Slashdot Mirror


Federal Judge Rules Chicago's Ban On Licensed Gun Dealers Unconstitutional

wooferhound writes with news that a federal judge has overturned part of Chicago's firearm laws. From CNN: "A federal judge ruled Monday that Chicago's ban on virtually all sales and transfers of firearms is unconstitutional. 'The stark reality facing the City each year is thousands of shooting victims and hundreds of murders committed with a gun. But on the other side of this case is another feature of government: certain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government's reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment,' wrote U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang." The Chicago Tribune notes: "The ruling also would make it legal for individuals to transfer ownership of a firearm as a gift or through a private sale as long as the recipient was at least 18 and had a firearm owner's identification card." The ruling doesn't change anything yet: the ruling's effect was delayed to give the city time to appeal.

6 of 934 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Took them long enough... by Sarten-X · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Yes, indeed. I find it so much easier to speak freely knowing that everybody in the room could kill me in a moment if I piss them off enough.

    </sarcasm>

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  2. Re:Took them long enough... by paiute · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    An armed citizenry is of no consequence, because the weapons controlled by the police+military are so much more powerful. It's like bringing a knife to a gunfight, but up a notch.

    And the same demographic which owns guns to defend itself against the gummit is the same one supporting ever increasing funding for advanced weaponry for the gummit.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  3. so??? by macinnisrr · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    While I personally don't see the need for guns aside from hunting, and we all know that the US's gun proliferation is directly correlated to it's staggering gun violence numbers, I can accept that that's what the constitution says and it's valid. However, the "right to bear arms" is completely separate from the "right to buy arms". Here in Canada, I can smoke pot, I just can't legally own it. Different situation, I understand, but a good analogy.

  4. Re:Took them long enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Don't forget about launching cows over the wall. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. Thems fight'n words!

  5. Re:Took them long enough... by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Other than the Slingshot most of those are fairly difficult to carry in a concealed manner.

    I often use the fact that I never saw an accidental drive-by knifing in twelve years of EMT work. Saw a few accidental drive-by shootings.

    I will defend your right to own guns but the concealed carry laws that all the 2nd Amendment defenders seem to favor are just a bit out there IMO. We tried that during the Dodge City and the wild west days and abandoned it sometime around 1900.

  6. some facts by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: -1, Flamebait
    1. Number of murders in Chicago in 2013: 415
    2. Number of murders in Canada in 2012: 543
    Population of Chicago: 2,714,856
    Population of Canada: ~ 35,000,000

    Are guns a problem? Yes. The bigger problem is (from this Canadian's view) is that the USA is full of MURDEROUS ASSHOLES who see mortal violence as a reasonable first resort method of dispute resolution.

    That they are heavily armed assholes makes it more destructive, certainly, but the problem is clearly sociological. The USA has yet to grow out of its frontier attitude.

    I rarely go there any more. Those people are just fucking crazy.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.