NRA-ILA :: Chicago: Shootings rampant despite gun ban
Shared via AddThis
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Shortshank's Waterloo ????
August 25, 2009
Daley hears critics on Olympics, budget, parking
Posted by Dan Mihalopoulos at 11:01 p.m.
Mayor Richard Daley fielded complaints about crime, the city’s Olympics bid and the parking-meter controversy Tuesday night during a packed public hearing on the South Side, but he offered little direct response to his critics.
In a short speech that was received with a mixture of cheers and jeers, Daley defended his oft-criticized deal to lease the city’s parking meters to a private company. He called it a financial bonanza for the city but said “the implementation was not good at all from the city’s side.”
“I know that, you know that,” Daley said.
The mayor stopped short of an apology—a point noted by some critics in the audience. He also skipped over harsher language that was in the prepared remarks his staff gave to reporters—in that script he was to say “we screwed up the way it was implemented.”
Parking rates went up as a result of the switch, which also was plagued with widespread technical problems for motorists.
The meeting was the first of three hearings that are held annually by the mayor in the run-up to the release of his budget plan. While Daley warned participants to “respect one another,” the session was at times turbulent.
Daley did not directly respond as several critical speakers unloaded, but mayoral aides later approached them quietly to discuss their concerns.
Some in the crowd expressed concerns the mayor places a higher priority on the bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics than on problems in neighborhoods.
“The crime rate is so high, we would be an embarrassment for the United States,” said South Side resident Michelle Dixon-Holmes. “People will be gentrified away from their homes for a two-week event.”
Daley smiled but did not answer when she noted that Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis has makes a higher salary than the president and asked if Weis would continue to work at that pay rate if the city’s 2016 bid fails.
Carol Smith, an activist for the mentally ill, blasted the mayor for closing the decision to close mental health centers.
“Why should people who have mental health problems suffer because the administration screwed up?” she asked Daley. “I want an answer right now.”
Daley sat stone-faced for several seconds as many in the audience yelled for him to reply. Finally, the city budget director said the health commissioner, who sat at the front table with other members of Daley’s Cabinet, would address the question. But he did not immediately answer, and Smith walked from the microphone.
Melvin Slater, one of dozens who signed up to speak, pressed for financial details that the city has not released as part of the preliminary budget, such as the amount paid by the administration to settle lawsuits against police.
The crowd jeered and laughed when budget director Eugene Munin replied, “We’ll have somebody talk to you.”
A mayoral aide approached Slater as he left the room at the South Shore Cultural Center and spoke with him for several minutes. But Slater said he was disappointed that there were fewer details available at the time of the hearing. Without more information, he said, “Then it’s just for show.”
In some cases, the speakers seemed more intent on making a comment than getting an answer.
"The words 'I'm sorry' never came out of the mayor's mouth regarding the parking fiasco," said Ted Seals, a member of the Grand Crossing Park Neighborhood Network who left the room after making his comment.
As he walked away, Seals added, "I was told we were going to have a great apology tonight. I didn't hear anything like that. It was more of a vindication."
Many of the comments centered on the Olympics, including a plea for funding from Queen Sister, who heads a community group in the predominantly black Roseland neighborhood called It Takes A Village.
She suggested that Daley places higher priority on the Olympic bid than on the problems of her neighborhood.
"You talk about bringing forth the Olympics, a multi-cultural event, when in the city African culture and black pride is being denied," she said, with 30 young men from her group standing behind her in bright yellow shirts.
"I am so damn tired of hearing about the Olympics," added Judith Rodgers, who lives near the proposed Olympic stadium at Washington Park.
She said venue construction is "going to tear up Washington Park, which is a black park."
Sharon Payne of the Woodlawn neighborhood said only "big wigs" want the games in Chicago.
"We can't afford it, sir," she told Daley. "Please think this over again."
The mayor smiled tightly and said nothing but "thank you" at the end of her remarks.
The last word went to an Olympic backer.
"Our community is in full support of 2016," said Leonard McGee, president of The Gap Community Organization on the Near South Side and the last speaker of the night. "2016 - bring it on.'
The mayor will do it all again on Wednesday and Thursday. The schedule is below.
Wednesday: Central West Regional Center, 2102 W. Ogden Ave.
Thursday: Laughlin Falconer Elementary School, 3020 N. Lamon Ave.
Hearings begin at 7:00 p.m. Those wishing to speak should be there early for registration from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
dmihalopoulos@tribune.com
Posted at 11:02:40 PM in Chicago politics, Mayor of Chicago, Olympics
Daley hears critics on Olympics, budget, parking
Posted by Dan Mihalopoulos at 11:01 p.m.
Mayor Richard Daley fielded complaints about crime, the city’s Olympics bid and the parking-meter controversy Tuesday night during a packed public hearing on the South Side, but he offered little direct response to his critics.
In a short speech that was received with a mixture of cheers and jeers, Daley defended his oft-criticized deal to lease the city’s parking meters to a private company. He called it a financial bonanza for the city but said “the implementation was not good at all from the city’s side.”
“I know that, you know that,” Daley said.
The mayor stopped short of an apology—a point noted by some critics in the audience. He also skipped over harsher language that was in the prepared remarks his staff gave to reporters—in that script he was to say “we screwed up the way it was implemented.”
Parking rates went up as a result of the switch, which also was plagued with widespread technical problems for motorists.
The meeting was the first of three hearings that are held annually by the mayor in the run-up to the release of his budget plan. While Daley warned participants to “respect one another,” the session was at times turbulent.
Daley did not directly respond as several critical speakers unloaded, but mayoral aides later approached them quietly to discuss their concerns.
Some in the crowd expressed concerns the mayor places a higher priority on the bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics than on problems in neighborhoods.
“The crime rate is so high, we would be an embarrassment for the United States,” said South Side resident Michelle Dixon-Holmes. “People will be gentrified away from their homes for a two-week event.”
Daley smiled but did not answer when she noted that Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis has makes a higher salary than the president and asked if Weis would continue to work at that pay rate if the city’s 2016 bid fails.
Carol Smith, an activist for the mentally ill, blasted the mayor for closing the decision to close mental health centers.
“Why should people who have mental health problems suffer because the administration screwed up?” she asked Daley. “I want an answer right now.”
Daley sat stone-faced for several seconds as many in the audience yelled for him to reply. Finally, the city budget director said the health commissioner, who sat at the front table with other members of Daley’s Cabinet, would address the question. But he did not immediately answer, and Smith walked from the microphone.
Melvin Slater, one of dozens who signed up to speak, pressed for financial details that the city has not released as part of the preliminary budget, such as the amount paid by the administration to settle lawsuits against police.
The crowd jeered and laughed when budget director Eugene Munin replied, “We’ll have somebody talk to you.”
A mayoral aide approached Slater as he left the room at the South Shore Cultural Center and spoke with him for several minutes. But Slater said he was disappointed that there were fewer details available at the time of the hearing. Without more information, he said, “Then it’s just for show.”
In some cases, the speakers seemed more intent on making a comment than getting an answer.
"The words 'I'm sorry' never came out of the mayor's mouth regarding the parking fiasco," said Ted Seals, a member of the Grand Crossing Park Neighborhood Network who left the room after making his comment.
As he walked away, Seals added, "I was told we were going to have a great apology tonight. I didn't hear anything like that. It was more of a vindication."
Many of the comments centered on the Olympics, including a plea for funding from Queen Sister, who heads a community group in the predominantly black Roseland neighborhood called It Takes A Village.
She suggested that Daley places higher priority on the Olympic bid than on the problems of her neighborhood.
"You talk about bringing forth the Olympics, a multi-cultural event, when in the city African culture and black pride is being denied," she said, with 30 young men from her group standing behind her in bright yellow shirts.
"I am so damn tired of hearing about the Olympics," added Judith Rodgers, who lives near the proposed Olympic stadium at Washington Park.
She said venue construction is "going to tear up Washington Park, which is a black park."
Sharon Payne of the Woodlawn neighborhood said only "big wigs" want the games in Chicago.
"We can't afford it, sir," she told Daley. "Please think this over again."
The mayor smiled tightly and said nothing but "thank you" at the end of her remarks.
The last word went to an Olympic backer.
