More on the 'Chicago Alderman Loophole'

For those following the sordid saga of the Chicago Alderman Loophole, there have been some new developments.

First, the Chicago City Council website has been updated to include information about the May 14th meeting, so we can now read the ordinance(pdf) as proposed that day. The next city council meeting is next Wednesday (June 11th). The ordinance may be voted on then, and I gather it's expected to pass.

Yesterday, a City Council committee approved the ordinance for a full council vote. The Chicago Tribune had a story about this yesterday.

Ald. Richard Mell got a City Council committee to approve a change to a Chicago law on his behalf Wednesday, but argued it would benefit thousands of other city residents who, like him, simply failed to renew their gun licenses.

"Thousands of other city residents," eh? Apparently, they're sticking to the story that the proposed ordinance is not just a case of Mell exploiting his power as an alderman to grant himself privileges that would never be available to lowly, regular citizens, and that the main reason for this ordinance is to help out "thousands" of Chicago residents who are in a similar situation.

The alderman said Wednesday he was "inundated" with calls from "law-abiding citizens" in the same predicament. Former Illinois Atty. Gen. Roland Burris called him to say he was storing a gun in Decatur because he forgot to renew his registration, Mell said. The engraved shotgun was given to Burris by Illinois State Police when Burris left office, the alderman added.

Sorry, but I'm not buying this story about being "inundated" with calls, and "thousands" of people who would benefit from such an ordinance--which would only apply to someone who had attempted to register a firearm (or more than one) from May 1, 2007 to April 1, 2008, and whose registration application was denied solely because it had been submitted too late.

The Trib story also reveals an interesting new twist:

Committee Chairman Ald. Isaac Carothers (29th) said he expected another amendment to be drafted that would allow retired police officers to register newly purchased handguns. Federal law allows retired officers to carry concealed weapons, but city ordinance allows them to only re-register their old service revolvers, not new weapons.

Trying to appease the FOP, I guess. Hey, as long as we're helping out the "Only Ones," we might as well do it right.

Oh--one more thing.

Also considered by the committee was a proposal by Ald. Ed Burke (14th) to require anyone convicted of a felony gun offense to be listed for 4 years on a city registry, as is done in New York. The committee delayed action on Burke's proposal.

Why the delay? If Bloomberg likes the idea, it must be good.

Just call me 'whiney hag'

A bit less than a year ago, I wrote about my disdain for Cheyenne Tactical's policy of offering one grade of their Intervention M-200 rifle for the government, and another, less capable (but still enormously expensive) version for the rest of us (you know--we the people--we whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed).

Until now, the CheyTac Intervention M-200 was restricted to Military and Law Enforcement sales only due to its impressive capabilities and a desire by the CheyTac ownership to maintain every advantage with our Operators in the field. Now, CheyTac engineers have developed a mildly de-rated version of the M-200 named the CIV ( Civilian Intervention Version) to offer the long range competitor the outstanding capability of the M-200 while limiting its effective range to significantly less than that of the current Military versions.

CheyTac believes that in these times all responsible companies should first consider the American and allied troops in the field when offering long range precision rifle systems to the public at large.

No one who has read much of what I write would be surprised that such a policy does not sit well with me.

Today, a bravely anonymous commenter took exception.

Sure, easy to say in AMERICA, but imagine the guy fighting in Iraq who now has a sniper trained by Iran armed with a rifle that is SUB MOA at 2,300 YARDS. incase you didn't know thats 1.3 miles give or take a couple hundred feet. Chew on that and bleed me some patriotism.

Let me get this straight--since we have troops at war currently (and for the next thousand years, at this rate) with insurgents who might acquire such a rifle if it's made available to civilians (and who couldn't get one as capable any other way), and who might be among the very few with the skill to successfully utilize that extraordinary degree of accuracy and kill our troops (who otherwise would have survived), citizens should be unable to acquire the fully capable rifle. Yeah--that makes sense.

And he wasn't finished.

And since you can't afford it nor have the ability to use it properly, why are you bitching like a bunch of whiney hags anyway? nothing better to complain about than the man holding you down?

It's not really a case of "the man holding [us] down," because (the VPC's desires notwithstanding), the law does not stipulate a limit to the accuracy of firearms available to civilians. I'll also acknowledge that CheyTac has every right to market their rifles as they see fit.

