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.
It seems that firearm ownership rights are the only Constitutional issue that this Supreme Court intends on correctly dealing with. At least it's a start - our other rights emanate from the 2nd Amendment.
"Chicago's ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms,"
Uhh.... yyoouu have no idea what you're talking about. At no point in your rambling statement of unconnected and generally false ideas did you make any sense.
I award you no points... and my Charlton Heston have mercy on your soul.
Actually, yes, that is the case. Kids have no right to free speech, or any right to reasonable search and seizure of their property
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
Gun nuts are just a different kind of nerd.
Short answer: Pretty much yes.
Long answer: While legally it's "no" the truth is that minors have significantly less rights than adults. It's even worse than that since in America you're no longer considered a minor when you turn 18 or 19 depending on the state, but you can't drink or own a pistol until you're 21.
There are several cases where US schools have punished students for doing things which aren't illegal while off school grounds. Student's have essentially no rights while they are on school grounds. They can be searched without any justification. They're punished if they have something that even like a weapon. Even worse, school is compulsory, so it's not like any of this is opt out.
So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
US law that 18 years of life makes you an adult
Not US law but custom. States can stipulate arbitrary age of majority such as Nebraska where it's 19.
Another study just came out showing that increased gun ownership actually lowers the murder rate and lower gun ownership does the opposite. We have multiple points of confirmation and there are a few skeptical politicians that are starting to come around.
The old truism is confirmed. Outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have them.
Does Chicago have a violence problem? Yes. Gun bans are not the solution.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Laws like this target gun owners who follow the law. The problem is that most of the violence is perpetrated by people who could not buy a gun legally anyway. There are some cases of legally owned guns being used illegally but that is not the norm. This law will do nothing to curb the illegal gun trade.
Local laws like this have little or no effect except moving the legal gun dealers and the jobs out of the jurisdiction. All gun buyers who would normally do business in Chicago will do is drive outside the city and buy their guns. The result will be the same.
Banning the sale of a legal product that is protected by the constitution will be almost impossible. When a higher court refuses to hear the case the politicians can say "At least we tried". This is a PR stunt as they just want to look like they are doing something even when they know it will not work. What a waste of time and money that could be better used elsewhere.
Because it's about GNU control.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
2 or 3 decades later after continuous gun ownership I still haven't shot any people or had any firearms accidents resulting in human injury. Additionally I retain the ability to secure meat for food and the ability to defend my home and family against malicious intruders.
The definition 'well regulated militia' is irrelevant. The right is of 'the people'. If they wanted the right to be of 'the militia' they would have written that. Clearly they knew the word, having just used it.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
First, yes, let's get this discusson off of slashdot. It is sad when articles on robotics get 60 comments total, and firearms flamewars get to 500 in a few hours. But..
> no one believes, rationally, that Americans should be allowed to own/operate any kind of weaponry without limit.
What do you think the founders believed? In the early revolutionary period, the US had no navy. They issued letters of marque to privately owned, armed ships. As in: private individuals owned war ships.
The consitution has a mechanism to amend it. If you don't like what it says, use that. Letting 9 old timers in black robes try to convince us to collectively believe that it means something other than the plain words on the paper is caustic to the rule of law.
But yes, the debate should be about where to draw the line today, in the here-and-now. But, please, don't try to tell me "well, this week, this is what these words mean." Becuase I'm not buying it.
If this ruling is upheld, and the law is permanently ruled unconstitutional, what happens to the people previously convicted under this law? IANAL, obviously.
Yet Chicago has been banning the legal sale to lawful owners of handguns for a long time. Gun Control fails. Criminals Murder.
Actually, when politicians attempt to regulate technology they do not understand, that's news for nerds. Whether it's firearms or encryption or pen-test software or whatever.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Some nerds like guns. Some nerds REALLY like guns. In fact, some nerds are defined by the fact that they play a ton of games that revolve around, pretty much, guns... So, guns themselves aren't "anti-nerd."
how many gun deaths and violent crimes are there in areas that forbid people the means to defend themselve, such as Chicago?
Note Chicago is a gun-free zone legally (courts told them recently they had to implement permit system but they're dragging their heals on it)
Note what happens in most areas where concealed carry is implemented, initial spike of justifiable homocides followed by lower crime rate.
Many criminals have been shot and killed by good guys with guns. Many more have been stopped just by seeing the good guy with the gun. Google it. The examples are not hard to find.
Not only that, but most of the mass killings lately have been in "gun free zones". Clearly the gun free zones do not protect life or liberty.
Yes.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
America is not like Europe. If strict gun laws worked then you'd expect Chicago's gun crime to be low instead of among the highest in the nation. All the criminals in Chicago have guns, irrespective of what the law says. The only people affected by these laws are law abiding citizens who may want to protect themselves. Banning guns would make us all safer if you could ban them from everyone, everywhere.
