Skip to main content

Recently, the US Supreme Court asserted for the first time in the 219 years since the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified that the ungrammatical amendment should be interpreted as granting an individual right to bear arms. This contrasts with the previous interpretation of the term "well-regulated militia" as applying to a collective right.

Chicago, the target of the Supreme Court's decision, has just passed by 45-0 a revised law to replace the law overturned by the court. A particular clause of the new law strikes me as an excellent idea, one that should be implemented nationwide. Keep reading for more detail.

Grumbling about a U.S. Supreme Court they say is out of touch with America’s cities, Chicago aldermen voted 45-0 today to approve a rushed-through compromise gun ban.

The law, weaker than the gun ban tossed out Monday but with some even stronger new provisions, allows adults in Chicago to buy one gun a month, 12 a year, but they must pay registration and permit fees and take five hours of training. -- Chicago Sun-Times 7-2-2010

The most striking aspect of the new law is a provision requiring the estimated 10,000 Chicagoans convicted of gun offenses to register at their local police station like sex offenders. This is something that should be instituted nationwide. In addition, an website like the one for sex offenders should be developed as soon as possible.

Instituting gun offender registration and an online verification system will promote the public safety and allow parents to protect their children by learning where gun offenders reside in their neighborhood. Shouldn't we protect our children from gun offenders just as avidly as we protect them from sex offenders? I say yes. It's just good old common sense.

Update: I'm drafting language for a bill to be called the National Gun Criminals Registration Act and writing a letter to my congressman asking for sponsorship. This common sense legislation will help our police do their jobs and will make our neighborhoods safer by targeting gun criminals.

Originally posted to edg on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:49 PM PDT.

Poll

Requiring Gun Offenders to Register is:

20%11 votes
16%9 votes
24%13 votes
32%17 votes
5%3 votes

| 53 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    catdevotee, AKA potsi

    A tax cut for the wealthy is the opiate of the rightwing masses.

    by edg on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:49:36 PM PDT

  •  Unfortunate simile (4+ / 0-)

    The most striking aspect of the new law is a provision requiring the estimated 10,000 Chicagoans convicted of gun offenses to register at their local police station like sex offenders.

    Because exercising a constitutional right is just like raping a child.

  •  It's Not an Issue Dems Are Pressing at All (3+ / 0-)

    nationally.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 01:55:42 PM PDT

  •  I'm a bit confused (10+ / 0-)

    The criminals are already in a database (NCIC, iirc).  That's the purpose of the background checks.  I'm in CA, but if you're a convicted felon (any felony) you are not permitted to have a gun.  

    I don't see how the registration would have an effect.  

    The smallest feline is a masterpiece. ~Leonardo Da Vinci~

    by FrugalGranny on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 02:02:25 PM PDT

    •  Aren't there gun offenses that aren't felonies? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrugalGranny, theatre goon
    •  Hope this helps. (0+ / 0-)
      Sex offenders are in NCIC also, but the intent of the s.o. registry is so that people can know who is living in their neighborhood and take appropriate precautions and so that police can track their movements. Registering gun offenders would serve the same purposes. Background checks, when enforced (note gunshow and private seller exclusions), stop g.o.'s from purchasing guns but do not promote neighborhood safety.

      A tax cut for the wealthy is the opiate of the rightwing masses.

      by edg on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 03:09:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  what? you want public lists? for supposed safety? (7+ / 0-)

        The answer unequivocally is no.

        Are you trying to give criminals a list of targets or just subject gun owners to shunning?

        With that comment you clarified this as the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet in this debate.

        The police already have lists of both prohibited possessors and stolen firearms.  That's more than enough.

        •  This comes down to... (6+ / 0-)

          ...a case in which, if the anti-rights activists can't make firearms illegal, make them eeeevil and put those who choose to exercise their rights into societal pariahs.

          Kinda like what the Religious Right has tried to do, from time to time, with abortion.  

          Trying to shame people into giving up their Civil Rights -- and it's pretty disgusting.

        •  Are you saying gun criminals ... (0+ / 0-)

          are better than sex criminals? I thought crime was crime. Aren't you for enforcing the existing laws? The proposed National Gun Criminals Registration Act will help in that effort.

          A tax cut for the wealthy is the opiate of the rightwing masses.

          by edg on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 04:38:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

            •  Gun Criminal: (0+ / 0-)

              A person possessing and/or using a firearm during the commission of a crime against persons or property.

              A tax cut for the wealthy is the opiate of the rightwing masses.

              by edg on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 04:47:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  if convicted of what you describe they become (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rockhound, theatre goon

                prohibited possessors so what's the point of a list again?

                •  Points ... (0+ / 0-)
                  1. They become known to the community.
                  1. Local police are alerted to their history.
                  1. The gun show loophole can be closed.
                  1. Private sellers can check before sale.
                  1. Prohibited possessor laws are state based. When a gun criminal moves to a new state, the new state has no knowledge of that status.
                  1. etc. etc. etc.

                  A tax cut for the wealthy is the opiate of the rightwing masses.

                  by edg on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 05:19:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  one it's already public record to post lists is (3+ / 0-)

                    nothing more than an attempt at shaming, might as well bring back the scarlet letter. It's none of the communities business if a person has paid their debt to society.

                    Local police already have any record they want with a couple key clicks

                    there is no gun show loophole and private party sales are currently legal. Selling to someone you know or have reason to know has a firearms impairment is a felony now.

                    see above

                    prohibited possessor laws are in no way state based, they are Federal law and as such when a person is run firearms impairments are just one of the many bits of information the police have at their fingers.......

                    Etc tells me nothing, so what's the valid reason for a list again?

                    •  Ummm. State law ... (0+ / 0-)

                      Arizona Revised Statutes 13-3101.A

                      1. "Prohibited possessor" means any person:

                      (a) Who has been found to constitute a danger to himself or to others or to be persistently or acutely disabled or gravely disabled pursuant to court order under section 36-540, and whose right to possess a firearm has not been restored pursuant to section 13-925.

                      (b) Who has been convicted within or without this state of a felony or who has been adjudicated delinquent for a felony and whose civil right to possess or carry a gun or firearm has not been restored.

                      etc.

                      A tax cut for the wealthy is the opiate of the rightwing masses.

                      by edg on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 05:34:50 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  My mistake I apologize for (3+ / 0-)

                        that statement.

                        Let me explain why I used the term the way I did.

                        Federal preemption of state gun laws due to the GCA overrides state reinstatement of rights.

                        Yes the state of AZ and I'm sure most states have their own definition of a prohibited possessor.

                        However when a person gets their rights restored by the state courts, the Feds don't recognize it at all.  According to the BATF you're still a prohibited possessor and can and will be arrested for felon in possession.

                        Therefore all that really matters in this part of the debate is Federal law though there's a few states that have passed commerce clause challenges based on federal firearms control. However until they actually work their ways through the courts, Federal law and BATF regulation is what we've got........

                        •  Thanks for clarification. n/t (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          rockhound

                          A tax cut for the wealthy is the opiate of the rightwing masses.

                          by edg on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 06:27:13 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Um. (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          rockhound, buddabelly, theatre goon

                          From the definitions in the Gun Control Act of 1968:

                          Definitions.

                          (20) The term "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" does not include:

                          (A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or

                          (B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.

                          What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

                          Italics added by me.

                          As I read it, the definition says that if a person's civil rights are restored following a "crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year", he or she can again deal with firearms unless the terms of his restoration of civil rights or expungement of conviction prohibits it specifically. Statutes are sneaky and the good stuff is often found in the definitions.

                  •  actually lets be very specific, private party (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    rockhound, theatre goon

                    sales between 2 residents of the same state where both are over the age of 18 and where the seller has no reason to believe the purchaser has a firearms impairment are legal.

                    They must be face to face as well and if all of these parameters are not met, the sale is illegal unless done with a 4473 through a gun dealer, nics ck, the whole enchilada just like a dealer sale. These are the rules no matter the location, your house, a parking lot, or a gun show.

                    Any sale by a dealer must be done with a form 4473, a NICS ck the whole same set of rules no matter where the sale happens. That sale could be at their shop, at a gun show, at their house, it's all the same. A licensed dealer must follow the same set of rules no matter what.

                    That's why there's no such thing as a "Gun Show Loophole" it's a fiction that thrives on the lack of knowledge and good intentions.........

                    •  Gun Show Loophole (0+ / 0-)

                      ATF says only 1/2 to 3/4 of sellers at gun shows have FFL. That leaves a lot of private sellers who are not required to follow dealer rules. Also, there are Craig's List, yard sale, flea market, etc. sales that are unregulated.

                      ATF also says gun show sales are the 2nd leading source of illegal arms, just behind corrupt FFL holders.

                      A tax cut for the wealthy is the opiate of the rightwing masses.

                      by edg on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 06:37:31 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  For which he or she is convicted and gets a year (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                buddabelly

                plus a day in prison. The Federal Gun Control Act excludes general felonies of a financial or business character as disqualifiers.

          •  Jaywalking is a crime. Crime is crime, right? eom (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            buddabelly, theatre goon

            Miseris Succurrere Disco

            by JayFromPA on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 04:45:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Jaywalking is a civil offense, not criminal. n/t (0+ / 0-)

              A tax cut for the wealthy is the opiate of the rightwing masses.

              by edg on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 04:49:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  No. Only the crimes specified in the statute (0+ / 0-)

              and under the terms of the statute are within its restrictions. Gotta be indicted or convicted of a crime for which the sentence is a year and a day or more, other than business crimes, and except for state misdemeanors with a sentence of more than two years,  and gotta not have had your civil rights as to guns restored, or the conviction expunged or whatever it's called in the state that did it.

  •  A question for second amendment supporters.... (0+ / 0-)

    I am more than certain that a "well regulated militia" in the context that it was written refers to a non-governmental institution.  It was necessary for a people who were terrified of standing armies to have an armed civilian force capable of defending a town, city, or settlement.  The right of revolution is written into the Declaration of Independence.

    There are modern militias, all of them right wing, hostile to the United States government.  The government constantly monitors and goes after them.

    The second amendment is obviously antiquated and really has no bearing upon our modern world.

    The national guard, our modern militia, is now right or wrong wholly a state institution.

    So the question is at what point does the archaic language of the second amendment invalidate it?

    Isn't the phrase "a well regulated militia" which is obviously offered as the raison d' etre for said amendment ultimately a deal breaker considering it is not applicable to our modern world?

    we're not going to do the things we said we would, but we're going to keep pretending that we will and claim we want to in order to keep our rubes devoted..

    by DawnoftheRedSun on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 02:05:15 PM PDT

    •  At one point does the archaic language (13+ / 0-)

      of the first amendment invalidate it?  Language is always evolving and changing, one day the language of the first amendment could well change to such a degree as to render it invalid or nonsensical.

      To directly answer the question:  never.  The ability to defend oneself, whether from a tyrannical government or simply an intruder, must always be protected.

      •  Absolutely (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rockhound, buddabelly, theatre goon

        Should this country last long enough that the Constitution is as unintelligible to average citizens as Beowulf is to people today, would that render it moot?

        No. Constitutional scholarship would just have to include linguistics by that time; or a convention to create a new one would have to be lawfully called.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 04:42:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry, but no. Read the Heller case which (0+ / 0-)

        basically read out the 'well regulated militia' clause as a limiter on Second Amendment rights. I may not like the decision but that's what it says in scores of turgid pages of prose.

        As to Second Amendment, in particular, the more recent McDonald v. City of Chicago case, about a week old now, found a Constitutional level right of self defense, which was found to apply to two Chicago residents, and which was enabled by the Second Amendment as one of its unstated but historical purposes, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment more clearly, and that cued on the early Jim Crow efforts  specifically to disarm all freed slaves. I don'tlike that one either, but at least it's shorter than Heller.  

    •  Right of revolution? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Justanothernyer

      Hmmm... The Declaration gave the reasons why they were casting off the old Government. They were not creating a law that said anybody had a right of revolution. The signers of the Declaration new full well that they were in effect declaring war on Great Britain.

      Also, the Declaration does not have the force of law.

      As far as the second amendment to the constitution goes, I do not know what the f**k it means. I know it does not give individuals or individual states to start a war or a revolution. They can try it, if they want, but they should be prepared for the consequences.

      If you are older than 55, never take a sleeping pill and a laxative at the same time!

      by fredlonsdale on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 02:36:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If it's obviously antiquated, the answer (5+ / 0-)

      is amendment.  That's the only answer, in fact.

    •  At the time of the Constitution (4+ / 0-)

      every one who could vote was considered in the militia. It wasn't regulated as in training and such. If you voted, you were in the militia and were expected to answer the call if raised.

    •  Respectfully (5+ / 0-)

      I think most of the 2nd Amendment supporters on this blog would disagree with your reading of this, and would agree more closely with Scalia's reading in Heller. I know that's where I stand, for example.

    •  Tell me where the verb is in the prefatory (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rockhound, buddabelly, theatre goon

      clause. Seriously. If a clause in a document is going to be legally binding, it must say who does what to whom.

      So what's the core of the prefatory clause?

      Militia being necessary. Wait, there's no fully formed verb there! There's a participle form of one linking a noun to an adjective conditionally, but that's all.

      Contrast that with the operative clause.

      Right shall be infringed (negated, of course). Passive future acting as an imperative. Infringe. There's a meaty verb.  That's your legally binding stuff right there.

      People trying to spin a lot of law out of the prefatory clause should consider this - the language doesn't support more than a conditional. It doesn't - and can't - prescribe or proscribe anything.

      As others have pointed out, "militia" does not equate to "national guard". That's a standing reserve military, just one under control of the states until federalized. The militia, as the founders understood it, was the body of armed citizenry.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 04:33:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's one interpretation (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rockhound, buddabelly

      Regardless of how "certain" you may be as to the meaning of "well regulated militia", it still comes down to opinion:

      The right of revolution is written into the Declaration of Independence.

       I certainly agree, and it came on the heels of a very violent revolution.  I don't think we can claim the Founders viewed revolution being limited to peaceful means.  If such a right to revolution exists, then it implies the right to use force to achieve it.

      a "well regulated militia" in the context that it was written refers to a non-governmental institution.

       If this is so, then a non-governmental institution is by nature a collection of private individuals.  Since the Constitution does not address the matter of community purchase or storage of firearms, we can assume that it does not mandate armories.  Therefore, it must be that, regardless of whether the right is collective or individual, the only practical way in which such a right can be expressed is via individual ownership and storage.

      There are modern militias, all of them right wing, hostile to the United States government.  The government constantly monitors and goes after them.

       How do the actions of a very tiny albeit obnoxious minority of the U.S. population invalidate the 2nd Amendment?  Their actions do not justify such draconian measures any more than Al Qaeda's actions justified the war in Iraq.  Further, I have an equal right to arm myself, individually or collectively, in defense against any extremist group whether they be left, right, or government.

      Isn't the phrase "a well regulated militia" which is obviously offered as the raison d' etre for said amendment ultimately a deal breaker considering it is not applicable to our modern world?

       Since a well-regulated militia that is independent of the government must logically be formed of individually armed citizens, and since the right of revolution is written into the Constitution and you are not arguing against an individual or collective right to revolt, it doesn't make sense to consider the 2nd Amendment invalid.

      In fact, considering the past decade's rightward lurch toward fascism, I would argue the individual right to oppose the government to be more relevant than ever.

      •  If I am following your logic ... (0+ / 0-)

        one of your reasons to promote gun ownership is to potentially revolt against the government. It is unreasonable to think the government would not put down such a revolt.

        The Federal government would use every means at its disposal to put down an insurrection. That would include all of the military and even nuclear weapons if needed.

        This idea that a popular revolt can overthrow the government has been tested multiple times and found lacking.  Examples include Whiskey Rebellion, Civil War, Bonus Army, etc. etc. etc.

        A tax cut for the wealthy is the opiate of the rightwing masses.

        by edg on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 06:47:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The same could be said of the 1775 revolution (0+ / 0-)

          There was no logical way a gaggle of amateurs was supposed to beat the British Army.

          •  A bit different. (0+ / 0-)

            The 1775 revolution is best compared with U.S. and other nations' efforts in Afghanistan. There is no logical way a gaggle of turbaned amateurs was supposed to beat a) the British Army, b) the Soviet Army, c) the U.S. Army (outcome TBD).

            Fighting an indigenous force when your nation lies across the ocean has historically been a difficult task. Examples include the Korean and Vietnam wars. Putting down rebellions by disaffected elements within the borders of your own nation is generally easier.

            A tax cut for the wealthy is the opiate of the rightwing masses.

            by edg on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 07:25:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Depends on the size of the disaffected element (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              buddabelly

              But generally I agree with you.  However, if we accept that danger and difficulty are rational reasons for surrendering the principle of rights, then we are already chattel.

              •  Agree and disagree. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DaveinBremerton

                The principle of rights was f**ked in the a** by the Bush administration while an armed citizenry stood by and watched, indeed even applauded.

                The biggest threat to our rights today, though, is not from the government but from corporations, which have wrested control of our country away from the citizenry. But we can'y fight an armed revolt against them. Our best bet is still the ballot box and our best choice is still more and better Democrats.

                A tax cut for the wealthy is the opiate of the rightwing masses.

                by edg on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 07:43:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Absolutely agree (0+ / 0-)

                  I see a Democratic administration as a swing in favor of personal liberty (and I'm a former Republican, so you can imagine my opinion of Dubya, et al).

                  I spent my entire adult life serving the premise that the nation was founded on ideals like the common good, the general welfare, and e pluribus unum for some really good reasons.  I think our vote, free speech, the ability to engage in civil disobedience, and our purchasing power (including our power to not purchase) are our best and most immediate defenses.

                  That said, I do not support surrendering the right to bear arms.  I'll support common sense regulation regarding safety and criminal use, but not an ideology-based restriction on the otherwise law-abiding and responsible.

                •  Gotta run (0+ / 0-)

                  The good discussions always come up when I'm busy. Nice talking to you, edg.

                  Regards,

                  Dave

  •  The Bill of Rights (5+ / 0-)

    Of the 10 amendments, why is the second amendment the only collective right while the others refer to individual protection from government?

    "No man deserves to be praised for his goodness unless he has strength of character to be wicked." La Rochefoucald

    by Void Indigo on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 02:39:30 PM PDT

    •  Actually ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      burrow owl

      only the 5th thru 8th amendments are individual. All of the rest are collective, either "the people" or "the states". Therefore, the 2nd Amendment fits in with the rest.

      A tax cut for the wealthy is the opiate of the rightwing masses.

      by edg on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 03:15:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Look at the phrasing of it. (0+ / 0-)

      It's interpreted differently because it's written differently.  I'm a tentative individual right supporter but the argument for the collective right hypothesis is totally reasonable.  Like so much else in the constitution, it's just ambiguous.

      •  Parker v D.C. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OMwordTHRUdaFOG, Void Indigo

        In determining whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee
        is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most
        important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the
        holders of the right—"the people." That term is found in the
        First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has
        never been doubted that these provisions were designed to
        protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion,
        interference, or usurpation. We also note that the Tenth Amendment—"The powers not delegated to the United States
        by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are
        reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"—indicates
        that the authors of the Bill of Rights were perfectly capable of
        distinguishing between "the people," on the one hand, and "the
        states," on the other. The natural reading of "the right of the
        people" in the Second Amendment would accord with usage
        elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.
        The District’s argument, on the other hand, asks us to read
        "the people" to mean some subset of individuals such as "the
        organized militia" or "the people who are engaged in militia
        service," or perhaps not any individuals at all—e.g., "the states."
        See Emerson, 270 F.3d at 227. These strained interpretations of
        "the people" simply cannot be squared with the uniform
        construction of our other Bill of Rights provisions.

        http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/...    PDF warning

    •  That is one of the arguments for (5+ / 0-)

      interpreting the second amendment to protect an individual right - consistency with the other amendments

  •  5 hours of training?? (0+ / 0-)

    That's just enough to make someone dangerous. I was taught about guns by my Dad at the tender age of 10. I guarantee he spent more than 5 hours teaching me about guns and gun safety. I think this is a good start but there should be more training. And on another note, I'm no constitutional scholar, but I don't see this as infringing on anyones right to keep and bear.

  •  Some things aren't common sense (6+ / 0-)

    Last I checked this ordinance includes a ban on "assault weapons." What does that mean?

    No kidding, I called and checked with my old Alderman (with whom I'm on good terms). She doesn't know either. That doesn't surprise me -- she doesn't know much about guns -- but it does make me wonder if that part of the ordinance isn't so vague as to be unconstitutional.

    "One gun a month per adult" doesn't sound unconstitutional, but it doesn't sound like it will help them much, either. There's an easy work-around for straw purchasing schemes (just get N patsies to get N guns for you, one each, every month, and pay them $100 each above the cost of the gun). And I can see a lot of people making a point of buying and registering one gun a month just to say "fuck you" to Mayor Daley.

    The ban on gun stores is going to create a major headache for the city. What constitutes a gun store? If I'm an FFL then does Illinois law allow me to sell guns out of my house? Does my house then become a gun store? Again, this is vague, and perhaps unconstitutionally so.

    I certainly hope they included a severability clause.

    Note: all of this is aside from the fact that I find the requirement to register a firearm to be odious and insulting. But, hey, I don't live there anymore, so not my problem.

  •  You're already on a list... (4+ / 0-)

    ...when you break the law.  You get a criminal record.

    Additionally, if it's a felony, your rights to own a gun are stripped.  All that is necessary is to check a criminal record -- why add a "list" to that?

    Sounds more like a form of backdoor registration.  You got a traffic ticket?  While you had your gun in the car?  Why, that's a firearm offense, on the list you go!

    Comparing it to the sexual offenders list is not completely out of line, though -- people get on that for such trivial things as public urination.  Either way it's out of line.

    •  Criminal records don't travel with the criminal. (0+ / 0-)

      If you move to a new area or a new state, any local criminal record stays behind unless you draw the attention of law enforcement. There is no way police can check the background of every newcomer to a community nor would most people want them to.

      Requiring a convicted gun criminal to register is no more onerous than requiring the same of a sex criminal.

      If you are a legal firearm owner and allowed by local law to carry the firearm in your vehicle, that is not a crime. Traffic tickets are generally not crimes, they are classified as civil offenses, so your example is flawed.

      A tax cut for the wealthy is the opiate of the rightwing masses.

      by edg on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 05:07:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  YAWN (5+ / 0-)

    Another torqued out anti desperately grabbing at the progressive communion wafer of firearms outrage.

    Love is the condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own.

    by kestrel9000 on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 04:03:48 PM PDT

  •  So the smart thing to do (6+ / 0-)

    Is to not bother coming out of the closet.  Chicago still hates citizens who want to defend themselves against the criminals that Chicago can't stop.  So let's make everybody who DARES to consider self defense measures register.  Yeah right.

    Here's one of the reasons AZ just made Concealed Carry without a permit the law of this state: a firearm you legally possess and carry might have become technically illegal by virtue of accidental concealment.  Putting on a jacket for example.  Or a bag of groceries blocking the view of it inside your vehicle.  And guess what happened once?  A passenger in a car was cited for concealed carry of the driver's weapon - it was in a map pocket on the driver's side.  These were misdemeanor offenses.

    So what do you think the tyrants in Chicago will decide is a misdemeanor now?  Maybe first they create a richly complicated set of rules for how one can bring a firearm from a range outside the city back in, then ticket you for breaking those rules, then adding you to another database that tracks you like a rapist.  Or better still not even make a mechanism to get your pistol in and out of their death-trap of a city, then ticket you for having your firearm outside your home so they can track you like a rapist.

    Yeah.  Great Plan.

    Best bet for armed citizens in Chicago is to stay in the closet.  They're kind ain't welcome in that town, obviously.

  •  Yes, common sense gun control (0+ / 0-)

    As a gun owner, the thing I like most is the training requirement.  If the gun owning community had already imposed training requirements on itself (not unlike the certification system SCUBA divers use to regulate safety in their sport), gun mishaps due to mishandling could be reduced.

    While I see the point in the "gun offender" registration requirement, I would like to see a very bright-line description as to what constitutes a "gun offense".  We've seen sex predator laws misapplied (i.e. 18 year old who boinks 17 year old gets prison time, or 17 year old takes nude pictures of self and gets busted for child pornography, etc.).  It's safe to assume that any law can be misapplied out of ignorance, ideology, or overzealousness.  I see the potential for abuse if this is not clearly defined.

    •  Agreed. (0+ / 0-)

      That's why I think a national definition should apply. Otherwise every state and locality will have a different interpretation of what a registerable gun offense constitutes. A number of laws are based upon "model statutes", which define things very precisely and allow for consistency from place to place.

      A tax cut for the wealthy is the opiate of the rightwing masses.

      by edg on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 05:14:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A wrinkle on training. Make it not just x hours (0+ / 0-)

      in a licensed establishment, but give somebody with experience a right to administer a minimum competency test and flunk those who like me should never have a firarm to use because of want of handstrength and resulting want of control, for example.

  •  China & Cuba have 'collectivist' gun rights too (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theatre goon

    No individual right(s)
    Im not comfortable only having infantry style weapons in the (ohio) state guard, pinkertons or blackwater types. You might think a Kyrgyzstan type civil war could never start here, but after reading the tea party/Palin agenda, Im not so sure

    Who is Mighty? One who turns an enemy into a Friend!

    by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 05:52:07 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site