Chicago abolishes gun registry in place since 1968

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/11/us-usa-guns-chicago-idUSBRE98A15220130911


(Reuters) - Chicago on Wednesday reluctantly abolished a 45-year-old requirement that gun owners register their weapons with the city, marking a victory for advocates of gun rights such as the National Rifle Association.

The city council voted to end the gun registry in place since 1968 to comply with court rulings against Chicago and Illinois gun control laws, and to bring the city into line with a state concealed carry law.

BIG SNIP


Illinois approved a concealed carry law in July, giving control of gun regulations to the state and essentially nullifying Chicago's power to require that gun owners register their weapons and have a city firearms permit.

The measures approved by a voice vote on Wednesday complied with the new state law. In addition to eliminating the gun registry, the measures eliminated the requirement for gun owners to have a Chicago firearm permit.

This is a major win for RKBA advocates. Chicago's requirement for a firearm permit were so restrictive as to amount to a ban, despite the SCOTUS rulings. Now ordinary citizens will be able to legally have to means to defend themselves.

Lets watch what happens to Chicago's crime and murder rates in the coming years.

[mwrguy]

1. Just what Chicago needs, more untraceable guns

Fucking gun nuts.

[GreenStormCloud]

2. Did the registery solve any crimes?

It certainly didn't reduce the murder rate. Let's watch the crime/murder rate for a few years and see what happens.

[otohara]

3. Taxpayers Shoulder Bulk Of Gun Violence Costs, Study Finds

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/taxpayers-gun-violence_n_3915434.html

“The victims are concentrated among young, poor males,”

No wonder you're yahooing!
No background checks, no registry, no insurance...no jail in some cases.

There is no responsibility to owning guns.

No laws is the goal you all seek.

[Lee-Lee]

4. Do you think the registry ever stopped a crime?

Chicago crime statistics sure dont seem t indicate it.

It was famous, however, for causing people to face police raids because they forgot to renew the firearms owners registration card every 5 years because they had a pistol they rarely used. So the "crimes" the registry solved were the one it created when the elderly WWII vet forgot to renew his paperwork for the Luger he took from a Nazi officer he captured 50 years ago.

[B Calm]

5. Nazi officer in 1963?

[Lee-Lee]

6. The registry existed in the 90's too

[DanTex]

7. How would crime statistics show the number of crimes stopped/solved by a registry?

[Lee-Lee]

9. If more gun laws than other areas stops crime, Chicago should have less gun crime

But despite a handgun registry, being the only state I know of that also registers all gun owners (separate from this handgun registry, so a handgun owner gets registered twice), the tightest registration requirements in the nation seem to have had, if anything, the opposite effect.

There are good gun laws that will reduce gun crime. A registration requirement that provides hurdles for those inclined to obey the law, while being universally ignored by criminals, isn't such a law.

[DanTex]

10. In other words, they don't.

How have they had "the opposite effect"? Chicago is a dense city with gang problems. Comparing their homicide rate with places like Montana is silly. The question is whether Chicago would have had more homicide if they didn't have a registry. You can't tell that just from looking at crime statistics of one city.

[Lee-Lee]

12. Ok, compare Chicago with the closest comparable sized cities

How do they compare, and do they have registries?

Registration is a lot of effort and money, aimed at the wrong population. The people willing to jump through the hoops and comply are the exact people you are not worried about from a law enforcement perspective.

The same money, manpower and political effort is much better spent passing laws that provide severe enhanced penalties for use or possession of a gun while commiting another crime, then focusing LE efforts on those crimes as well as the people who illegally traffic in stolen or laundered guns.

In law enforcement it is about priorities and best using the limited resources you have. Registries are manpower intestine to maintain accurately, and not a good way to focus resources. Ask the Canadians what they discovered when they tried it on a national level.

[DanTex]

15. OK, go look up homicide stats for St Louis, New Orleans, and Detroit, and get back to me.

The fact of the matter is both the Chicago police, and virtually all experts and criminologists I've read, including the director of the UChicago crime lab, thing registering guns, particularly handguns, is a good idea. On the other hand, I've yet to find any credible voice saying that the registry was not a good idea. Gun bloggers and right-wing pundits don't count as credible voices by the way.

Since you mention, Canadians still have a national registry of handguns. How's it working? Look at their homicide rate compared to ours. The national long gun registry was removed by right-wingers, again over the wishes of the police, who said it was helpful to them.

But I agree with you that Canada is a great example by which we could model our gun laws.

[hack89]

17. And on the other hand we have the ACLU opposing gun registration due to privacy concerns.

tough choice here - authoritarian cops or the ACLU.

[DanTex]

19. Ever since the ACLU sided with Scalia over Citizens United, their credibility has taken a real hit.

But I wasn't aware that the ACLU came out against the Chicago gun registry. Link?

[hack89]

25. They opposed a national gun registry.

on privacy grounds. No reason they think Chicago's was any better, especially considering the many times they have sued the Chicago police department for civil rights violations.

Are you mad at them for picking on those poor policeman just doing their jobs to make us safer?

[DanTex]

27. In other words, you are making things up again. Gee, what a shock!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023650501#post74

[hack89]

30. So the ACLU would oppose a national registry on principle

and abandon those principles in this case because they love the Chicago police? Got it.

You keep kneeling in front of the police if it makes you feel safer - you certainly have enough in common with them.

[DanTex]

42. I figure if the ACLU were against this they would, uhh, say so.

I'll take the ACLU's word on what they think over yours. Your relationship with the truth is, shall we say, tenuous...

[hack89]

48. And your love for all things police and authority is telling

you twist yourself into knots defending an organization with a documented history of systemic civil rights abuses because they agree with you on guns. I have no doubt that there is nothing they can do that you would oppose if they said it was to reduce gun violence.

I hate authoritarians.

[DanTex]

56. Once again, desperate and loony fabrications...

Call me names all you want if it gives you a kick. But putting words in my mouth only further demonstrates that you simply have no factual argument here that isn't based on falsehoods, either about me, the gun registry, the ACLU, the Koch brothers, whether you are an NRA member, etc.

[hack89]

58. I can understand your frustration - it has been a bad week all around.

been good talking to you.

[DanTex]

60. LOL. Fiirst you fail at logic. Then try lying, but get called. So now the gloating.

Yay NRA!

[hack89]

63. I am just sitting back waiting for the "backlash"

just like I have for the past 20 years.

I am happy to see you have maintained your sense of humor - constantly losing would wear me down.

[DanTex]

65. Still here I see! I guess I should have known better than to take you at your word...

And still gloating. Good thing you didn't go back to trying logic. It wasn't pretty.

[hack89]

70. You are trying too hard to make this personal

you are making too easy for me.

[DanTex]

73. LOL. Just can't quit me!

[X_Digger]

51. Psst..

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/04/exclusive-aclu-says-reids-gun-legislation-could-threaten-privacy-rights-civil-liberties/

[DanTex]

54. LOL. We're talking about Chicago here, in case you missed that part.

But nice link to the Daily Caller. Always nice when "pro-gun progressives" show their true stripes...

[X_Digger]

108. Did you miss your post that I replied to?

I figure if the ACLU were against this they would, uhh, say so.

I googled 'ACLU reid gun bill' -- and that's what popped up- someone at the ACLU saying so.

Do try and keep up, eh?

[DanTex]

109. "this" = Chicago gun registry. Sorry. Thanks for playing.

[X_Digger]

110. And you think the state version of the same would be A-OK to them? LOL!!

The ACLU said it welcomed the support from the NRA in its suit against Clapper and other officials filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

"Americans from across the political spectrum value individual privacy," said Jameel Jaffer, one of the ACLU lawyers on the suit. "The philosophical roots may differ, but I think that is a widely shared American value."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-09-04/news/sns-rt-us-usa-legal-nra-20130904_1_gun-owners-gun-registry-nra#sthash.6hYa2v4z.dpuf

[DanTex]

111. They've had 45 years to object to Chicago's law if they wanted. I'm not a mind-reader like you...

But thanks for that totally irrelevant article about the NSA!

[X_Digger]

112. They share the same privacy concerns. Was that a reach too far?

Sorry, I'll try to break it down more next time.

[DanTex]

113. Privacy concerns about a national gun registry run by the federal government.

This is the first I've heard about them being opposed to the law in Chicago.

[X_Digger]

114. What indication has the ACLU ever made that they are okay with state controls that they oppose..

.. when proposed at a national level?

What statement has the ACLU ever made, saying "It's okay for the State to violate this principle we have, but not the federal government."?

I'll be waiting with bated breath.

[DanTex]

115. LOL. Sorry, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Nice try though.

[X_Digger]

116. I demonstrated that the ACLU had privacy concerns with Reid's national bill.

What indication have you given that they abrogate their positions when the same measures are proposed at a state level?

[DanTex]

117. And I'm sure you had a lot of fun doing it. Too bad that wasn't the question.

Unless the ACLU is truly as blindly absolutist most gun rights advocates, that doesn't tell me much at all about how they feel about a gun registry in Chicago. I'm not saying they agree with either of us. I'm saying we don't know.

[X_Digger]

118. My extrapolation is based on their position on similar issues, presented elsewhere.

Which is a heck of a lot different than saying, "if the ACLU were against this they would, uhh, say so."

The way I read that is you assume the ACLU has no problem with Chicago's registry. Quite different than "we don't know".

I think DanTex in post #42 needs to have a chat with DanTex in post #117.

[DanTex]

119. If the ACLU were against this, they would say so. Since they didn't, we don't know

where they stand. Is this really so confusing?

The reason this came up is because hack89 tried to accuse me of standing with authoritarians over the ACLU. There's your burden of proof. I never mentioned the ACLU.

[X_Digger]

120. I see you had a chat with each other and split the difference. ;) n/t

[DanTex]

121. LOL. hack and I go way back!

[Lee-Lee]

21. St Louis, Detroit and New Orleans?

Not sure if you comprehended what I meant when I said comparable cities, but those are not even close.

LA is the next largest, Houston just a bit smaller ad the closest to Chicago.

Your list looks like one cherry picked to give the data you want, not one based on comparable population. Not very intellectually honest data selection.

[DanTex]

24. So no credible expert against gun registries, I take it? Didn't think so.

If those examples I picked have smaller populations, then their homicide rate should be even smaller. Not very good for your gun registries bad hypothesis, is it?

Nor is the fact that the biggest city in the US, NYC, also has a gun registry, and it's homicide rate is lower than any other in the top 10 except for Las Vegas. And then there's LA, where handguns are registered with the state, also lower homicide rate than any top 5 city other than NYC. And so on.

There's a reason why there are no serious scholars of crime and violence that agree with you.

[derby378]

146. Too bad you didn't check out how Dallas does things

Our murder rates have been falling for the past few years - and Dallas has CHL, gun shows out the wazoo, and no city registry. Holy frickin' Peter Lorre on a Gut Buster, how did we make that happen?

