warpedskydiver 0 #1 February 27, 2007 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0701040060jan04,1,3840091.story?coll=chi-newslocalchicago-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true Daley aims to pass new gun laws By Gary Washburn Tribune staff reporter January 4, 2007 Buoyed by the General Assembly's passage of a gun-control measure amid a long string of rejections, Mayor Richard Daley on Wednesday unveiled the city's 2007 legislative agenda with a renewed emphasis on handgun violence. Daley called for passage of half a dozen bills, to be introduced by local state lawmakers, that would restrict sales and the types and numbers of weapons that Illinoisans could buy. Noting that guns were involved in more than 80 percent of the 466 murders in Chicago in 2006, Daley said the way to reduce the murder rate "is to continue to get guns off our streets and out of our homes. "The best way to do it is to pass common-sense legislation that will keep guns out of the hands of people who want to commit crimes with them." Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, scoffed at the mayor's plans. "I think it's typical of Daley's rhetoric," he said. "If it was up to him, nobody would own a gun." Daley supports measures that would ban assault weapons and .50 caliber weapons, limit handgun purchases to one a month and require state police licensing of handgun dealers. The legislature has rejected those measures in the past. A new measure would require all gun sales only by licensed dealers so that every purchaser would undergo a mandatory background check. Currently, purchasers who buy from neighbors, friends and other private parties do not undergo such checks. Daley also supports a measure that would tighten an existing statute mandating trigger locks or other safe-keeping for guns and another proposal that would classify more gun crimes as ones that could lead to suspension or revocation of a driver's license. Aggravated discharge of a firearm while driving now can result in loss of a license. The new legislation would add such offenses as unlawful use of a weapon and aggravated discharge of a machine gun. Daley and other gun-control advocates won a victory with passage of a measure that requires background checks of people who buy weapons at gun shows. With Democrats strengthening their edge in the Senate, state Sen. John Cullerton (D-Chicago) said that gun-control advocates have a chance of having all of the proposals passed in the coming session. "If the NRA realizes they are in trouble and want to negotiate, which they never have in the past, we [could pass] the assault-weapons ban," said Cullerton, who appeared with Daley and other public officials at a news conference at police headquarters. "They always have said, `You inadvertently are banning skeet shooters.' We say, `Fine, sit down and tell us what is wrong with our bill because we do know that weapons that shoot down planes should not be sold.'" Vandermyde disagreed about prospects for passage. "I think there is going to be a lot of screaming and hollering," he said, but "I don't think they have the muscle to move this ... agenda through. "This just becomes a regulatory and bureaucratic snafu to throw more red tape in the path of somebody buying a gun." ---------- gwashburn@tribune.com Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune Quote Why can't the indictments on Obama, Daley and Blojobabitch be handed down right now? This is one of the few states that Expect their politicians to be corrupt and see to like it that way... Hello Shitcago Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #2 February 27, 2007 If it's unConstitutional it will be struck down.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #3 February 27, 2007 Quote If it's unConstitutional it will be struck down. Assuming the courts have the 'nads to put the cases on the docket in the first place.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #4 February 27, 2007 Quote If it's unConstitutional it will be struck down. if it's known to be unconstitutional (which I don't believe applies here), then the legislators that propose it or sign it should be removed automatically. I'm tired of these guys putting up shit they know won't stand. There is considerable harm in false classifying thousands of citizens as felons if they won't comply with a law that will get struck down 3 years in the future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #5 February 27, 2007 It makes me wonder if there is criminal intent on proposing such legislation. hmmm civil rights violations of a unprecented proportion? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #6 February 27, 2007 QuoteQuote If it's unConstitutional it will be struck down. Assuming the courts have the 'nads to put the cases on the docket in the first place. Well, our system DOES give the last word to the courts.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,119 #7 February 27, 2007 >Assuming the courts have the 'nads to put the cases on the docket in the first place. Agreed. Let's hope we have a supreme court of "activist judges" willing to "legislate from the bench" rather than a bunch of rubber stamps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ExAFO 0 #8 February 27, 2007 Quote>Assuming the courts have the 'nads to put the cases on the docket in the first place. Agreed. Let's hope we have a supreme court of "activist judges" willing to "legislate from the bench" rather than a bunch of rubber stamps. Alito Scalia Roberts Thomas Get kennedy on board, you've not got a rubber stamp SCOTUS...Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #9 February 27, 2007 QuoteQuote If it's unConstitutional it will be struck down. Assuming the courts have the 'nads to put the cases on the docket in the first place. a reminder - courts don't create cases. Someone (hint, those damn lawyers) has to force them to decide, and it requires a plaintiff with standing - ie, someone already harmed. It is a terribly inefficient method of fixing the inappropriate actions of legislators. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #10 February 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote If it's unConstitutional it will be struck down. Assuming the courts have the 'nads to put the cases on the docket in the first place. a reminder - courts don't create cases. Someone (hint, those damn lawyers) has to force them to decide, and it requires a plaintiff with standing - ie, someone already harmed. It is a terribly inefficient method of fixing the inappropriate actions of legislators. Sure - but they have also consistently refused to see cases that would fall under their jurisdiction - Dr. Peterson's case is a good example.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #11 February 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote If it's unConstitutional it will be struck down. Assuming the courts have the 'nads to put the cases on the docket in the first place. a reminder - courts don't create cases. Someone (hint, those damn lawyers) has to force them to decide, and it requires a plaintiff with standing - ie, someone already harmed. It is a terribly inefficient method of fixing the inappropriate actions of legislators. Sure - but they have also consistently refused to see cases that would fall under their jurisdiction - Dr. Peterson's case is a good example. Refusing a case IS a decision that they make.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #12 February 28, 2007 QuoteRefusing a case IS a decision that they make. unless it is for lack of standing. Then it's a decision to avoid making a decision. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ExAFO 0 #13 February 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteRefusing a case IS a decision that they make. unless it is for lack of standing. Then it's a decision to avoid making a decision. No, they refuse if they do not see a Constitutional question that has not been answered previously (in theory).Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kallend 2,150 #2 February 27, 2007 If it's unConstitutional it will be struck down.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #3 February 27, 2007 Quote If it's unConstitutional it will be struck down. Assuming the courts have the 'nads to put the cases on the docket in the first place.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #4 February 27, 2007 Quote If it's unConstitutional it will be struck down. if it's known to be unconstitutional (which I don't believe applies here), then the legislators that propose it or sign it should be removed automatically. I'm tired of these guys putting up shit they know won't stand. There is considerable harm in false classifying thousands of citizens as felons if they won't comply with a law that will get struck down 3 years in the future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #5 February 27, 2007 It makes me wonder if there is criminal intent on proposing such legislation. hmmm civil rights violations of a unprecented proportion? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #6 February 27, 2007 QuoteQuote If it's unConstitutional it will be struck down. Assuming the courts have the 'nads to put the cases on the docket in the first place. Well, our system DOES give the last word to the courts.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #7 February 27, 2007 >Assuming the courts have the 'nads to put the cases on the docket in the first place. Agreed. Let's hope we have a supreme court of "activist judges" willing to "legislate from the bench" rather than a bunch of rubber stamps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #8 February 27, 2007 Quote>Assuming the courts have the 'nads to put the cases on the docket in the first place. Agreed. Let's hope we have a supreme court of "activist judges" willing to "legislate from the bench" rather than a bunch of rubber stamps. Alito Scalia Roberts Thomas Get kennedy on board, you've not got a rubber stamp SCOTUS...Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #9 February 27, 2007 QuoteQuote If it's unConstitutional it will be struck down. Assuming the courts have the 'nads to put the cases on the docket in the first place. a reminder - courts don't create cases. Someone (hint, those damn lawyers) has to force them to decide, and it requires a plaintiff with standing - ie, someone already harmed. It is a terribly inefficient method of fixing the inappropriate actions of legislators. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #10 February 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote If it's unConstitutional it will be struck down. Assuming the courts have the 'nads to put the cases on the docket in the first place. a reminder - courts don't create cases. Someone (hint, those damn lawyers) has to force them to decide, and it requires a plaintiff with standing - ie, someone already harmed. It is a terribly inefficient method of fixing the inappropriate actions of legislators. Sure - but they have also consistently refused to see cases that would fall under their jurisdiction - Dr. Peterson's case is a good example.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #11 February 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote If it's unConstitutional it will be struck down. Assuming the courts have the 'nads to put the cases on the docket in the first place. a reminder - courts don't create cases. Someone (hint, those damn lawyers) has to force them to decide, and it requires a plaintiff with standing - ie, someone already harmed. It is a terribly inefficient method of fixing the inappropriate actions of legislators. Sure - but they have also consistently refused to see cases that would fall under their jurisdiction - Dr. Peterson's case is a good example. Refusing a case IS a decision that they make.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #12 February 28, 2007 QuoteRefusing a case IS a decision that they make. unless it is for lack of standing. Then it's a decision to avoid making a decision. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #13 February 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteRefusing a case IS a decision that they make. unless it is for lack of standing. Then it's a decision to avoid making a decision. No, they refuse if they do not see a Constitutional question that has not been answered previously (in theory).Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites