Supreme Court Shoots Down Chicago Gun Law

[AppleBonker]

Here's the actual link to Daley's/Chicago's gun plan http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD9GMEC7O1

Which, by the way, is still absolutely ludicrous. I have a couple of major complaints with the ordinance (having lived near Chicago all my life, I feel I have a decent understanding of the laws and restrictions).

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.

This is simply absurd. It is my house, which is private property. How is it acceptable for the city to tell me how to maintain my guns? What is next? What else will they try to control when I am in the privacy of my own home? I should probably stop drinking in there too, as some may find it offensive (then again, Daley wants alcohol made more accessible in Ohare airport, so clearly there is some disconnect between regulations and safety concerns).

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.

Ok, so I live in the city and I want to buy a handgun. Here are the steps required:

1. Obtain an Illinois firearm owner's permit (FOID)
2. Travel to the suburbs to buy a handgun
3. Wait 3-day "cooling-off" period
4. Leave gun in the suburbs (most shops rent storage lockers around Chicago) or
5. Schedule training course for the day I am picking up my gun
6. Complete course
7. Mail in Chicago permit documents (keep gun in storage in the suburbs)
8. Receive city permit
9. Return to suburbs to retrieve handgun

Doesn't this seem a bit much? Not to mention the number of people in the city that don't own any form of personal transportation. But if you don't have a FOID card today, it would probably take upwards of 6 months to complete all of this. Talk about making residents jump through hoops.

[bigbadberry3]

The most interesting case against it that I've run into is what about homeless people and guns? Guns according to the ordinance must stay within the owner's house so ya wrap your head around that. I still support the new restrictions.

[AppleBonker]

Legitimately homeless people will have a hard time affording a gun anyway. I don't remember what it costs for a FOID card, but tack on $100 for a city permit (every 3 years), $25 to register a handgun (every 3 years), plus the cost of the training and the firearm and this should be far too expensive for a homeless person to afford.

I'm still not sure what the restrictions solve, though. I still don't believe the criminals will be registering guns and getting Chicago permits. So once again all this is doing is making things harder on decent, law-abiding citizens. I'm seriously not trying to be an a**, but why support this? What do you feel the benefit is?

[bigbadberry3]

Applebonker you don't sound like an a** at all. I think that the precautions to getting guns will keep some people who shouldnt own a gun from owning a gun with little effect on those who want to own a gun. Yes I know those who want a gun will need to spend some time to own a gun, but the steps aren't that extreme.

People break the law in many ways. Guns, drugs, heck even speeding is illegal and deadly but we still have laws to TRY and limit the damages.

[AZhitman]

I think that the precautions to getting guns will keep some people who shouldnt own a gun from owning a gun...

You could think that. And you'd be wrong.

Those precautions are followed ONLY by law-abiding citizens. The people that you're thinking of, the ones you think SHOULDN'T own a gun, are NOT buying them at the local gun shop. They're buying them on the street, off Craigslist, in the classifieds, or from a friend. Fact.

...with little effect on those who want to own a gun. Yes I know those who want a gun will need to spend some time to own a gun, but the steps aren't that extreme.

Doesn't work that way. You're not the authority on how much infringement I should have to tolerate.

When a person is detained by the police, whether it be for a split second or four hours, the aggrievement is the same. Their detention, if unlawful, is still unconstitutional. So, where is the ACLU on this matter? Why are they not protesting these "not very extreme" inconveniences and obstacles to my Constitutional rights?

Better yet, why aren't YOU outraged about it? Oh. I see. Because it's about something you personally don't care for. If it were freedom of expression, press, religion, etc, you'd be up in arms.

(Yes, I recognize this is pushing the envelope - but it's the VERY argument that Liberals have used all along, so they need to get used to having it tossed back in their faces).

[IBCoupe]

Those precautions are followed ONLY by law-abiding citizens.

I've seen this argument before. It assumes that there aren't law-abiding citizens who shouldn't own guns. My buddy John has never broken a law in his life. He has paranoid schizophrenia, too.

But even if it were the case that gun control laws were entirely ineffective because the only people liable to harm others with guns aren't likely to obey the gun control laws, that's a fantastic scenario. That's one more thing you can get them on, prior to their harming people with guns. Crime prevention at its best!

[bigbadberry3]

You could think that. And you'd be wrong.

Those precautions are followed ONLY by law-abiding citizens. The people that you're thinking of, the ones you think SHOULDN'T own a gun, are NOT buying them at the local gun shop. They're buying them on the street, off Craigslist, in the classifieds, or from a friend. Fact.

