Confiscation of guns begins in IL

http://www.kc3.com/news/chicago_confiscation.htm


Chicago Anti Gun Enforcement (CAGE) unit

The Chicago Police Department and the Illinois State Police have teamed up to make good on Mayor Daley's pledge that, if it were up to him, nobody would have a gun. Daley and his elite "CAGE" unit are apparently taking advantage of gun privacy loopholes to pinpoint certain individuals for inclusion in the confiscation program.

The ISRA is following up on leads in one case that has disturbing implications. An elderly first-generation Chicago resident was recently paid a visit by an Illinois State Police trooper. After asking to come inside the man's home, the trooper asked if the man owned a gun - to which he replied yes. The trooper then directed the individual to surrender the firearm. The man complied with the officer's demand and the trooper left with the gun. And the story gets better...

The gun in question was purchased legally by the man in the 1970s shortly after he became a U.S. citizen. When Chicago's infamous gun registration scheme went into effect in the early 1980s, the man registered the firearm as per the requirement. However, over the years, the fellow apparently forgot to re-register the firearm, and forgot to renew his Illinois FOID Card.

....more at link.

let the police into your home or consent to a search of your home or car without a warrent.

No to mention its usually a bad idea to talk to the police without a lawyer present. Exceptions would be a traffic stops or when you call them for a specific purpose.

But if the cops show up at your door unannounced..its NOT because they paying a social visit..90% of time its because you are a suspect and they are hoping to get you to incriminate yourself.

Someone is punished for failing to obey gun registration laws.

Boo hoo.

P.

in most places in America.

He had to register them where he lived, which he did and then failed to meet ongoing registration requirements.

How is this impacted by the lack of gun registration laws elsewhere?

is that I disagree with gun registration laws and so does the majority of this nation.

As such I dont think the guy did anything wrong. I do not support bad laws and I dont think any less of people who violate laws that I disagree with.

This guy wasn't making a protest against an unjust law, he simply failed to abide by a law designed to give some control over gun ownership.

I don't think that a 70mph speed limit is high enough on British motorways (freeways), given that it's been at that level for many years and ignores increases in vehicle technology. However, that doesn't mean I regard speeding motorists as being repressed individuals fighting the good fight.

You don't get to choose which laws to obey I'm afraid.

Yet another "law abiding gun owner" choosing which laws to obey. Why doesn't that surprise me?

And so would I.

but I'm not sure whether I should dignify it with a reply.

It strikes me that anyone who would equate an individual's personal protest for racial equality with somebody failing to abide by local firearms laws is either desperate, misguided or ignorant.

No offence.

Just because somebody once broke an unjust law and highlighted (deliberately or not) government sanctioned inequality, it doesn't mean that somebody else breaking another law (through indifference or forgetfulness) is similarly righteous.

Can nobody see that if you only abide by the laws you agree with then you're not abiding by the law. Certainly you have every right to lobby for a change in the law and highlight areas that you think are unfair, but it's disingenous to claim that you're law abiding when you have no intention of obeying stuff you don't agree with.

You can't claim a superior moral authority over and above the law for either this old guy or yourself - it's just your opinion.

a man-made one, but the comparison applies to a degree anyway. Who does decide what laws should be followed and which should not? In the end, this responsibility will fall to the masses. We can lobby to get a law changed and this usually works, eventually. But what about the marijuana laws? The only people that I meet that are truly for these laws have never really sat down and thought about the issues. Once you challenge them to find someone that has died from just marijuana or committed an act of violence brought on by just marijuana, and then ask them to compare this to alcohol, they generally start to change their minds. The kicker is, the people can lobby for a law change until the cows come home but the law won't change without civil disobedience by the people and the police; there is just too much money riding on marijuana remaining illegal.

Is disobeying the law a good thing or a bad thing in this case? I don't like to see laws ignored because laws are society's way of expressing what our standards of decency are, our views of what is good and just. However, the social costs of this law are incredibly high and destroy the anti-drug message that should be taken deadly seriously about other drugs, like meth.

In case you are wondering, I don't like pot and I don't use it.

This is repression. There's no degree of repression IMO. It's akin to being "a little bit pregnant".

segregation with firearms control? There is no difference? Its all black and white (no pun intended)?

The difference is twofold:

1) Owning a gun is a choice, being black is not

2) Gun ownership is not a neutral choice, like for example the right to practice religion (or indeed the smoking of marijuana), where the only person being affected is you. Your owning a gun, as self defence advocates keep telling us, affects society quite considerably.

I could agree with this: Gun ownership is not a neutral choice, like for example the right to practice religion (or indeed the smoking of marijuana), where the only person being affected is you. Your owning a gun, as self defence advocates keep telling us, affects society quite considerably. except that it is erroneous. If one practices religion of any sort and donates money to the church, the choice affects others - if in no other way through aid from the church or mission work. Unless a pot smoker grows his own, lives alone, and does not own the property on which it is grown there are other implications. The courts in my area are quite fond of seizing homes and farms where pot is grown. In that case, others living there can be affected when the eviction notice comes and in this state at least, the cops get the proceeds from the sale of the property to put into their departmental needs. (I could go on, but you should get my line of thinking.

Everything has the potential to affect others. At this point, firearms ownership is legal. The only repurcussions to others is the economic boost for manufacturers and retailers.

All that aside, to address the segregation issue: there are apartment and condo communities that forbid firearms ownership for the residents and guests of the property. IMO that's akin to barring Catholics or protestants because of their beliefs.

don't remember what came of it. It was from the same general time frame as evicting from government housing anyone selling drugs, even if the sale was by a dependant and occurred off-property.

country is the attitude of the people towards it. Once more and more people began to ignore the law and less and less police continued to enforce it, Prohibition was effectively dead. One elderly man I know used to remark that towards the end you could be arrested for drinking whiskey on main street at high noon but a jury would still find you not guilty.

Politicians should always keep in mind that the laws they write must eventually prove popular with the masses or the law will die. Case in point, our esteemed city council passed an ordinance here requiring all bicyclists wear helmets. The ordinance was routinely ignored and the police selectively enforced it; the law is gone now.

...or interested, in listening to snide sarcasm & analysis about the rule of democratic law in the United States from a citizen of an ongoing Constitutional Monarchy that, as recently as the mid-twentieth century, had it's Imperialist boot on the neck of such "colonies" as India, among many other assorted nasty historical pleasantries.
Thank goodness for Yorktown, circa 1781....

How did I miss that.....

But then I presume that your ancestors' slaughter of the Native American population must disqualify you from talking about the repression of minorities, eh?

In fact, I tell you what, why don't we all agree that all our countries have got sordid pasts and therefore we should all sit around in silence because no individual has the right to an opinion.

Holy fucking shit, you come into a discussion forum and tell someone to shut up based on their nationality?

Congratulations, you're a genius. You must really wow them in debating circles.......

driving on the WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD so why should we listen to you at all? :) :) :)

hahaha

try and keep up with the program.

:eyes:

Knowing that this old man won't be out robbing banks, and that if he should be robbed himself, his assailant won't be harmed by an illegal application of self defense.

It must be working to, since we never hear about the turf wars by the gangs of elderly men.

Of course it's more important to take guns away from career criminals, but this guy failed to obey relevant firearms legislation and had paid the penalty.

If you're not responsible enough to adhere to the regulations then you aren't responsible enough to keep a gun, both in my view and the view of the local law.

I dont think registration has anything to do with responsibility.

There are plenty of people who registered their cars and have the necessary insurance, yet they are irresponsible and cause accidents.

There are probably plenty of people who drive unregistered cars and/or dont have the necessary insurance who havent caused accidents.

I dont think being able to fill out paperwork and pay a fee does not resonsible a person make.

then it's irresponsible not to register.

Your argument is false - I'm not saying that registering a gun (or a car) entails that you're a responsible owner, I'm saying that not registering one (or obeying other relevant laws intended to increase overall societal safety) is irresponsible.

I can say that driving above the speed limit is against the law without implying that driving under the speed limit means you're a law abiding citizen - you may also be an axe murderer.

I can equally say that banning guns would reduce violent crime without concluding that there are no violent crimes without guns, or saying that banning guns stops all gun crime.

"Duuuuh, but guns are illegal in the UK and look, here's someone who's been shot there......"

(Bangs head against wall).

"

increase overall societal safety I would be happy to register my firearms, if I had any. The trust of citizens that own firearms is gone though and the "target audience" would not comply anyway. I would like to see the money that would go towards trying to implement one go towards scholarships in low income areas though.

Good to know, good to know. Adds an nice asterisk to the definition of "law-abiding gun owner."

The first thing the leader of a peaceful movement wants to be sure of is that his supporters are all armed to the teeth. :eyes:

but not in spirit.

I leave out for now the discussion of registration, which imo is an evil all by itself. Lets just assume for a moment that registration is actually a good thing.

My point was focused on the misapplication of justice.

Just as you don't have SWAT teams staking out the freeway for speeders doing 56 mph, its a misapplication of justice to have a specialized unit hunting down old men who pose no threat to public safety.

Chicago is a relative cesspool of crime and murder, yet this focused professional law enforcement team somehow has time for this? Either the cops are way way overfunded to the point of a police state, or they are ignoring serious crime in favor of easy headlines.

"Either the cops are way way overfunded to the point of a police state, or they are ignoring serious crime in favor of easy headlines."

Otherwise known as the "Why aren't you out catching real criminals?" defence.

Countered with the "If you break the law, you are a real criminal" gambit.

:)

""Countered with the "If you break the law, you are a real criminal" gambit.""

We are *ALL* real criminals.

If you've ever cursed(*), had sex outside of marriage(*), rolled through a stop sign, gone 1 mile over the posted speed limit, or broken a plethora of minor and sometimes outdated laws, then you are a real criminal.

Yet I doubt that you would favor zealous house to house prosecution of these crimes.

Thats my entire point. This elderly man is a real criminal, but I cringe at the tactics used to bring him "to justice".

(* of course IM talking about ancient, but still on the books blue laws that no one has ever bothered to repeal, but are still technically enforceable)

Surely you're not referring to things such as the fact that it's illegal to put an ice cream cone in your pocket in Lexington, KY!!

Many cities and states still have laws on the books that require someone to walk ahead of an automobile carrying a lantern and ringing a bell if the vehicle is being driven after dark. Makes perfect sense to me!

street. This was from a time when the main street was a boulevard that people walked on and socialized. It is a six lane now but the law is still on the books. :)

You're talking about modern-day laws intended to solve modern-day problems. Where's the similarity?

What a terrible place to live. I hate Daley and his thugs. Edit, my hate for Daley is not based soley upon his anti-freedom stand on firearms. It is also due to personal interactions. He is truly an assclown in my book.

whatever about this and always has. The Foi card is required in Illinois which I have, but just because you have a foi card does not mean you have a gun. Daley was being shrewd as he always is.

I guess it'll be all those project cars that are in back yards and garages that the owners haven't kept registered because they're not driveable until the rebuilds are finished.

Thankfully, I don't live in that state. Never will either. Not a chance.

that ordered the purchase records to be released to the CAGE unit?

Some of my favorite parts of this article include comments about liberal judges (fuck them!) and the fact that the site calls the "victim" a law-abiding citizen. Uh, there was a law, he failed to meet the requirements, he's screwed.

Liberal judges, one case and lots of wild speculation.

I saw no research, mainly supposition posing as fact.

Here is a bit about CAGE, btw

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/profile11.html

Did I mention that it delights me to no end to have RW crap spread all over DU?

Great thread. :eyes:

it rightfully belongs. CLINTON!!! :) :) :)

on this Free Republic thread. :)

All dems don't like the policies of all other dems.

It's the core issues that bind us. I'm extremely pro-RKBA, but RKBA seems to be a minor issue with most dems outside of a few fanatics on both sides. I have to agree that Clinton was far too left on RKBA for me, but he had many other programs that I supported and still support completely.

It's an imperfect world. Thank goodness we're not a 1984 scenario party.

hard time making anything resemble DU.

She does illustrate quite well a belief of mine. There are many branches of conservatism that a conservative can sit on and the same goes for liberals. You can sit on one branch of the tree and agree 92% of the time was those on the branch with you, 68% of those on the next branch, and so forth. This varies with the individual but is most pronounced when looking at the "natives" of each region, however you want to define a region. To me this board weighs heavily towards the views of the North Eastern Seaboard and much of California. There is nothing wrong with that but there will be people on this board that many will disagree with much of the time. These people are in the same camp, just in a different part of it. Many of them strongly disagree with DF and wish she were not in office as they feel she gives the whole "tree" a bad name, so in a sense I can understand some of the overly harsh criticism of her.

There -are- liberal judges.

like it or not.

Collective rights (which is a meaningless term), is a conservative reading of the 2nd ammendment.


RKBA -IS- a liberal idea.

small difference there...

are overwhelmingly Republican and conservative. The politicians, activists, and groups that push gun controls are overwhelmingly Democratic and progressive. You know this is true as well as I do. Can we please 86 the bull about RKBA being a liberal or progressive principle? The very article which began this thread bashes "liberal judges," for godsake!

like Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Sarah Brady, Bill O'Reilly, Mike DeWine, John Warner, Olympia Snowe, Gordon Smith, Richard Lugar, Judd Gregg, and Peter Fitzgerald for starters. I guess we should stick John McCain on that list since the gun grabbers love him so.

....promoted by conservative groups like the NRA and the Republican Party, promulgated by conservative politicians like Tom DeLay, and pushed along by conservative commentators like Gordon Liddy, Ann Coulter, George Will, Michelle Malkin, ad nauseum. In other words, the enemies of the Democratic Party.

By the way, is it an RKBA article of faith that the word "amendment" needs to be continuously misspelled? Does it look more authoritative to you with that extra "m" slipped in there? Just wondering......

of the second amendment.


Their claim that "the right of the people" is actually a "right of the state" to arm its militia is pure nonsense, and depends on a deliberate falsification of history to carry its point. Employing false history is the method used by Fascists and Communists, not of Liberal or Progressive persons or movements.


(From Silveira)
"After conducting our analysis of the meaning of the
words employed in the amendment’s two clauses, and the
effect of their relationship to each other, we concluded that
the language and structure of the amendment strongly support
the collective rights view. The preamble establishes that the
amendment’s purpose was to ensure the maintenance of effective
state militias, and the amendment’s operative clause
establishes that this objective was to be attained by preserving
the right of the people to “bear arms” — to carry weapons in
conjunction with their service in the militia. To resolve any
remaining uncertainty, we carefully examined the historical
circumstances surrounding the adoption of the amendment.
Our review of the debates during the Constitutional Convention,
the state ratifying conventions, and the First Congress,
as well as the other historical materials we have discussed,
confirmed what the text strongly suggested: that the amendment
was adopted in order to protect the people from the
threat of federal tyranny by preserving the right of the states
to arm their militias. The proponents of the Second Amendment
believed that only if the states retained that power could
the existence of effective state militias — in which the people
could exercise their right to “bear arms” — be ensured. The
historical record makes it equally plain that the amendment
was not adopted in order to afford rights to individuals with
respect to private gun ownership or possession."



1) There is no "state" in front of militia in the second amendment,
nor does the phrase "state militia" appear in any of the texts that the Silveira court cited, though that fact did not stop judge Reinhardt from repeating the phrase 49 times in Silveira and inserting it into texts in which it does not appear in the original.
(such as the Miller decision, and artical 1, section 8 of the US COnstitution)

2) The right protected by the second amendment is the right to "keep and bear arms" and as the Silveira court was well aware that meant "possession and use" as per the Miller decision, and any rational reading of the historical record. Furthermore it is clear from the record, even the limited record cited by the court, that "to keep and bear arms" referred to actions of individuals.


3) The proponents of the second amendment did NOT push for a right of states to arms their militia. Madison defended the Constitution and thought it wise that the federal government have the power over the militia. Madison and Hamilton defended Artical 1, Section 8 of the US COnstitution -they did however say that the "people at large should be armed" (fed 29) and that "the americans possess the advantage of being armed"(Fed 46). Furthermore the militia act of 1792 required that all free male persons capable of bearing arms provide themselves with arms, so they were hardly intent on creating only select militias in which only a small fraction of the people would be armed.


4)Contrary to the Judge's words, the historical record does indeed support the notion of an individual right to possess and use weapons. In his highly influential treatise, A Defense of the Constitution, John Adams wrote:

”To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, EXCEPT IN PRIVATE SELF-DEFENCE, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws..."
(My emphasis)

But you won't find the phrase "except in private self-defense" in Judge Reinhart's citation of that same "highly influential treatise".
He deleted that part.

Nor will you find in the Silveira court's "thorough historical analysis" a mention of how the newspapapers of the day reported on the amendment:

Federal Gazette ,1789 (Tenche Coxe )
As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Anyone wanting Project Exile, HardTimeforGunCrime, or Safe Neighborhood and then bitching when someone is caught not following the law.

Take it to the state forum and argue IL laws and local politics.

Exile here. It must work; knifings are up. :)

"knifings are up"

That's good. A stabbing is much more survivable. I posted some research to that effect a little while ago. Something like 90% of stab wounds to the heart are survivable, whilst only something like 30% os gunshot wounds to the same region are.

stabbings, and are incredibly good at it. The knife has always been a big weapon here so I guess that makes sense.

I'm serious. If you live in Illinois and you believe firearm ownership is an important civil liberty, move to a state which respects your rights. Move to Indiana. Even Michigan is better. Get out of Illinois. Let them have their "perfect society" and staggering murder rates.

He's a little busy right now, trashing homosexuals, but I'm sure he'll be back to his spittle-flecked advocacy of Machineguns For Everybody before you know it.

If there is any truth to the old adage that you're known by the company you keep, you guys are well and truly fucked, AWB lapse or not......

Alan Keyes only does Obama good every time he opens his mouth. Alan Keyes is the best thing for Obama and the Dem Patty. I wish he would talk to all the media every day..... til election... then he will be booed off the stage, nullified, disregarded by his own party and sent packing back to Maryland. What more could you ask for? What is your point other than disparaging other Dems?

But since it seems to have shot past you, let's try it again: there are two candidates for the Illinois senate seat, Obama and Keyes. Of those two, Keyes is the one ranting about what a good idea it is for everybody to be packing machineguns. The point is, he's your guy; if disreputable, right-wing nutcase politicians like Alan Keyes weren't doing the RKBA movement's heavy lifting, it wouldn't be getting done. Thus, in the long run, you and your cause are fucked. If you want to treat that as a compliment, be my guest. I'm used to bizarre responses from you guys.....

You must support Castro if you are anti-gun and that is really pathetic don't you think? http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/30/173908.shtml

Also, you must be a China sympathizer as well, considering they do not alow guns for their citizens either. ...

The premise to your logic is bizarre.

Alan Keyes is not "our" man. but if you want to argue based on a false and misleading assumption, then I will take your ill-fated premise and conclude you are a Castro hugger.

Your point is very bizarre.

"Castro hugger." Ouch, that really cuts to the quick.

Actually, I'd give the guy a hug, if I could get a box of Cohiba corona gordas out of the deal.....

In his first dictionary, Diderot defined Crab as a red fish that walks backwards. A zoologist wrote him explaining that a crab is not a fish, not naturally red, and does not walk backwards, but that otherwise his definition was indisputable.

I saw this article like 6 months ago. This is old. However, it made me sick. Comon the guy was old and probably forgot about all this and they raided him. Chicago police should raid the houses of gangbangers not a senile old man. How would they like it if someone raided their house and took their car because they forgot to reregister it?

for a whole laundry list of reasons.

-The article was pretty much flamebait in the first place, and originates from a right leaning site - to be polite.

-The originator of the thread is no longer available for comment and offered no initial comment.

-The article met its promise - it has degenerated into nothing but a flame fest