"Our community is in full support of 2016," said Leonard McGee, president of The Gap Community Organization on the Near South Side and the last speaker of the night. "2016 - bring it on.'
The mayor will do it all again on Wednesday and Thursday. The schedule is below.
Wednesday: Central West Regional Center, 2102 W. Ogden Ave.
Thursday: Laughlin Falconer Elementary School, 3020 N. Lamon Ave.
Hearings begin at 7:00 p.m. Those wishing to speak should be there early for registration from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
dmihalopoulos@tribune.com
Posted at 11:02:40 PM in Chicago politics, Mayor of Chicago, Olympics
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Hope on the horizon !
Second Amendment cases up early
Friday, August 21st, 2009 3:04 pm | Lyle Denniston | Tags: Maloney, McDonald v. Chicago, NRA v. Chicago, Second Amendment | Print This Post
Email this • Share on Facebook • Share on LinkedIn • Digg This!
The Supreme Court will consider two new cases on the scope of individuals’ Second Amendment right to have guns at its first Conference for the new Term, on Sept. 29, according to the Court’s electronic docket. Both petitions challenge a Seventh Circuit Court ruling that the Amendment does not restrict gun control laws adopted by state, county or city government, but applies only to federal laws. The cases are National Rifle Association v. Chicago (08-1497) and McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521).
The so-called “incorporation” issue is the most significant sequel issue raised in the wake of the Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing for the first time a personal right to have a gun for self-defense, at least in one’s home.
If the Court agrees to hear the new cases after its first look, that could be announced as early as the day after the Conference — that is, on Wed., Sept. 30. The first Conference of a new Term customarily is held in advance of the Term’s formal opening; this year, the Term starts Oct. 5.
The Court has not yet scheduled a time to consider another pending case on the Second Amendment issue — Maloney v. Rice (08-1592). The response in that case is now due on Aug. 28. The new Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, took part in the Maloney case when she was on the Second Circuit Court. Like the Seventh Circuit, the Second found that the Second Amendment only applies to federal laws. When the Justices consider the Maloney case, Sotomayor is not expected to take part. The fact that she had taken part in a ruling on the issue in one case, however, would not require her to withdraw from considering cases from other Circuits, like the Chicago cases.
Friday, August 21st, 2009 3:04 pm | Lyle Denniston | Tags: Maloney, McDonald v. Chicago, NRA v. Chicago, Second Amendment | Print This Post
Email this • Share on Facebook • Share on LinkedIn • Digg This!
The Supreme Court will consider two new cases on the scope of individuals’ Second Amendment right to have guns at its first Conference for the new Term, on Sept. 29, according to the Court’s electronic docket. Both petitions challenge a Seventh Circuit Court ruling that the Amendment does not restrict gun control laws adopted by state, county or city government, but applies only to federal laws. The cases are National Rifle Association v. Chicago (08-1497) and McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521).
The so-called “incorporation” issue is the most significant sequel issue raised in the wake of the Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing for the first time a personal right to have a gun for self-defense, at least in one’s home.
If the Court agrees to hear the new cases after its first look, that could be announced as early as the day after the Conference — that is, on Wed., Sept. 30. The first Conference of a new Term customarily is held in advance of the Term’s formal opening; this year, the Term starts Oct. 5.
The Court has not yet scheduled a time to consider another pending case on the Second Amendment issue — Maloney v. Rice (08-1592). The response in that case is now due on Aug. 28. The new Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, took part in the Maloney case when she was on the Second Circuit Court. Like the Seventh Circuit, the Second found that the Second Amendment only applies to federal laws. When the Justices consider the Maloney case, Sotomayor is not expected to take part. The fact that she had taken part in a ruling on the issue in one case, however, would not require her to withdraw from considering cases from other Circuits, like the Chicago cases.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Another victim in gun free Chicago.
Woman Bound, Raped On Edge Of Bucktown
Victim Escaped, But Attacker Remains On Loose
CHICAGO (STNG) ― A woman's hands and legs were tied with rope as a man sexually assaulted her on the edge of the trendy Bucktown neighborhood late Tuesday.
The woman escaped her abuser after the assault in the 2400 block of West McLean Avenue just west of Western Avenue, but on Wednesday morning, he was still on the loose.
