It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mayor Daley lays out strict gun rules for Chicago

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Mayor Daley lays out strict gun rules for Chicago


news.yahoo.com

CHICAGO – With the city's gun ban certain to be overturned, Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday introduced what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States.

The measure, which draws from ordinances around the country, would ban gun shops in Chicago and prohibit gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun.

Daley announced his ordinance at a park on the city's South Side three days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live. The City Counc
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
chicagoist.com
www.chicagonewscoop.org

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide




posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Just like I said the SCOTUS's ruling won't do a damn thing to help the people in Chicago, as long as Daley is Mayor. He cracks me up with his cries about how he won't give in to gun violence and uses this as his reasoning for not wanting the people of Chicago to have guns. He actually thinks that people believe his hogwash with all the shootings we have in this city. The citizens need to be able to own guns to protect themselves from the criminals that don't obey the gun laws. It's not the honest law abiding citizen that is running around committing all these violent acts, but it's us that he targets for it, it's our rights that he steps all over and seeks to deny.



news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Here's the rest of what's included in the ordinance that the city council did pass.




• 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.

Those who already have handguns in the city — which has been illegal since the city's ban was approved 28 years ago — would have 90 days to register those weapons, according to the proposed ordinance.

Residents convicted of violating the city's ordinance can face a fine up to $5,000 and be locked up for as long as 90 days for a first offense and a fine of up to $10,000 and as long as six months behind bars for subsequent convictions.

"We've gone farther than anyone else ever has," said Corporation Counsel Mara Georges.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by chise61


Just like I said the SCOTUS's ruling won't do a damn thing to help the people in Chicago, as long as Daley is Mayor. He cracks me up with his cries about how he won't give in to gun violence and uses this as his reasoning for not wanting the people of Chicago to have guns. He actually thinks that people believe his hogwash with all the shootings we have in this city. The citizens need to be able to own guns to protect themselves from the criminals that don't obey the gun laws. It's not the honest law abiding citizen that is running around committing all these violent acts, but it's us that he targets for it, it's our rights that he steps all over and seeks to deny.



news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Somebody should ask him how many of the cops in his security detail are murderers. If having a gun turns somebody in to a crazed killer his security detail should be teeming with psycopaths.

Better yet ask him, if guns are so dangerous why does his security force carry them?

If nobody else gets the right to defend their person or life with guns why should he? I wish just one reporter would ask him some real questions that prove he is an idiot.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
I wish just one reporter would ask him some real questions that prove he is an idiot.


We did get this gem:




posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by chise61
 


I don't advocate violence, at all. HOWEVER, as I wake people up, more and more people ask, "Why do the good people get shot, killed other ways, yet the bad people get worshipped and walk free?" Kissinger? Bryzinsky? Daley? Kagan, and others who HATE the Constitution of the U.S., HATE us, want us dead, want us to be victimized; THEY walk free. Yet, some "criminal" goes up and shoots a woman for no reason (not even theft!!). No APPARENT reason that is.

Is THIS a sign that crime is also an inside job to a large degree? CONSIDER THIS, it makes some sense.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I was gonna answer mikenice81 as to why the reporters are afraid to ask him questions like that. But I see that you have already found the answer that I was gona use. Nice way for a Mayor to talk to people huh. The man has some serious issues and flys off the handle when asked questions like that. You wouldn't think that he would have such an aversion to guns being that his dad went to work everyday with a snub nosed 38 strapped to his ankle.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by AdmiralX
 


Sure it is, they use that crime to their advantage as that's what makes the people allow their rights to be stripped away in the name of safety. Crime is also how they make their money off the judicial and penial system.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by chise61
 


Striker laws makes people buy more guns.

fyi.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by MikeNice81
I wish just one reporter would ask him some real questions that prove he is an idiot.


We did get this gem:



If you watch the report from ABC 7 that comes up after the initial video he looks like even more of an idiot.

"I hope I shocked you so that now you can write about gun manufacturers."

Then something about saying what he did because the gun he picked up had a bayonet. That dude is bat-sh!t crazy. Really, anybody in Chicago voting for that guy deserves everything they get, plus a kick in the scrotum.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by MikeNice81]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
So, if the Supreme Court decides that these restrictions fall outside the scope of "reasonable," could they hold this jerkoff mayor and his obviously bought-out city council in contempt? That would be hilarious retribution if they threw that crime boss in jail with all those evil gun owners he's imprisoned over the years.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 



That dude is bat-sh!t crazy.


Yes he is, and just about as facist as they come.



Really, anybody in Chicago voting for that guy deserves everything they get, plus a kick in the scrotum.



Problem is that nobody really has to vote for him anymore, nobody runs against him. I wish that someone with a real chance to win would have the balls to run against him.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 



That would be hilarious retribution if they threw that crime boss in jail with all those evil gun owners he's imprisoned over the years.



Yes it would, but that crime boss will never see the inside of a jail. Sadly we'll probably be stuck with him as Mayor until he dies. As long as he's been Mayor you'd think I would be used to it by now, but I still can't believe the audacity of that man.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   
So why doesn't somebody run? Is it a case of political opponents "disappearing" or something? With the debate on their gun laws reaching a national stage, that should open up new opportunities for opponents to receive support from outside the community. I'm surprised the various gun lobbyist groups aren't offering small fortunes to anyone who opposes him.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Topic being discussed here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 3-7-2010 by Jakes51]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 



Haven't heard about anyone disappearing, but ya never know



I don't know what the problem is, maybe they're just all afraid of him, or the machine, all I know is that anyone with a chance of winning will not run against him. You would think the gun lobbyist would try to get someone in here wouldn't you, but they don't. The man's got clout and they all fear him, especially those in the political arena. The man is a tyrant and he rules with fear. Anyone that goes up against him lately is just to mild to stand a chance, people think they don't have what it takes to run this city.


The next election may be different, but it won't be because of the handgun issue. Too many have allowed themselves to be brainwashed into believing his BS that in order to curb the gun crimes they must give up their right to keep and bear arms. A lot of people are very angry about his selling off our parking meters though, and charging us to park at the lake now, and the fact that he was planning on selling off our water services, and all the money he spent trying to get the olympics here. Things may change this time around, but I doubt it.



A few years ago Madigan’s Democratic state government and toady governor changed the office of mayor to “non-partisan” which means that there will be no Republican challenger—just a straight runoff. It makes it easier for Daley to win in one fell swoop rather than be nominated by his party and run in the general. Last time he ran in 2007 he won by 70%.


www.cdobs.com...


This is a good article.....




The question, then, is whether anyone who can conceivably win is going to run against him. [See Mick Dumke's companion piece, Mayoral Material? Ten to watch, even as they demur.]

No one can beat Daley if no one tries to. It's obvious, but in this town the obvious needs to be stated. Daley hasn't had a serious challenge since warding off Roland Burris in 1995, and even supporters acknowledge that this hasn't been good for the city. There's little reason to expect any change from Daley if he keeps getting more than 70 percent of the vote.

When Daley first took office, the city was racially divided after years of coordinated white opposition to the first black mayor, Harold Washington. But Washington died on the job in 1987, and in the special election two years later Daley campaigned as a healer, locked up the white vote, and slipped past his African-American opponents, beating interim mayor Eugene Sawyer in the primary and Alderman Tim Evans in the general. (Municipal elections were divided into a primary and general election then—the primary was eliminated in 1995.) Daley won 54 percent of the vote in both contests.

That's his worst performance to date. Even his most formidable foes got it worse—Daley beat county commissioner (and future congressman) Danny Davis 63 to 31 percent in the 1991 primary and Congressman Bobby Rush 69 to 27 percent in 1999.

If black opponents have faltered against him, white and Latino opponents have stayed away altogether. Other than a few fringe candidates in the 1990s, Daley hasn't faced a white challenger since former mayor Jane Byrne ran against him in the 1991 primary. He's never faced a Latino.


Bolding mine


www.chicagoreader.com...



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


I think it's ok to have the same topic in two different forums.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join