mauserme Posted September 8, 2017 at 10:02 PM Share Posted September 8, 2017 at 10:02 PM 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 ralliesEDITORIALS 09/07/2017, 08:49pmOn 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 More sharing options...
spanishjames Posted September 8, 2017 at 10:17 PM Share Posted September 8, 2017 at 10:17 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted September 8, 2017 at 10:39 PM Share Posted September 8, 2017 at 10:39 PM · Hidden by mauserme, September 8, 2017 at 10:51 PM - No reason given Hidden by mauserme, September 8, 2017 at 10:51 PM - No reason given deleted Link to comment
OldMarineVet Posted September 8, 2017 at 10:59 PM Share Posted September 8, 2017 at 10:59 PM 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 ralliesEDITORIALS 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 More sharing options...
mauserme Posted September 9, 2017 at 02:15 AM Author Share Posted September 9, 2017 at 02:15 AM Link to Proposed Ordinance (click on the "Text" tab) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobPistol Posted September 9, 2017 at 02:44 AM Share Posted September 9, 2017 at 02:44 AM I predict another check to the 2AF and NRA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InterestedBystander Posted September 9, 2017 at 03:19 AM Share Posted September 9, 2017 at 03:19 AM ..."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 More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted September 9, 2017 at 03:35 AM Share Posted September 9, 2017 at 03:35 AM It's almost as if they expect some parts to be thrown out in court, and don't want the whole thing invalidating... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted September 9, 2017 at 01:20 PM Share Posted September 9, 2017 at 01:20 PM I can't bring my rod-like instrument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plinkermostly Posted September 9, 2017 at 01:24 PM Share Posted September 9, 2017 at 01:24 PM No piccolo or fife -- going to leave only drums -- with no sticks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted September 9, 2017 at 01:27 PM Share Posted September 9, 2017 at 01:27 PM Now I will have to buy a 2.5 inch switchblade. If I had my gun I believe state law would preempt that. I normally carry a 2.5 inch Kershaw folder, but it's not a switchblade so my FOID wouldn't preempt that knife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted September 9, 2017 at 01:29 PM Share Posted September 9, 2017 at 01:29 PM My rod-like instrument is longer than 2.5 but I don't believe they set any minimum or maximum lengths on those. Stupid speelchick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagt48 Posted September 9, 2017 at 06:55 PM Share Posted September 9, 2017 at 06:55 PM I can't bring my rod-like instrument? I... On second thought, I like not being in "time out," so I'll hold my tongue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quackersmacker Posted September 9, 2017 at 08:57 PM Share Posted September 9, 2017 at 08:57 PM I predict another check to the 2AF and NRA. I certainly hope so. If you can't drain the swamp, at least wipe out their cash! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plinkermostly Posted September 10, 2017 at 12:51 PM Share Posted September 10, 2017 at 12:51 PM I predict another check to the 2AF and NRA. I certainly hope so. If you can't drain the swamp, at least wipe out their OUR tax cash! Fixed it for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTHunter Posted September 11, 2017 at 03:31 AM Share Posted September 11, 2017 at 03:31 AM I predict another check to the 2AF and NRA. I certainly hope so. If you can't drain the swamp, at least wipe out their cash! The problems are that it isn't "their" cash. It's primarily the poor sucker tax payers with a little thrown in from the likes of Bloomnut and Soros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiberius Posted September 23, 2017 at 03:41 AM Share Posted September 23, 2017 at 03:41 AM 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 More sharing options...
BobPistol Posted September 23, 2017 at 04:00 AM Share Posted September 23, 2017 at 04:00 AM I can't bring my rod-like instrument? You mean this? (OK, this is gun related ) Or were you about another Rod like instrument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted September 23, 2017 at 08:49 PM Share Posted September 23, 2017 at 08:49 PM These morons were elected by morons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanc Posted September 26, 2017 at 05:23 PM Share Posted September 26, 2017 at 05:23 PM 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 More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted September 26, 2017 at 08:33 PM Share Posted September 26, 2017 at 08:33 PM 20 days and it's still in it's first "action" : "Referred" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singlecoilpickup Posted September 26, 2017 at 09:10 PM Share Posted September 26, 2017 at 09:10 PM I can't bring my rod-like instrument? Please keep it concealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glock23 Posted September 26, 2017 at 09:14 PM Share Posted September 26, 2017 at 09:14 PM I can't bring my rod-like instrument? Please keep it concealed.Completely, please... none of that "mostly" crap lol Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soylentgreen Posted September 27, 2017 at 07:09 PM Share Posted September 27, 2017 at 07:09 PM 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 More sharing options...
lockman Posted September 27, 2017 at 07:43 PM Share Posted September 27, 2017 at 07:43 PM Not all Federal properties are off limits. Those off limits are listed in the FCCA; otherwise, they will be posted because under federal law you can not be convicted if not posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundguy Posted September 28, 2017 at 12:09 AM Share Posted September 28, 2017 at 12:09 AM 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 More sharing options...
soylentgreen Posted September 28, 2017 at 03:42 PM Share Posted September 28, 2017 at 03:42 PM 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 More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted September 29, 2017 at 07:48 PM Share Posted September 29, 2017 at 07:48 PM 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 More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted October 2, 2017 at 03:33 AM Share Posted October 2, 2017 at 03:33 AM Yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.