Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Saturday, July 26, 2008

(Chicago) Mayor Daley's response to Heller: explore yet more draconian gun laws (is that even possible in Chicago?)

Mayor Daley, never one to let himself be limited to . . . being sane, is responding to the Heller-inspired lawsuits aimed at overturning Chicago's handgun ban by looking at passing more gun laws.

In fact, Daley is talking about drafting yet another ordinance to spell out the responsibilities and liabilities of homeowners in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision to overturn Washington D.C.'s handgun ban.
Daley's chief concern at the moment, supposedly, is the safety of emergency service personnel (police, firefighters, etc.).
"You have to look at a new ordinance in order to protect firemen and policemen going to the scenes of people who have armed themselves in their home. ... We serve and protect. We're not supposed to lose our lives [who is this "we"?]... Morton Grove can do anything they want. What I'm saying is you have to look at the first- responders and how it's gonna jeopardize their lives."
So what, specifically, kinds of restrictions does he have in "mind" (being generous here)?
"It's just not allowing people to arm themselves. How many guns do you have -- 50, 60? Can they have a .357 Magnum? Can they have ammunition that will go through a wall? What is the liability of the owners? ... Do you have to have insurance if you have a gun? How much ammunition can you have if there's a fire? If a fireman is going to your home and you have 40 weapons and 1,000 rounds, do we have a responsibility to notify all the neighbors?" Daley said.
Hmm--hopefully, he makes more sense in his native language. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find a translator from whatever planet inflicted this spluttering nitwit on us. It might make sense to work with him on ammunition limits during fires--if you return from a trip to stock up on ammo, only to find your house on fire, I can see insisting that the fire be gotten under control before you're allowed to move more than a few thousand rounds inside.

I'll be sure to keep an eye out for this "ammunition limit during house-fire" ordinance.


Anonymous said...

Heh. 1000 rounds. Guy has a sense of humor, eh?

Reminds me of a mailing list discussion I had about a month ago. Guy was talking about how cops found a few guns and some number of hundreds of rounds of ammo in some guys' car trunk. I had to explain that sounded like a good haul from the gun show for many of us.

The people who aren't part of the gun culture just don't understand what constitutes "sufficient", I guess.

Anonymous said...

"What is the liability of the owners?"

Here's better question Daley: What is the liability of politicians ignoring the Constitution and the SCOTUS interpretation thereof?

Anonymous said...

If my wife is shot and killed in downtown Chicago while shopping on the Magnificent Mile I cannot sue the city for failing to protect her. There is no liability for the police or the city when they fail to protect a citizen so why should an armed citizen be liable if a no knock raid to a wrong address results in a death to a city employee?

Anonymous said...

18 USC 1983
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

Thirdpower said...

Daley et al realize they're probably going to lose so they're looking at their options to keep the ban de facto just like DC is doing.

Anonymous said...

The first responders I know have never worried about going into a home concerned about firearms but were more concerned with the person or persons in need of their services. Mayor Daley is trying to make them into wimps with his comments.

Anonymous said...

When did the safety of first responders become more valued than those they are supposed to serve?