Amendment Sisters
Effective Firearms Personal Protection Consultants

 This screening and forum was scheduled months ago but with the recent shootings in Colorado, the question has come up if this conversation is approriate at this time. I reached out to the co promoters, Chicagoland Firearms Safety Association for comment but was unable to reach them. Some have argued with the violence that has been seen on the streets here in Chicago that it is an appropriate time.

Sun-Times: City to revamp gun-control ordinance after loss in court

I'm going to guess the issue of guns will come up at this Q&A with police superintendent Garry McCarthy coming up next Saturday. He may be asked a question about this and perhaps other issues with regards to guns:

Mayor Rahm Emanuel is expected to introduce a revised ordinance Wednesday barring anyone with a misdemeanor conviction for a violent crime within five years from obtaining a city gun permit.

The proposal is a reaction to a federal judge’s ruling Tuesday striking down part of the city’s 2010 firearm ordinance.

A section of the ordinance that barred anyone convicted “in any jurisdiction” of “unlawful use of a weapon that is a firearm” was unconstitutional, U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan found.

Der-Yeghiayan ruled in favor of a Chicago man who sued the city after he was denied a permit because of a misdemeanor unlawful use of a weapon conviction.

Unlawful use of a weapon involves possession of a gun—not firing a weapon.

Der-Yeghiayan said Shawn Gowder’s right to bear arms under the Second Amendment was violated when the city denied him a gun permit.

Gowder was convicted of unlawful use of a weapon in 1995. At the time, the charge was a felony but was downgraded to a misdemeanor after a 1999 Illinois Supreme Court decision.

Read the whole thing!

Ward Room: Emanuel Proposal Allows Some Gun Ranges in City

This is an interesting development:

The plan will respond to a standing federal lawsuit brought against the city, which says the city's ban of gun ranges has created a burden for those seeking a Chicago gun permit, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.

The proposed ordinance limits gun ranges to areas zoned for manufacturing. Outdoor ranges would continue to be banned.

Not to say it will be a boon for the city, but the next thing that we should see is gun shops allowed to operate in this city. Why force city residents to have to leave the city in order to buy a gun if they so choose. If the city is hard pressed for revenue this is something else they could pursue.

I can only imagine what the financial projections would be.

Sawyer on gun registration in Chicago

Click for larger resolution

From an article by Mick Dumke at the Chicago Reader:

Roderick Sawyer, alderman of the Sixth Ward, is skeptical of that theory. "It's like buying a car," he says. "If you want one you'll find a way to do it."

Sawyer's south-side ward includes struggling, high-crime areas in Englewood as well as middle-class parts of Chatham where residents are openly talking about getting guns because of crime concerns. He says it's appropriate to have "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership in the city, though it's also clear that many people aren't complying with the law. He recalled an evening when he offered to walk a senior citizen home after a community meeting.

"She moved her coat to the side and showed me she was packing," he recalls. "She said, 'How about if I walk you home?'" 

Yeah for context what is the theory?

John Lott, an economist who argues that gun control laws like Chicago's actually lead to higher crime, says the cost of meeting the gun application's training and registration requirements essentially discriminates against low-income black communities. In Chicago, the training and permit fees cost about $250 on top of the price of the gun.

"Those who are most likely to be victims of crime benefit the most from owning guns, and unfortunately, that is one very well defined group in our country, poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas such as Chicago," Lott wrote in an e-mail. "But these white, middle class areas can much more easily afford the fees to register their guns and to go through the training requirements."

Another theory mentioned about gun registration is that there are high rates of convicted felons in black and latino communities. Also that blacks and latinos have high levels of distrust for the police.

The pic above measures the rates of gun registration according to zipcode around the city. So 60619 and 60628 in orange are almost close percentage wise with those areas in red on the northwest, southwest, and even around downtown Chicago.

City Council OKs strict gun law

AP:

Members of the Chicago City Council have approved what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States.

Friday's 45-0 vote comes four days after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling made it almost certain that Chicago's handgun ban would be overturned. The high court ruled Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live.

The new city ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun.