How many crimes were perpetrated with fully automatic machine guns?
Very few. The actual number is pretty close to none.
How many school killings were committed with one?
Also an incredibly small number.
How many people in the USA died at the wrong end of a fully automatic assault rifle?
So few that it is statistically insignificant. The exact number is less than 100
I'll tell you why there are so few deaths from fully automatic assault rifles: gun control works.
Really? There are about 100 million rifles in the US with AR15 "assault rifles" accounting for around 5 million of these. In 2012 rifles of any sort were used to kill 348 people. That means the percentage of rifles used in a murder is 0.000384%. More people were killed from hands and feet then were killed by rifles of any sort last year. And you are going to tell me that an assault weapon ban is anything but propaganda?
If you want to talk about gun control, handguns account for virtually all murders with a firearm. Worrying about any other type of firearm is simply a waste of time.
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.
Again: The definition of 'Militia' is irrelevant. The right is of 'the people'.
Even a ginger has the right to bear arms, the being no requirement the person have a soul.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
How may gun-relate crimes have been stopped thanks to citizen carrying guns? It seems to me that the more guns there are, the more death there are.
It happens all the time. Recent example:
Dallas Store Manager Shoots at 5 Armed Robbers Police Arrive 74 Minutes Later
Study shows concealed-carry laws result in fewer murders
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
MADD is a laughable remnant of yesteryear puritanism. They're nothing more than the Woman's Christian Temperance Union in a different dress. Lightner herself left the group not long after it started because they just tilted straight into prohibitionism.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Clearly, having a full auto rifle would help the sick person achieve his goals more efficiently.
I'll tell you why there are so few deaths from fully automatic assault rifles: gun control works.
As someone who deals with statistics as his day job (AI research: extracting signal from noise), I find the question of gun control fascinating.
Ideally, there should be an evidence-based answer that one can use as a basis of opinion. We have an enormous amount of evidence and analysis from which to draw out conclusions, so the answer should be obvious.
Is it?
Actually, it is. There is a clear and unambiguous answer to the issue of gun control, an answer based on evidence and when implemented would minimize societal damage. Anyone who cares can go looking for it...
To a statistician and armchair observer, this is what makes it fascinating. The country cries out for the definitive answer that no one - no side of the debate - will give. I find it highly amusing.
Some examples:
Comparing America to any other country is not valid. Unlike other countries, America does not have good health care, which presents an overwhelming influence on the statistics. Fewer people die from guns in country X, but fewer people die from any cause in country X so don't form your opinion on that.
Comparing America to England specifically will not work because the two countries count murders differently. In America a gunshot victim is either an accident, suicide, or murder. In England, it's not murder unless there's a trial and conviction. England has fewer gun murders than the US, but it's not relevant.
Calling attention to a narrow, specific statistic will not work because it asks the wrong question. "If you own a gun you're more likely to shoot someone you know than an unknown assailant" is my favourite, but there are others: "...more likely to commit suicide by gun", "...more likely to accidentally shoot a family member", and so on. These are carefully-worded responses of the same nature as NSA denials: literally true and misleading.
Any statistic statistic related to deaths or injuries won't work because it asks the wrong question. Guns have an influence on society and behaviour that goes beyond their actual use: disincentives for crime, for example.
Can you find the right question to ask?
Once you have the right question, you can compare different sections within America to each other, and different European countries (with similar health care) to each other.
When you do that, the evidence is strong and unambiguous... but I find the squabble and debate surrounding the issue Pythonesque, almost something that Franz Kafka would write.
Fascinating. And highly amusing.
we all know that the US's gun proliferation is directly correlated to it's staggering gun violence numbers
Oops, looks like you meant to say "negatively correlated." As gun ownership has been going up in the last few decades, violent crime (including gun crime) has been dropping. Almost all major gun legislation is followed by increases in violent crime. For example, the Brady Laws created a waiting period to buy guns and then rape crimes increased. After all, what kind of person that needs to protect themselves would ever think of buying a gun when they really, really need it?
the "right to bear arms" is completely separate from the "right to buy arms".
Not reasonably, and not in US law.
Guns haven't been necessary to defend rights since the war of independence...
Tell that to a black man in Mississippi circa 1964. There are a few that might tell you how the only thing that stood between their home and family, and a dozen angry klansmen with torches, was a 12ga shotgun and the will to use it. Guns in the hands of good people have been used to defend the right to free speech, the right to assemble, and the right to vote, throughout the 20th century.
Racism is the foundation of gun control in America. Only someone ignorant of history would dispute that. The same thing goes for drug policy, but that's another conversation.
you misunderstand how the Constitution works. it is NOT a list of our rights, and thus your argument is invalid. it is a list of what the government is allowed to do, and those not listed are delegated to the states and/or the people. the Bill of Rights is extra protection against government and specifically lays out what they MUST NEVER do.
the right to bear arms is not a Constitutional right, it is a Natural right Constitutionally protected.
no where does it say the government can infringe on gun sales, therefor it is unConstitutional for them to do it.
I'd say because "gun control" tends to be a a polarizing topic amongst nerds. Far more people tend to have strong opinions on the issue (either for OR against) than the general populace, so hence most gun control topics get a lot of support here.
Remember that guns are indeed technology, and the legal situation around the restriction and sale of a technology is of great interest to technophiles.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
McDonald vs Chicago (2010) offered a different interpretation (and the more recent decision takes precedence).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago
Specifically:
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
NOT a solution. You just end up with really aggressive HOAs which are mini-governments. In some cases HOAs have trampled on rights that are considered free speech outside their domain. Most famously there was the case of a veteran who put a flag on a pole in his front yard, in violation of HOA policy. In that case, there was so much outrage against the HOA that they made an exception and backed down. In most cases however, residents in HOA communities that chafe under the rules have to grin and bear it, or move out with a costly life lesson learned: avoid HOA communities unless you are the type of person who likes to follow lots of pointless rules, doesn't mind petty politics, doesn't mind nosy neighbors, and doesn't mind paying extra taxes to support the HOA.
Anyway, the HOA derives its power from the government, via deed restrictions and the law. It's private in name only. IMHO, it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. It's a municipality within a municipality within a county, within a state, within a federation, within a global agreement. How many layers of government do we really need?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Really sad that the links have few details, and more than 1.5 hours later, no one's posted anything more.
The decision text is available here. The decision is by Judge Edmond Chang, appointed in 2010 by Obama to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case name is Illinois Association of Firearm Retailers v. City of Chicago (formerly known as Benson v. City of Chicago).
This link says that the lawsuit challenges five aspects of Chicago's law:
Repeal what is considered an inalienable right and you no longer have inalienable right... If you repel the second then what is to stop them from doing it to 1-27 as well. Remember this is one of the original bill of rights, not just an amendment that was added later. l
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Indeed. There is no evidence that shows any relation between the number of legal guns and violence, mostly because legal guns are used only very rarely for illegal purposes.
Because it's about GNU control.
Damn my dyslexia!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Fully automatic. Think Tommy gun.
The reason so few crimes are committed with them is because we have regulated them out of common use. It is very difficult to buy one.
You missed the GP's point with respect to "assault weapon" bans. The 5 million or so AR-15s are NOT fully automatic, "assault weapons" are a political fiction based on cosmetics not fullauto capability. Put a 5 round magazine into an AR-15 and it is functionally identical to various popular semiauto small game and target rifles that have detachable magazines. Put a 30 round magazine into one of these small game and target rifles and they are functionally identical to the gun banner's poster child of crime, the AR-15.
The point being that there are FAR more than 5 million semiauto rifles with detachable magazines AND there were only 348 people killed with rifles of any kind in 2012 out of a population of 312 million. The GP's point about "assault weapon" bans stand.
I suspect that the most important reason is the same reason why most gun crimes are committed with handguns...rifles of any sort are big, bulky, unwieldy, and heavy. So allowing automatic rifles would likely not make much difference.
Fully automatic machine pistols though might increase the danger, though I suspect in many cases it would just mean that the person would zip through their magazine that much faster and then be stuck with no ammo. It might actually make things safer since inept users would be more likely to use up the whole magazine in one (likely inaccurate) burst.
Overthrowing an oppressive government (what the second amendment is about) requires modern military hardware. In this age, that means tanks, RPGs and military aircraft. When the Supreme Court rules that private ownership of these must be allowed then I will believe that it is handling the Second Amendment "correctly".
Your state militia has everything it needs in order to overthrow an oppressive government. If the Federal government tried to overstep its bounds, and the states stood up for their rights, they would be able to match the federal government with nearly equivalent hardware (I do realize most National Guard units are the last units to be upgraded to the latest and greatest hardware).
That being said - I believe that the second amendment is referring specifically to an individual's rights. And even if it is not explicit in writing, it is explicit in context. There was no "Delaware National Guard" back in the days of the drafting of the bill of rights. The militia, or minutemen, were compromised of citizens who owned and stored their arms at home. That is what they considered a militia. Regular citizens who pick up their rifles and defend themselves. In fact, Switzerland does have military grade artillery and other such weapons in the basements and barns of regular citizens. I don't see a lot of gun violence in Switzerland. Every able bodied male in Switzerland has to serve in the military for a brief period of time, also. Is it their gun training that reduces their gun violence, is it their culture, a combination of the two, or something else? Who knows. But the access to guns alone is not the issue. I am sure there are plenty of cultural, educational, and economic factors that play into the US crime rate.
