The Saga Continues

Mayor Daley unveiled his new set of laws to infringe and deny a specifically enumerated right today. Let’s break down the bullets one by one.

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

How does one move the weapon to and from the firing range? Furthermore why can a homeowner not carry a firearm on his own property? How does one even bring the weapon home after purchase if it is not allowed outside the house? There may be exemptions in his ordinance, however knowing Daley and his previous history I doubt it. Also, with the lack of gun shops in the area, one will have a difficult time obtaining a weapon.

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

The one gun per month limit is totally arbitrary and without basis. If you limit people to one gun per month, why not one book per month or one vehicle per month? Limiting law abiding persons from buying something makes absolutely no sense. Criminals have already gotten a large supply of firearms into a city where they were previously totally outlawed; limiting purchases changes nothing for the criminals. Even more than that, what qualifies the weapon as having been disabled? Is it just simply removing the firing pin, fully disassembling the weapon, or permanently doing damage to the weapon? A homeowner should be able to have as many weapons as they desire at their disposal. They might want to keep one in their bed room and another hidden in their living room where they spend most of their time. What does the limit of one firearm do other than harm the law abiding because criminals ignore it anyway?

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

So you can be killed while trying to get to your weapon in an emergency. Defensive weapons need to be kept at the ready. If you’re leaving your property, then yes properly store them, the same goes if you have small children. However there are other methods that can keep a weapon at the ready and out of the hands of a small child.

If you say BS and that is merely just endangering the child because they will get curious and do something stupid here is my personalized response. I grew up in a house with a rifle on the wall, I remember it distinctly and cannot think of a time I looked at the wall and didn’t see it there. I still have that rifle today and it is kept in my safe because I have a different ready rifle for serving the same purpose. The magazine was always loaded and a round in the chamber. My parents were never concerned because they raised me around firearms, taught me proper handling, and made sure that my curiosity was always satisfied in a proper and safe manner. Kids do stupid things because their parents attempt to hide and shield them from it. All this does is prevent the child from knowing, understanding, and learning proper and safe gun handling. Education is the best solution to any problem. If you disagree, look at sexual education. Abstinence only education obviously doesn’t work, a proper rounded education works. That includes touching the subject everyone would much rather avoid. Furthermore, it was that training and education that probably saved my life when I was at a friend’s house in 4th grade and he pulled out his dads rifle. After slapping the muzzle away he said, “Don’t worry it’s unloaded.” I asked, “How is anyone supposed to know that,” and then racked the bolt. At which point I left immediately and walked home. I never went over to his house again. Later in class he asked why I left, I told him, and low and behold during the conversation it was discovered he knew where dad’s rifle was, but not how to handle it. He was curious about it and thought I would be curious too. His lack of education from his parents, coupled with unsatisfied curiosity became the classic story book of disaster that is used by the gun control crowd to say we need to keep guns away from kids. How does prohibition of something stop curiosity? That’s right it doesn’t, that action actually makes it worse.

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.

There is nothing wrong with training but the truth of this measure is to prevent people from getting licensed to have a firearm. If no new ranges can be built, and existing ranges are limited to police officers, where are prospective citizens to go to satisfy your bureaucracy? Oh that’s right out of the city costing them more money and time, and also requiring the probable precursor of private transportation. If you want this restriction, you need to provide the means for it to be readily obtainable. Saying you can have a firearm if you do X, Y, and Z and then outlaw W which is required by X isn’t really lifting the ban now is it? It is shielding the idea of the ban behind bureaucracy.

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

Is there a method of having this right restored? This section is a sympathy token to make people against this law look bad. However most of those same prohibitions are actually already on the books. So why add them again? Instead enforce the laws you already have on the books. The more serious problem with this is that often the legal system is abused and people’s rights are affected unjustly.

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

No, no, and HELL NO. This is a presumption that all gun owners are going to be criminals. Canada has already discovered that their registration is a huge waste of resources and is totally unsuccessful. Even more than that though, this is the primary reason why the Jew’s in the Attic test was invented! All that does is provide a list of who to disarm prior to the roundup for the concentration camp. With what happened after Katrina, that idea requires a serious go to hell message to be sent. Daley would in no way shape or form miss an opportunity to abuse his citizens like the way New Orleans did.

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

No he’s not. What he’s doing is crafting a piece of legislation which is still violating people’s rights and doing it in such a way that it will take years to get through the courts. Mayor Daley and crew receive no punishment when they pass a law that violates someone’s rights. They do it because they can and there are no repercussions to those involved. Someone needs to be charged and thrown in prison over that last piece of legislative crap as well as this one. It is a lack of accountability that is allowing these atrocities to continue. It’s high time we find a way to add serious accountability to those who pass illegal laws.

Bookmark the permalink.

About TMM

TMM is the owner, editor, and principal author at The Minuteman, a competitive shooter, and staff member for Boomershoot. Even in his free time he’s merging his love and knowledge of computers and technology with his love of firearms. Many know his private name and information however due to the current political climate, many are distancing themselves due to the abandonment of Due Process.

2 Responses to The Saga Continues

  1. Bob S. says:

    Wasn’t having weapons rendered inoperable or not readily available explicitly struck down in the Heller Decision?

    I don’t see how they can limit it to 1 firearm for the household. My wife, My adult daughter didn’t give up their right to keep and bear arms just because they live with me.

    Chicago is just wasting taxpayer money and fighting a losing battle.

  2. Bob S. says:

    Wasn’t having weapons rendered inoperable or not readily available explicitly struck down in the Heller Decision?

    I don’t see how they can limit it to 1 firearm for the household. My wife, My adult daughter didn’t give up their right to keep and bear arms just because they live with me.

    Chicago is just wasting taxpayer money and fighting a losing battle.