Some of what I heard about the new gun ordinance is reasonable. I do have questions about prohibiting a gun owner from even stepping onto their porches or into their garages with their guns. And as for banning gun shops well that's more money that's going into other municipalities while the city is suffering through budget deficits.

BTW, know that there are going to be challenges to this new ordinance in court and the Supreme Court ruling ordered this case remanded to a federal district court so the fight with regards to guns in our city isn't over.

Supreme Court extends gun rights in Chicago case

The US Supreme Court has ruled on Chicago's gun ban!

The Supreme Court reversed a ruling upholding Chicago's ban today and extended the reach of the 2nd Amendment as a nationwide protection against laws that infringe the "right to keep and bear arms."

The 5-4 decision appears to void the 1982 ordinance, one of the nation's strictest, which barred city residents from having handguns for their own use, even at home.

Gun-rights advocates have been closely following the Chicago case. They said a victory for the 2nd Amendment would clear the way for constitutional challenges to restrictions on firearms to be heard in federal courts nationwide.

The ruling against Chicago's ban had been widely anticipated.

The City Council could consider new gun-control measures as soon as Wednesday, Mayor Richard Daley said last week.

I would like to refer you to Ald. Lyle's comments in a post from the weekend on a related matter:

Regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court's deliberations, there will be limits on handgun ownership in Chicago. As to the right to carry a concealed weapon, that debate will continue for some time.

Well, I'm OK with limits on handgun ownership, but let there be a debate on concealed carry in this city. Not sold on it necessarily, but it's something we will have to decide at some point.

UPDATE 11:50 AM Perhaps a hint of what the city has in mind in response to this Supreme Court ruling:

As a result of this morning’s expected ruling, the Police Committee of the Chicago City Council began meeting at 10:30 a.m. to consider a replacement ordinance introduced directly to the committee by Mayor Daley. The meeting was soon adjourned until Tuesday, though, with committee chairman Anthony Beale (9th) saying he needed time to review the more than 100-page Supreme Court ruling.

Chicago gun owners could be required to take a training course, register their firearms, allow police to perform ballistics tests and even purchase liability insurance.

Daley hasn’t tipped his hand on all of the specifics as he awaited the court ruling. But he has said to protect first-responders, he’s prepared to go above and beyond the replacement model crafted by Washington D.C. after its handgun ban bit the dust.
...
As a result of this morning’s expected ruling, the Police Committee of the Chicago City Council began meeting at 10:30 a.m. to consider a replacement ordinance introduced directly to the committee by Mayor Daley. The meeting was soon adjourned until Tuesday, though, with committee chairman Anthony Beale (9th) saying he needed time to review the more than 100-page Supreme Court ruling.

Chicago gun owners could be required to take a training course, register their firearms, allow police to perform ballistics tests and even purchase liability insurance.

Daley hasn’t tipped his hand on all of the specifics as he awaited the court ruling. But he has said to protect first-responders, he’s prepared to go above and beyond the replacement model crafted by Washington D.C. after its handgun ban bit the dust.

When Ald. Howard Brookins ran for State's Attorney last year he was on record (that record being Public Affairs with Jeff Berkowitz) as saying he believes responsible people should be allowed to own guns. One of his opponents in that Democratic Primary Ald. Tom Allen is quoted in this article as saying the gun ban was largely ineffective:

Northwest Side Ald. Tom Allen (38th) said the ban has done nothing to stop the bloodbath on Chicago streets as evidenced by the 26 people shot this weekend.

Asked whether Chicago would be more or less safe without the ban, he said, “It’s a wash. The bad guys are gonna have their guns and the good people who are responsible citizens — they will also have their guns. But they’ll do it in a responsible way in their home to protect their family or in their place of business to protect them from armed robbers.”

Daley has talked about requiring gun owners to take a training course, register their firearms, allow police to perform ballistics tests and even purchase liability insurance.

But Allen said there’s no guarantee that those measures will be any more effective than the ban itself, which was roundly ignored.

“We can make some legislation. We can add insurance as a component. And I’m hoping they will comply better than they do with mandatory auto insurance. Because one out of three people on the street doesn’t have insurance,” he said.

