Today is the day Chicagoans!! First Step's To Reforming Chicago's BS Gun Law's.

Chitownheadbusa

♏|God|♏
BGOL Investor
SCOTUSpedestrianR397_doomsday_604x341.jpg


Will the Supreme Court Recognize the Truth About Chicago's Handgun Ban?

By John Lott
- FOXNews.com


What the crime data show is that gun laws primarily disarm law-abiding citizens, they do not make them safer.

In the 2008 “Heller” decision, the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban and gunlock requirements. Unsurprisingly, gun control advocates predicted disaster. They were wrong. What actually happened in our nation’s capital after the Heller decision ought to be remembered tomorrow as the Supreme Court hears a similar constitutional challenge to the Chicago handgun ban.

When the Heller case was decided, Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty warned: "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence." Knowing that Chicago's gun laws would soon face a similar legal challenge, Mayor Richard Daley was particularly vocal. The day that the Heller decision was handed down, Daley said that he and other mayors across the country were "outraged" by the decision and he predicted more deaths along with Wild West-style shootouts. Daley warned that people "are going to take a gun and they are going to end their lives in a family dispute."

But Armageddon never arrived. Quite the contrary, murders in Washington plummeted by an astounding 25 percent in 2009, dropping from 186 murders in 2008 to 140. That translates to a murder rate that is now down to 23.5 per 100,000 people, Washinton’s lowest since 1967. While other cities have also fared well over the last year, D.C.'s drop was several times greater than that for other similar sized cities. According to preliminary estimates by the FBI, nationwide murders fell by a relatively more modest 10 percent last year and by about 8 percent in other similarly sized cities of half a million to one million people (D.C.'s population count is at about 590,000).

This shouldn't be surprising to anyone who has followed how crime rates change after gun bans have been imposed. Around the world, whenever guns are banned, murder rates rise.

Washington’s murder rate soared after its handgun ban went into effect in early 1977 (there is only one year while the ban was in effect that the murder rate fell below the1976 number and that happened many years later -- in 1985). Its murder rate also rose relative to other cities. Washington’s murder rate rose from 12 percent above the average for the 50 most populous cities in 1976 to 35 percent above the average in 1986.

Chicago fared no better after the 7th Circuit Appeals court upheld its ban on new handguns in late 1982. Over the next 19 years following the ban, there were only three years where the murder rate was as low as in 1982. As shown in the forthcoming third edition of my book "More Guns, Less Crime," before the ban, Chicago's murder rate was falling relative to the 9 other largest cities, the 50 largest cities, the five counties that boarder Cook county, as well as the U.S. as a whole. After the ban Chicago's murder rate rose relative to all these other places. For example, comparing murder rates among the 50 most populous cities, the murder rate went from equaling the average for the other cities in 1982, to exceeding their average murder rate by 32 percent in 1992, to exceeding their average by 68 percent in 2002.

The failures of gun bans in the U.S. are frequently blamed on lax gun restrictions in other states. But the experiences of other countries, even in island nations that have banned handguns and in countries where borders are easy to monitor, do not support this claim. For when handgun bans were enacted in Ireland and Jamaica, in 1972 and 1974, respectively, murder rates doubled over the following decade. And take the more recent example in England and Wales, where handguns were banned in 1997: deaths and injuries from gun crime more than doubled over the next seven years.

The benefits of guns are not lost on Chicago's politicians. Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote in 2008 that there are two types of people who are allowed to have handguns in Chicago: "The criminals. And the politicians." The politicians use their pull to either "become deputized peace officers so they can carry" or "often go around surrounded by armed bodyguards on the city payroll." It is just that the politicians don't want to extend those benefits to the citizens they are supposed to represent. This includes Mr. Otis McDonald, the lead plaintiff in the Chicago case. He is a 76-year-old black man living in a neighborhood infested with drug dealers. McDonald's home has been burglarized three times, and he would like to possess a handgun that he can easily access next to his bed.

Chicago's fate will be decided on constitutional issues. The decision ultimately comes down to whether the Second Amendment applies to the states in the same way that the 14th Amendment has been applied to most of the Bill of Rights. It would seem to be a no-brainer, especially since the 14th Amendment was in large part passed to protect newly freed blacks from Southern states passing laws to disarm them. Nevertheless, how one sees guns affecting crime seems to color interpretation of the Constitution. The brief submitted by the city of Chicago to the Supreme Court repeatedly emphasizes the claim that more guns cause more crime. They argue: "a handgun ban and stringent firearms regulation will best address the very serious problem of handgun crime and violence in their communities."

Despite Chicago's ban, criminals still have managed to get their hands on guns. During the first 10 months of last year Chicago police confiscated or recovered 7,234 guns, which is about one gun for every 14 gang members in Chicago and surrounding suburbs. And police found just a small fraction of the guns. What the crime data show is that gun laws primarily disarm law-abiding citizens, they do not make them safer. Even restrictions on guns, such as laws that mandate that citizens store shotguns and rifles locked and unloaded, defeat the very purpose of guns and often make the guns no more useful than sticks.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press). The book's third edition of which will be published in May.


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/01/john-lott-supreme-court-guns-chicago-ban/



First and foremost I believe that all American's should have the right to own a gun. I only own a shotgun right now because legally thats all Im allowed to own. Out of all the states in the USA, Illinois has some of the worst gun laws.

I equate a gun, or what i like to call them "equalizers", to items like a fire extinguishers, First Aid kits, etc. You keep these items with you JUST IN CASE a fire occurs or you get injured. Theyre there to save you & your families lives. Well....you keep a gun with you JUST IN CASE you get confronted by some crazy motherfucker that dont wanna act right. That gun is also there to save you and your families lives.

Most criminals, especially in the poor Black community prey on the weak. They prey on the people that they know cant defend themselves. They prey on the people that have to depend on a police department that is under staffed and is full ignorant mofo's that consider their lives worthless. They prey on people that fear them because they have guns and know others ------ with guns.

Now dont get me wrong, you have some crazy people out there that will test you no matter if you have a gun or not; but the bulk of the people on this planet will respond accordingly if they know that you may have a gun on your person and is capable of whipping them off this Earth with one squeeze.

Tomorrow "the good people" are basically gonna argue about the right for Chicagoans, and other folks in Illinois to keep handguns in their homes. Currently, we're only allowed to own long ass shotguns. Anyone that knows about guns knows that trying to defend yourself in a house with a long ass shotgun puts YOU at a major disadvantage.

This law will get over turned just like its gotten over turned everywhere else. The next agenda will be to allow Chicagoans to join the CCW (carry concealed weapon) party.

People like 2 label guns as one of the worst creations by man; but i beg to differ. Guns dont kill people...people kill people.

Yeah...Big FUCK YOU to Mayor Daley. People are tired of your BS.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Get ready for armed conflict in the streets. They want Chicago to be another Columbine.

Theres already plenty of one sided conflicts in the street.
Soooooo......
and plus..the argument that theyll be having today is for the right for people to have handguns in their homes...not on the streets. the CCW fight is set for a later date.

Gun laws like the one in Chicago do nothing but deny LAW ABIDING CITIZENS their right to carry....put more stress on the police force......keep people in neglected neighborhoods hostage...etc etc.

The criminals will get the guns if theyre illegal or not.
so why is the gun ban needed?

I can name countless of robbery, rape, burglary and murder attempts, in other states, that have been prevented because the victim was carrying a gun. Of course the criminal lost his/her life...but so what. you live that type of lifestyle...you suffer the consequences. Good Karma IMO
 
Last edited:
I gotta totally cosign this. I have friends that are cops all but tell me to break the law and just keep something in the crib. Problem is getting caught trying to practice and get comfortable with your own shit will get you locked up! It's a bogus law.
 
I don't have a problem with guns held in the homeplace for protection, recreation, etc., provided they are under adequate safeguards from children, the infirm and the incompetent (hell, thats just about everyone isn't it ???).

I am against guns in public, except in certain recreational, hunting, etc., areas, unless licensed. I believe that those illegally in possession of guns should draw punishment and those who use guns in the commission of a crime should be punished exceptionally hard.

Of course, its unrealistic to believe that guns can be irradicated; it is also unrealistic, however, to believe that gun crimes cannot be substantially lessened through stricter gun-crime and gun-possession laws.

The right to bear arms, like freedom of speech, is not absolute.

QueEx
 
The most interesting aspect of this is the 14th amendment and how does the federal constitution relate to the states. The news articles out there that focus on this show a pretty contradictory application by the Supreme Court.
 
America is the last free nation on earth with the right to bear arms, and the NWO hates our freedom and are stripping our rights one by one. There is a reason the founders of America put the "Right to bear arms in the constitution" . "Guns dont kill people, people kill people". The 1st things Tyrants(Hitler, Mao, Stalin...etc) throughout history do is disarm the people
 
America is the last free nation on earth with the right to bear arms, and <font size="3">the <u>NWO</u> hates our freedom and are stripping our rights one by one.</font size> There is a reason the founders of America put the "Right to bear arms in the constitution" . "Guns dont kill people, people kill people". The 1st things Tyrants(Hitler, Mao, Stalin...etc) throughout history do is disarm the people

Scary :eek:
 
The benefits of guns are not lost on Chicago's politicians. Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote in 2008 that there are two types of people who are allowed to have handguns in Chicago: "The criminals. And the politicians." The politicians use their pull to either "become deputized peace officers so they can carry" or "often go around surrounded by armed bodyguards on the city payroll." It is just that the politicians don't want to extend those benefits to the citizens they are supposed to represent. This includes Mr. Otis McDonald, the lead plaintiff in the Chicago case. He is a 76-year-old black man living in a neighborhood infested with drug dealers. McDonald's home has been burglarized three times, and he would like to possess a handgun that he can easily access next to his bed.

Otis McDonald. McDonald is a retired maintenance engineer living in the Morgan Park suburb of Chicago who just “wants a gun to protect himself from the hoodlums preying upon his neighborhood.” His home has been burglarized three times and just five years ago three teenagers surrounded his car and threatened to shoot him. Says McDonald, “I would like to have a handgun so I could keep it right by my bed just in case somebody might want to come in my house.” When asked if he thinks removing the present ban on handguns in the city would make any difference, he responded “[The criminals] get all the guns they want anyway.”

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index...cago-shootings-and-mcdonald-v-city-of-chicago

Liberals would rather have Mr. McDonald die than not rely on the government for protection.
 
more straw purchases and more murders of innocent people at the wrong place at the wrong time. if you want to own a gun that should be your choice but lifting these bans is only going to make life more hectic in mainly the black community in cities across the country.
 
Man, one cannot help but to think its scary how people believe in all of these invisible empires/forces and shit like the NWO. LOL. Unless, however, you're one of those who believe in it.

If these forces are so invisible, how come commoners know so much about them ??? And if regular people know so much about them, why can't they just name the SOB's and show exactly their operations ???

I think we have enough Real shit to deal with. Be concerned about the people and policies that you can touch, see, feel AND do something about. Stop the preoccupation with the mythicals and mysticals. LOL

Just my opinion -- but I think a lot of people deal with, invent or are preoccupied with things they can't actually touch, see and feel (like these NWO concepts and shit), because they feel frightened or helpless or powerless, etc., against the things right in front of their faces that the could actually deal with, ya know? - LOL - so, lets deal mystically with the mystical forces, LOL, that way, they can get something done, mystically speaking. lol



QueEx


Unless, however, you're one of those who believe in it.
:lol:

It's easier to have a political debate against a fabricated enemy rather than address the folly the right has created in reality.

Classic Straw Dog argument.
 
Citizens need and deserve the right to bare arms.

You can't always wait for the 'proper authority' to show up.

Not sure if anyone here has ever been to Switzerland but when I was younger I stayed there for a week with my family that was stationed there...Man...they really really really don't play that victim role shit over there.

Switzerland and the gun

Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.
The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

This is in a very large part due to Switzerland's unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries.

Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.

Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.

Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to.

Few restrictions

In addition to the government-provided arms, there are few restrictions on buying weapons. Some cantons restrict the carrying of firearms - others do not.

The government even sells off surplus weaponry to the general public when new equipment is introduced.

Guns and shooting are popular national pastimes. More than 200,000 Swiss attend national annual marksmanship competitions.

But despite the wide ownership and availability of guns, violent crime is extremely rare. There are only minimal controls at public buildings and politicians rarely have police protection.

Mark Eisenecker, a sociologist from the University of Zurich told BBC News Online that guns are "anchored" in Swiss society and that gun control is simply not an issue.

Some pro-gun groups argue that Switzerland proves their contention that there is not necessarily a link between the availability of guns and violent crime in society.

Low crime

But other commentators suggest that the reality is more complicated.

Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, but has remained relatively isolated.

It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation.

Despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility.

From an early age Swiss men and women associate weaponry with being called to defend their country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm
 
<font size="6"><center>
The City Responds</font size><font size="5">
Votes in New Gun Law, 45-0</font size>
<font size="4">

Tough gun-control ordinance is passed in Chicago
A city measure that restricts the use, sale and transport
of firearms is approved after a Supreme Court
ruling extended handgun rights.</font size></center>


54729219.jpg

Ed Etheridge works behind a counter at Rink's
Gun and Sport in the Chicago suburb of Lock
port, Ill. (Frank Polich / Reuters)


Chicago Tribune
By John Byrne
and Hal Dardick
July 3, 2010


he approval came four days after the U.S. Supreme Court effectively tossed out Chicago's longstanding ban on handguns. Mayor Richard M. Daley introduced the gun restrictions Thursday and aldermen approved the ordinance 45 to 0.

"This is a good ordinance, and it abides by the Constitution," said Alderman James Balcer. "People can defend the inside of their homes. No one is seizing your weapons."

Alderman Rey Colon, whose brother was fatally shot in 1979, said the justices on the nation's top court didn't understand the reality of the inner city. "I understand the right to bear arms, but I also understand parents crying in their sleep," he said.

On Monday the high court overturned 19th century rulings that said the 2nd Amendment restricted only federal gun laws, not local or state measures. In a 5-4 decision, the justices said the right to have a handgun for self-defense is "fundamental from an American perspective [and] applies equally to the federal government and the states."

It will be 10 days before the new ordinance becomes city law. Then anyone who wants to get a handgun must obtain a Chicago firearm permit.

People who have committed violent crimes, or have two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, will not be allowed permits.

Key provisions of the ordinance:

  • <font size="3">Firearm <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">sales will be banned in the city</span>.</font size>

  • <font size="3"><SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Gun training totaling four hours in a classroom</span> and an hour on a firing range will be required before getting a permit. But firing ranges are banned, so training must be completed outside Chicago.</font size>

  • <font size="3"><SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">To transport a gun, it will have to be "broken down,"</span> not immediately accessible, unloaded, and in a firearm case.</font size>

  • <font size="3"><SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Firearms may be possessed only inside the dwelling.</span> It will be illegal to have a gun in the garage, on the front porch or in the yard. Guns also will not be allowed in hotels, dorms and group-living facilities.</font size>

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-chicago-guns-20100703,0,3553990.story
 
<font size="3">
Maybe: Today is the day Chicagoans!! First Step's To Reforming Chicago's BS Gun Law's.
</font size>
 
The police are rolling around with guns because of the fools in the street, why can't civilians have guns...The gun violence won't stop even with the ban, you might stop a few people.

All these restrictions and requirements infringe on second amendment, just another ban dressed up.

Every citizen should have a gun in their house, you might wake up and see somebody in a military uniform telling you he is running the country. Fidel was able to overthrow the government with 100 people, Sadam had less people, just killed people off the bat, everybody fell in line. Or you could elect somebody that turns into a dictator like Hitler, becomes president for life.

People will fall in line with the people that control the resources, it has been shown time and time again.

:dance::dance:
 
Last edited:
The police are rolling around with guns because of the fools in the street, why can't civilians have guns... The gun violence won't stop even with the ban, you might stop a few people.

All these restrictions and requirements infringe on second amendment, just another ban dressed up.

<font size="3">Every citizen should have a gun in their house,</font size> you might wake up and see somebody in a military uniform telling you he is running the country. Fidel was able to overthrow the government with 100 people, Sadam had less people, just killed people off the bat, everybody fell in line. Or you could elect somebody that turns into a dictator like Hitler, becomes president for life.

People will fall in line with the people that control the resources, it has been shown time and time again.

The new law says "Firearms may be possessed inside the dwelling."

QueEx
 
Back
Top