Thursday, July 1, 2010
Politics / Clout City / News City Council Poised to Pass Still-Unseen Gun Legislation By Friday
Posted by Mick Dumke on Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:39 AM
City officials say an ordinance that will replace the city's 28-year-old handgun ban will be considered by the council's police and fire committee on Thursday, though notice of the meeting hasn't been posted on the city clerk's website. And the mayor's office has quietly called a special meeting of the full council for Friday—on the eve of the long holiday weekend—so the measure can be enacted.
But as of Wednesday, most aldermen hadn't seen a copy of the legislation, which Mayor Daley has called "critical" in stopping rampant violence in Chicago. Few I asked about it were even aware that they would be expected to vote on a new law within 48 hours.
"I haven't seen it yet," said 33rd Ward alderman Richard Mell.
"We haven't heard anything," said 6th Ward alderman Freddrenna Lyle.
"Nothing yet," said 31st Ward alderman Ray Suarez.
"All we know is speculation and what we've read in the paper or heard on the radio," said 41st Ward alderman Brian Doherty.
Here's the backdrop in case you haven't been following the story.
The mayor claims that it's essential to restrict public access to guns, which he blames for Chicago's high rates of violence. Gun control is his chief crime-fighting strategy, and he often dodges questions about highly publicized shootings and crimes by instead railing against guns, the NRA, gun manufacturers, and what he deems the Supreme Court's complicity in gun violence. "They don’t seem to appreciate the full scope of gun violence in America and that it will continue until we understand that there are reasonable and responsible steps we can take as a nation to help end the needless gun violence and harm that irresponsible people bring on our friends and family," he said after the U.S. Supreme Court essentially declared Chicago's handgun ban unconstitutional this week. Before the decision he'd been more hopeful: "Maybe one of them will have an incident, and they'll change their mind overnight, going to and from work."
The rhetoric provoked a kiss-off from Justice Samuel Alito, who in the Monday decision (go to page 43) endorsed the view that "the Second Amendment right protects the rights of minorities and other residents of high-crime areas whose needs are not being met by elected public officials."
But Daley is not backing down from his fight for gun control, which has been a successful political strategy if not a crime-fighting one.
Over the last several weeks city officials have orchestrated a series of hearings and press events to make their case that Chicago can and should find ways to restrict public access to firearms. Supporters cheer his efforts—"It's something he's got to have if he's running for re-election next year," opines one alderman who's no big fan—but critics say he uses the gun issue as "smoke" to keep from addressing an understaffed police force and other crime-fighting strategies.
On Monday Daley vowed again to craft a new law to restrict gun access but refused to say what exactly he had in mind. And he was vague about when it would be shared with aldermen. “We’ll be talking to them again this week, and we talked to a number of them last week,” he said.
On Tuesday corporation counsel Mara Georges said the legislation wasn't written yet, though she offered a few hints of what it might include, including a limit of one handgun per person and a ban on gun shops inside the city limits.
At the full council meeting Wednesday, aldermen were clueless about what was happening. "We really don't want to come back here Friday just before the weekend," said Lyle. "We have things to do in our communities—block club meetings—and it's a holiday and some of us try to have lives. At this point a few days isn't going to matter."
Few aldermen I spoke with would disagree. Not so long ago it was taboo for a Chicago pol to cast any doubt on the handgun ban. Now the mayor himself has conceded that it was rare for anyone to be charged with violating the ban. And some of his most loyal aldermen are rolling their eyes and making jokes about it.
"I believe everybody should have an AK-47 and a bazooka—especially a bazooka," said Mell. "But seriously, I have no problem with people having a gun in the home."
Mell added that in his view there was too much ado over handguns. "I think the best defense in the home is a double-barrel .20 gauge shotgun."
Yet history suggests that Mell and his colleagues are likely to pass whatever Daley and his team come up with, even if they barely have a chance to look at it first. Unless, of course, something happens to them on the way to work.
Comments (9)
Showing 1-9 of 9
Isn't alderman Mell the same alderman that had that handgun amnesty back in 08?
"Only 25 people have taken advantage of Chicago's four-month-long gun registration amnesty,
including former Attorney General Roland Burris.
Ald. Richard Mell (33rd) proposed the idea -- after he forgot to re-register his arsenal of weapons, as required every year by an ordinance he helped to pass.
Mell argued that reopening gun registration wasn't just a personal favor. He insisted that there were hundreds, if not thousands, of otherwise law-abiding Chicago gun owners just like him who had inadvertently allowed their gun registration to lapse.
On Friday, Chicago Police Department spokeswoman Monique Bond was hard-pressed to explain the slow response to the city's one-time offer.
"Either the public is unaware or they just haven't had an opportunity to come in and register," she said.
The four-month amnesty expires at midnight Nov. 5.
To apply, gun owners must show up at police headquarters or one of Chicago's 25 district stations with a valid firearms owner's identification card; the make, model and serial number of all firearms to be registered; the source of those guns; two photographs; a photocopy of their driver's license, and proof that they passed the vision test."
This is from a sun times article. Notice the requirements in the last paragraph? But suddenly the mayors newfound need for more stringent requirements are paramount.
Is it time to rehash the "Black codes" or "Poll tax"? As was mentioned in some of Alan Gura's and Stephen Halbrook's amicus presentations to the court in the McDonald case.
How much is the Mayor and Council going to cost the city again in litigation? These are the same guys that rushed into a parking meter contract and lost millions.
like
dislike
*Is it time to rehash the "Black codes" or "Poll tax"?*
Sound like some rather inflammatory rhetoric.
It's Not.
Take the time and study what was done in the deep south to restrict the civil rights of the newly freed slaves. Is the Mayor and council trying to repeat history?
Also the city has openly admitted there are hundreds of thousand unregistered guns suspected to be in the city. Just what benefit is it to impose hefty fees and more difficult regulations? Remember a few weeks back the 80 year old veteran with an unregistered handgun that shot the burglar breaking into his home? He hasn't been charged violating the old ordinance but the pistol was confiscated.
Why should "hidden gun" owners now come forward and register now with proposals of more fees and restrictions they have already ignored for years past? Just how many gang members do you think are going to go down to the police station and register their "Gats" after the new laws are introduced?
Heres a comment I found a few years ago and its still holds truth:
On Police powers:
"Their job is to protect society as a whole, not any given individual or group. Their function is to come in after the crime (murder, robbery, rape, assault, etc.) has already occurred, collect evidence, and then try to apprehend the criminal for prosecution for a crime already completed so that crime, after it is committed, has a cost. Their job is NOT to stop a crime in progress or to prevent it beforehand. The fact that they very occasionally manage to do these things is because they do, to their credit, try. But if they fail to (which is the vast majority of the time), even if they stand and watch as you're victimized, you cannot sue them for not helping you, because the courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently ruled that they have no such obligation, even in cases where their negligence was blatant and sometimes even malicious.
If I'm therefore the only one with any obligation or ability to protect myself, my home, and my family, I have an absolute right to the same tools that government officials rely on as their best form of defense. And from police officers to politicians, that tool is a gun, either in their own hands or in that of someone who can always be with them. If they come up with something that works better for them, then maybe I won't own guns (assuming I can legally own and use that new tool instead). Till they do, everyone else should have access to them, for the same purposes, as well. I don't love guns so much as I love that I live in a country that still, for the most part, respects the fundamental human right of every citizen to protect themselves from harm as well the wealthiest or most politically powerful citizen can."
ShortShanks continues to flimflam the Chicago residents with his never ending threats to pass more and greater restrictive gun laws to keep the law abiding citizens of Chicago from having guns to defend themselves.
Is there any chance at all that someone could point out to Daley that the law abiding citizens are not the ones robbing, raping and murdering the residents? it is the thugs and criminals who have not and will never ever pay any attention to gun laws.
When is Daley going to do something about the murderous events happening every single day in the City? Is he really so stupid as to think keeping guns from the good people is going to reduce the violence? If it hasn't happened for the past twenty-eight years that the gun ban has been in esistence, isn't it time to try something different?
It is time for the citizens of Chicago to ban together and get that stuttering moronic flimflaming bag of wind and his stupid money and power grabbing henchmen and throw them out of office.
How many more people have to die for the citizens of Chicago to stand up for themselves and take charge of their own lives?
I feel for chicago, and agree with the above posts, the thugs do not give a hoot about the laws no matter WHAT is in place!, at least give the clean-background. law-abiding citizen a chance to protect themselves, property and family, "when seconds count. the police are only minutes (or 30) away!!!" thats why even though i do occasionally work in chicago that was one of my big reasons for not living in IL, so if you can help it, do what I did..... Come to indiana, own as many guns as youd like, and CARRY one as well (and yes there are background checks and fingerprinting for doing so), on your person, in your vehicle, even openly! (not that many do but it is legal)! Restrictions or not at least residents in the Chi will be able to at least own ONE handgun. And I totally agree with the alderman a shotgun is your best home defense! But make it at least a 12 gauge buddy!
What all Chicagoans need to ask out of each Alderman is: Why are my rights being treated differently than the rest of the State / Country?
All of the proposed restrictions are above and beyond what is required from state residents that do not live within Chicago's boundaries.
These are also above and beyond the federal regulations set forth by legislation and regulated by the BATF. A federal form 4473 is filled out each time a firearm is purchased from a dealer. Including here in illinois. A quick search of Gun Control Act of 1968 will show the requirements set forth that all US citizens must legally comply with. Mentally ill, Criminal record, Dishonorably discharged, Domestic violence etc.
Yet still the Mayor insists that your rights as a citizen are not the same as another's once you cross Chicago's city limits.
"Take the time and study what was done in the deep south to restrict the civil rights of the newly freed slaves. Is the Mayor and council trying to repeat history?"
You are delusional given that black people in Chicago could always legally buy rifles and shotguns just like white people. And since you bring up civil rights, it's funny how I don't recall many white NRA members bearing arms to defend the Freedom Riders back in the day!
Budman brings up some good points. And there are some companies online now that let you preform unlimited background checks for one low price like www.researchanyone.com and others. I'd say it's a good idea to do background checks on your neighbors and find out if they should even have a gun in the first place, that would be my biggest fear... guns in the wrong hands, near my children!
Latest in Bleader
-
Tonight: CSO, Muti, and Mason Bates
Chicago Symphony Orchestra performs Alternative Energy by Mason Bates
- Feb 7, 2012
-
Q&A with Craig Finn
The Hold Steady front man goes solo, gets uncomfortable
- Feb 7, 2012
-
The five worst covers of "The Tracks of My Tears"
The five worst versions of "The Tracks of My Tears"
- Feb 7, 2012
- More »
Author Archives
-
The game's over for Joe Pa
What the real issue is in the Joe Paterno/Penn State scandal.
- Nov 9, 2011
-
When picking out gifts, don't do what Mo did
Reminder to self: Don't do what Mo did
- Dec 16, 2011
-
Water + sewers = slush fund
As your water bill doubles, Mayor Emanuel siphons off millions to cover murky city expenses
- Nov 10, 2011
- More »
