Author Topic: Hope for Chicago  (Read 1727 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Xpiatio

  • Posts: 409
  • First Name (Displayed): Benjamin
Hope for Chicago
« on: January 06, 2014, 07:07:06 PM »
Is there hope for chicago yet? Federal judge rules city ban on handgun sales unconstitutional.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/24803458-418/federal-judge-rules-city-ban-on-handgun-sales-unconstitutional.html

Offline karudin

  • Posts: 69
  • First Name (Displayed): Gregg
Re: Hope for Chicago
« Reply #1 on: January 06, 2014, 11:19:20 PM »
It has the potential to be a good thing, but the fact that the judge stayed his ruling is depressing. Hopefully this judge isn't giving the city time to come up with some other garbage law to make handgun sales so insanely difficult that they are essentially doing the same thing. I will say it should be interesting to see how this pans out, because they have set the precedence that outright sales bans are unconstitutional but how they go from here could also set precedence. Hopefully for potential legal gun owners in Chicago they do the right thing and just do away with the ordinance instead of passing something else.

Offline TheQ

  • Website Content Manager
  • MOC Lifetime Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4263
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
  • First Name (Displayed): Phillip
Hope for Chicago
« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2014, 01:22:17 AM »

It has the potential to be a good thing, but the fact that the judge stayed his ruling is depressing. Hopefully this judge isn't giving the city time to come up with some other garbage law to make handgun sales so insanely difficult that they are essentially doing the same thing. I will say it should be interesting to see how this pans out, because they have set the precedence that outright sales bans are unconstitutional but how they go from here could also set precedence. Hopefully for potential legal gun owners in Chicago they do the right thing and just do away with the ordinance instead of passing something else.

When IL went to shall issue CPL they implemented a preemption law. The preemption law allowed existing statutes to stay on the books.

Chicago will be unable to implement a new law because of preemption.
I Am Not A Lawyer (nor a gunsmith).

Offline karudin

  • Posts: 69
  • First Name (Displayed): Gregg
Re: Hope for Chicago
« Reply #3 on: January 07, 2014, 08:11:11 AM »
When IL went to shall issue CPL they implemented a preemption law. The preemption law allowed existing statutes to stay on the books.

Chicago will be unable to implement a new law because of preemption.

Nice to know, that does change things. Thanks for the info. Still it should be interesting to see how it pans out for them.

Offline part deux

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 683
Re: Hope for Chicago
« Reply #4 on: January 07, 2014, 11:41:00 AM »
Chicago will be unable to implement a new law because of preemption.
since when has chicago worried about a silly law or two?

Offline CV67PAT

  • MOC Charter Member
  • Posts: 2615
Re: Hope for Chicago
« Reply #5 on: January 08, 2014, 10:56:22 AM »
You think we've had LEO problems here? They're nothing compared to what I expect to happen to gun carriers in Illinois in general and Chicago specifically.
Want to keep informed of events in your area? Go to http://www.miopencarry.org/update

Offline karudin

  • Posts: 69
  • First Name (Displayed): Gregg
Re: Hope for Chicago
« Reply #6 on: January 08, 2014, 02:35:19 PM »
I have a buddy that lives in Chicago and he is thinking about getting his CPL but knows it is going to take forever to get it and even then might be more of a hassel than its worth when he goes to start carrying. He said he might just wait about 6-8 months before getting it. I told him to just get the license and don't carry. That way the waiting is done and over with before he goes to start carrying.

Offline Raggs

  • Posts: 262
Re: Hope for Chicago
« Reply #7 on: January 09, 2014, 03:52:22 PM »
You think we've had LEO problems here? They're nothing compared to what I expect to happen to gun carriers in Illinois in general and Chicago specifically.

I agree, and so does the Chicago Police Chief
http://bearingarms.com/chicago-top-cop-warns-that-his-officers-will-shoot-concealed-carriers/

Offline karudin

  • Posts: 69
  • First Name (Displayed): Gregg
Re: Hope for Chicago
« Reply #8 on: January 09, 2014, 04:27:43 PM »
I agree, and so does the Chicago Police Chief
http://bearingarms.com/chicago-top-cop-warns-that-his-officers-will-shoot-concealed-carriers/

Not all that surprising to see the the Police Superintendent is saying that, he is appointed my the Mayor who does not hide that he is against guns. Problem is with his statement and I'm sure many on here will agree, being a police officer does not make you any more responsible with a firearm (in my opinion many are worse). If many of the police officers only train for about 1 hour a year with their firearm most people who own firearms have more range time than they do. I think if the citizens of Chicago ever wake up they'll get rid of the Mayor and all of his appointees.

Offline SD40VE

  • SE Region Posse
  • Posts: 996
  • New Haven, Macomb County
  • First Name (Displayed): Bradley
Re: Hope for Chicago
« Reply #9 on: January 09, 2014, 04:32:19 PM »
" He asserts that only his police are responsible enough to carry handguns, an assertion that flies in the face of the fact that at least one study shows that police officers are five times more likely to shoot the wrong person than concealed carriers."

thats the biggest pile of bull i have read in awhile.... only cops responisble enough to carry guns. i do WAY more range shooting than cops and am probably a better shot than most

Offline sircapsalot

  • Posts: 120
  • Land of the FREE
  • First Name (Displayed): Dj
Re: Hope for Chicago
« Reply #10 on: January 09, 2014, 05:24:48 PM »
And apparently there were more applicants for concealed permits rather than the Non-Affordable Care Act.