And of all people Ald. Ed Burke has this to say about the gun ban!

Chicago’s 1982 handgun freeze — and a companion requirement that existing gun owners re-register their weapons every year — have been likened to Prohibition and denounced as a widely ignored charade.

Last week, Finance Committee Chairman Edward M. Burke (14th) acknowledged as much.

“There’s widespread disobedience of the law. There’s widespread flaunting of the law by people who strongly believe that they should have a weapon in their house,” Burke said.

“Just in the last 60 days, we’ve seen three instances where law-abiding citizens who had possession of a weapon in their home shot and/or killed violent offenders in their home or in the vicinity of their home. It’s noteworthy that no one has prosecuted those law-abiding citizens. Probably, we oughta pass a city ordinance and give ‘em each a medal.”

In that sense, Burke argued that a city registration implemented to replace the ban might be an improvement.

“Nobody can register it, so the city doesn’t know. Is it not better that the city knows who has a gun?” the alderman said.

Hmmmm, I wonder how many more people on the City Council are thinking exactly the way Burke and Allen are thinking. I hope they may offer alternate legislation.

Via Capitol Fax!

Clout City: Park District Balks at Gun-Rights Group Meeting

You know in the past week (perhaps even the past month) or so I've have taken a look at any story that focuses on what the city plans to do if the US Supreme Courts strikes down the city's gun control ordinance. It seems for the most part the Daley administration seems to have no plans to allow citizens in Chicago to own a gun at all. In a recent city council police & fire committee hearing it appears that the committee was loathe to hear anyone in favor of allowing city residents to own handguns.

Not long after the death of Officer Thomas Wortham there was a story about Chatham residents expressing their wish to own a handgun at home. Of course who knows if this is a passing trend or a call for allowing individual citizens a right to own a handgun for their self-defense.

Well recently there would have been a meeting in our community to discuss at the very least concealed carry as mentioned in this post from Clout City. Read the comments because the one who attempted to get a permit to host said meeting at our own Tuley Park (Gerald Vernon) believed that Ald. Lyle may have found an excuse to scuttle this meet. Her comments were posted in the article as Mick Dumke made contact with her:

UPDATE: I first heard about the planned town hall meeting when Sixth Ward alderman Freddrenna Lyle groaned about it during a City Council hearing. But when I followed up with her Friday, she said she had nothing to do with the decision to yank the permit. "I have never spoken to anyone about this," she says.

Tuley Park is in Lyle's ward. Lyle is a strong backer of gun control but said Illinois Carry should be allowed to hold its meeting. "They want to go into a community touched by the violence because it's an easier sell," she says. "But those people have a right to meet and it's up to us who disagree with them to show up and make another argument."

But the crux of this story involves the lotheness of may in our city especially the mayor and many on the city council to allow individual citizens to own handguns with the belief that banning them would solve the issue of violence that we've had in this city since the weather warmed up. I've been reading a lot of posts written by Dumke on this issue and he's right we need to re-examine whether or not the gun ban is truly effective. Surely there are other means to keep a criminal from committing a gun crime.

Either way let's hope that if the Supreme Court rules that Chicago's gun ban ordinance is unconstitutional that we can actually have a debate on whether or not it's been effective. Hopefully no one will get shut out of this debate either.

Also Ald. Lyle is right. We want to hear not only from people who are opposed to gun control, but also from those who are in favor of gun control. So let Mr. Vernon have his meeting at a venue of his choosing and the same for those who are in favor of gun control.

Clout City: City Council Hearing Turns Into Rally For Handgun Ban

Photo from Chicago Reader by Sam Adams

This post from Clout City had been posted last Friday. It was about a city council hearing held by the police and fire committee with regards to the Chicago gun ban being challenged by the US Supreme Court. BTW, that ruling is expected today!

Ald. Lyle is noted in this piece, but if you're concerned about the gun ban this piece by Mick Dumke is worth a good read when you get the first opportunity. Also note Mick Dumke was the reporter whom Mayor Daley went off on last month when he dared to ask the Mayor whether or not this gun ban had actually been effective.

But from its opening moments, the hearing became a platform for city officials, gun control advocates, and community activists to argue that the city needs to continue to find ways to keep Chicagoans from legally acquiring guns. In nearly two hours of testimony, not one witness raised questions about the utility of the gun ban or other gun restrictions, nor did anyone discuss other potential causes of violence—even though Chicago averages several shootings a day even with the ban in place.

Police committee chairman Anthony Beale, alderman of the Ninth Ward, said there was no need to hear from opponents of the ban, or even skeptics. “I think anybody who’s fighting common-sense gun legislation will be considered the bad guy,” he said. “We’re trying to make our streets safer.”
...
Still, you didn’t have to be a card-carrying member of the NRA to find the discussion strangely lopsided.
“I was waiting to hear from someone from the other side that I could argue with,” Sixth Ward alderman Freddrenna Lyle said afterward.

That’s not to say that those who did speak didn’t make compelling points.

Robyn Thomas, executive director of the San Francisco-based Legal Community Against Violence, told the handful of aldermen present—the number in attendance varied from nine to two—that even if the ban is struck down later this month, the council could enact ordinances requiring more stringent training and registration requirements. Harvard University economist David Hemenway summarized a number of studies linking legal access to guns with higher rates of accidental deaths, suicides, and even robberies and burglaries.


And it was impossible not to be moved by the appeals of several parents whose children have been killed by guns in the last few years. “I’m asking that, if the gun ban is lifted, that we put a strict law in place requiring that the guns have to be locked up in people’s homes,” said Pamela Montgomery-Bosley, whose 18-year-old son Terrell was slain in 2006.

But the origins and point of the hearing—aside from promoting the city's anti-violence strategy—remain unclear.
...
When I asked her if the gun ban is really doing anything about violence, she sighed. Lyle’s ward has been the site of some of the most horrifying gun incidents of the last few months, including the killing of a police officer in May. She actually agreed with much of what [Richard Pearson executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association] argued—that the murders are the result of a “perfect storm” of things, including gang disputes, a crumbling economy, high dropout rates, family instability, and government welfare policies.

“People are looking for short answers but there is no short answer,” she said. “So in the short run all we can do is talk to people about how to stay safe, and one way is to try to keep guns off the street.”

Well, whenever we know the Supreme Court ruling on this issue we shall see what the city will come up with.

Showdown in handgun ban

However the US Supreme Court will decide this issue may well affect us in the City of Chicago.

I want to expose my bias here. I would support any attempt to take aim at the handgun ban as I support the 2nd Amendment. Banning guns doesn't necessarily make citizens safer as it is my belief that there are those citizens who would disregard any gun ban for their own aims mainly criminal aims. Law abiding citizens should have the right if they so choose to own and possess a gun on the confines of their own property.

That being said here's a report from FOX Chicago on a grandfather from Morgan Park who is the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court case on Chicago's gun ban:

Here's another article from Greg Hinz at Crain's Chicago Business:

Look for a big crowd —and some verrry contentious debate — on Tuesday morning when the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments on whether to overturn Chicago's ordinance banning most private possession of handguns in the city.

The 30-year-old measure has intense local support. Not only Mayor Richard M. Daley but four area members of Congress joined Chicago police chief Jody Weis on Monday at a press conference defending the law.

But most insiders expect the court to veto the law as it overturned a similar statute in Washington, D.C., a year ago. The only real question likely is how far the court goes to affect related laws, such as measures limiting who can carry concealed weapons on the street.

This is also of note from that piece:

As Mr. Daley put it, "Cities and states should be able to decide for themselves how to protect their citizens."

Well while I think I should be allowed to own a handgun at home, I can't disagree with that. The question that should be answered is how far should a city or state go in banning guns? Should there be a total ban allowed or can it be decided that gun owners shouldn't own certain types of guns?

There are those strict constructionists who believe in the text of the 2nd Amendment which says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I understand that people will look at the term "militia" and then assume that this means a collective right. That you have to sign up for the Reserves or the National Guard or something like that in order to bear arms. Indeed there are those who have more trust in military or police to handle guns in our society. Although there are those who may have little faith or trust in our military personnel or the police to handle their weapons and their authority to use arms.

If I was to read that literally I see a distinction between the people versus a militia. If it's a collective right as written and adopted not long after the 1789 ratification of the US Constitution (the Bill of Rights including the 2nd Amendment was adopted in 1791) then why mention the people at all. Surely there is a decent explanation for that even if it's in some past definition of terms as the English has evolved since 1789.

BTW, I want to note the Chicago Tribune. On my own blog I wrote about Mr. McDonald bouncing off of a Tribune article from January:

Amid the clamor of the gun-rights debate, McDonald presents a strongly sympathetic figure: an elderly man who wants a gun to protect himself from the hoodlums preying upon his neighborhood. But the story of McDonald and his lawsuit is more complicated than its broad outlines might suggest. McDonald and three co-plaintiffs were carefully recruited by gun-rights groups attempting to shift the public perception of the Second Amendment as a white, rural Republican issue. McDonald, a Democrat and longtime hunter, jokes that he was chosen as lead plaintiff because he is African-American.

And no matter what the court — and the public — might make of his story or his case, legal experts say McDonald is poised to become an enduring symbol.

"Regardless of how this case goes, Mr. McDonald's name is set in legal history, at the same level as Roe v. Wade and Plessy v. Ferguson," said Nicholas Johnson, a law professor at Fordham University. "Schoolkids are going to recognize that in this case, something dramatic happened."

Read the whole thing while it's still available. It's a good story.

I also want to note that in the Republican gubernatorial primary, the entire field supports concealed carry in our state. Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states in the union where concealed carry isn't the law. The presumed Republican nominee for Governor, Bill Brady, is on record as supporting concealed carry in Illinois. 

As always comments are always appreciated. Let's hear your thoughts on whether or not you support gun control or a gun ban in the city. If the Supreme Court overturns Chicago's gun ban ordinances how do YOU think it will affect Chicago.

60619 Safe Zone

A recent comment from a Concerned Chatham Resident in the post regarding the shooting at 79th & King Dr.:

State Representative Andre Thapedi came to the WIM meeting yesterday and discussed his House Bill 1966 that creates a "Safe Zone" within the 60619 zip code. He intends to ban "assault weapons" in our community to quell some of this violence. He said that St. Rep. Connie Howard also supports the Bill.

While this may not be the sole solution, we should support what Reprentatives Thapedi and Howard are doing. We should start marching, calling the media, and doing whatever it takes to re-claim our streets.

Kudos ... St. Rep. Andre Thapedi!

You can read more about that bill here.

To be honest I'm not sure this is the answer. The typical cliche you might hear from those who are against gun control is that criminals don't care about the law, they'll break it. If it's in their best interest to break gun prohibitions then that's what they'll do.

At the same time, I'm not sure why anyone would need an "assault weapon". To me I read assault weapons as a machine gun such as the type typically used in the military. The category itself is broad and the bill itself says assualt weapon or .50 caliber rifle.

All the same I believe that if we really want to take back the streets, then gun control can't be an answer. It's an answer now, but we still have shootings in our streets. No one should have any problems with a responsible person owning a gun for the protection of themselves and their property.

Anyway, I think I can appreciate the spirit of this law. Perhaps we can get some of these guns off the street that might be used in the commission of a crime. We can really put some years onto those who use such a weapon in the commission of crime in addition to whatever other charges they may already have beyond the possession of an assault weapon.

To be honest I would really like to see the debate on this one. Does anyone else has an opinion either in favor or against this bill? What would you like to see done in order to curb the incidents of gun violence in our neighborhoods?

House panel approves anti-gun measures in advance of pro-gun lobbying effort

Clout St:

Hours before busloads of gun rights advocates are scheduled to descend on the Capitol, a House committee today advanced a series of measures designed to increase gun control in Illinois.

Among the restrictions approved by the House Executive Committee include an assault weapons ban and legislation allowing only one gun purchase a month. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley perenially pushes for such gun crackdowns due to continued violence in some city neighborhoods.
...
Shortly before 2 p.m. gun rights backers are scheduled to finish their march to the Capitol to lobby lawmakers on issues such as letting people carry concealed weapons. It's part of the Illinois State Rifle Association's annual lobby day.

Supporters of tough gun restrictions want to crack down on the availability of weapons in a society marred by shooting rampages that have left a trail of death at Northern Illinois University, a Baptist church in Downstate Maryville and on the streets of Chicago.

But gun rights advocates argue that making guns more available will cause criminals to think twice before they turn ordinary citizens into the latest victims of gun crimes.

Richard Pearson, executive director of the rifle association, said he expects more than 5,000 gun owners to visit Springfield because they are "seeing legislation that attacks their rights, and they're not happy about it."

The group is particularly fired up following last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban as unconstitutional, prompting a similar pending challenge to Chicago's own ban.

In Illinois, the pressure this year is targeted at legislation to let citizens carry concealed weapons with training and a permit. Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states banning such action, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Federal Judge upholds Chicago's handgun ban

Sun-Times:

A federal judge today upheld Chicago’s 1982 handgun ban as Mayor Daley disclosed plans to strengthen it by following Washington D.C.’s lead.

In a 5-to-4 decision in June, the Supreme Court overturned the D.C. handgun ban on grounds that the Second Amendment establishes the right to own a handgun for personal self-defense.

Hours later, the National Rifle Association and the Illinois State Rifle Association filed lawsuits seeking to overturn handgun bans in Chicago, Morton Grove, Evanston and Oak Park. Wilmette and Morton Grove subsequently repealed their handgun bans. Chicago held fast.

Today, U.S. District Judge Milton Shadur rewarded the city for hanging tough, rejecting a pair of lawsuits challenging Chicago’s handgun freeze.

The Daley administration was pleased, but “not surprised” by the decision. City attorneys are well aware that the fight goes on.

Via Newsalert!

Chicago Defies the Second Amendment

Steve Chapman:

Since the Supreme Court upheld the individual right to own guns last summer, one municipality with handgun bans after another has faced reality. Washington, which lost the case, changed its law. Morton Grove repealed its ban. So did Wilmette. Likewise for Evanston. Last week, Winnetka followed suit.

Then there is Chicago, which is being sued for violating the 2nd Amendment but refuses to confront the possibility that what the Supreme Court said may apply to this side of the Appalachians.

When it comes to firearms, Mayor Richard Daley is no slave to rationality. "Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society?" he asked after the ruling came down. "Then why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West, where you have a gun and I have a gun and we'll settle it in the streets?"

From listening to him, you might assume that the only places in North America that don't have firefights on a daily basis are cities that outlaw handguns. You might also assume that Chicago is an oasis of concord, rather than the site of 443 homicides last year.

So it's no surprise that Daley refuses to make the slightest change to the handgun ordinance, preferring to fight the lawsuits filed by the National Rifle Association. He is not impressed that 1) the law almost certainly violates the Constitution, which elected officials are supposed to uphold, and 2) it would cost taxpayers a lot of money to fight lawsuits the city is bound to lose.

Read the whole thing. Via Newsalert!

3 counties have "concealed carry" referendum

AP:

Ballots in Woodford, LaSalle and McDonough counties will feature a referendum that asks whether the state should enact so-called "concealed-carry" legislation.

The referendum is advisory only. Voters will not be deciding whether individual counties should adopt those rights, but whether state legislators should bring the issue to a vote.

Advocates of the legislation say such a law is long overdue in Illinois, which is 1 of only two states that haven't passed some form of the statute.

Worth noting here because this blog discusses state and local political. Also I think responsible citizens should be able to have a gun. Unfortunately fearmongering is probably more important and it doesn't help with events not much different than what happened on the 71 bus last weekend.

Is the gun control debate really about race?

I'm not a proponent of gun control, but I want to share this post over at Illinoize from Yellow Dog Democrat. Something to consider although I haven't seen a lot of chatter on gun control or DC v. Heller fallout in a while. Just something to consider.