My point is that anyone who would pay over $13,000 for a rifle that, simply to help maintain the government's military supremacy over the people, has been deliberately engineered for less than optimum accuracy, has some pretty twisted ideas about the Second Amendment. If that makes me a "whiney hag," so be it.

I wasn't planning to waste any time on this genius, but I hope he reads this. Oh, and as far as my "[not] hav[ing] the ability to use it properly" is concerned, I freely admit that my abilities with a rifle never remotely approached those of a trained sniper, but I did shoot expert back in my paratrooper days, and before some fairly large health issues became my new reality. That won't impress Mr. Bravely Anonymous Commenter, who (I'm sure) is the second coming of Carlos Hathcock, but I am not, and have never been the kind of self-important wannabe that seems to have been his implication.

Hectic

Some things came up this morning (nothing serious--just unexpected and time consuming), and if I blog at all today, it will be both late, and probably brief. I know there will be much wailing and tearing of hair over that.

In the meantime, keep current with the latest developments in the exciting saga of Snuffy Pfleger.

Snuffy snuffed?

It seems the Chicago Archdiocese has finally had enough of Fr. Michael "Snuffy" Pfleger's vile, venomous vitriol, and will be removing him, at least for the moment, from St. Sabina.

CBS 2 News has learned that Francis Cardinal George is temporarily removing Father Michael Pfleger from his position as pastor of St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church on Chicago's South Side.

A temporary move is unlikely to accomplish much. Snuffy has been rebuked before, to very little effect.

Then again, this move may not be so "temporary," after all:

Indications are that another Chicago priest would take over at St. Sabina, while plans for the permanent reassignment of Father Pfleger, who's been there far longer than is customary in the archdiocese, would be accelerated.

It's about time.

Adventure Outdoors denied jury trial

That Judge Jack Weinstein despises the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms has been well established. Now, it seems that he is also not a fan of the accused receiving a jury of one's peers.

Mr. Wallace, 51, was referring to a ruling last month by Jack B. Weinstein, the presiding judge, to put in place what is known as an advisory jury — one whose decision would not be binding and would leave the judge himself as the final arbiter of fact and law. Mr. Wallace’s lawyer, John Renzulli, argued that Judge Weinstein had already made up his mind about the case, making any trial “a mere formality.”

I suppose it's a great deal easier to legislate from the bench when the activist judge/would-be-legislator doesn't have to deal with a jury.

For background, this is in reference to NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's lawsuit against Adventure Outdoors, a Georgia gun shop that Bloomberg has claimed, on the "evidence" of his amateur sting operations, facilitated so-called "straw purchases" of firearms.

With notoriously anti-gun Judge Weinstein having set himself up as the dictator of the proceedings, Adventure Outdoors owner Jay Wallace has realized that there was no point in playing with the opposition's stacked deck, and has entered (for the moment) into an agreement with the city.

Mr. Wallace, who owns Adventure Outdoors in an Atlanta suburb, presented his decision to withdraw not as a retreat or a defeat, but as a strategy to avoid financial ruin by speeding up the process of appeal. By entering a so-called default with the city, Mr. Wallace can now skirt the costs of a trial and move more quickly to an appellate court with what he claims are fundamental frailties in the case.

“Am I not an American who deserves the Constitution?” he asked at an often angry news conference held in a park outside the Federal District Court in Brooklyn, where the trial was to have begun. “Why am I not allowed to have a jury of my peers?”

Bloomberg, conveniently ignoring the fact that the case is now moving to the appeal phase, is crowing about a "victory" for New York.

“This is an important victory for New Yorkers, as good as a win at trial, and a validation of our innovative efforts to hold gun dealers accountable for following federal laws,” Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said in a statement.

It's not over yet, Mayor, and the next phase won't be presided over by your pet fascist . . . er, judge.

War on Guns has more.

Is there anything he doesn't know?

Dr. Steve Huff, being both a physician and an "authorized journalist," is clearly a powerful authority on gun law issues--just ask him.

Fresh out of medical training I made the mistake of asking patients if they owned guns. I quickly learned either to skip the question or explain my intentions beforehand. In a good-hearted attempt to promote gun safety, I found myself accused of colluding with the "government gun grabbers."

Is gun safety a standard part of the medical school curriculum these days? Or by "gun safety," does the good doctor really mean gun avoidance?

Here's what goes through my head: Say I have a .44 in my bedside table. What are the chances I will need it? If I do, will I get to it in time? Will I use it to my advantage? Should I keep it loaded? Safety on or off? Can I trust my 10-year-old to curb his curiosity? His friends?

Well, if gun safety was part of his med school curriculum, it seems to have left him with more questions than answers.

A deeply flawed but commonly cited survey from 1995 by Kleck and Gertz asserts that guns were used in self defense 2.5 million times per year. A 1997 analysis (published in the same journal, the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology) suggests that the estimate is inflated by an order of magnitude or more.

"Deeply flawed," he says, without offering any evidence, or even any explanation of how the study was flawed. That's OK, though--we can just trust him.

On the other hand, a recent commentary in the New England Journal of Medicine states that having a gun in your home increases the risk of suicide by 90 percent to 460 percent and homicide by 40 percent to 170 percent -- for every person in the home.

I've lived for years in a home with well over a dozen guns, and haven't, as far as I can tell, come close to either suicide or homicide--I guess I must be some kind of statistical anomaly. So must many of my friends. When you come to think of it, it's a wonder that there are still scores of millions of gun owners in the U.S.--one would think that most of us would have died off by now, as our guns whisper to us to kill ourselves, or as they jump into our killers' hands, point themselves at us, and pull their own triggers.

On the contrary, guns might be more likely to result in harm if you are depressed or unstable, drink too much, use drugs, have young children, can't see well, are uncoordinated, out of practice and/or are at low risk for being attacked.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to simply say "if you're not an 'Only One'"?

Far more gun deaths in 2005 resulted from suicide than homicide (17,002 vs. 12,352). Accidents added another 789. A gun might protect you from criminals, but what about yourself?

Hmm--guess I'll just have to trust myself more than I trust criminals. I think I can handle that.

From a constitutional perspective, it's up for grabs; expect a 5-4 ruling from the Supreme Court on the D.C. gun ban case.

Wow--a Constitutional law expert, too--this guy must be a genius.

From a public health perspective, the body of legitimate scientific evidence supports gun control.

Which "legitimate scientific evidence" would that be, now? Never mind--I almost forgot that we should just take his assertions on faith, and not ask for silly things like citations.

Guess I'm not the only one with a low opinion of Snuffy Pfleger

I should perhaps be above such things, but I can't help but be amused by this--check out the search terms:

(click to enlarge)

He he.

The site traffic generated over the last two days from folks searching for news about Pfleger has gone a long way to making this the busiest month in my little blog's history.

Thanks, Snuffy!

Illinois 'Lost or Stolen' bill goes down in flames

If this sort of thing keeps up, I might have to stop referring to the Illinois General Assembly as the Illinois "Politburo." The bill I have been railing against for the last two days, HB 2760, the ridiculous "lost or stolen" reporting requirement bill, which would require reporting the loss or theft of a gun to not one, but two police agencies, went down in flames a few minutes ago, receiving only forty-seven of the required fifty-nine votes (to sixty-four "No" votes).

Common sense, notoriously uncommon in Illinois politics, prevails (for once). All I need to make my satisfaction complete is to hear the anguished bleating of the citizen disarmament herbivores.

So are New Yorkers criminals, or mentally ill?

I don't mean to be rude, but when I see a (sort of) presidential candidate make the following statement, I have to wonder.

"What I came out for was the New York law," Clinton said in a noon conference call with Montana press Friday. "I don’t think there is any contradiction between defending Second Amendment rights and trying to keep guns out of the hands of" criminals and the mentally ill.

Clinton said that as part of an assurance to Montana residents that she does not advocate a national system of handgun registration and licensing. So she only favors making acquisition of firearms more difficult in New York as part of her plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill? Is there a greater concentration of such people there (a fair question, perhaps, considering the kinds of people they seem to prefer to elect for public office there)?

By the way, she certainly has advocated a national system of licensing and registration.

Hillary Clinton renews call for gun licensing and registration

NEW YORK (CNN) -- U.S. Senate candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton renewed her call for tougher gun control legislation on Tuesday before an audience of newspaper publishers.

"We have to do more to stand up to those who refuse to believe the reality that guns do kill and that common-sense gun measures can make a difference," Mrs. Clinton said during a speech to the Newspaper Association of America's annual convention in New York.

"I believe we need a comprehensive plan to stop gun violence, and it is one of the reasons I am running for the Senate," the first lady said.

Mrs. Clinton, who is running for the seat of retiring Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-New York), added that she supports proposals that would require the licensing and registering of all new handguns purchased in the United States.

She was, obviously, running for the United States Senate, rather than the New York state Senate, and the U.S. Senate tends not to pass laws specific to New York. Of course, that was back in 2000, and attitudes can change in 8 years.

So how about something more recent (the Democratic presidential debate in Nevada early this year recent enough)?

MODERATOR TIM RUSSERT: Sen. Clinton, when you ran for the Senate in 2000, you said that everyone who wishes to purchase a gun should have a license, and that every handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry. Will you try to implement such a plan?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I am against illegal guns, and illegal guns are the cause of so much death and injury in our country. I also am a political realist and I understand that the political winds are very powerful against doing enough to try to get guns off the street, get them out of the hands of young people.

Is it just me, or does that seem to imply that not implementing a national licensing and registration system would not be "doing enough to try to get guns off the street, get them out of the hands of young people"?

So how about it, Hillary--whom are you trying to disarm, criminals and the mentally ill, New Yorkers--or all of us?

Proud member of the Unorganized Militia Propaganda Corps

I'm a few days late with this, but I want to thank Thirdower for inviting me into the Unorganized Militia Propaganda Corps. This was his idea, and the logo is a product of his creativity.

Robb Allen and Linoge put their computer skills to good use in getting all of us wired in, and now we're officially in action.

It's a real honor to be a part of this group.

A ridiculous new twist on 'lost or stolen' reporting requirements

Well, the Illinois Politburo . . . er, legislature is so determined to impose legal obligations on crime victims (as discussed yesterday) that the House adopted not one "lost or stolen" amendment to HB 2760, but two of them. House Amendment 1 would require the rightful owner of the lost or stolen gun to report the loss or theft to the state police, and House Amendment 2 would require that such a report be made to local police. Since the intent, apparently, is to tell as many people as possible, perhaps we should require the owner to take out a full page ad in the local paper, to announce the loss or theft.

The good news is that at least Alderman Mell won't have to worry about this law if it passes, even if his Chicago Alderman Loophole ordinance doesn't pass. The Fifth Amendment protects him from self-incrimination, so he cannot be compelled to report his illegal guns, if they're stolen. It sure must be nice being an alderman.

I fully expect HB 2760 to come up for a vote today, with the idea of getting it to the Senate tomorrow. If you're an Illinois gun owner, I hope you're making your calls to Springfield.

Another fire to put out in Illinois

Yesterday, an amendment containing "lost or stolen" language was introduced to HB 2760. The amendment has already been approved by committee, and will be up for a floor vote very soon, probably today. If the amendment is adopted (an almost automatic process), the floor vote on the entire bill will probably take place immediately.

My objections to this "reasonable" legislation are numerous, and I've talked about them too many times before for it to make sense to rehash my objections yet again, so today I'm just going to urge folks to call the representatives to express the need to defeat this nitwittery.

Here's the contact information to use:

Representative Suzanne Bassi (R-47th District)
(217) 782-8026
(217) 782-5257 FAX;

Representative Patricia Bellock (R-54th District)
(217)-782-1448
(217) 782-2289 FAX;

Representative Bob Biggins (R-41st District)
(217) 782-6578
(217) 782-5257 FAX;

Representative Sandy Cole (R-62nd District)
(217) 782-7320
(217) 782-1275 FAX;

Representative Joe Dunn (R-96th District)
(217) 782-6507
(217) 782-5257 FAX

Representative Mike Fortner (R-95th District)
(217) 782-1653
(no Springfield FAX listed);

Representative Paul Froelich (D-56th District)
(217) 782-3725
(217) 557-6271 FAX;

Representative Charles Jefferson (D-67th District)
(217) 782-3167
(217) 557-7654 FAX;

Representative Michael Madigan (D-22nd District; Speaker of the House)
(217) 782-5350
(217) 524-1794 FAX;

Representative Sidney Mathias (R-53rd District)
(217) 782-1664
(217) 782-1275 FAX;

Representative James H. Meyer (R-48th District)
(217) 782-8028
(217) 557-0571 FAX;

Representative Ruth Munson (R-43rd District)
(217) 782-8020
(no Springfield FAX listed);

Representative Sandra Pihos (R-42nd District)
(217) 782-8037
(217) 558-1072 FAX;

Representative Harry Ramey (R-55th District)
(217) 558-1037
(217) 782-5257 FAX;

Representative Dennis Reboletti (R-46th District)
(217) 782-4014
(no Springfield FAX listed);

Representative Ed Sullivan Jr. (R-51st District)
(217) 782-3696
(217) 782-1275 FAX

After Saturday, legislation will require a 3/5ths super-majority, rather than a simple majority, to pass, and the state will be relatively safe (for the moment) from the epidemic of gun laws. Until then, we have to hold the line with grassroots. Let's do it.

Still think mandated defenselessness in bars is a good idea?

Most states, even those considered to have relatively permissive concealed carry laws, tend to prohibit concealed carry in bars. As will be discussed below, it's fortunate that not all states are so shortsighted. While the idea of drunks with guns is understandably not one with which many people are comfortable, the fact remains that not everyone in a bar is intoxicated. There is no law against driving home from a bar, despite the obvious fact that drunk driving endangers everyone on the road (or even near it), because not everyone leaving a bar is intoxicated. I submit that prohibitions on the carrying of defensive firearms should, similarly, be based on not whether or not the person in question is in a bar, but whether or not he or she is intoxicated.

A prime example of why I believe that can be found in Nevada, and in how a man who killed two brothers, and wounded two more people, was eventually stopped.

"I saw (Villagomez) shoot one guy, come back around and shoot the other guy," Hayes said.

Villagomez then started walking toward the middle of the bar before suddenly collapsing to the floor. Hayes later found out that Villagomez was shot by a 48-year-old customer from Reno who was carrying a concealed handgun. Authorities declined to release the Reno man's name, only saying that the man had a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon. The man was released after authorities ruled the death a justifiable homicide.

"He was just some random guy in jeans and a shirt who happened to be there," Hayes said. "I was just glad that there was somebody there who was able to help us out."

Incidentally, the title of the article "Three shootings leave small town shaken," is a bit misleading--not only because there were apparently five people shot, rather than three, but because it seems to imply that the defensive shooting is just as alarming as the murders (and woundings).

If the unalienable right to self-defense doesn't apply in some places, it has become rather alienable, has it not?

Tarrant County College vs. the First Amendment (and the Second)

Days of Our Trailers wrote last week about Tarrant County College's suppression of an "Empty Holster Protest" planned by Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC).

In a dramatic blow to freedom of expression, Tarrant County College (TCC) has prohibited its students from wearing empty gun holsters to protest policies that forbid students with concealed carry licenses from carrying concealed handguns on campus.

I've said it before: why should we be surprised that any entity willing to trample the Second Amendment would feel little obligation to respect the First? It gets better.

A TCC administrator told interested students that they could not wear the holsters and could only conduct a protest in the school's tiny and restrictive free speech zone.

W-w-wait a second here; "free speech zone"? Wasn't it kind of an important point with the Founding Fathers that the entire nation be a "free speech zone" (not to mention "citizen militia zone")?

Even if one were to accept the evil of restricting Constitutionally guaranteed rights to designated "zones," TCC's definition of what constitutes "free speech" is a bit difficult to fathom (from an email "granting permission" for the protest):

This is to notify you that your request to stage an "Empty Holster Protest" on the South Campus is granted. Your protest will be limited to the Free Speech Zone designated on the South Campus, and you and other protestors may not wear empty gun holsters on campus, including the Free Speech Zone during the protest, or at any other time. [emphasis from original document]

So even in the "free speech zone," students are not to speak in ways that offend the administration.

All hail Big Brother.

Anyone care to drop the folks at TCC a line?
Ernest L. Thomas, South Campus President, Tarrant County College: 817-515-4501; el.thomas@tccd.edu
Juan Garcia, Vice President for Student Development, Tarrant County College: 817-515-4504; juan.garcia@tccd.edu

What's the point of a right that we're not supposed to use?

Other gun bloggers (War on Guns and Snowflakes in Hell, to name a couple), have covered the outrageous (and criminal) police harassment of open carry activists in Dickson City, PA. The police thuggery eventually led to the arrest of a man who had broken no laws, and the confiscation of his entirely legal firearm.

As I said, this has already been well covered. The reason I am writing about it today is to respond to this editorial piece, "Big difference in right v. smart."

Police detained one of the armed diners and temporarily confiscated his weapon when he declined to answer their questions. So, the point was made. The Second Amendment provides the right to bear arms, and Pennsylvania has no law precluding citizens from openly brandishing the hardware. Moreover, the police were not quite sure about how to respond.

Yet having a right does not mean that it’s always smart to exercise it. Americans have broad free-speech rights, but it’s often smarter to hold one’s tongue for the sake of civil society — broadly, the accommodation of others. The gun-toters don’t seem to understand that not brandishing their weapons in public would not diminish their right while also not intimidating other diners.

First, and although I might be flogging a dead horse here, the dead S.O.B. has it comin': the Second Amendment does NOT "provide" the right to bear arms--that is a preexisting, fundamental, human right that does not depend on the Constitution (or any other document) for its existence. I'm not just being picky here; if things go our way, and the other side finally finds itself unable to sustain the rhetorical gymnastics required to sustain the bizarre assertion that right of the people to keep and bear arms isn't really . . . the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, their next line of attack will be to "repeal the damn thing" altogether. We need to lay the groundwork for making that repeal an empty gesture, even if and when it succeeds.

Secondly, the writer seems to be asserting that "sure, you have the right to keep and bear arms (whether openly or concealed--it makes no difference), but you oughtn't do it, because it upsets people." Are we to believe that the exercise of a right is . . . wrong, if said exercise makes people uncomfortable? This editor would have been a big help in the desegregation movement in the 60's, eh?

The exercise of rights always upsets people who would deny those rights. I submit that protecting the sensibilities of those who would deny others their rights should be rather low on anyone's list of priorities.

You mean we're not the 'Only Ones'?

Days of Our Trailers notes an amusing new development in the Chicago Alderman Loophole saga.

Fraternal Order of Police President Mark Donahue today decried the "double standard" that prompted Mayor Daley to endorse the idea of temporarily re-opening gun registration in Chicago after a request from Ald. Richard Mell (33rd).

"We have retired police officers who have a right to carry concealed weapons across the country, and they're being barred from registering their weapons in Chicago. We've taken one of these cases to Circuit Court. Dick Mell has taken his case to the City Council," the union president said.

Grating, isn't it, that retired "Only Ones" be treated as less worthy of consideration than an alderman--you know--just as the rest of us are?

On Wednesday, Donahue questioned the mayor's motives for endorsing the change. If the goal is truly what Daley says it is, then the amnesty window should be permanently re-opened for existing gun owners, the union president said.

"If they're looking to find out how many guns are in the city, leave it open. Why set a window on it? Do it for everyone who has an existing gun," Donahue said.

Yeah--I noticed that, too.

Chicago Alderman Loophole--additional thoughts

In an update to yesterday's post about the Chicago Alderman Loophole, I noted that Mayor Daley, in what might seem at fist glance to be a surprising departure from his rabidly anti-freedom, anti-self-defense stance, welcomes Alderman Mell's proposed ordinance. The reason for his support, supposedly, is "to get a realistic handle on the number of guns in Chicago." Like Mr. Codrea, I am more than a little skeptical.

For one thing, the only guns that this ordinance would open up for registration are those that someone attempted to register between May 1, 2007, and April 1 (April Fool's Day--how appropriate), 2008. Even among those, the only ones this ordinance would make eligible for registration are those that were denied because the registration application was submitted too late. In other words, only a minuscule fraction of the unregistered (and thus illegal) guns in Chicago would become "registerable," and that doesn't count the vast number of guns in Chicago owned by people who, by virtue of their criminal records, cannot legally own firearms under state or federal law.

Sounds to me as if Daley is on a fishing expedition. Could an attempt to register a firearm that would be, even under this proposed ordinance, be impossible to register (and thus illegal to own in Chicago) constitute probable cause for a search warrant? I would hope not, but I wouldn't bet against it in Chicago.

I would suggest that anyone who wants to "take advantage" (Ha!) of this ordinance (assuming it passes) be extremely careful.

'When the kid in your town gets killed'

That's what the advocates of forcible citizen disarmament wait and pray for.

The article I linked to above, "Gun control backers not bold on 2009," is mostly about making an assertion that I don't really buy--that the gun ban extremists don't have big plans for the post election future. I believe they do, and if I'm right, what does the fact that they fear to move on their agenda until after the election say about what the people want?

Still, that's not the issue I'm writing about today. Today, I want to talk about what the gun ban extremists so eagerly await.

House Democrats have not championed major gun control legislation this Congress. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), a gun control advocate, noted that many freshman Democrats — as well as next year’s prospective freshman Democrats — favor gun rights.

He doesn’t expect many more co-sponsors to McCarthy’s bill. “We probably have all the support we’re going to get,” Nadler said of the measure’s 66 backers.

“The national climate has to change,” he said.

Asked when it will, Nadler responded, “When the kid in your town gets killed.”

Good people, healthy people, normal people, with their humanity intact, look at a murder with a mixture of outrage and sorrow. Advocates of forcible citizen disarmament, on the other hand, look at it as an opportunity.

When an evil, twisted sociopath murdered thirty-two people at Virginia Tech, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) introduced H.R. 1859 (to mandate low-capacity magazines) before the bodies had been removed from the scene (a ten round magazine capacity limit, by the way, would have done nothing to reduce the carnage that awful day).

Similarly, the Brady Campaign issued a plea for money ($32, no less) immediately on the heels of that atrocity.

Then there's the VPC:

. . . and the fact that until someone famous is shot, or something truly horrible happens, handgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority.

I have a tendency to compare the gun ban extremists to various docile, hoofed herbivores, but perhaps vultures are a more appropriate metaphor.

The Chicago Alderman loophole

Days of Our Trailers already has this covered, so I'll just urge readers to give it a look. Must be nice to have the power to write yourself an exception to any draconian gun laws of which you happen to run afoul.

For those who appreciate irony, Richard Mell is, by the way, the father-in-law of rabidly anti-gun Public Official A . . . er, Governor Rod Blagojevich. Maybe the good Guv should borrow a page out of his father-in-law's book, and have some of his legislative allies draft some kind of exception to ethics laws--oops, never mind--I forgot that Rod has alienated most of the legislature.

UPDATE: And the hypocrisy spreads: now frothing-at-the-mouth-anti-gun Mayor Daley supports the idea:

Mayor Daley said today he's all for the idea of temporarily re-opening gun registration in Chicago -- not as a favor to Ald. Richard Mell (33rd), but to get a realistic handle on the number of guns in Chicago.

I was about to say "unbelievable," but, sadly, it is all too believable.

Defense of Philadelphia gun 'laws' based on hilariously shaky argument

Yesterday was supposed to have been the day for the hearing to determine the legality (or lack thereof) of what I like to call the "Nutter Package"--the restrictive gun "laws" passed last month by the Philadelphia City Council and signed by Mayor Nutter. I said "supposed to have been the day," because that's not how it turned out.

A Philadelphia Common Pleas judge this morning ordered attorneys for the city and the National Rifle Association to condense into writing by tomorrow morning what might have been testimony for a two- or three-day evidentiary hearing this week in the battle over five local gun control laws enacted last month.

The judge apparently isn't interested in sitting through Philadelphia's "dog and pony show" (as NRA attorney C. Scott Shields referred to it) designed to advance the argument that "state constitution be damned--we need more gun laws!"

What I hadn't realized until reading the second link was just what argument Philadelphia planned to use to get around the indisputable fact that the Pennsylvania state constitution explicitly preempts the power to enact gun laws to the state, rather than cities. The argument is even more ridiculous than I had thought.

The city concedes that the state regulates lawful firearm ownership, but says the local laws are meant to control the illegal possession of firearms by criminals.

This clearly makes no sense whatsoever--hell, one of the "laws," the ban of so-called "assault weapons," bans a class of firearms that is perfectly legal to own under state law. How is that not "regulat(ing) lawful firearm ownership"? In fact, all five of the "laws" criminalize aspects of what under state law is lawful firearm ownership.

If that's the best argument they can come up with, they should be laughed out of court.