Ammo For Sale

« « Kagan and guns | Home | Whose Ox? » »

Chicago: Post McDonald

Looks like their first (and it will be their first) attempt at gun control revisions:

Chicago’s Proposed New Gun Ordinance: Only 1 handgun allowed , Gun Registry, Ban on Gun Stores

Keep tilting at windmills. And:

She said that limiting Chicago residents to one handgun would pass constitutional muster. Nowhere has the court determined that “a person is entitled to more than one handgun,” she said. “And one handgun is sufficient for self defense.”

Grasping at the straws. And this pretty much guarantees McDonald part 2.

22 Responses to “Chicago: Post McDonald”

  1. John Smith Says:

    Funny I thought the 2nd said arms with arms being plural.

  2. Shootin' Buddy Says:

    Hooray! Let’s hope it passes (which it will).

    Limiting book ownership to one per household will give Alan Gura a very large, fat target.

  3. Paul Says:

    Like John Said, It was ‘Keep and Bear Arms’ as in plural.

  4. Newbius Says:

    It is past time for that stain on humanity to meet some tar and feathers.

  5. DJMoore Says:

    Mayor Daley, and your filthy rabid dog mouthpiece, Mara Georges, nowhere does the Constitution say you, or any government at any level, have the power to set any limits on how many arms we the people may own.

    The Constitution isn’t about defining the rights of the people. It’s about enumerating the powers we delegate to you, and placing further constraints on you, such as in, yes, “shall not be infringed,” you tyrannical scum.

    Your efforts to twist the simple plain words of the Second Amendment mean nothing for what we can do.

    They simply mean that you are no longer a legitimate government body, and that the people are free to ignore or even depose you, by force of arms if necessary.

  6. Wolfwood Says:

    Shootin’ Buddy is right. Without laws like this to be struck down, the issue isn’t going to get settled. Daley is a perfect foil for this.

  7. Tam Says:

    Hey, Daley, you’re not really here for the huntin’, are you?

  8. wildbill Says:

    When are we going to go after the machine gun ban? As military weapons are the best for defense (and militia use) this law needs to go.

  9. Stormy Dragon Says:

    I recall occasionally seeing the reducto ad absurdum response to laws the limit gun purchases to one a month or something similar as “If you can limit people to one gun per month, how about one gun per year? One per decade? One per life?”

    Apparently we’re going to find out.

  10. Joe Huffman Says:

    I suspect my neighbors heard me laughing when I read Tam’s comment.

    For those that don’t understand I recently used that joke in a post of mine.

    I’m liking their actions. It makes it more and more clear they are no different that the racists in the deep south with their Jim Crow laws of the last century. I’m itching for the day when Federal Marshals show up to arrest them for violation of 18 USC 242. When these criminals end up in prison is when we know we have won.

  11. Mike M. Says:

    Joe’s right. And that needs to be a big part of the post-Obama legislative push.

    We want a Firearm Owner’s Rights Act patterned after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Civil penalties for private harassment of firearm owners…and prison terms for government harassment.

  12. DJMoore Says:

    Mike M. Says, June 30th, 2010 at 11:40 am

    “We want a Firearm Owner’s Rights Act patterned after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ”

    No. We need to make it clear that it’s dangerous to pass laws that try to regulate our fundamental liberties and human rights out of existence. The dissents in McDonald, and the wishy-washyness of the decision itself (it’s been pointed out that Chicago actually won both of its arguments — it was the intersection of two minority opinions that lost the case) show that no law, no Constitution, will restrain those committed to tyranny.

    Baron Daley is no longer legitimate. Chicago belongs to its citizens, not to him and his cronies. That’s the message that has to go out.

  13. ben Says:

    I’m surprised they aren’t requiring the single handgun to be encased in concrete.

  14. mike w. Says:

    Ben – I’m sure they’ll come up with some “safe storage” law to work that in. Maybe require ammo to be encased in concrete to try and get around Heller.

  15. Paul Says:

    No Laws. Period…None, nada, zip, zilch, nothing.

    I would suggest we roll everything back to the 10 commandments and the constitution with the 1st 14 amendments.

    That should show them this country is populated with angry white christians. I, for one, am livid.

  16. Jake Says:

    That should show them this country is populated with angry white christians. I, for one, am livid.

    What about the angry black Christians? Or the angry white athiests?

    For that matter, which angry white Christians? Baptists? Lutherans? Catholics?

    Your oppression is showing, Paul. You might want to fix that.

  17. ATLien Says:

    The only people that should be oppressed are tiny tyrants like Daley. And by “oppressed”, i mean “get the living hell beat out of them”.

  18. Mikee Says:

    Well. to repeat another old joke’s punchline, I think Alan Gura isn’t following a plan of running fast and hoping to get a win or two against a Daley or a DC City Council. He’s gonna walk on down the hill nonchalantly and f**k ’em all.

  19. Barron Barnett Says:

    I ripped it apart last night. I saw an equivalent article from the Chicago Sun times.

    There is more than just the limit of one gun per household. They’re driving dealers further from the city. It seems as if they’re looking for a multi-pronged approach since they have to allow them, just make them unattainable. They appear to be constructing a bureaucratic nightmare which failure to adhere will result in your right to firearms being revoked.

    To top it off the arguments presented fail the actuality test, they’re all potentialities. There’s no doubt we’re already looking at round 2.

  20. John Says:

    So it looks like the SIG 250 is the way to go…

  21. Lyle Says:

    “Nowhere has the court determined that ‘a person is entitled to more than one handgun’…”

    “Entitled”? What; now we have to be “entitled” to a gun before we’re allowed to own one? I’ve never been entitled to a gun. I had to pay for all of my guns, out of my own pocket.

  22. The N.U.G.U.N. Blog Says:

    Hmm… I do believe that it reads “keep and bear arms”, that’s plural.

    So I think Chicago will be forced to allow a minimum of 2 handguns. (Primary and back-up).

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives