Supremes strike down Chicago handgun ban

Discuss firearms and Second Amendment issues.

Moderator: Boba

Re: Supremes strike down Chicago handgun ban

Postby Boba » Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:20 pm

:woo:
I've been waiting for that one!!
User avatar
Boba
Contributor
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 1:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Supremes strike down Chicago handgun ban

Postby Boba » Mon Jun 28, 2010 1:04 pm

lady cop wrote:i would like to see all the states require not only background checks for purchases, but mandatory classes, training on range, permits, registration and fingerprinting. further, i want to see severe penalties for leaving loaded firearms within reach of young children. i think that's reasonable.

I'm with you on everything except registration. I don't think the government needs to know if I have a gun or not. The reason is that it provides a grocery list for confiscation. What purpose would it really provide? Aid in law enforcement? I think that the guns of the criminal element would not be regerstered anyway. I'm not sure what you are suggesting on permits, but I would like to hear your thoughts.
User avatar
Boba
Contributor
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 1:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Supremes strike down Chicago handgun ban

Postby Accountable » Mon Jun 28, 2010 1:17 pm

I think offering a shooting range and safety classes are good business sense for any firearms sales business, but in the US keeping and bearing arms is a right. We don't have to register what church we attend or clear our opinions before presenting them in public. The Second Amendment should be treated the same as the rest of the Bill of Rights.
I choose FREEDOM, warts and all.


Don't you wish you had voted for Ron Paul now?
User avatar
Accountable
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:59 pm

Re: Supremes strike down Chicago handgun ban

Postby Accountable » Mon Jun 28, 2010 1:53 pm

lady cop wrote:when i mentioned permits, i should have specified CCW.

as for registration, i am referring to serial numbers. in case a weapon is stolen and/or used in a crime. no different than a VIN. as a LEO i had to have my duty weapon and off-duty weapons registered. fine with me.

some people want ballistics tests kept to match up in cases of murders. i wouldn't go that far.
but who knows, perhaps it's as necessary as a DNA database.

Huge difference between a VIN of a car and the serial number of a gun. We don't have a constitutional right to own a car. As a government employee (LE), you give up certain rights that the typical citizen does not. I'm not saying it doesn't make sense or shouldn't happen. I'd have to think about that one. I'm just saying you can't equate a VIN & gun serial #.

And don't get me started about DNA databases. :banghead:
I choose FREEDOM, warts and all.


Don't you wish you had voted for Ron Paul now?
User avatar
Accountable
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:59 pm

Re: Supremes strike down Chicago handgun ban

Postby Accountable » Mon Jun 28, 2010 2:07 pm

lady cop wrote:[b]if your vehicle was stolen, and the VIN was the clincher to recover it, wouldn't you appreciate it? how about your gun? serial numbers for all manner of high-ticket items are recorded.
But how many mandatorily recorded by law? Again, I'm not saying it doesn't make sense, only that it invades that gray area abridging a right that constitutionally may not be abridged.
I choose FREEDOM, warts and all.


Don't you wish you had voted for Ron Paul now?
User avatar
Accountable
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:59 pm

Re: Supremes strike down Chicago handgun ban

Postby Boba » Mon Jun 28, 2010 3:14 pm

lady cop wrote:when i mentioned permits, i should have specified CCW.

as for registration, i am referring to serial numbers. in case a weapon is stolen and/or used in a crime. no different than a VIN. as a LEO i had to have my duty weapon and off-duty weapons registered. fine with me.

some people want ballistics tests kept to match up in cases of murders. i wouldn't go that far.
but who knows, perhaps it's as necessary as a DNA database.

I'm still not sure of what you are saying. Are you saying that the government should keep a list of who owns what gun and what the serial number is? Or are you saying that gun owners are required to keep track of their serial numbers? As for the owner keeping that info, then yes, I agree and I think most people already do that (I know I do). If you are saying that we need the government doing that, then I disagree. Don't forget that the intent of the 2nd ammendent was more about protecting the citizens from a tyrannical government then from one another. Do you really want to give that information to the government? As for registering a car, I agree with Accountable; that is not gaurenteed by the constitution, nor is it a "Right" (As you LEO's have reminded me from time to time! :oops: ).
User avatar
Boba
Contributor
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 1:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Supremes strike down Chicago handgun ban

Postby Accountable » Mon Jun 28, 2010 5:32 pm

lady cop wrote:to me it's all to the ultimate public good. and makes perfect sense. your car is registered and is used for more than just one purpose...unlike a gun. i think registration protects the gun owner.

i moved to Mass. from florida 2 years ago Acc., and brought my guns with me. as a sworn LEO i was allowed to have whatever weapons i wished in florida. i'm not a LEO here. and Mass. is STRICT. i had to turn my weapons in to police dept. and go to court to get them back after getting Mass. license and go to range to prove i could use them properly! and that includes a shotgun that was an antique as well as semi-automatics. it was inconvenient, but i didn't really object.
i WAS shocked however, the local police told me they were not allowed to carry their guns off-duty. :shock: hell, i was REQUIRED to. you never knew who you would run into that was not fond of you. :lol:

There is always a balance to be struck between safety and liberty, and you know where I'd rather err.
I choose FREEDOM, warts and all.


Don't you wish you had voted for Ron Paul now?
User avatar
Accountable
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:59 pm

Re: Supremes strike down Chicago handgun ban

Postby Boba » Thu Jul 01, 2010 5:59 pm

Here's the latest. Did anyone NOT see this coming?

"The ordinance, which Daley urged the City Council to pass, also would :
-- Limit the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.
-- Require residents in homes with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.
-- Require prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.
-- Prohibit people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Residents convicted of a gun offense would have to register with the police department.
-- Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders."

[urlhttp://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/01/mayor-daley-lays-strict-gun-rules-chicago/?test=latestnews][/url]
User avatar
Boba
Contributor
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 1:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Supremes strike down Chicago handgun ban

Postby 24HourNut » Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:55 am

Boba wrote:Here's the latest. Did anyone NOT see this coming?

"The ordinance, which Daley urged the City Council to pass, also would :
-- Limit the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.
-- Require residents in homes with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.
-- Require prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.
-- Prohibit people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Residents convicted of a gun offense would have to register with the police department.
-- Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders."

[urlhttp://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/01/mayor-daley-lays-strict-gun-rules-chicago/?test=latestnews][/url]


That's infringing upon a basic right if you ask me. If that type of bullshit were applied to the other rights it would be absurdly clear but because there is a lot of fear and ignorance surrounding firearms, some don't see it.
User avatar
24HourNut
Contributor
 
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:39 pm

Re: Supremes strike down Chicago handgun ban

Postby Boba » Fri Jul 02, 2010 9:57 am

24HourNut wrote:
Boba wrote:Here's the latest. Did anyone NOT see this coming?

"The ordinance, which Daley urged the City Council to pass, also would :
-- Limit the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.
-- Require residents in homes with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.
-- Require prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.
-- Prohibit people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Residents convicted of a gun offense would have to register with the police department.
-- Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders."

[urlhttp://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/01/mayor-daley-lays-strict-gun-rules-chicago/?test=latestnews][/url]


That's infringing upon a basic right if you ask me. If that type of bullshit were applied to the other rights it would be absurdly clear but because there is a lot of fear and ignorance surrounding firearms, some don't see it.

I agree with you Frank. I don't think they get it yet. You would think that with all the shootings in Chicago that someday they might realize "Hey, this 'Ban' thing just isn't working".
User avatar
Boba
Contributor
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 1:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Next

Return to Boba's Keep And Bear Arms

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron