Thread: Mayor Daley lays out strict gun rules for Chicago

Have patience my constitutional friends...Mayor Dilly Dalley is walking himself into a corner with his BS ordinance that will sure to be found illegal.

I am suprised that he didn't make it a law that your window must be closed so no one can see your handgun inside the home.

His law against having a second firearm not serviceable will be thrown out as to restrictive as he will not be able to show how that protects the overall wellbeing of the City.

His restrictions against firearms stores will be tossed. His restriction against firearms ranges within city limits will be tossed.

His fines will be tossed as too excessive compared to other violations of city ordinances.

His restrictions on the home garage or porch will be tossed as it is considered a part of the home and therfore has its protections.

He is clearly displeased with the Supreme Court ruling and is having a huge public temper tantrum. His female mouthpiece just opened up her big mouth making a bad comment regarding the Supreme Court and that will not go over well with them.

The District Federal Court can expect many legal challenges to come forth once any of these items the Mayor announced actually become city law.

One by one, they will be dismantled. Now, we can push forward to help Chicago and Illinois citizens recover more of their 2nd Amendment rights such as the right to carry in their private vehicle, on their person, ect.

Lastly, the Chicago Mayor should be fired for spending taxpayer (deficit) money and causing a further deficit in inacting gun control ordinances that will be challenged, won, and the City forced to pay the legal expenses. Didn't he hear, his city and state is woefully broke.

12 billion and climbing deficit.

I am happy to assist with my NRA dues to rip this Mayor a new one

Originally Posted by ChiWatcher2

Originally Posted by bigtex

Get over it Mayor Daley, now people in your crime ridden city have the right to defend themselves.

I think we've always had the right to defend ourselves; our local government just thinks that right is optional. This compromise is just the Mayor having a hissy-fit because he didn't get his way.

You are right but Alito was wrong!

The 39th Congress did not intend by the 14th Amendment to make the provisions of our Constitution’s first ten amendments enforceable upon the States by the federal government. As for the right to keep and bear arms, I assume all freedom loving Americans agree that is a right not to be infringed upon by government, local, state or federal. As for me, I see that right originating and manifesting itself in the inalienable right of mankind to defend one’s self and family, and as such, every state, local or federal law which would infringe upon a law abiding member of the community to exercise this right, is an assault not only upon an inalienable right, but an assault upon the very principles our founding fathers believed in and engrained in our constitutions, state and federal.

The right to keep and bear arms is a self evident right, just as the right to breath air is a self evident right of mankind … and neither need a law to protect the right! But our wise founding fathers, after adopting our federal Constitution, decided to add further declaratory restrictions to our federal Constitution to prevent the newly formed federal government from misconstruing or abusing its powers, one of which was specifically directed at preserving the right to keep and bear arms. How do I know this to be true? Because it is stated, in crystal clear language, in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .

And as to powers reserved by the States and the people, often referred to as “federalismâ€

Very nice post. I agree 100%. My thoughts are we should have never had to file a lawsuit to begin with as it is clearly written that it is a right to bear arms and hence the second part of the tool used has its name "firearms".

It should be clearly recognized that citizens do not have to obey an illegal law or ordinance. I believe gun registration and permits are a violation of the same rights we clearly hold. A knife can be an arm so why not require all knives to be registered and permitted? Same with a sword, a stick, a rock, ect. Many manmade objects can and have been used as a form of arms.

We have the right to self defense and we don't need a permit for that. All we need is a justification that reasonable people would agree to. Problem is, doesn't appear to be many reasonable peope left, just liberals and democrats.

Justice Alito perpetuates incorporation myth, applying Fed bill of rights to states!



It is sad to report that Justice Alito has sided with the progressive's "incorporation myth and ruse" that the 39th Congress intended to allow the federal government to enter the States to enforce the 2nd Amendment upon the States. What the 39th Congress actually intended with regard to the 14th Amendment and gun ownership was, that whatever a state’s regulatory laws were with regard to firearms ownership, they were forbidden to make distinctions based upon race or color. That is the gist of the 14th Amendment with regard to it being applied to gun ownership. If a Black felon was denied the right to gun ownership, so too must a White felon be denied the right to keep and bear arms. It really is not a very complicated matter.

Alito, in perpetuating the incorporation myth, relied hugely upon unacceptable quotes from John Bingham [father of the amendment] which are pointed to by progressives to pretend Congress, by the amendment, intended the federal bill of rights would be enforceable upon the States by the federal government.

But the plain truth is, the 14th Amendment was not understood by the 39th Congress to be granting a power to the federal government to enforce the federal BOR upon the states.

The Bingham quotes which Alito relied upon were made years after the debates which framed the 14th Amendment, and Bingham’s quotes are not only irrelevant under the rules of Constitution law, but they did not form an approving consensus among members of the 39th Congress which debated the 14th Amendment! And why should they when the very same rights were already protected under State Constitutions, but in some states they were not extended to Blacks because of “Black Code Laws“, which the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, were both intended by the 39th Congress to put an end to, and require the equal protection of a State‘s law, whatever they may be, to be applied without distinctions based upon race or color.

As a matter of fact, the language of the 14th Amendment was far more encompassing than the mere eight articles mentioned by Bingham in 1871…the 14th Amendment extended the protection to all [b][i]“privileges and immunitiesâ€

Daley is the biggest criminal of them all.

I lived in Chicago, it's a total joke, there are a lot of good hard working people there but they are taken so advantage of by every city politician (all on the take) who all think they walk on water and you have to genuflect when they utter a word. while they ruin their state with their leftist statism and outright corruption and theft. and now these totalitarian gun laws from the leftist unindicted Daley whose socialist "policies" (most of us call it capitulation to lawlessness) have led to the rampant crime and ghettos there. they caused this horror, and now they conspire to remove our ability to defend ourselves from the horror they caused with their endless socialism.

complete scum the lot of them, including every turd that has left that bowl to permanently foul our white house.

11/2