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.
If this ruling is upheld, and the law is permanently ruled unconstitutional, what happens to the people previously convicted under this law? IANAL, obviously.
That's akin to saying that the constitution allows for free speech, but not for the pre-requisite air.
The thing is, it doesn't, at least not in the opinions of many people. All those folks who like to blather on about negative rights rarely bring up the fact that, without strong and well-enforced environmental regulation, the air we breath, the water we drink, the food we eat, and the land upon which we live can be contaminated to the point that it will not sustain healthy life, and all of that is okay because air, water, food, shelter, and health don't fall into the category of negative rights, but are instead positive rights that restrict (often unfairly, in these people's minds) the rights of others.
In other words, I'm talking about the type of people who like to talk about natural rights like freedom of speech, worship, ownership, but hate the idea of government restrictions on what they do with their land, their air, or their water, even those these are all commons that are shared with the community at large.
A person who both supports natural and negative rights but sees strong environmental protections as important to protect those rights is a rare person, indeed.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
No, the wild west was open carry. Open carry seems provocative. The primary point of most states' concealed carry laws is that your gun must remain concealed at all times. Flashing or suggesting you carry can cost your license, and is assault if it can be construed as a threat - which is an automatic 10 year sentence in some states.
The best part of concealed carry is herd immunity - you can benefit from other's carrying and the deterrent effect that has. It's no coincidence that all but one mass shooting in the past few decades happened in a "gun free zone" of some sort (and the one exception was likely a political assassination with collateral damage, not a random shooting).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
So why is it that the vast majority of mass shootings are in "gun free zones?"
The New Life shooting was stopped by a person with a concealed permit: Wikpedia Link Without concealed permits, that WOULD have been a "mass shooting."
What do criminals fear most? Encountering a person who is willing to shoot back.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
well, don't leave us hanging. after all that pontification, you could have at least given us the right question, and the answer, and the evidence to back it up! jeez!
I think you'll find that the murder rate (RATE - not total which was much lower) was actually lower during the "wild" west than it is today.
The reality is that the the "wild" west is mostly an invention of the mid-20th century movie industry that took a handful of historical events and portrayed it such that people think that it was completely normal for the town to be shot up.
As a matter of fact specifically in Dodge City as you mention from 1870 to 1885 there were a total of 45 homicides, putting the murder rate at 1 per 100k people.
http://www.examiner.com/article/dispelling-the-myth-of-the-wild-west
The current murder rate as of 2010 is 4.8 per 100k for the overall country and is much higher than that in some urban areas.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls
The simple fact is that the "wild" west wasn't as wild as you'd believe.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
This is why it's important to restore the Constitution as much as possible and enable "Constitutional carry" as Vermont has always had and Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas and Wyoming have resumed. If you're not a criminal, you can carry whatever/however you want, no permission slip required.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Impose a tax on firearms sold in the city and use the funds raised to compensate victims of crime. That would probably stand up to a constitutional challenge.
Actually the so-called "wild west" was not open carry.
Upon entering town, you surrendered your weapons to the sherriff who would hold the weapon until you left town. If you didn't surrender your weapon, the sherriff would -- and did -- take it from your cold dead hands. The most famous incident was the Shootout at the OK Corral.
Back then, it was considered "common sense" to not carry a gun around in civilization.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.