mauserme Posted September 14, 2017 at 06:11 PM Share Posted September 14, 2017 at 06:11 PM http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/politicalinsider/2017/09/13/tucson-gun-lawsuit-cost-taxpayers-legal-fees/663645001/ Tucson's gun fight with state will cost city taxpayers $100K Alia Beard Rau, The Republic | azcentral.com Published 3:01 p.m. MT Sept. 13, 2017Let this be a lesson to you, cities: Tucson got grounded last month for thinking it was too big for its britches. Now, it's losing some of its allowance as well.Tucson has agreed to pay the state $100,000 in legal fees after losing a lawsuit over whether Arizona cities have the right to ignore state laws in matters of local interest.The Arizona Supreme Court put the city in its place, at least when it comes to destroying guns.Tucson had argued that the Arizona Constitution gives it, as a charter city, control over local matters, regardless of state law. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Posted September 14, 2017 at 06:34 PM Share Posted September 14, 2017 at 06:34 PM "That's chump change."-Rahm E. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted September 14, 2017 at 06:57 PM Share Posted September 14, 2017 at 06:57 PM Its more than just "Chicago Style" arrogance. It is a pattern that the dictatorial anti-gun faction repeats over and over when they're in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 14, 2017 at 07:34 PM Author Share Posted September 14, 2017 at 07:34 PM Its more than just "Chicago Style" arrogance. It is a pattern that the dictatorial anti-gun faction repeats over and over when they're in power. Trying to tie it to Chicago's proposed ordinance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plinkermostly Posted September 14, 2017 at 08:44 PM Share Posted September 14, 2017 at 08:44 PM I really liked the 'One State, One Law' approach. These carve-outs are a (is P.I.T.A. allowed?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markthesignguy Posted September 14, 2017 at 10:25 PM Share Posted September 14, 2017 at 10:25 PM "That's chump change."-Rahm E.Yup, he is da boss and we is da chumps... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xwing Posted September 15, 2017 at 04:47 PM Share Posted September 15, 2017 at 04:47 PM Ha ha! Arizona is a good state; glad to see them put Tucson back in-line... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vito Posted September 28, 2017 at 01:53 PM Share Posted September 28, 2017 at 01:53 PM Whenever the Left gets into control they just can't resist their tendency to try to control everyone's lives. As most of us on this Forum already know, gun control is less about guns than it is about control. But the Left only gets in control when the People vote for Leftist politicians and keep re-electing them. We think of Texas as a pro-gun state, but you sure wouldn't know it in Austin. Wisconsin is pretty pro-gun, but not in Milwaukee or Madison. Whether we like it or not the anti-gun, anti-individual freedom Leftists have the support of about half the country, concentrated primarily in big cities. Look what has happened in Colorado; Arizona might be at risk someday as well. We can never stop fighting the Left for our rights under the 2nd Amendment and can hope that they don't get more of the People on their side of this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted September 29, 2017 at 02:36 AM Share Posted September 29, 2017 at 02:36 AM "That's chump change."-Rahm E.Like The Rahmfather, the smayor doesn't care. $100k ? Nor problem. It's only taxpayer money and therefore has no value to politicians. The only way the mayor would care, like Rahm, is if he had to pay it out of his own pocket. Not campaign funds but his own money. To them it would then be real money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted September 29, 2017 at 06:22 AM Share Posted September 29, 2017 at 06:22 AM "That's chump change."-Rahm E.Like The Rahmfather, the smayor doesn't care. $100k ? Nor problem. It's only taxpayer money and therefore has no value to politicians.The only way the mayor would care, like Rahm, is if he had to pay it out of his own pocket. Not campaign funds but his own money. To them it would then be real money. I wrote about that very subject in the "Online ammunition sellers who will ship to Chicago" thread about certain northern Illinois politicians' take on flouting the law and letting the taxpayers foot the bill, in this post. Unequivocally, without any question of it being conjecture, one of my sources with connection to both Illinois and Chicago government and politics (that should narrow it down without actually naming names) told me that there has been specific collusion to subvert McDonald and Heller by means of deliberate and unlawful misinformation being spread to firearms industry sources and vendors to keep sales of ammunition and firearms from being made to Illinois residents. My source is someone who has sat in on meetings in both Springfield and Chicago where this has been specifically stated, including, "It doesn't matter what the statute says; if it goes to court, they'll basically be paying for the costs through their ******* taxes, so screw them." Basically, certain figures of note in northern Illinois politics have decided that their ideology regarding civilian ownership of firearms supersedes the judgement of the judicial branch's interpretation of the Second Amendment, and even if they lose in court, the taxpayers will foot the bill, and their immunity to prosecution or culpability for these unlawful decisions makes it a no-lose situation for them to act in that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.