So would you rather that we just let people buy guns willy nilly? No ifs ands or buts just gimme that gun?

Better yet, why aren't YOU outraged about it? Oh. I see. Because it's about something you personally don't care for. If it were freedom of expression, press, religion, etc, you'd be up in arms.

(Yes, I recognize this is pushing the envelope - but it's the VERY argument that Liberals have used all along, so they need to get used to having it tossed back in their faces).

Like you've never been indiffernt to something that has very little impact on yourself.

[AZhitman]

So would you rather that we just let people buy guns willy nilly? No ifs ands or buts just gimme that gun?

That's not what I said. But that's like saying marijuana should continue to be illegal. You're spending millions to enforce something that's completely ineffective.

Like you've never been indiffernt to something that has very little impact on yourself.

Let's not evade the question. This isn't about me.

Gun laws have little to no impact on me, as I'm not a gun owner. Kinda renders the "I know you are but what am I" reasoning moot.

[mattblancarte]

Gun laws affect everyone, regardless of ownership status.

Personally, I think that we've got a pretty good system in most states going. I was 100% okay with AZ gun laws when I lived there, and I'm 100% okay with WA gun laws.

Criminals don't like to deal with armed citizens, and I'd like it to stay that way.

[stebo0728]

Criminals don't like to deal with armed citizens, and I'd like it to stay that way.

Fantastic point!

But even if it were the case that gun control laws were entirely ineffective because the only people liable to harm others with guns aren't likely to obey the gun control laws, that's a fantastic scenario. That's one more thing you can get them on, prior to their harming people with guns. Crime prevention at its best!

That exactly the case, and I say again as in a previous post. Studies have been done, and research shows, people who lawfully own a gun DO NOT commit gun crimes. Sure you can find 1 guy here, and 2 crazy women here, but the percentage of gun crimes committed by legal gun carriers approaches nil.

Im all for safety classes (who writes the curriculum?) and Im all for background checks, consideration of medical condition, mental condition, previous domestic dispute instances even, but gun laws are like car door locks. They only keep the honest car thieves out of your car.

[AppleBonker]

I'm pretty sure all states run a background check before selling guns. It checks for violent background and felony convictions. Also, there is a question on the form asking if you've ever been diagnosed with a mental condition. Falsifying those forms is also a felony if I remember correctly. But criminals will not jump through hoops. The more requirements there are, the harder it is on law-abiding citizens. That's the only thing I've been trying to say.

[AZhitman]

Well-said.

[IBCoupe]

That exactly the case, and I say again as in a previous post. Studies have been done, and research shows, people who lawfully own a gun DO NOT commit gun crimes. Sure you can find 1 guy here, and 2 crazy women here, but the percentage of gun crimes committed by legal gun carriers approaches nil.

It sounds to me like gun control, for the most part, is working. There's more than one inference that can be drawn from the same facts you're pointing to.

Im all for safety classes (who writes the curriculum?) and Im all for background checks, consideration of medical condition, mental condition, previous domestic dispute instances even, but gun laws are like car door locks. They only keep the honest car thieves out of your car.

I'd suggest that they only keep the least clever of car thieves out of your car. It has nothing to do with honesty. That a system of checks isn't a cure-all is not an effective argument against having a system of checks. Admittedly, you're going to pains to avoid arguing that we shouldn't have gun control at all, but you're effectively telling me that, "Even though I think it's almost entirely ineffective, I'm in favor of having gun control."

The more requirements there are, the harder it is on law-abiding citizens. That's the only thing I've been trying to say

I understand what you're saying. Yes, criminals won't jump through hoops, but once again, there are two points to consider:
1. Some law-abiding citizens shouldn't have guns, and gun control serves to keep guns away from those law-abiding citizens.
2. A criminal that commits victimless, but punishable, crimes prior to committing a violent crime is a good thing - it increases the chances that they'll be caught and prosecuted before they actually commit a violent crime.

[stebo0728]

Sounds like we're arguing around the same maypole here. If your argument is that gun control works for controlling people who subject themselves to the control, then you would be right. But those people have never been the problem, or the root of the gun violence. The problem we are supposed to be trying to correct is gun violence, which comes primarily from people who wouldnt subject themselves to gun control no matter what the controls were.

[AZhitman]

...and those controls (the ones IBCoupe is concerned about) will remain in place. So, there's nothing to fret over.

Your friend John (the supposed 100% law-abiding paranoid schizophrenic) would STILL have to disclose his Dx prior to purchasing a gun.

[AppleBonker]

Greg is right. As soon has your friend claims to NOT have any mental conditions, he is breaking the law. I'm not sure how this is checked on the national background check level, but that system is already in place on a national scale. There doesn't need to be anything more on a state/city/etc level to check for this. It is redundant and a waste of time (and money).

Also, it didn't take long.

[IBCoupe]

But those people have never been the problem, or the root of the gun violence.

Here's where you and I depart: it doesn't follow that people who choose to submit to gun control laws are all predisposed not to commit violence with a gun. Gun control is designed to prevent certain people from buying a gun (legally), and you can't look at the "Nobody who legally owns a gun uses it for violent crime" statistic(ish thing) and assume that nothing's being done. By the very structure of the laws, which make it so that the type of person who can legally get a gun is statistically less likely to commit any violent crime, you're drawing from a very skewed sample. It's not that people who obey gun control laws are less likely to commit other crime. It's that the people who obey gun control laws and can legally buy a gun are less likely to commit other crime. There's a whole portion of the population you're leaving out with the statistic: people who obey gun control laws and can't legally buy a gun.

...and those controls (the ones IBCoupe is concerned about) will remain in place. So, there's nothing to fret over.

Your friend John (the supposed 100% law-abiding paranoid schizophrenic) would STILL have to disclose his Dx prior to purchasing a gun.

I'm not fretting over anything, Greg. I'm not necessarily arguing that we need more gun control. I'm just saying that the arguments that are being presented aren't terribly convincing for the purpose of showing that we don't, or that we need less.

[IBCoupe]

Greg is right. As soon has your friend claims to NOT have any mental conditions, he is breaking the law.

Well, that's my point. There are perfectly law-abiding persons that we don't want to have guns, and gun control laws catch them. Maybe I'm arguing a very nuanced point, but if that's the case, I'm only doing it to disarm the implied "We don't need gun control" statement hidden inside "Gun control doesn't stop a criminal from buying a gun."

[stebo0728]

There's a whole portion of the population you're leaving out with the statistic: people who obey gun control laws and can't legally buy a gun.

This portion of people is not as large as you might think, at least as far as the studies are concerned because the studies go back a few decades, before gun laws became as stringent as they are now, so alot of those people you are referring to were actually still in the "able to own guns" group, and were considered.

You can go all day long with that sort of reasoning, theres also the group of people who CAN legally own a gun and have no desire to, where do they fit in to this?

[AppleBonker]

Greg is right. As soon has your friend claims to NOT have any mental conditions, he is breaking the law.

Well, that's my point. There are perfectly law-abiding persons that we don't want to have guns, and gun control laws catch them. Maybe I'm arguing a very nuanced point, but if that's the case, I'm only doing it to disarm the implied "We don't need gun control" statement hidden inside "Gun control doesn't stop a criminal from buying a gun."

Then we are in agreement. But if the restrictions already exist on the national level, why do we need additional ordinances at a more local level? This is what I'm arguing against. I am perfectly happy with the national background check and other national regulations in place. There are plenty of other states/cities/whatever that do not have these strict requirements, and I don't believe there is a trend showing more gun crime in them. So what is the point? Flexing the city's muscles? Providing unnecessary jobs for more of Daley's cronies? A false (yup, that's right) sense of security? Daley's ego? Honestly, the level of absurdity is fairly astonishing considering the wicked budget issues the state/city has. And this is where they choose to spend resources?

[IBCoupe]

This portion of people is not as large as you might think, at least as far as the studies are concerned because the studies go back a few decades, before gun laws became as stringent as they are now, so alot of those people you are referring to were actually still in the "able to own guns" group, and were considered.

You can go all day long with that sort of reasoning, theres also the group of people who CAN legally own a gun and have no desire to, where do they fit in to this?

Regardless of the size of the population, the point stands: gun control laws do not serve only to prevent people who wouldn't do crime from owning guns. The other population doesn't really matter as far as that point goes.

Then we are in agreement. But if the restrictions already exist on the national level, why do we need
additional ordinances at a more local level? This is what I'm arguing against. I am perfectly happy with the national background check and other national regulations in place. There are plenty of other states/cities/whatever that do not have these strict requirements, and I don't believe there is a trend showing more gun crime in them. So what is the point? Flexing the city's muscles? Providing unnecessary jobs for more of Daley's cronies? A false (yup, that's right) sense of security? Daley's ego? Honestly, the level of absurdity is fairly astonishing considering the wicked budget issues the state/city has. And this is where they choose to spend resources?

Because Chicago and Illinois enjoy the same right as every other State and City in the country - to determine their own special laws within the confines of the Constitution's limitations. That's part of what "small government" looks like.

[stebo0728]

IB - I see your point, but Im not hiding a "end gun control" message inside the "gun laws dont keep guns out of the hands of criminals" statement. My point is to say that the statement is true. I do not wish to end gun control laws that pass constitutional muster, and set reasonable boundaries. But my major point is that trying to structure gun laws in a fashion that they will keep guns away from criminals is pointless. And really I think my argument is aimed more at the notion of disallowing concealed weapons in certain places, when the person carrying said gun has it legally. Those are the people that dont commit gun crimes, and that I dont want disenfranchised or even endangered by frivalous gun bans and the like. Thats not to say a business or property owner doesnt have the right to ban firearms on their own property if they wish, I just dont think its proper for the government to impose such bans.

So to get to the heart of our disjunction, we are really arguing in 2 different courts, and thats my fault, the argument here is whether to allow ownership of guns, and my main argument is against controlling where said guns can go once they are owned. I apologize for introducing unnecessary confusion into the fray

[AppleBonker]

And I'd be ok with it if there were some underlying reason. Because they can isn't good enough for me. I see no benefit to this ordinance. Also, this starts to get into scary territory because Illinois/Chicago are enjoying a collective right (pretty much how you put it) by stomping on my individual rights.

Edit: enjoying is the wrong word. Probably more along the lines of extending.

[AZhitman]

I'm not necessarily arguing that we need more gun control. I'm just saying that the arguments that are being presented aren't terribly convincing for the purpose of showing that we don't, or that we need less.

I'm completely in agreement then. To me, this is a bit of a non-issue, and certainly pales in comparison to some of the other "hot-button" topics confronting our country right now.

[IBCoupe]

And I'd be ok with it if there were some underlying reason. Because they can isn't good enough for me. I see no benefit to this ordinance. Also, this starts to get into scary territory because Illinois/Chicago are enjoying a collective right (pretty much how you put it) by stomping on my individual rights.

Edit: enjoying is the wrong word. Probably more along the lines of extending.

There's a balance that needs to be struck, for sure. But every law we pass necessarily infringes on someone's individual rights in some way. It's all a sliding-scale.

Chicago probably does have its reasons for wanting more gun control laws beyond "we can." I was simply answering the question I thought you were asking: why (or perhaps "how" is what I was thinking) is it that States pass stricter laws? Typically, you can get the answer to those questions by watching C-Span. And by planting phone taps on your representatives.

To me, this is a bit of a non-issue, and certainly pales in comparison to some of the other "hot-button" topics confronting our country right now.

That's a matter of personal priority. People in rural areas tend to agree with you, Greg. People in urban areas tend to disagree. That's why you see a red/blue division on this issue that aligns pretty well with the degree to which a state has been urbanized. And then you have states that are just about purple on the issue, like Pennsylvania, which is roughly half urban and half rural, with each side feeling that the other's lost its mind and has way too much say. And that's why we allow States to set their own rules, in order to meet local requirements.

If gun crime is rampant in your city (like it was in DC when they passed the handgun ban), you're likely to take a harsher approach to it. if gun crime is virtually nonexistant in your village (like it probably is in Wassilla, AK), you're likely to take a more lax approach. This is true with both legislation and public opinion, the former being affected primarily by the latter.

[AppleBonker]

And I'd be ok with it if there were some underlying reason. Because they can isn't good enough for me. I see no benefit to this ordinance. Also, this starts to get into scary territory because Illinois/Chicago are enjoying a collective right (pretty much how you put it) by stomping on my individual rights.

Edit: enjoying is the wrong word. Probably more along the lines of extending.

There's a balance that needs to be struck, for sure. But every law we pass necessarily infringes on someone's individual rights in some way. It's all a sliding-scale.

Chicago probably does have its reasons for wanting more gun control laws beyond "we can." I was simply answering the question I thought you were asking: why (or perhaps "how" is what I was thinking) is it that States pass stricter laws? Typically, you can get the answer to those questions by watching C-Span. And by planting phone taps on your representatives.

Sure, they have reasons that they explain to the public. Unfortunately, those don't really hold any water. Such as the restrictions will improve the safety of citizens. But, there are numerous other cities with more lenient laws and less gun violence. So I don't see evidence to support this logic.

