Posted on 06/29/2010 10:48:35 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
CHICAGO—The day after the Supreme Court cleared a path to overturn this city's ban on handguns—among the toughest in the U.S.—frustrated city officials began Tuesday to consider new measures to circumvent the high court's ruling.
At a tense City Hall meeting packed with citizens holding up photos of children who'd been shot, city aldermen discussed forcing gun owners to purchase liability insurance and to undergo criminal background checks and periodic firearms training. They also peppered a firearms-law expert and Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis with questions while promising to pass something meaningful.
If the city can pass a dog ordinance that "can protect the public from a dog bite," we should be able to tighten handgun regulations, Alderman Freddrenna Lyle said.
The debate comes at the direction of Mayor Richard Daley, an outspoken critic of gun access who reacted angrily to the Supreme Court decision.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
I’m SURE those people died of natural causes, like being trampled by rogue elephants, or falling debris for space. Guns are illegal in Chicago, and no one would dare own one and break the law, so those people couldn’t have died from gun shots.
I wish a Judge would find these City officials in contempt of court!
They need a serious slap down from the court because it seems the majority of voters will keep these idiots in office.
Someone, perhaps Mr. McDonald, who prevailed in the recent case, should publicly ask the member of the Chicago City Council, exactly what part of “shall not be infringed” they don’t understand, and then explain it to them using small words and short sentences.
I just hope all these dems who are boycotting AZ on the grounds that they are “trumping federal authority” will extend their boycott to Chicago as well.
Does not apply to whites. Ask the Duke lacrosse team.
Why don’t they try banning the animal black gang members who murder numerous people on a daily basis?
Richard Daley has to be one of the biggest aholes in America. And that’s saying something.
Does Daley have an interest in an insurance company?
Does Daley actually think that criminals & gang members are going to sign up for such insurance?
Does Daley have his own special provider of crack or meth that he is consuming?
The streets of Chicago are filled with gangs & criminals—all the way to the state house & he is still blaming the citizen who wants to be able to protect themselves.
Perhaps U-Haul should make a “Leaving Chicago Special Price” so that someone in that maggot-infested state gets a clue.
I saw the attorney and the lead plaintiff on Hannity Monday hight and when asked what he thought of the politicians who were forcing those laws on him, he stammered and then talked about how he liked many, if not most, of them, voted for them and most likely would vote for them again.
I turned to my wife and said this is nothing more then battered wife syndrome. He was lucky enough to be searched out by a lawyer to bring the case against the city but not smart enough to vote out the bastards who put him in the position to be the plaintiff in a Supreme Court case.
Stupid is as stupid does.
The irony is this turned from a Chicago ruling to all 50 states.
And therein lies the fiction. The city cannot pass an ordinance protecting the public from dog bites; asin, no city worker is going to interpose him/herself between the biter and the bitee. It can only pass an ordinance punishing the dog owner after the action has taken place. It starts with a flawed premise, so naturally what follows is necessarily flawed.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It isn't real hard to grasp the concept, is it? Unless the person is a Chicago Alderman, in which case all logic and reason escapes.
It’s my impression that big cities like Chicago have political machines that last for decades. They hand out jobs and contracts and other favors and it’s hard to blast them out of their seats. The only thing that can break up the machine is to remove most of them in handcuffs.
BTTT
Last time I checked there was no Constitutional right to own a dog.(but Daley is a little bitch.)
Left-wing Second Amendment problem-solving algorithm:
0. There is no crime. Nobody needs a gun!
1. Crime goes down. The gun control is working!!
2. Crime stays the same. We need more gun control!!!
3. Crime increases. We need a LOT more gun control!!!!
Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
If Guns Were Treated Like Cars:
http://www.mcsm.org/guncars.html
yep. one is Constitutionally protected, the other is not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.