[DanTex]

150. Hmm... Dallas has almost twice the homicide rate of NYC, a much larger and denser city.

Is it possible you've been listening to too much Rick Perry?

[derby378]

152. No stats? That's okay...

I'll take a little freedom over constant surveillance anytime.

[DanTex]

154. I thought you could figure this one out on your own. My mistake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

Dallas homicide rate is 10.9
New York's is 6.3

[derby378]

155. Okay, let's use those stats...

New York's rate of aggravated assault is 363.2. Dallas' rate is only 302.8.

I notice that the stats you provided do not mention what sort of weapon was used to commit either homicide or aggravated assault. Please try again.

[DanTex]

156. Exactly. Despite having a similar assault rate, NYC has a much lower homicide rate.

It's the same thing that you find when you compare the US to other countries -- our violent crime rates are similar, but our homicide rates are much higher. That's what guns do -- they make it much more likely that an assault or an argument will result in someone getting killed.

[derby378]

157. Now all you have to do...

...as I alluded to earlier, is determine how many of those homicides and aggravated assaults were actually committed by someone using a firearm. The stats you provided don't do that.

[DanTex]

158. Most homicides in the US are committed by gun, particularly in high-gun states like Texas.

Feel free to try and find the exact numbers for each city if you're interested.

Speaking of gun homicides, you might want to check out a recent study...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023661481

[pintobean]

78. I live in ST. Louis, Dan.

My neighborhood is full of law abiding Democrats, many of them armed. We have very little violent crime. The high gun crime statistics come from the areas of the city that have gang problems. I don't think many gang members care much about gun laws.

[DanTex]

80. I'm glad you live in a safe neighborhood. Others aren't so lucky.

And the problem is, the gun laws are written by people who don't experience gun violence, which is why they value the inconvenience of submitting some paperwork higher than the actual lives lost on the "other side of town" due to easy access to guns.

Re: the NRA talking point "criminals ignore gun laws".

As many have pointed out, that argument would imply not having any laws, since "criminals won't follow them". The fact of the matter is that tightening gun laws reduces the supply of guns to illegal markets. Almost all criminal guns start out at gun stores before they end up on the streets. It is much more difficult for this to happen if guns are registered. This is why, as I've pointed out above, opposition to gun registration does not come from people with any expertise in gun policy or criminology (for example the head of the University of Chicago Crime Lab might know something about this), but rather from right-wing special interest groups.

[pintobean]

87. I don't believe

in punishing my child when the dog shits on the floor. Maybe you would be happy if the NSA was tasked with solving gun crime. They're pretty good at violating the rights of everyone due to the actions of a few.

[DanTex]

90. So now a gun registry is "punishment".

The fact that you need to resort to such ludicrous hyperbole betrays the weakness of your argument. I, on the other hand, don't believe in having thousands of people die -- not to mention the other non-lethal costs of gun violence -- in order to relieve gun owners of the "punishment" of having to fill out paperwork.

[pintobean]

97. I guess you've forgotten about The News Journal gun map

fiasco. That was most certainly an attempt to punish innocent gun owners, not hyperbole.

[DanTex]

102. So we're agreed that gun registries are good so long as personal info isn't released.

Always nice to find common ground!

[Lee-Lee]

160. It can very well be, along with permits to own or purchase

It is all in the implementation, along with the safeguards to prevent abuse or the use of such a requirement to act as a barrier to ownership.

One only has to look at the history here in NC. Anti-gun advocates love the purchase permit system required here for handguns, despite the fact that it is a Jim Crow era law that was expressly written to allow sheriffs enough latitude to "judgement" to deny minorities their rights.

Registries or permit systems that incur undo delays - in some counties here they issue the pistol permits on the spot, some take 2-3 weeks. A right delayed is a right denied, and doing so requires a person to make 2 trips during what are for most people working hours, missing work, to go get what amount to permission slips to exercise a right. Plus pay $5 per permit, good for only one gun, in a scheme that closely resembles a poll tax scheme in that it places a tax on the exercise of a right.

In addition, you have government officials who will delay paperwork or refuse to fully fund offices managing it, causing undo delays.

One example in NY here:

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/09/legislator_joanie_mahoney_rejects_help_for_pistol_permit_office.html

Onondaga County Executive Joanie Mahoney has rejected a request to add a position to the sheriff's department's over-burdened pistol permit office, a county legislator said today.

Kevin Holmquist, who chairs the Onondaga County Legislature's Public Safety Committee, said the sheriff's department needs the position to process a backlog of permits and privacy forms.

"She is inexplicably cutting the request for a full-time position, and I find this very disturbing," said Holmquist, R-East Syracuse.

Holmquist said the backlog to get a permit is more than 18 months. In addition, Sheriff Kevin Walsh has said his office is trying to process about 15,000 requests from pistol permit holders to keep their names from being released to the public.

An 18 month delay for a permit, and government officials who refuse to act to correct the issue, is simply an unacceptable barrier on the exercise of a right. Period.

But there are many on the anti-gun side who has as their goal the implementation of as many hurdles to gun ownership as possible, such as these, in the guise of "safety" but in reality to make buying a gun so difficult as to discourage it. It is essentially the exact same tactics the rethugs are using here in NC to stifle the votes of young people and minorities. And just as despicable.

[DanTex]

161. It's outlandish hyperbole to call any of that "punishment".

Punishment is, you know, sending people to prison. The only people being punished by gun laws in the US are the thousands of innocent victims who lose their lives due to insufficient gun regulations.

Waiting periods serve an important public safety objective, as do registration requirements. Rights need to be balanced with the interests of society.

In fact, discouraging gun ownership is itself a worthy public safety objective, given the extensive evidence that gun ownership poses a health threat to others (as well as to themselves). Sort of like a carbon tax, which is aimed at reducing CO2 emissions by encouraging alternative modes of transportation and forms of energy. Only a true right-wing nutjob would liken a carbon tax to "punishment".

In fact, two top criminologists have estimated the cost to society of each additional gun owning household at between $100 to $1800 dollars annually.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf

[Recursion]

23. I don't know. Will this increase the number of guns? Of untraceable guns?

Do we know? DC was forced to allow legal handguns a few years ago; I don't know that anybody's shown that the actual number of guns in the city has gone up. The murder rate certainly hasn't.

[DanTex]

8. A big victory for fans of homicide.

Virtually all criminologists and experts on gun violence are in favor of registering guns -- at least handguns. But, sadly, as long as the supreme court remains controlled by conservatives, we can continue to expect them to thwart attempts to protect innocent lives over the interests of gun fanatics. As this NYT article points out, this threatens to halt or even reverse some of the recent progress that Chicago has made recently towards bringing their homicide rate down.

Chicago’s homicide rate has declined 22 percent in the past year, according to the Police Department. There have been 295 homicides in Chicago this year, compared with 377 during the same period last year. That is still more than the number of homicides in other large cities like New York and Los Angeles during the same time frame.

Criminal experts say the gun registry database in Chicago, which contains more than 8,000 gun owners and about 22,000 firearms, has helped the police better understand the movement of weapons in the city as they put in place new law enforcement strategies. Adam Collins, a spokesman for the Police Department, said in a statement that officers would be able to use a new online database of permit holders maintained by the Illinois State Police under the law.

“There’s no scenario where this makes the jobs of police easier,” said Jens Ludwig, director of the University of Chicago’s Crime Lab, about having to repeal the registry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/us/chicago-city-council-reluctantly-ends-gun-registry.html?_r=0

[hack89]

18. NSA databases bad. Chicago police databases good.

because we know that the Chicago police have such an exemplary record when it comes to respecting our privacy and civil rights.

I'm with the ACLU on this one.

[DanTex]

20. Yeah, not all databases are the same. I know this is difficult to comprehend. Try harder.

[hack89]

22. So you trust the Chicago cops to respect your civil rights? Really?

one of the most abusive and corrupt department's in America.

I love how gun control brings out the authoritarians. You must have loved the NYPD's stop and frisk policies.

[DanTex]

29. Have there been any rights violations associated with the gun registry?

Even one? Or is this the third time in two days that you have made something up out of thin air?

I think the citizens of Chicago should decide. Don't you? Why is it that people from out of state are so intent on trying to raise the homicide rate in Chicago?

[hack89]

31. So the Chicago cops cannot be trusted with anything except the gun registry?

interesting logic there.

They discriminate, racially profile, spy on protesters, etc and yet we are to trust them with a gun registry. Got it.


This is the group you trust so much:

https://www.google.com/search?q=aclu+and+chicago+police&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&client=firefox-a

[DanTex]

40. So that's a no.

Three fabrications in a twenty four hours! That's a high bar, even for gungeoneers!

[hack89]

43. Your police worship is a little too much, don't you think?

how come you are not addressing the bigger issue? Are you really saying the Chigaco police are not serial civil rights violators?

I never claimed that they misused the registry - I simply claimed they cannot be trusted to protect civil rights. Do you agree.

[DanTex]

45. My police worship? Whaaa? You're losing it, buddy.

Here's a tip. When you've been caught serially fabricating "facts" off the top of your had, more fabrications aren't going to get you out of the whole.

Try truthfullness for once. It'll feel good.

[hack89]

49. Are you denying that the Chicago PD has a long history of systemic civil rights violations?

this is the group you trust so much.

[DanTex]

52. I'm denying that it matters when it comes to a gun registry.

You are trying to change the subject, because you don't have any actual relevant arguments. Sorry, not gonna work.

[hack89]

55. Not a big deal anyway.

Chicago lost.

By the way, did you also see this piece of news:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3659913

Good week all around.

Good talking to you.

[DanTex]

59. I wonder what motivates such intense dislike of people who live in cities?

Gloating about the fact that the NRA has made their streets less safe. If I didn't like Chicago, I just wouldn't go there, but I wouldn't try to undermine their public safety.

[hack89]

61. I want urban dwellers to have exactly the same rights I do

Time will tell if their streets are less safe - I don't have a crystal ball like you do. History tells us that gun violence will most likely continue to decline. We will see.

[DanTex]

64. Wait, I thought you were leaving? You said so twice!

Urban dwellers don't want their guns flooded with streets. It's only rural conservatives who consider it a "right" to own an unregistered handgun in a densely populated city.

This thread has made it plainly clear that the celebrations have nothing to do with trying to "liberate" the people of Chicago and everything to do with anti-urban resentment from people who agree with Sarah Palin's assessment of the "real America".

[hack89]

68. But you are such a compelling personality - it just draws me back.

Urban dwellers have to obey the law like everyone else. They can regulate guns - they just have to do in accordance with the law. It is not complicated.

[hack89]

44. Do you trust the Chicago police to respect civil rights? Simple question.

that you will refuse to answer.

[DanTex]

47. I have no problem with them having a gun registry, which is the issue at hand.

And neither do the people of Chicago. Probably has to do with the fact that you have produced zero examples of the gun registry being used abusively.

Only rural conservatives seem to have an issue with it, and as illustrated below, it's got more to do with hatred and revenge than concerns about the "rights" of people in Chicago.

[hack89]

53. No doubt Chicago paid for their hubris.

that is what happens when you think you are special.

[DanTex]

62. Chicago paid for the ignorance and hatred of people who don't live there.

I don't see what's hubristic about wanting to keep their citizenry safe. But it's nice once again to see your true motivation is dislike for the people of Chicago, rather than concern for their "rights".

[hack89]

66. Time will tell

what if their gun violence rates continue to decline. Will you admit you are wrong? Or is that asking too much?

I have no problem with the people of Chicago - I am confident that they will manage just like every other city in America that doesn't have a registry.

[Lee-Lee]

74. Well, I found this posted on DU years ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x83410

Seems the registry has been used to search for people who make minor paperwork violations, and then instead of reminding them to do the paperwork so they are in compliance just confiscating the guns.

That seems pretty abusive. If my car registration goes out I get a ticket, and I can fix it. My car isn't permentaly confiscated and destroyed.

Looks like this was widely reported about 10 years ago, but many of the links to original media outlets are long dead as websites change.

I will see if I can find better sources and background. I remember this being discussed then because that is when I was a deputy and we all agreed that it was the exact wrong way to focus enforcement.

[DanTex]

76. One gungeon post from ten years ago, to a website that doesn't exist anymore.

I don't know what you think is abusive about confiscating unregistered guns. Evidently the people of Chicago value their safety over their "rights" to unregistered guns.

Do you ever wonder why the people celebrating the "gun rights" victories aren't the ones who have to live on the streets of the cities where those "victories" occurred?

[SecularMotion]

11. This OP is disgusting

Cheerleading for the NRA does not belong on a website for liberals and progressives.

[DanTex]

13. Part of it is disdain for urban people on the part of rural conservatives.

People who don't even live in Chicago celebrating the fact that the citizens of Chicago will be made more vulnerable due to the influence of right-wing lobby groups. The citizens of Chicago certainly don't want this.

[TheDeputy]

28. More safe?

You think criminals obey gun laws? Pfffft! More safe are the people who go lawfully armed.

[Lee-Lee]

32. Not just rural conservatives, rural Dems, and for reason

Go to rural southern IL and you will find lots of democrats who also own guns and hate that Chicago politics have defined thier states stance on them.

Heck, here in NC you have lots of old school southern democrats in the rural areas and old mill towns, but mention Bloomberg and Gun control and they will have nothing good to say about a bunch from NYC pushing a big city agenda on the rest of the country.

I guess there is some schadenfreude here with all the rural gun owners, conservative or liberal, seeing done in Chicago what big city politicians have been doing and trying to do in the opposite direction in rural areas for decades.

Is turnabout fair play? Probably not, but Chicago is a getting a little taste of how they have made rural IL gun owners feel for decades.

[DanTex]

41. Nothing like good ol' hatred and revenge.

At least it's clear that this has nothing to do with "freedom" and more to do with trying to punish urban people by making their streets less safe.

But I doubt that many of the "rural Dems" you are talking about are actually "Dems".

[Lee-Lee]

46. Not what I said at all

But take what you want from it. If that is how you see it, we can easily say it applies the other way as well, with urban people wanting to attack the freedom of rural people because urban areas have crime problems.

We will see in a few years how it plays out with crime. The same voices said in every state that passed CCW laws that it would lead to huge crime waves and it never does, we will see if they finally are right with IL, or the pattern continues.

[DanTex]

50. The pattern that the US has 10x more gun violence than other wealthy nations?

The pattern that states with tighter gun laws have lower gun death rates than those with lax gun laws?

I'm pretty sure those patterns are safe. Along with the pattern of rural conservatives trying to force guns and violence into cities where the people don't want them.

[Lee-Lee]

57. The pattern of chicken littles

Who scream the sky is falling every time a new state gets CCW or a law like this is changed.

And the sky is still there.

[DanTex]

72. Actually, the sky is falling...

[GreenStormCloud]

122. So if someone is murdered with a knife or club, they aren't as dead? N/T

[ColesCountyDem]

104. 'Rural Dem's' are very much 'Dem's', but they are RURAL.

I now live in deep southern Illinois (south of I-64), in the same county where I was born and grew to adulthood. I subsequently lived in Chicago for several years and thereafter lived in central IL for almost three decades. My natal county was once known as 'the most Democratic county in Illinois', because not a single Republican held any county office from 1930 until the early 1980's. With the exception of that single officeholder (now deceased), that remains true to this day. Both our State Representative and State Senator are Democrats, and carried the county by substantial margins. The county is very much pro-union, supports social welfare programs, teachers and educations, etc., etc. etc. . That said, it is helpful to understand why Chicago is Chicago and why the rest of the State of Illinois is NOT Chicago.

When I lived in Chicago, a call to 911 for emergency police assistance normally resulted in a blue-and-white, or several blue-and-whites, arriving on the scene in under 5 minutes. Where I now live, a call to 911 will result in a deputy being dispatched immediately, but since there may well be only 2 or 3 deputies on-duty in a county of 420 square miles, it may well take 15 minutes OR LONGER for him/her to arrive on-scene. Even in incorporated cities or villages with a police officer or department, the response time is OFTEN substantially longer than it would be in Chicago, due to the area being poorer and unable to afford as many sworn L.E.O.'s per-capita as Chicago. In short, RURAL residents have every reason to view 'concealed-carry' in a very different light than does a citizen of Chicago. That difference of opinion does not make them any less 'Dem's'!

Chicago has exercised a 'tyranny of the majority' on this subject (and others, like school-aid funding, e.g.) for decades, knowing that even if downstate Dem's and Rethugs combined to support CCW legislation or override a veto thereof, they simply didn't have the numbers to do so. Finally, the 7th Circuit stepped in and settled the issue, and did so in favor of the minority.

In closing, downstate Democrats ARE Democrats but, to quote Lyndon Johnson, we are 'inside the tent pissing out' on the subject of CCW. Downstate Democrats routinely and loyally support the Democratic leadership on virtually ALL 'party line' votes, so please, don't cast aspersions on us because we differ on the subject of CCW.

Thank you.

[DanTex]

106. This thread is about the Chicago gun registry, not CCW.

Look around at the glee that is being expressed by some here at the prospect of less gun safety in Chicago. This is by people who clearly don't like the city, and would probably never go there voluntarily.

It's one thing to care only about oneself, to want easy access to guns and not care about those on the "other side of town" or in other parts of the county who suffer the inevitable consequences of lax gun laws. That is somewhat disappointing, but let's face it, people are selfish. But here is a decision that only affects the people living in Chicago, so the celebrations go beyond simply not caring about "those other people" to actually taking joy in their suffering.

I'm not saying that rural Dems are not "real Dems." I'm saying, or at least hoping, that the most actual Dems, rural or not, do not share this troubling disdain for people who live in cities.

[ColesCountyDem]

128. I understood that, but was trying to give some 'context' to the complexities of Illinois' Dem family

It's also about CCW, frankly. The real (read: legal) reason Chicago is doing away with the registry is that maintaining it violates Illinois' new CCW statute.

[Jenoch]

137. Actually,

this thread is really about state law superceding local laws. We have the same in Minnesota, a local law cannot be more strict than the state law.

[otohara]

140. How Did Dems Come to Hate

politicians concerned about gun violence. It's called Mayors Against Gun Violence, no Bloomberg Against Gun Violence.
I thought we were smarter - but the NRA has convinced them Bloomberg is the villain and guns are the solution.

Dems who support guns over everything else Dems stand for aren't Democrats IMO.

[derby378]

149. May I?

It's called Mayors Against Gun Violence, no Bloomberg Against Gun Violence.

Neither - the organization is called Mayors Against Illegal Guns. In fact, here's their website:

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/home/1000mayors.html

How Did Dems Come to Hate politicians concerned about gun violence.

I did some phonebanking last year for a Democratic candidate for Congress who supported tougher gun control laws. She knew I owned an AK, and we got along just fine - we agreed on a whole host of issues. Unfortunately, she lost, but I think she'll try again. So your "hate" angle is invalid.

I thought we were smarter - but the NRA has convinced them Bloomberg is the villain and guns are the solution.

Bloomberg isn't a Democrat, and he's been promoting some very un-Democratic ideas in New York City. This man is not your friend.

Dems who support guns over everything else Dems stand for aren't Democrats IMO.

Dems who oppose guns to the detriment of their own party and its ability to effect any meaningful change in the age of the teabagger aren't doing us any favors. Pick a freakin' side.

[otohara]

159. Detriment

that's a threat. You may have voted for this woman but others care more about guns. I live in CO.

Paying the price is taking away dollars from feeding kids, schools, the environment, and a whole host of more Gawd damn more important
shit than a right to carry a fucking AK.


Taxpayers Shoulder Bulk Of Gun Violence Costs, Study Finds

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/taxpayers-gun-violence_n_3915434.html

There is no responsibility to owning guns, none!

[Blue_Tires]

93. I've noticed that as well with similar threads on other cities

The vast majority of those celebrating would shit their pants if they got dropped into one of Chicago's rougher areas...

[rl6214]

129. Kind of like people who don't even living in Colorado

Telling them they need gun control.

[Lee-Lee]

14. Not every gun owner is on the right or in the NRA

But we still value our right to privacy and don't want to have to jump through burdensome bureaucracy to exercise them.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

35. +1

[stevenleser]

37. I agree. It's disgusting. nt

[warrant46]

132. Liberals and Progressives ? Limousine liberals you mean

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=limousine%20liberal

Limousine liberal (or latte liberal) is a deragatory term used to describe a rich liberal who considers themself a champion of the poor and downtrodden, but lives a lifestyle of wealth and luxury.

Limousine liberals can usually be identified by any combination of the following behavior:

- They support gun control, but they go everywhere surrounded by armed bodyguards. Like Rosie O'Donnell

- They tend in some extreme cases to demand gun banning. But see nothing wrong with the armed bodyguards they employ for their own personal protection.

[oneshooter]

141. So you would rather cheer and support Bloomberg?

[hack89]

16. It gets even better

The Illinois Supreme Court just expanded gun rights - the RKBA extends outside the home.

In the first, People v. Aguilar, a person was arrested in his own Chicago yard because he was holding a pistol. The Supremes cited the Heller decision and the 7th US Circuit’s recent landmark public carry decision (Moore v. Madigan) to knock down the arrest as unconstitutional…

if Heller means what it says, and “individual self-defense” is indeed “the central component” of the second amendment right to keep and bear arms (Heller, 554 U.S. at 599), then it would make little sense to restrict that right to the home, as “confrontations are not limited to the home.” Moore, 702 F.3d at 935-36

Of course, in concluding that the second amendment protects the right to possess and use a firearm for self-defense outside the home, we are in no way saying that such a right is unlimited or is not subject to meaningful regulation. See infra ¶¶ 26-27. That said, we cannot escape the reality that, in this case, we are dealing not with a reasonable regulation but with a comprehensive ban. Again, in the form presently before us, section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) categorically prohibits the possession and use of an operable firearm for selfdefense outside the home. In other words, section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) amounts to a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a personal right that is specifically named in and guaranteed by the United States Constitution, as construed by the United States Supreme Court. In no other context would we permit this, and we will not permit it here either

[TheDeputy]

26. I carry my gun every time I visit Chicago.

I have carried a gun every visit to Illinois for years. I have been happy to have it a time or two. Good on Illinois for finally doing right.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

34. It's a big scary city, huh? I live here and have never felt the need to arm myself.

[TheDeputy]

38. Do you have insurance?

I have never been in a car crash, but still have automobile insurance.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

94. Certainly I have insurance. But I don't parade it around or hope for an excuse to use it.

[TheDeputy]

95. Heavens no. Who hopes for a crash?

Or are you projecting?

[IdaBriggs]

39. I never carry a gun when I visit Chicago. I have been in some of the worst

areas, and ridden public transportation when I was a young twenty-something while wearing a mini-skirt.

Despite my then imposing less-than-a-hundred-pounds, and petite stature, I didn't need a gun.

I still don't carry a gun, and I am on my fifth decade on the planet. I have never *needed* a gun, and I lived for years in a neighborhood that was "good" because we were several blocks aways from the crack houses, in a city that was known for its crime rates.

If you *need* a gun, maybe *you* are the problem?

Just staying.

[TheDeputy]

69. I have needed a gun numerous times.

Usually while making felony arrests. I also needed it once while off duty. Thank God I had my pistol with me. The off-duty experience was the one that taught me to always have one with me.

I have never needed my automobile insurance. However, I am sure I will be glad I have it if I do.

The choice for a person (law abiding) to carry a firearm is a personal one. Millions of Americans have made the decision to carry. Millions more have not. It is not my place, or your place, to decide for others what to do.

In 6 years of full time law-enforcement experience, I have worked as an urban patrolman, suburban patrolman, an investigator, and on a warrants unit. I have also worked as a court officer. Never have I had anything but positive experiences from regular folks with guns.

My life is valuable to me and my daughters. That is why I go armed. You must make your own determination as to your own ownership and use of firearms. That is your choice alone. That is what freedom is about. The freedom to decide for yourself what is best for you.

[IdaBriggs]

88. You are involved in law enforcement. I can understand why you carry a gun.

Your actual JOB is to interact daily with people who frequently do not obey the law. Statistically, you will encounter more LAW BREAKERS than those who do not seek criminals out for a living.

You use your experience as someone making FELONY ARRESTS to justify "regular folks with guns" which makes absolutely no logical sense. Let's walk through it -

Regular folks with gun present no problems requiring a gun.

FELONS with guns (aka "regular folk with guns who are now FELONS&quot require you to rely upon a gun for your own personal safety.

Regular folks WITHOUT guns present no problems requiring a gun.

YOU are not a "regular folk" - you are involved in Law Enforcement. I am a "regular folk". I do not engage in recreational hobbies involving a gun. I am not involved in law enforcement, nor am I willing to devote appropriate time to gun safety issues (like being able to hit what I aim at). I really do not "NEED" a gun.

I find your argument about auto insurance to be disingenuous as well. I personally put over ten thousand miles a year on my car. I have NOT been involved in an auto accident in nearly twenty years. Realistically, however, I interact with thousands of others cars on the roadway, and since there are over SIX MILLION auto accidents a year, the math says auto insurance is a good idea.

I do *not* interact with "thousands of gun-toting criminals" on a regular basis. Or even hundreds. Or dozens - heck, to my knowledge I haven't dealt with any gun toting criminals at all this year ( ), let alone while they were committing a crime.

So, let's go over this again:

Auto Accidents = 6,000,000 with 250,000,000 registered passenger vehicles
-- Note: Common Sense says "more cars on the road = more accidents"

Gun Crimes = 50,000 with unknown number of guns
-- Note: Common Sense says "more guns on the street = more gun crimes/accidents"

This is an interesting article about the people who "need guns for protection" -- the final paragraph sums things up pretty well in my mind:

"In the final analysis, our chances for violent victimization are more controlled by what we do than by who we are."
http://www.crimeinamerica.net/2010/12/13/what-are-my-chances-of-being-a-victim-of-violent-crime/

You might not like to hear this, but you are not "regular folk", and the people you socialize with (other law enforcement types) are not "regular folk" either. You have NORMALIZED the experience. You apparently *need* a gun because of your job duties and the people you interact with as a result. (My father was involved with law enforcement; when he was being threatened to stop him from testifying, he carried a gun for personal safety. I get it. Some jobs just don't stay at the office.) The real "normal" folks - most of us really don't.

It definitely increases our odds of becoming FELONS who used to be "regular folks with guns."

My opinion. Your mileage may vary.

[Logical]

130. Make sure you respond on posts about when cops beat up suspects for no reason.....

I will love to hear your defense.

[TheDeputy]

134. Pretty dumb to assume I would defend them.

[Logical]

135. We will see. Maybe we can get an arbitrator involved. n-t

[GalaxyHunter]

99. well then you are the lucky one who wasn't attacked and raped. lucky you.

[GreenStormCloud]

123. Can you GUARANTEE to someone else that they will have your good luck?

For that matter, can you GUARANTEE to yourself that you good luck will continue?

I don't trust to luck. I am prepared.

[marmar]

83. Good grief. More paranoid fantasies.

[TheDeputy]

85. Baaaaaa. The police will protect me.

Wait. I am the police. I know we can't protect you. We respond and get there AFTER the damage is done. Sometimes you get lucky and we get there early.

[warrant46]

133. Chicago can be a very violent place

Especially when one Welshes on a drug deal

[fletchthedubs]

33. Criminals don't register guns

Simple fact.

[stevenleser]

36. Everywhere there are lax gun laws, there is more murder and more killing with guns.

Go ahead and cheer the impending increase in carnage.

[Recursion]

67. Except Vermont. And DC/Chicago on the other side.

So, really, not at all.

[stevenleser]

71. Yes, and the stats prove it. More guns = more killing. From VPC

http://steveleser.blogspot.com/2013/01/vpc-violence-policy-center-statistics.html

[Recursion]

79. Again, only if you ignore Vermont, DC, Chicago, etc. (nt)

[stevenleser]

81. VPC doesnt ignore anyone. nt

[DanTex]

82. You seem to have at least some science background.

Surely you can understand that a positive correlation doesn't imply that there won't be a some datapoints on either side of the line. I mean, not all smokers die younger than their non-smoking siblings...

[Recursion]

143. VPC hasn't managed to count the actual number of guns in a jurisdiction yet

Do gun laws actually decrease the number of guns (legal or otherwise) in the jurisdiction?

Or are political and social attitudes that favor gun control correlated with other political and social attitudes that decrease crime? I'm saying gun control is like treating emphysema by de-yellowing fingernails.

[DanTex]

153. I imagine it goes both ways.

Gun laws reduce gun ownership -- particularly among people likely to misuse guns -- and also high gun ownership reduces gun laws, because gun owners are more likely to vote against them.

[GreenStormCloud]

125. VPC cooks the numbers. N/T

[GreenStormCloud]

124. Except for El Paso, TX.

It is a major city on the Mexican border, has more guns than people, (Texas gun laws) and only 16 murders for 2012.

[treestar]

75. Chicago is one place gun nuts point to however

Not sure what will happen, but they often point to Chicago, saying that it has strict gun laws but high crime rates. I had seen an article somewhere showing why their argument was flawed.

So here's one to watch. Right wingers are going to claim the crime rate will go down.

[TheDeputy]

84. Crime won't significantly change.

Murders are generally committed by gang members against other gang members. It is all economic. Gang X sells dope in this neighborhood. Gang Y tries to move in. Gang X and Gang Y murder each other for control and the profits that go with it.

[DanTex]

86. LOL. You've been reading too much NRA propaganda.

Only 12% of homicides are gang related. Sorry, thanks for playing!

http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems

[TheDeputy]

89. LOL, I'm sure you know better than I.

Quite frankly, gangs and the drug trade are the problem. By gang, I mean a group of persons organized and involved in the drug trade. Frequently, they do not identify themselves as gang members, however. I can tell you that out of the last 20 persons I interviewed who were charged with murder, 1 was love/lust related, 1 was a thrill kill, 2 were robberies that went to murder, 1 was killing a "snitch", 1 I don't recall, and 13-15 were drug related.

[DanTex]

92. Actually I think that the National Gang Center's statistics know better than you.

[Starry Messenger]

77. You disgust me.

[GalaxyHunter]

100. your concern is noted.

[DonP]

101. ... and irrelevant.

[GalaxyHunter]

103. BOOM! Truth Bomb!

[Gidney N Cloyd]

105. Interesting metaphor.

[GalaxyHunter]

139. I started saying it after watching the show Men at Work

It's said on there a lot. But I get what ya mean.

[GreenStormCloud]

127. My cat loves me. N/T

[derby378]

147. Chica loves you, too

Screw all the haters out there - Chica loves us all.

[AngryAmish]

91. Illinois Supreme Court yesterday allowed open carry everywhere

The cat is out of the bag.

[gopiscrap]

96. That's fucked up!

[GalaxyHunter]

98. Good. I'm not scared of the City of Chicago, I'm scared of the gangs who inhabit the City of Chicago

[HolyMoley]

107. Another nail in the gun control coffin

We're going to need more hammers just to keep up pace if the current trend of 2nd amendment success stories continues.

[rl6214]

126. They can get any worse

Or are you really saying they will improve once the limitations and regulations are done away with?

[rdharma]

131. My, oh my! This is interesting.

I've noticed a pattern here. Seems to happen as if it's a timed and coordinated effort.

[rdharma]

136. Suddenly quiet!

[GreenStormCloud]

142. I have been at work since 5AM. 12 hr shift. 1 hr each way commute.

No time to type now, except a few words. Need to go to bed to be able to get up a 3AM tomorrow for another 12 hr shift. I will check in on Monday.

What pattern are you talking about?

[rdharma]

144. Oh, I think you know! nt

[Starry Messenger]

138. I think many have noticed.

[2ndAmForComputers]

145. Now I'm curious.

PM plz?

[rdharma]

151. Sure. Feel free to PM me. nt

[Blue Idaho]

148. Fucking gun nuts. nt.