Jump to content

Chicago to Thumb its Nose at Preemption


mauserme

Recommended Posts

I can't envision a way they can do this for people licensed under the FCCA:

http://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/editorial-chicago-can-do-without-guns-and-knives-at-rallies/

 

EDITORIAL: Chicago can do without guns and knives at rallies

EDITORIALS 09/07/2017, 08:49pm

On Wednesday, Ald. Edward Burke (14th) and Ald. Ariel Reboyras (30th) introduced an ordinance that would ban guns, knives, sharp objects and other weapons from public assemblies in the city. ...

Existing laws in Illinois already ban guns at many gatherings. ... Illinois does permit the concealed carrying of firearms, but not at public gatherings that require a permit. Also off limits are parks, where many public gatherings take place.

But not every public assembly requires a permit and is in a park .... Many public assemblies just happen, such as Tuesday’s spontaneous protest at Federal Plaza .... The final ordinance will have to make clear which kinds of events are covered and, if it is to hold up in court, not give authorities a wide berth to make arbitrary decisions.

Even then, given the state’s protections for the concealed carry of weapons, the city’s ordinance might prove to hold up best for limiting other weapons. In addition to guns, the proposed ordinance, as written so far, bans “knives, weapons, sharp objects, shields, fireworks, chains, bats, clubs, sticks, batons, and any other rod-like instrument” at public gatherings.
...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't envision a way they can do this for people licensed under the FCCA:

 

http://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/editorial-chicago-can-do-without-guns-and-knives-at-rallies/

 

 

 

EDITORIAL: Chicago can do without guns and knives at rallies

EDITORIALS 09/07/2017, 08:49pm

 

On Wednesday, Ald. Edward Burke (14th) and Ald. Ariel Reboyras (30th) introduced an ordinance that would ban guns, knives, sharp objects and other weapons from public assemblies in the city. ...

 

Existing laws in Illinois already ban guns at many gatherings. ... Illinois does permit the concealed carrying of firearms, but not at public gatherings that require a permit. Also off limits are parks, where many public gatherings take place.

 

But not every public assembly requires a permit and is in a park .... Many public assemblies just happen, such as Tuesday’s spontaneous protest at Federal Plaza .... The final ordinance will have to make clear which kinds of events are covered and, if it is to hold up in court, not give authorities a wide berth to make arbitrary decisions.

 

Even then, given the state’s protections for the concealed carry of weapons, the city’s ordinance might prove to hold up best for limiting other weapons. In addition to guns, the proposed ordinance, as written so far, bans “knives, weapons, sharp objects, shields, fireworks, chains, bats, clubs, sticks, batons, and any other rod-like instrument” at public gatherings.

...

 

 

Agreed. Illinois also currently does not recognize CCL holders from other states for now. As long as people have no intent to commit crimes with knives, they should be able to carry knives. Despite the 2nd Amendment, the rest of those "weapons" are not protected.

 

But it doesn't sound like there were any weapon issues in that spontaneous protest mentioned in the article. So what's the point? Are they just "never let(ting) a serious crisis (from Charlottesville) go to waste?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..."SECTION 3. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any provision of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances."...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

They don't want Antifa to wreak havoc at rallies, but they can't say so for fear of having to admit that they're the real problem. So they write an ordinance which essentially disarms the Antifa thugs (rod-like instruments), but say it's to prevent CCL holders from bringing guns and knives to rallies. Got it.

 

No, they don't want Enemies of the State people to be able to defend themselves from Democrat activists antifa when they silence opponents of the Party using violence "protest fascism"....if the police have to be ordered to intervene to save them from their intended victims questions might be asked, and at this point they probably can't trust the CPD rank and file to keep silent about said orders in the remote possibility DOJ looks into the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't want Antifa to wreak havoc at rallies, but they can't say so for fear of having to admit that they're the real problem. So they write an ordinance which essentially disarms the Antifa thugs (rod-like instruments), but say it's to prevent CCL holders from bringing guns and knives to rallies. Got it.

 

Hmmm. Was that supposed to be in purple? I assume the antis know these gun laws mean jack-squat to teh Antifa crowd, so it would only affect the innocent bystanders passing by, leaving the straights at the mercy of the protesters at these "spontaneous" gatherings. They want us to feel the heat; it's an un-official political threat of force (sounds like "terrorism"?). This is not about lowering the threat level of these protests. It's ensuring they'll have their room to destroy and intimidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know, firearms are prohibited on all federal property...such as Federal Plaza.

Will having guns put a "chill" on free speech? It doesn't appear to me that it will. This country has more guns per capita than any other on earth...and I'd say we also have a very robust tradition of free speech. I think what's really going on here is that antifa people want more than freedom of speech. They want to the right to shove their opinions down your throat without any push back...and if you resist, they want the right to brutalize you without worry of being shot.

Personally, I'm very interested in staying away from these events. But, if I find myself amidst one inadvertently, you'd better believe I want my legally-possessed handgun with me. Maybe antifa should get permits for their rallies and post them. That's already part of the existing law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know, firearms are prohibited on all federal property...such as Federal Plaza.

Will having guns put a "chill" on free speech? It doesn't appear to me that it will. This country has more guns per capita than any other on earth...and I'd say we also have a very robust tradition of free speech. I think what's really going on here is that antifa people want more than freedom of speech. They want to the right to shove their opinions down your throat without any push back...and if you resist, they want the right to brutalize you without worry of being shot.

Personally, I'm very interested in staying away from these events. But, if I find myself amidst one inadvertently, you'd better believe I want my legally-possessed handgun with me. Maybe antifa should get permits for their rallies and post them. That's already part of the existing law.

A long time ago I attended a gun rights rally at Federal Plaza. I am certain there where other fanny packs full of guns there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I stand corrected.

 

Chicago's tactics have been...to do whatever they want and then tie the whole thing up in court for years. When they lose, they come up with another scheme that's essentially the same as the first and the whole process starts over again.

It sure would be nice if the courts would hold alderman and the mayor personally responsible for the votes they take. In other words...if the ordinance is struck down and then a substantially similar ordinance is passed, why doesn't the court threaten them with fines and/or jail time? They are knowingly passing illegal laws.

 

It seems clear to me, for instance, that the ordinance requiring anyone with a liquor license to post is completely illegal. The problem is, how do you determine which shops would've posted anyway? Or which meet the 51% threshold in the state law? That's a real problem with a challenge. I presume you'd have to show standing. You'd need to be arrested for carrying in a place that you know wouldn't have posted if the ordinance hadn't been in effect. Then you'd have to challenge the ordinance on those grounds. Sounds like a mess.

Unfortunately, I go into Chicago on occasion. Just driving down Irving Park and looking at the shops, I see a lot are posted. Little hair salons and mom-and-pop businesses like that. Obviously they're posting of their own accord. The ignorance is astounding. I'm sure they think they're "safe".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I guess I stand corrected. Chicago's tactics have been...to do whatever they want and then tie the whole thing up in court for years. When they lose, they come up with another scheme that's essentially the same as the first and the whole process starts over again.It sure would be nice if the courts would hold alderman and the mayor personally responsible for the votes they take. In other words...if the ordinance is struck down and then a substantially similar ordinance is passed, why doesn't the court threaten them with fines and/or jail time? They are knowingly passing illegal laws.
You have absolute immunity to thank for that. Legislative immunity has never been pierced as far as I know. I also believe that legislators should be held personally accountable for what they do when it blatantly infringes on constitutional rights. They plead ignorance? OK, then you don't belong in a position of authority if you do not understand the law or have an IQ that a court would deem to be "mentally retarded." Or if they say "Yeah, I know it's unconstitutional but screw your rights" then they ought to be removed from office ex post haste. Ignorance or malice have no place. The second we start removing these people from office is the second that garbage stops. They would know that they will be held personally accountable. But I don't see that changing...ever. Wishful thinking I suppose. The ONLY times I've ever seen absolute immunity discarded by courts is when a prosecutor deliberately railroads someone, knowing (and I mean knows for a fact) that a defendant is innocent and ignores evidence. And that only occurs in 1983 actions. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...