(Chicago Mayor) Daley: City will revise gun law after Supreme Court ruling

Source: Chicago Trib

Mayor Richard Daley says the city will rewrite its gun ban ordinance because a Supreme Court ruling today has made the current law "unenforceable."

Daley said a new ordinance would be drafted soon and would protect the residents of Chicago as well as 2nd Amendment rights.

"I'm disappointed by the decision, but it's not surprising," Daley said at a news conference. "We are still reviewing the entire decision, but it means Chicago's handgun ban is unenforceable."

The mayor made the announcement hours after the Supreme Court said Americans nationwide have a constitutional right to have a handgun at home for self-defense, even in cities which until now have outlawed handguns.

The 5-4 decision reversed a ruling that had upheld Chicago's ban on handguns and all but declared the 1982 ordinance unconstitutional. The justices sent the case back to Chicago for a lower court to issue the final decision, so the city's ban remains in effect for now.

Read more: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

He is a very strong proponent of gun control laws.

"our laws are reasonable and sensible while protecting the rights of gun owners" blah blah...

Bloomberg is in a different position then daley. NYC allows posession of handguns in the home for self defense- after going through a really really difficult permitting process. Bloomberg has indicated a month ago that he was pushing to "stream-line" the licensing system (most likely in leu of the coming mcdonald decision).

My guess- NYC will be forced to make their permitting system a bit more "friendly" and reduce processing time. FYI, it takes about 8-14 months to get a NYC handgun permit- just for possession in your home and spend upwards of $500. This will probably have to change to no more than 8-14 weeks and a more reasonable fee of $50. Also, the city will have to revise their procedures on when they are allowed to revoke your permit. Currently, if you fart in the wrong direction, you can lose your permit. I've seen people lose permits over such silly things as a seat-belt violation. I don't think these things will be allowed to stand

I keep hearing that legal gun permit holders are law-abiding, but you're telling me that they're losing permits because they're breaking laws?

because if you didnt i have a few questions for you. Should someone lose their drivers license because they got a ticket for littering; should a doctor lose his medical license because he got a ticket for doing 45 in a 30 zone? My guess is that you will answer no to both accounts; so why should someone lose their handgun permit for minor traffic infractions.

If your threshold for what defines law abiding is at this point then i dont know what to say- other than 99% of the individuals on this forum probably would be considered felons to you.

...there's almost always somebody making a point about how exceptionally law-abiding gun permit people are. I was mocking that canard.

As far as my perspective on law abiding goes, littering: no, unless it was a repeated behavior or they showed consistent disregard for the law, then yes, start turning the screws on them. Criminal speeding (15 mph above the safe and legal limit, your jurisdiction may vary), that would be a much bigger deal to start with. Traffic infractions usually involve the handling of something that kills (an extremely heavy, piloted, potentially lethal device). Thus, I don't perceive them as "minor".

Going even further, here in Oregon, people have lost their CCW permits merely for engaging in totally legal, but socially disruptive, behavior. (If you can't play well with others, you lose your right to play with others while having a firearm.)

You do to, big deal. It has nothing to do with using a gun. No matter what, the government never has a right to take a firearm away, nor do they have a right to require licenses.

1. No, we don't all speed. You may find that odd, but some folks actually follow the speed *LIMIT*. I never have to slow down, or worry, when driving by an officer. Funny how that works?
2. The government has a right to take firearms away from convicted felons entering into a prison: Would you disagree? Or are you going to stand by your absolute "never" stance?
3. I'm ambivalent on licensing, I'd like to see per-owner safety and proficiency licensing (to ensure that people know what the hell they're doing), as well as per-weapon registration, rather than requiring per-firearm-per-owner licensing, let alone requiring a per-round permit.

1) I don't really speed much, but I do break the limit daily. I don't know how it is in other areas, but here if the limit is 50 mph, you are fine if you do 60 or even 65. If I pass a cop and I'm doing 60, no need to slow down.

2) The government does have the right to taken them away when they are in prison, just like a private business has the right to ban them, hats, or cell phones if they choose.

3) What can I say to that, I completely respectfully disagree.

Supreme Court Gun Decision Won't Affect NYC
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/Supreme-Court-Gun-Decision-Wont-Affect-NYC-97323549.html

The Supreme Court's decision that states cannot ban citizens from possessing firearms will likely not affect New York City, officials and experts said.

In a 5-4 decision today, the Supreme Court ruled that the city of Chicago's handgun ban was unconstitutional -- a big victory for supporters of gun rights. But New York City imposes gun restrictions, which the decision, McDonald v City of Chicago, IL, supports.

The Court’s decision today shows "we can work to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists while at the same time respecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens," said Mayor Michael Bloomberg in a statement. "I will continue to collaborate with mayors across the country to pursue common-sense, constitutional approaches to protecting public safety.”

(snip)
"I think it affirms New York law," Hilly said. "All the other amendments have reasonable restrictions on them. So I actually really like the Heller decision and the McDonald decision because they put the Second Amendment in the context of all the other amendments...people from the gun lobby like to promote the idea that you have an absolute or god-given right to possess a gun. That's clearly not true; your right can be restricted." (Executive Director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence)

if you knew the inside of the whole process you would say otherwise. The NYC system is so discriminatory that if you walk in with the wrong shirt on, you will get denied. Remember, THEY DON'T NEED TO GIVE YOU A REASON for why they deny you- all they need to say is that your character wasnt fit, but they don't need to show any evidence to back up that statement. You can appeal but maybe 1 out of 20 applicatants that go for an appeal get a hearing. If and when you get a permit, you have a 30 day window to buy a gun- or your permit gets revoked and you have to start the whole process from scratch (NYC requires that you have a gun on your permit in order to keep your permit). When you do buy your gun, you have 72 hours to go back to the licensing building and get it registered; the issue is that the licensing building only accepts registrations M-F 10am-1pm so you will most likely have to take off a day of work; if not two. Now if you get all this done and lets say you have a scope put on your handgun at the gun shop at the time of purchase; you know to have you another trip. Well if you bring that gun in with the scope on it....boom....their goes your permit AND your gun (i have personally known someone who had that happen to them- took them 10 months to get their license and gun back- not to mention about a grand in lawyer fees).

Now here is my question; does all of this sound reasonable? Is punishing a licensed gun owner because they come in to register their gun with a scope on really helping fight violent crime? I dont think so

on edit: most new york gun owners wouldnt have much of a problem with the licensing system if it was just run fairly and didn't make permit holders feel like they are walking on egg shells

He'll need it, what with the NRA and the SCOTUS conservatives trying to put us all at maximum risk.

But you're right. Your authoritarian, scumbag mayor is going to need some help.

those who think they are in a "well regulated militia" and should be allowed to carry a gun strapped to their legs anywhere including bars, churches and kids' playgrounds.

The Mayor may have done some things wrong, but this is not one of them.

You should read up on the subject.

But, if you are for limiting guns to one's home (except in very limited circumstances), I would join with you in support of that.

I'll bet 99.9% of those bashing Daley on this thread support concealed carry permits.

I think requiring a permit for concealed carry in public places is a reasonable restriction.

And you don't support them?!?!?

pull their weapon, I disagree.

Protecting one's home is one thing. Walking around in public -- on playgrounds, in bars, etc. -- is another issue.

checks one in the military and one out I feel perfectly comfortable carrying and dont give a shit about anyone else's behavior. If you think a person is a threat call the police.

I should be able to carry anywhere where my safety is not provided for (airports, court houses, schools, etc).

is proof enough for me (and I admit to having a pretty low threshold on this topic) that lots of permitted people should not be carrying guns into Chuck E Cheese, the local watering hole, the airport or out their front door.

That place is annoying enough to make the most level-headed person start shooting at anything that moves.

Glad you think that, I think blue is a pretty color and dream about naked women? any more psychological assessment? I know guys who think blacks should not be allowed to play on their golf courses too, I dont care what they think.
I own a gun, in my state I can go most places with it. Irrelevant to you. This topic is done, what you think is not important. Move on to fix root cause.

I am perfectly happy to see a reasonable approach to the topic of violence in poor communities..

to diagnose your anger and fear.

The screwball permit holders I've known were mostly bigots. Of course, I live in Georgia where lots of folks are afraid the "boogieman is gonna get em."

Somehow, I'm suspect of guns being a reasonable approach to violence in poor communities -- but I can see the NRA trying to use that rationale to their advantage.

so I fear heart disease and kids on cell phones while driving. You will die a boring death, if you are really special you might get smoked in a car crash. If I were black I would be very worried about people who dont do shit about the fact that 80 percent of the murders in chicago were black people.

Gun law has always been a bamboozle.

You need to find better friends, the guys I shoot with are high income college grads.

And I assure you that "high income college grads" can be bigots and have no business carrying a gun in public.

As an aside, is the Sir Walter Gun Club still open? My dad and I used to shoot there when I was a kid 40+ years ago.

Well, no, they don't, but feel free to exaggerate for effect.

It's much more informative and not as political.

and the murder rate in Governors Club is still 0. Fix the problem, no need to mess with people and make them vote R.

Bullshit. The safest thing that I can think of is me and my concealed weapon. Nobody I know wants to pull their weapon to defend their person or family. I pray that I never have to. Because that means that myself or my family is in dire jeopardy.

Now would I hesitate to pull the trigger if my life or my families lives were in jeopardy. No. I would go home and sleep well that night, knowing I did my duty as a husband and father. Besides any scumbag that crosses that rubicon has forfeited their right to be considered human. Worse than a dog with rabies. Why? Because the dog with rabies has no choice. A human ALWAYS has a choice. It may be difficult, hell, it may even be hard. Choose to act like an animal and accept your consequenses.

Ok then you say, well dont have a gun then. Let the cops do their job. Let me tell you, the cops are not their to protect you (in particular). An individual needs the means to protect themselves at all times. And if you dont trust yourself enough to have a gun, please do not ever have one. But, do not assume to preclude my right to self-defense.

may be interested in a root cause fix. Not a continued bamboozle that was actually designed to keep blacks from owning guns after reconstruction.

Crime is about poverty, drugs, and that victimizes minority communities.

"well regulated militia", if you think that's a dodge, you're sorely mistaken.

It is one of them, it's classist and racist.

Don't get me wrong, I'm from western Michigan south of Ludington.

Most people there like Chicago, particularly when it sends its residents to us to spend money all summer long.

Perhaps your view of Chicago is like much of Michigan's view of the City of Detroit.

"Fucking Illinois Bastards"

This scum is unhappy that the people of Chicago have more rights now.

40 people were shot the weekend beforehand and now this past weekend 29 were shot. If you feel so secure about people in Chicago having rights, then why don't you rightfully stand on the corner of 71st and Ashland for 10'.

You cannot purchase a spray can of paint in the city of Chicago; outlawed. You want to cry about re-establishing those rights too? It sickens me that you cannot defend your own home legally in Chicago, but don't make it seem as if it is great loss to the folks who live there.

I understand your point, but you really have no clue at all of the impact it will have.

This will result in lower crime rates in Chicago.

Unfortunately the predators are deeply entrenched, so it's going to take time, but this will result in Chicago's crime rate coming down toward other cities in the US.

how many of the shooters were legal carry? vs. how many of the shooters were gang banging scum bags??

I am well past having any sympathy or understanding for the inner-city shit-heels that feel it necessary to inflate their egos and street cred by settling disputes with firearms.

Same thing goes for the hand wringers, apologists and do nothings that blame guns and not the gangs that bring this shit down.

I don't engage in that sort of behavior, and neither does any gun owner I'm acquainted with.

Start snitching and stop bitching, sweep the shit from your streets and actually accept some responsibility, accountability and address the real problems that have created this situation.

Whatever you do, or decide how to handle it... just stay the fuck away from my Constitutional rights.

I am pro gun and anti stupidity allll the way, my point was that most people who are guin owners and ccl holders are not the ones out blasting caps at one another over some fool spilled his forty on my addidas

I mean, besides severely inconveniencing honest people who need it for lawful purposes?

40 people shot the weekend beforehand.

Gun ban works wonders, huh?

The criminals have guns if they want them, why shouldn't the law-abiding citizen?

This was last week, when the ban was still in effect, proving gun-control is a farce and doesn't work. Ter one, BlackX-068 nothing.

My right to own a gun to protect my life and property but not the same to prttect my life or the lives of family members if threatened by illness....???

Which would be really wierd.

:sarcasm:

Yeah...
/facepalm

the finding explicitly cites old law. Page 23..

The laws of some States formally prohibited African Americans from possessing firearms. For example, a Mississippi law provided that “no freed- man, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife.”

And why is it referencing "negroes" directly?
Is it obsolete?

gun control is and always about race and votes. The law was stupid, you can bribe around it in socal to get a permit for cash. 3 of 4 death are blacks. Fix root cause.

This is and always has been bullshit law.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Have the right to carry a firearm in the city and many do. This is the problem they retain the right for themselves but do not allow the general law abiding citizenry to do the same.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

214 pages!!!

ALITO, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II–C, IV, and V, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA and KENNEDY, JJ., join.
51 pages long

SCALIA, J., filed a concurring opinion. (page 52 of the PDF file) Only 15 pages long, more an repose to Justice Stevens than anything else.

THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment (he dissents as to Parts II–C, IV, and V, of the Majority opinion). (Page 67 PDF file) This is 56 pages long.

Part I is just the history of the case.
Part II A is the City of Chicago and Oak Parks
Part II B Is the History of the Bill Of rights and its early treatment under the 14th amendment.
Part II C (Thomas refused to accept this section), The Majority states this decision was made under the "Due Process Clause of <14th amendment> and not under the Privileges or Immunities Clause", Thomas wanted to reverse the Slaughterhouse cases even as to the the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th amendment thus his dissent on that issue.
Part II D - History of incorporation via the Due process clause.
Part III (page 19) - the Second Amendment and the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment The Second as perceived at the time the Bill of Rights was written and its history .
Part III B-2 (page 31) discussion of what the Congress that passed the 14th intended with the 14th.
Part IV (page 33) - Municipalities concerns with incorporating the Second as a right.
Part V - A (page 41)) - Reasons to the dissenting opinions.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. (page 123 PDF file) 57 pages

BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. (Page 180 PDF file) 35 pages long

or assume that every home now has a gun, and the cops can just stop making house-calls altogether.. If society wants High-Noon, let them just settle their own differences.