Posted on 07/09/2010 8:33:03 PM PDT by JohnRLott
As always, gun control proponents say they merely want "reasonable" gun control laws. Yet, when listing the actual laws they favor, they go well beyond what most people would possibly consider "reasonable." Just look at the gun bans in Chicago and Washington, D.C. that local politicians and gun control organizations such as the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center have fought to protect.
Last Friday, just days after the Supreme Court struck down Chicago's handgun ban, Chicago enacted strict new gun control laws. These new restrictions surely do not seem "reasonable" but rather intended to make life as difficult as possible for those who legally want to own a gun. Among the regulations is a complete ban on selling guns in Chicago. Also five hours of training is required, which may seem reasonable, but that training is forbidden to take place within the Chicago city limits.
And the list of odd restrictions in Chicago goes on. While people can own a handgun for protection in their homes, it only applies to some parts of what most people would consider their home: the gun cannot be used for self-defense in one's yard or garage, nor on your porch, even if it is enclosed. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Mayhap he fears for his life?
Do you have any insight into why Daley is so rabidly obsessed with the gun control issue?
Not that the SOB won't keep trying.
Let’s Face It, Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley Wants to Ban Guns, All Guns...
WELL Daley you can’t...tough crap!
The Supreme Court should declare Da Mayor, and such of the City Council that voted for this, as being in Contempt. Then throw their ashes in their own jails.
I think areas like this are Daleys wifes doing, she was the force behind turning Meigs Airfield into a damn park.
He’s already lost this war! Further actions will just delay the inevitable... Legal possession, less crime.. He just simply does not want that to happen (I guess, loss of control...heh).
He is one of the old statists that can’t abide by law - he will soon be removed...
OTOH, we apparently have a nice new, empty, jail just to the west of Chicago, near the Iowa border. Put ‘em in there, with the terrorists.
"The Court did not even rule on the constitutionality of the one law that was at issue — a handgun ban in Chicago — nor did it tell the Seventh Circuit Court what constitutional standard to apply in judging that law when the case returns there." --Lyle Denniston, SCOTUSBlog
The Daley family has been in charge long enough. Hell, they had Kennedy knocked off, isn’t that enough for the masses?
Ok, let him start with disarming his security guards and all the cops in Chicago. If he succeeds in that and it flies for six months or so, then let him make his case to the general public that they will also be safer without guns.
That's why Daley is doing this: the SCOTUS avoided the issue, so he rammed forward as if nothing happened, because technically, it didn't - yet.
of course...the progressives want guns off the table...it would be the only they could force the agenda on us...with guns they could never turn us into a commie country.
It got the camel’s nose in the tent.
Come on. He doesn’t want to ban ALL guns. Just the ones in people who might use them to defend themselves against criminals and tyrants like him.
No, they don’t want to ban ALL guns... just guns outside of goverment control.
I wonder if he will do it after he loses the next election or “retires”, one of which is a certainty.
Just once I would love to see some conservative state take the “reasonable” gun laws and apply them, line by line to the press. High Speed Printers capable of more than 100 PPM would need special licenses, reporting will require a license and a 3 day state training class, etc.
It would be fun to do this without copping to the fact that it was paraphrased gun laws. Watch the press scream, then point out it’s just the same reasonable laws they (lib press) are always supporting for the 2nd applied to their beloved 1st.
Watch the fur fly the first time some smart-ass says
“high speed assault printers, printers of mass distribution such as those used by the New York Times could be very dangerous in the wrong hands. Look, Hitler owned newspapers, without his newspapers the holocaust could never have happened. We need to prevent another Hitler from gaining access to High Speed Assault Printers again, surely everyone can agree on this sensible regulation”
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.