The victim's hands and legs were bound with rope during the sexual abuse in about 9:15 p.m., according to police.
The woman suffered non-life-threatening injuries and was "shaken up" and hospital information was not available immediately.
The attacker was a man who fled and was not in custody as of 2:25 a.m. Police said the attack was not part of a pattern of similar crimes.
The STNG Wire contributed to this report.
Victim Escaped, But Attacker Remains On Loose
CHICAGO (STNG) ― A woman's hands and legs were tied with rope as a man sexually assaulted her on the edge of the trendy Bucktown neighborhood late Tuesday.
The woman escaped her abuser after the assault in the 2400 block of West McLean Avenue just west of Western Avenue, but on Wednesday morning, he was still on the loose.
The victim's hands and legs were bound with rope during the sexual abuse in about 9:15 p.m., according to police.
The woman suffered non-life-threatening injuries and was "shaken up" and hospital information was not available immediately.
The attacker was a man who fled and was not in custody as of 2:25 a.m. Police said the attack was not part of a pattern of similar crimes.
The STNG Wire contributed to this report.
The walls keep crumbling..
Honorable Michael R. Bloomberg
Mayor of the City of New York
253 Broadway, # 9
New York, New York 10007
Subject: Resignation from Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG)
Dear Mayor Bloomberg,
Upon careful review of your statements and actions, listening to the concerns of many of my constituents and receiving communications from and speaking with firearm industry officials, I hereby, effective immediately, resign my membership in the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition. I am withdrawing because you are attempting to erode all gun ownership, not just illegal guns.
I have learned that the coalition may be working on issues which conflict with legal gun ownership, and that some actions on your behalf are dubious. I joined your coalition because of its purpose to combat the criminal acquisition and misuse of guns, which is a goal shared by every single American. Regrettably, it has become continuously clear to me that you are using this coalition of mayors to advance a hidden agenda of bringing lawsuits against members of the firearms industry and spreading anti-gun propaganda.
Mayor, you and your coalition of allies have misrepresented yourselves to the mayors of America and its citizens. This effort is simply another attempt to shift blame for violent crime from criminals to law-abiding gun owners. This is gun control, not crime prevention. These tactics do not target illegal guns, but rather honest citizens and lawful dealers, essentially criminalizing all gun ownership. This coalition makes no distinction whatsoever between law-abiding gun owners and violent criminals.
Please Mayor Bloomberg, instead of being a part of a misguided coalition and advocating attacks against law-abiding gun owners, I ask you to direct your efforts towards strict enforcement of existing laws in our cities to ensure both our safety and civil rights. I am dedicated in defending and advancing the right of Ohio citizens to own and use firearms for all legal activities, including self-defense and competitions. We need to defend our Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms.
Mayor, I can only hope that you will see my departure and the recent departure of other mayors from your coalition as a sign that things must change. We are all on the same side when it comes to stopping criminals from getting guns. Where you lose me is in your true quest – to end lawful firearms ownership and destroy a lawful American industry.
Warm personal regards,
Marlene B. Anielski, OCPM
Mayor / Safety Director
Village of Walton Hills, Ohio
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6840
Mayor of the City of New York
253 Broadway, # 9
New York, New York 10007
Subject: Resignation from Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG)
Dear Mayor Bloomberg,
Upon careful review of your statements and actions, listening to the concerns of many of my constituents and receiving communications from and speaking with firearm industry officials, I hereby, effective immediately, resign my membership in the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition. I am withdrawing because you are attempting to erode all gun ownership, not just illegal guns.
I have learned that the coalition may be working on issues which conflict with legal gun ownership, and that some actions on your behalf are dubious. I joined your coalition because of its purpose to combat the criminal acquisition and misuse of guns, which is a goal shared by every single American. Regrettably, it has become continuously clear to me that you are using this coalition of mayors to advance a hidden agenda of bringing lawsuits against members of the firearms industry and spreading anti-gun propaganda.
Mayor, you and your coalition of allies have misrepresented yourselves to the mayors of America and its citizens. This effort is simply another attempt to shift blame for violent crime from criminals to law-abiding gun owners. This is gun control, not crime prevention. These tactics do not target illegal guns, but rather honest citizens and lawful dealers, essentially criminalizing all gun ownership. This coalition makes no distinction whatsoever between law-abiding gun owners and violent criminals.
Please Mayor Bloomberg, instead of being a part of a misguided coalition and advocating attacks against law-abiding gun owners, I ask you to direct your efforts towards strict enforcement of existing laws in our cities to ensure both our safety and civil rights. I am dedicated in defending and advancing the right of Ohio citizens to own and use firearms for all legal activities, including self-defense and competitions. We need to defend our Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms.
Mayor, I can only hope that you will see my departure and the recent departure of other mayors from your coalition as a sign that things must change. We are all on the same side when it comes to stopping criminals from getting guns. Where you lose me is in your true quest – to end lawful firearms ownership and destroy a lawful American industry.
Warm personal regards,
Marlene B. Anielski, OCPM
Mayor / Safety Director
Village of Walton Hills, Ohio
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6840
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Why do we need judges ??????????????
Appeals Court: Government Can Require Gun Registration
Font size Print E-mail Share 103 comments Posted by Declan McCullagh
(AP)An appeals court in Chicago has ruled that the federal, state or local government can require all citizens to register their firearms under penalty of law.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said that, even after the Supreme Court's high-profile gun rights decision last year, the Second Amendment is no obstacle to mandatory gun registration.
The case arose out of the Chicago-area town of Cicero's mandatory registration requirement for firearms. A local man named John Justice was raided by the Cicero police on suspicion of violating business ordinances including improper storage of chemicals; the police discovered six unregistered handguns during the raid.
Justice runs the Microcosm laminating company on 55th Ave., which sells special adhesives and does custom coatings for customers, and argued in a civil lawsuit that the local ordinance violated the Second Amendment. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.
In a 3-0 opinion published last Friday, the judges said that this was a different situation from the District of Columbia v. Heller case, which led the Supreme Court to strike down D.C.'s law effectively prohibiting the ownership of handguns.
"There is a critical distinction between the D.C. ordinance struck down in Heller and the Cicero ordinance," the court said in an opinion written by Judge Diane Wood, a Clinton appointee. "Cicero has not prohibited gun possession in the town. Instead, it has merely regulated gun possession under Section 62-260 of its ordinance."
If the court had merely written that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states (a concept called incorporation), this would not have been especially newsworthy. After all, a different three-judge panel from the 7th Circuit already has rejected the incorporation argument.
What's unusual -- and makes this case remarkable -- is that Wood went out of her way to say that even if the Second Amendment does apply to states, mandatory gun registration would be perfectly constitutional. "The town does prohibit the registration of some weapons, but there is no suggestion in the complaint or the record that Justice's guns fall within the group that may not be registered," she wrote. "Nor does Heller purport to invalidate any and every regulation on gun use."
The other judges on the panel were William Bauer, a Ford appointee, and John Tinder, a George W. Bush appointee.
I haven't been able to find the full text of Section 62-260 online (if you can, please send it to me). The Legal Community Against Violence's summary of firearm laws says that in Cicero, "all firearms in the City must be registered prior to taking possession of the firearm" and that registration certificates must be renewed every two years.
Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said in an interview that registration is terrible public policy, especially because world history shows that it often leads to confiscation.
Last week's decision should remind us that Heller won't be the last word on gun rights, Gottlieb said. "It starts building blocks on a foundation -- you don't win everything in one case," he said. "As you and I know, criminals aren't going to register their guns. Prohibited persons aren't going to register their guns. Someone prohibited from owning a gun isn't going to register it. Registration would apply only to law-abiding citizens."
There is no national registration requirement for firearms, although anyone buying a gun from a dealer fills out a Form 4473, which the dealer must keep on file in paper form for 20 years. My home state of California says that all handguns be registered, but it's not as strict as Cicero's requirement (rifles and shotguns are exempt from registration).
David Kopel, research director at the Golden, Colo.-based Independence Institute, said: "I think Heller at least hints that (Cicero's regulation) might be unconstitutional. Registration of non-commercial transactions might be unconstitutional. At least it leaves the question open." (Kopel has pointed out that four Chicago suburbs repealed their handgun bans post-Heller.)
I happened to interview Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, earlier on Wednesday and asked him about what the Heller decision means for gun control. He replied: "Outside D.C.'s gun ban and perhaps Chicago's, there really probably aren't that many gun laws that are going to be affected by Heller. What I've argued is that Heller, in a way, took the extremes off the table. It said you can't have a total gun ban like D.C.'s. They also took the other extreme off the table, which is that anyone can have any gun, anywhere, any time."
Read literally, the Seventh Circuit's decision means that the U.S. Congress could enact a mandatory registration requirement tomorrow -- a law saying that you must report your handguns, rifles, and shotguns to the FBI and ATF or go to prison -- and at least one federal circuit would uphold it as constitutional.
But would the Supreme Court justices? A number of gun cases, including one brought by the National Rifle Association, another out of New York, and a third out of California, are headed in their direction. By next summer we may have an answer.
Update 1:38am ET: A helpful CBSNews.com reader, James E., was kind enough to point me toward the text of the town of Cicero's regulation. You can find it on Municode.com. The interface is awful, but if you poke around on the menus to the left under Chapter 62, Article VI, you'll find it.
It's a remarkable read. Cicero makes it illegal to possess "any slingshot," or any "laser sight accessory." Non-dealer firearm transfers are prohibited. Carrying a "concealed" knife is prohibited. The unlicensed sale of a "Bowie knife" is prohibited. A quick read shows that it is illegal to "fire or discharge any gun, pistol or other firearm within the town" except at licensed shooting ranges -- which I imagine poses a problem for residents hoping to use a gun for legitimate self-defense.
Anyway, the portion relevant to today's story says: "All firearms in the town shall be registered in accordance with this division. It shall be the duty of a person owning or possessing a firearm to cause such firearm to be registered. No person shall within the town possess, harbor, have under his control, transfer, offer for sale, sell, give, deliver, or accept any firearm unless such person is the holder of a valid registration certificate for such firearm. No person shall, within the town, possess, harbor, have under his control, transfer, offer for sale, sell, give, deliver, or accept any firearm which is unregisterable under this division." (Police, of course, are exempt.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBSNews.com. He can be reached at declan@cbsnews.com. You can bookmark the Taking Liberties site here, or subscribe to the RSS feed.
Tags: second amendment
Topics: Gun Rights
Font size Print E-mail Share 103 comments Posted by Declan McCullagh
(AP)An appeals court in Chicago has ruled that the federal, state or local government can require all citizens to register their firearms under penalty of law.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said that, even after the Supreme Court's high-profile gun rights decision last year, the Second Amendment is no obstacle to mandatory gun registration.
The case arose out of the Chicago-area town of Cicero's mandatory registration requirement for firearms. A local man named John Justice was raided by the Cicero police on suspicion of violating business ordinances including improper storage of chemicals; the police discovered six unregistered handguns during the raid.
Justice runs the Microcosm laminating company on 55th Ave., which sells special adhesives and does custom coatings for customers, and argued in a civil lawsuit that the local ordinance violated the Second Amendment. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.
In a 3-0 opinion published last Friday, the judges said that this was a different situation from the District of Columbia v. Heller case, which led the Supreme Court to strike down D.C.'s law effectively prohibiting the ownership of handguns.
"There is a critical distinction between the D.C. ordinance struck down in Heller and the Cicero ordinance," the court said in an opinion written by Judge Diane Wood, a Clinton appointee. "Cicero has not prohibited gun possession in the town. Instead, it has merely regulated gun possession under Section 62-260 of its ordinance."
If the court had merely written that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states (a concept called incorporation), this would not have been especially newsworthy. After all, a different three-judge panel from the 7th Circuit already has rejected the incorporation argument.
What's unusual -- and makes this case remarkable -- is that Wood went out of her way to say that even if the Second Amendment does apply to states, mandatory gun registration would be perfectly constitutional. "The town does prohibit the registration of some weapons, but there is no suggestion in the complaint or the record that Justice's guns fall within the group that may not be registered," she wrote. "Nor does Heller purport to invalidate any and every regulation on gun use."
The other judges on the panel were William Bauer, a Ford appointee, and John Tinder, a George W. Bush appointee.
I haven't been able to find the full text of Section 62-260 online (if you can, please send it to me). The Legal Community Against Violence's summary of firearm laws says that in Cicero, "all firearms in the City must be registered prior to taking possession of the firearm" and that registration certificates must be renewed every two years.
Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said in an interview that registration is terrible public policy, especially because world history shows that it often leads to confiscation.
Last week's decision should remind us that Heller won't be the last word on gun rights, Gottlieb said. "It starts building blocks on a foundation -- you don't win everything in one case," he said. "As you and I know, criminals aren't going to register their guns. Prohibited persons aren't going to register their guns. Someone prohibited from owning a gun isn't going to register it. Registration would apply only to law-abiding citizens."
There is no national registration requirement for firearms, although anyone buying a gun from a dealer fills out a Form 4473, which the dealer must keep on file in paper form for 20 years. My home state of California says that all handguns be registered, but it's not as strict as Cicero's requirement (rifles and shotguns are exempt from registration).
David Kopel, research director at the Golden, Colo.-based Independence Institute, said: "I think Heller at least hints that (Cicero's regulation) might be unconstitutional. Registration of non-commercial transactions might be unconstitutional. At least it leaves the question open." (Kopel has pointed out that four Chicago suburbs repealed their handgun bans post-Heller.)
I happened to interview Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, earlier on Wednesday and asked him about what the Heller decision means for gun control. He replied: "Outside D.C.'s gun ban and perhaps Chicago's, there really probably aren't that many gun laws that are going to be affected by Heller. What I've argued is that Heller, in a way, took the extremes off the table. It said you can't have a total gun ban like D.C.'s. They also took the other extreme off the table, which is that anyone can have any gun, anywhere, any time."
Read literally, the Seventh Circuit's decision means that the U.S. Congress could enact a mandatory registration requirement tomorrow -- a law saying that you must report your handguns, rifles, and shotguns to the FBI and ATF or go to prison -- and at least one federal circuit would uphold it as constitutional.
But would the Supreme Court justices? A number of gun cases, including one brought by the National Rifle Association, another out of New York, and a third out of California, are headed in their direction. By next summer we may have an answer.
Update 1:38am ET: A helpful CBSNews.com reader, James E., was kind enough to point me toward the text of the town of Cicero's regulation. You can find it on Municode.com. The interface is awful, but if you poke around on the menus to the left under Chapter 62, Article VI, you'll find it.
It's a remarkable read. Cicero makes it illegal to possess "any slingshot," or any "laser sight accessory." Non-dealer firearm transfers are prohibited. Carrying a "concealed" knife is prohibited. The unlicensed sale of a "Bowie knife" is prohibited. A quick read shows that it is illegal to "fire or discharge any gun, pistol or other firearm within the town" except at licensed shooting ranges -- which I imagine poses a problem for residents hoping to use a gun for legitimate self-defense.
Anyway, the portion relevant to today's story says: "All firearms in the town shall be registered in accordance with this division. It shall be the duty of a person owning or possessing a firearm to cause such firearm to be registered. No person shall within the town possess, harbor, have under his control, transfer, offer for sale, sell, give, deliver, or accept any firearm unless such person is the holder of a valid registration certificate for such firearm. No person shall, within the town, possess, harbor, have under his control, transfer, offer for sale, sell, give, deliver, or accept any firearm which is unregisterable under this division." (Police, of course, are exempt.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBSNews.com. He can be reached at declan@cbsnews.com. You can bookmark the Taking Liberties site here, or subscribe to the RSS feed.
Tags: second amendment
Topics: Gun Rights
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Friday, August 7, 2009
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Monday, August 3, 2009
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Pro second amendment groups attend National Urban League/Black Womans Expo
The Illinois State Rifle Association,Congress of Racial Equality (C.O.R.E) and the Second Amendment Sisters, had a positive impact on this weekends activities.
The people have spoken loud and clear , Illinois needs CCW and needs it now ! We had a couple detractors,but believe me they were very few and far between.
Thanks to everyone who made this event possible !
The people have spoken loud and clear , Illinois needs CCW and needs it now ! We had a couple detractors,but believe me they were very few and far between.
Thanks to everyone who made this event possible !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