Recently Iceland recorded it's *FIRST* police shooting resulting in death, ever. An Icelander could say the same thing about Canada (or most other countries). And, in case you're interested, the rate of gun ownership in Iceland is HIGHER than in the U.S. Link to BBC if you don't believe me:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25201471
Hint: guns and gun ownership aren't the problem.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
What scares me most about the movement to have some sort of mental health check required for gun ownership is that I fear it will lead to a Catch-22 world. One where you can only own a gun if you're not crazy but you are assumed to be crazy if you want to own a gun.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Actually, negative rights work just fine to protect those things by fining and jailing the shit out of those who produce waste which lead to health effects off their lands. Of course that requires a healthy court system(we don't have one) and a populace with a basic understanding of said system and the nature of negative rights which requires a non-corrupt education system(we don't have one) and a series of basic civics classes.
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, there isn't evidence because the CDC isn't allowed to collect data on that anymore thanks to heavy lobbying from the NRA. When they did find a link between guns and gun injuries in the home, their funding was removed.
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.
I lived in an area in new mexico where it could take two to three hours for a sheriff to get out to the house. How would I defend myself without a firearm? How would I stop a bear attack? If you were a single woman of 120 pounds recently removed from an abusive relationship with 250 pound drunk that walks right over a court order how do you defend yourself? How does a old woman of 80 years protect her home from two grown men kicking in her door for her painkillers? If guns are not needed why do the police and military have them? How do you stop a coyote from actively attacking livestock or your child? What do you use to stop the 300 pound alligator that just chomped on grammy's knee?
Probably that pesky Second Amendment again
There's nothing "pesky" about it.
The 2nd amendment is itself, by definition, an amendment to the original constitution.
A constitution that should be amended again in a variety of ways. (clauses to deal with NSA spying/privacy protection, due process, torture, fixing the 4th to eliminate all the work arounds like 100 mile "border zones", reasserting that free speech can't be "zoned", that "protests" by definition do not require advance permission from the government, and yes, fixing the 2nd to reflect the fact that not everyone is responsible enough to have a gun after all.
The constitution is the highest law of the land, but it is not carved in stone, for good reason.
Handguns are typically legitimately used for self defense. Rifles and shotguns are typically used for hunting. People in Alaska and similar parts of Canada will frequently carry a handgun due to the danger from bears or various types. On the other hand, I don't know of any duck hunters who also carry a pistol while hunting. It all depends on what perils you're worried about. Around here (Colorado) deer hunters will frequently also carry a pistol since a mountain lion may think you're just being helpful by carving up you're deer when you thought you were field dressing him.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Well regulated, in the parlance of the times, meant that they would show up with x amount of shot, powder, a weapon to use same, change of socks, etc. It was used the same way "regulator" is used as a clock trademark. It didn't mean bossed around; it meant consistently supplied and prepared. This is explicitly laid out in legislation from the time. The point of the 2nd being made was that people required the freedom to keep an bear arms if they were to form up in a well prepared and supplied manner.
We're still pretty well regulated in that sense. A very large number of US citizens could show up with a rifle and cartridges for same if called upon to do so. Be quite a few handguns, too, and a wide assortment of other weapons that aren't classed as firearms at all. But that's the 2nd for you: arms. Not just firearms, but arms.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Reminds me of this truism: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away"
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
There are several problems that this brings to mind for me.
First is that we as a society need to drop all the negative associations with mental illness. Some are treatable and or possible to fully recover from. Others are treatable but still a lifelong thing. Others aren't really treatable with our current knowledge, and of course there is an infinite spectrum in between all of that. But in the USA a one time diagnosis of a mental disorder is essentially a lifetime conviction.
Second, because of the negative connotations associated with mental illness most people will go to extreme lengths to avoid such a diagnosis. This is especially problematic with our veterans who even without physical damage have to readjust to a world that is different than when they left it.
Thirdly, veterans who have been involved in IED explosions often have brain injuries that will be permanent but are difficult to diagnos. These injuries whether diagnosed or not often lead to behavioural problems which leads to dishonorable discharges. Such a discharge then prevents or severely hampers those veterans from getting the help they need. And the really sickening part is that while the military has partially recognized this problem they still under diagnos such injuries, and even when diagnosed they frequently act deliberately to expell the service member without benefits anyways.
There was a very good series of articles about this in the Colorado Springs Gazette awhile back. It took me a couple weeks to get through it because reading about the deliberate mistreatment of our vets was very hard for me to stomach as a veteran myself. The bottom line for me though is that I think that some mental illnesses should lead to suspension of 2nd amendment rights on a temporary basis. As a society we should be helping those people so afflicted to heal and overcome their problems, whether they are, Vets or not, so that they can be fully functioning members of society again, including being able to responsibly own a firearm.
And of course I forgot to include the link that I spent so much time looking up for the Colorado Springs Gazette Investigative series.
http://cdn.csgazette.biz/soldiers/index.html