To me, it seems like most laws are enforced for reasons other than what is explained to the public. In this case, I honestly believe it is because the city is concerned about lawsuits. Imagine this scenario: a Chicago cop responds to a call in one of the "less-stellar" areas of Chicago. He enters the residence and finds a black male with a handgun. He overreacts (partially because he is racist) and ends up shooting the black guy. Previously, the cop could argue that the shot guy was a criminal and it would make sense since the handgun was, in fact, illegal. Now, the cop doesn't have much to stand on.

Please realize I am not claiming all Chicago cops are racist. In fact, I wouldn't even claim most of the them are racist. However, with a large city such as this, race issues get blown out of proportion all the time. So it only needs to happen a small number of times for this to be the perception.

[AZhitman]

I suppose my perspective here is unique, then... We live in the 5th-largest city in the US, with very liberal gun laws. Yet gun violence isn't "rampant".

Attribute that how you will - either to the demographics, the presence of an armed law-abiding citizenry, or something else.

[AppleBonker]

Well, I think Greg highlighted the issue better than I did. I guess my argument stems from the fact that the guns aren't the problem. If we can have a city such as above without outrageous levels of gun violence, the guns clearly aren't what we should be concerned with. Sure, the gun may make altercations fatal more often, but guns or no guns the issues still exist. How about we figure out what they are and where they come from and correct that?

[IBCoupe]

Sure, they have reasons that they explain to the public. Unfortunately, those don't really hold any water. Such as the restrictions will improve the safety of citizens. But, there are numerous other cities with more lenient laws and less gun violence. So I don't see evidence to support this logic.

As densely populated as the States with less lenient laws? With similar demographics? Just curious as to which states you're pointing to.

To me, it seems like most laws are enforced for reasons other than what is explained to the public. In this case, I honestly believe it is because the city is concerned about lawsuits. Imagine this scenario: a Chicago cop responds to a call in one of the "less-stellar" areas of Chicago. He enters the residence and finds a black male with a handgun. He overreacts (partially because he is racist) and ends up shooting the black guy. Previously, the cop could argue that the shot guy was a criminal and it would make sense since the handgun was, in fact, illegal. Now, the cop doesn't have much to stand on.

Seems like a stretch to me. If the guy has a gun, do you really think the cop's going to get a grilling in court? Whether it's a crime or not to have the gun, if a cop shoots at someone with a gun, courts (and, typically, the public) give that cop the benefit of the doubt. Or, at least they do outside of the neighborhood where it happened. The only time trouble comes for that cop is when he shoots someone that, it turns out, didn't have a gun.

Please realize I am not claiming all Chicago cops are racist. In fact, I wouldn't even claim most of the them are racist. However, with a large city such as this, race issues get blown out of proportion all the time. So it only needs to happen a small number of times for this to be the perception.

I understand completely. I do the same thing when arguing. No need to explain.

I suppose my perspective here is unique, then... We live in the 5th-largest city in the US, with very liberal gun laws. Yet gun violence isn't "rampant".

Attribute that how you will - either to the demographics, the presence of an armed law-abiding citizenry, or something else.

Fifth-largest by what measure? Arizona's most densely populated city, Guadalupe, has a population density of 6.8k per square mile.

Compare that with New York City, with 55 incorporated places with 10k+ per square mile, the largest of them being Guttenberg, NJ with 56,000 people per square mile. Los Angeles has 27 incorporated areas with 10k+ per square mile. Miami, Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia each have 7 such incorporated areas. Phoenix doesn't make the top 16. New York City and Philadelphia are the only cities (plus their metropolitan area) that have populations over 1,000,000 people.

On a State-to-State Basis, Arizona's ranked 33d by population density. Top five are Washington D.C., New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. Notice a pattern?

Is it just population density? Of course not. But that's what primarily marks "urban" from "rural," and I'd say that being mostly a desert, Arizona's pretty damned rural. There are other factors, probably having to do with education, wealth, and freedom of economic movement, but I don't have numbers for those. For now, population density serves as a pretty good indicator of what makes a city into a city, and, from what little I know about each State's laws, it appears to line up pretty well with the more restrictive gun laws.

[AZhitman]

Fifth-largest by what measure?

Phoenix covers more than 517 square miles (bigger than L.A.) and has a population of over 1.5 million, ranking it the fifth largest city in the country. Population density is certainly a valid measure (Criminal Justice 101). I was just pointing out that the Phoenix Metropolitan Area is FAR from "rural".