The Specifics To "Own" A Firearm In Chicago, Intentional Red Tape

[twyacht]

Seems the McDonald case, a victory for RKBA, has been "Daleyfied" in a myriad of fees, licenses, red tape, sub ordinances, potential fines, and/or jail time.

Here's the specifics:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/07/09/john-lott-mayor-richard-daley-guns-ban-chicago/

Let's Face It, Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley Wants to Ban Guns, All Guns
By John Lott
Published July 12, 2010

As always, gun control proponents say they merely want "reasonable" gun control laws. Yet, when listing the actual laws they favor, they go well beyond what most people would possibly consider "reasonable." Just look at the gun bans in Chicago and Washington, D.C. that local politicians and gun control organizations such as the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center have fought to protect.

Today, exactly two weeks after the Supreme Court struck down Chicago's handgun ban, the city's strict new gun control laws go into effect. These new restrictions surely do not seem "reasonable" but rather intended to make life as difficult as possible for those who legally want to own a gun. Among the regulations is a complete ban on selling guns in Chicago. Also five hours of training is required, which may seem reasonable, but that training is forbidden to take place within the Chicago city limits.

And the list of odd restrictions in Chicago goes on. While people can own a handgun for protection in their homes, it only applies to some parts of what most people would consider their home: the gun cannot be used for self-defense in one's yard or garage, nor on your porch, even if it is enclosed. But certainly a garage is a possible place for criminals to strike. Is it "reasonable" that if criminals attack a family member in the garage, you aren't allowed to effectively defend them?

Further, Chicagoans are permitted to own only one handgun that is "in operating order." If you own a jewelry store that criminals might want to rob, forget it. You cannot even place your one functional handgun in your business instead of your home if you think that is the best place to put it.

Multiple residences or a very large house would not qualify for more than one gun either.

Break any of these or the numerous other regulations and you face up to a $5,000 fine and 90 days in jail.

For the second offense, the fine goes up to $10,000 and jail time goes up to six months.

Then there are the various fees and other costs of obtaining a handgun legally. A comparison with the First Amendment is useful: If Chicago were to put a tax on newspapers, even just a penny, courts would throw it out as an abridgment of freedom of speech. Why should the Second Amendment be treated any differently?

Apparently, the city of Chicago sees no constitutional problem in imposing a $100 Chicago Firearms Permit fee plus another $15 per firearm (even on the non-operational ones) every three years. A valid Illinois Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card is also required, at a cost of $10, although it seems redundant as the Chicago permit and the Illinois FOID card do the same things. On an annual basis, Chicago's fees are about 2.5 times the cost for the average concealed handgun permit.

Administrative costs are not an excuse as the Chicago fees are well exceed the costs of running the permit and registration system. Given that training requirements for concealed handgun permits don't make people who carry guns more effective at deterring criminals nor less accident prone, there is no evidence that Chicago's training requirements will make gun owners better at owning guns. What training requirements do is reduce the number of gun owners. The five hour training class, which includes one hour of range training, and the extra costs government imposes on those who want to get a single gun will run at least $200.

Let's face it, Mayor Richard Daley wants to ban guns, all guns. And he thinks that a complete ban is a "reasonable" regulation. The Supreme Court has ruled that he is not allowed to ban guns, but this is not going to change his mind about guns in the slightest. Daley now wants to place as restrictive rules as he thinks that the courts will let him get away with. Pretending that these rules are anything more than an attempt to limit gun ownership as much as possible is simply dishonest.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "More Guns, Less Crime."(University of Chicago Press, 2010), the third edition of which was published in May."

***

"This is a free country: and I have the permits, licenses, stamps, tags, stickers, background checks and tax receipts to prove it."
Anon.

I hope groups like the GOA, NRA, SAF, keep hammering Chicago on these reg's, If I own a small family run business, I can't defend myself in my place?

My garage, or enclosed patio that's affixed TO MY HOUSE?

Just wait until the first SD shooting takes place in Chicago, I guarantee Daley and his thugs will prosecute the "law abiding, compliant, gun owner".

[MikeBjerum]

Just like many other idiots in office, Mayor Daley is thumbing his nose giving the middle finger to the Supreme Court and the people of Chicago 

[TAB]

Just like many other idiots in office, Mayor Daley is thumbing his nose giving the middle finger to the Supreme Court and the people of Chicago 

hopefully some one will take these new restrictions to court and the sc will cherry pick the case and tell him where he can stick it... hey, it could happen, and obama could grow a pair and deport all the illegals.

[Timothy]

Well, considering the people of Cook County and the City of Chicago keep electing this f..k stick, maybe they deserve to get whatever he throws at them!

This sort of thing is happening everywhere but in less noticeable fashion.  Incorporation of the 2nd is a great win in a much larger battle.  Our Action League here in MA reports these types of shenanigans to it's members daily.  It's what we, as citizens with a voice, decide to do with the information that matters.

[Ichiban]

Well, considering the people of Cook County and the City of Chicago keep electing this f..k stick, maybe they deserve to get whatever he throws at them!

As an escapee from Illinois, I believe that the Daley and his cronies get most of their votes from the cemeteries of Cook county.  Like father, like son.   

[Sponsor]

[Timothy]

As an escapee from Illinois, I believe that the Daley and his cronies get most of their votes from the cemeteries of Cook county.  Like father, like son.   

Glad you escaped Ichiban...   

In MA, there are 850,000 registered license holders and rising, nearly 20% of the population.  We have a big voice!  The Governor is constantly complaining we're upsetting his little apple cart!  the Mayor of Boston is a lost cause, another asshat with an agenda and one of the Daley/Bloomberg cronies.

Boo, hoo! 

 

[Fatman]

Well, considering the people of Cook County and the City of Chicago keep electing this f..k stick, maybe they deserve to get whatever he throws at them!

Knowing the Chicago  Machine, it's quite possible he's never been democratically elected. There seems to be a  Lazarus Syndrome around election day, and they must not look like zombies because no one questions them when they vote Dem...

[MikeBjerum]

Oh great Constitutional expert Tombogan:

In a case where a city is told by the Supreme Court that it can't do something, and they break the spirit of the ruling.  Or if this would be taken to court again, and Chicago would continue to ignore rulings.  What does the Constitution say about the Federal Government stepping in and restoring Chicago to compliance?

[twyacht]

IMHO, unlike Montana, Texas, AZ, and a handful of other states, ILL will never assert it's states rights...Question for TomB as well, where does the enumeration of powers with the Fed stop, and the States Rights & Constitution, i.e. 10th Amend. start?

Doesn't it say any power NOT specified by the Constitution, shall be deferred back to the states?

I know Daley won't step up, but if brought to court again,.....would the case have merit?

[Pathfinder]

According to the US Constitution, gummints do not have any rights, only powers. And the Federal gummint is constrained by the most overlooked Amendment in the original Bill of Rights - the 10th.

If what the US gummint wants to do is not listed in the Constitution, then according to the Constitution, the Feds cannot do it. This was a protection against the strong central gummint so evident in Britain, France, Russia, et al at the time.

Basically, the US gummint has been well outside of its powers for a long, long time. Forcing us to buy health insurance, forcing us to toe the line on Federal gun regs as "commerce" - like the Dept of Ed, Dept, Energy, et al. - these actions, these usurpations of power are well outside the law of the Constitution.

Daley will go along witht he Feds to keep from being investigated.