lieut89 Posted July 2, 2011 at 01:32 AM Posted July 2, 2011 at 01:32 AM All I can say is that this guy is attempting to slick the uninformed into thinking that he is offering them something tangible. http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/6292004-417/gun-ranges-to-be-allowed-in-chicago-under-rahms-proposal.html If this has been posted elsewhere, I apologize.
colt-45 Posted July 2, 2011 at 02:54 AM Posted July 2, 2011 at 02:54 AM All I can say is that this guy is attempting to slick the uninformed into thinking that he is offering them something tangible. http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/6292004-417/gun-ranges-to-be-allowed-in-chicago-under-rahms-proposal.html If this has been posted elsewhere, I apologize.well that'a one step for chicago.
Bimmer Posted July 2, 2011 at 03:03 AM Posted July 2, 2011 at 03:03 AM Well that's one lawsuit going to be dismissed. Few more to go, Chicago can't afford to be losing lawsuits.
Reggie Posted July 2, 2011 at 03:21 AM Posted July 2, 2011 at 03:21 AM It amazes me that we have to put links like this online because it's such big news. Only in Chicago, I swear. We have to be happy to enjoy our rights, even at their minimum at times.
Uncle Harley Posted July 2, 2011 at 03:22 AM Posted July 2, 2011 at 03:22 AM this is the best news I've heard all day! Love to see Chitcago backpeddle!
pyre400 Posted July 2, 2011 at 03:22 AM Posted July 2, 2011 at 03:22 AM Thats the meat of the lawsuit, but were there any other issues? I'm sure that having to pay for McD V Chicago probably stung a bit... "When Rahm starts limping, sweep the leg"...
TTIN Posted July 2, 2011 at 03:25 AM Posted July 2, 2011 at 03:25 AM I don't think dally would have done this....he would have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do it. BTW,the comments are a hoot.
Bimmer Posted July 2, 2011 at 03:33 AM Posted July 2, 2011 at 03:33 AM I don't think dally would have done this....he would have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do it. BTW,the comments are a hoot.He would have just made us tax payers pay for it.
Reggie Posted July 2, 2011 at 03:39 AM Posted July 2, 2011 at 03:39 AM I don't think dally would have done this....he would have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do it. BTW,the comments are a hoot.He would have just made us tax payers pay for it. He doesn't scream. He just talks like a drunk as his norm.
colt-45 Posted July 2, 2011 at 04:05 AM Posted July 2, 2011 at 04:05 AM glad to see you guy's getting something back in chicago for once.
markthesignguy Posted July 2, 2011 at 04:11 AM Posted July 2, 2011 at 04:11 AM We'll see if the bar is set unreasonably higher than for ranges outside of the city. Might be easier than disallowing them, and then make the requirements "reasonably" unobtainable or patiently uneconomical. Just like the permit.
Skorpius Posted July 2, 2011 at 05:19 AM Posted July 2, 2011 at 05:19 AM While that will be nice, its all being done to keep in place the damn permit, registration, and fees!!! We'll never get rid of that BS!
Davey Posted July 2, 2011 at 05:38 AM Posted July 2, 2011 at 05:38 AM We'll see if the bar is set unreasonably higher than for ranges outside of the city. Might be easier than disallowing them, and then make the requirements "reasonably" unobtainable or patiently uneconomical. Just like the permit. It'll probably regulated to only be open monday through friday, 9 am to 5 pm. All employees must have back grounds checks yearly. bla de bla de bla.
colt-45 Posted July 2, 2011 at 06:00 AM Posted July 2, 2011 at 06:00 AM We'll see if the bar is set unreasonably higher than for ranges outside of the city. Might be easier than disallowing them, and then make the requirements "reasonably" unobtainable or patiently uneconomical. Just like the permit. It'll probably regulated to only be open monday through friday, 9 am to 5 pm. All employees must have back grounds checks yearly. bla de bla de bla.i wonder who's going to run them the city?
Reggie Posted July 2, 2011 at 06:28 AM Posted July 2, 2011 at 06:28 AM We'll see if the bar is set unreasonably higher than for ranges outside of the city. Might be easier than disallowing them, and then make the requirements "reasonably" unobtainable or patiently uneconomical. Just like the permit. It'll probably regulated to only be open monday through friday, 9 am to 5 pm. All employees must have back grounds checks yearly. bla de bla de bla.i wonder who's going to run them the city?Since gun owners are criminals, and we all shoot each other in the streets over parking spots, I'd say the "flash mobbers".
ishmo Posted July 2, 2011 at 11:57 AM Posted July 2, 2011 at 11:57 AM We'll see if the bar is set unreasonably higher than for ranges outside of the city. Might be easier than disallowing them, and then make the requirements "reasonably" unobtainable or patiently uneconomical. Just like the permit. It'll probably regulated to only be open monday through friday, 9 am to 5 pm. All employees must have back grounds checks yearly. bla de bla de bla.i wonder who's going to run them the city?My guess is the first one will be called the Daley Vanecko Shooting Emporium and that part of the "safety plan" will include an inspection fee to make sure the gun being shot is safe and in compliance with other rules. I can also see a 3 day waiting period to use the range while another background check is done.
lieut89 Posted July 2, 2011 at 12:17 PM Author Posted July 2, 2011 at 12:17 PM I would much rather hear the ruling from the 7th Circuit. "Mr Gura, what would you like your injunction to say?" Rahm is trying to save some taxpayer money on this issue, but I seriously doubt that he is becoming sympathetic to our cause.
ming Posted July 2, 2011 at 12:34 PM Posted July 2, 2011 at 12:34 PM Want to shoot at the range? Let's see your registration for each handgun you will be shooting.
markthesignguy Posted July 2, 2011 at 12:58 PM Posted July 2, 2011 at 12:58 PM Want to shoot at the range? Let's see your registration for each handgun you will be shooting. BINGO We have a winner!!!' Nice Catch-22.... Need a CFP to qualify to USE the range - Can't have them firing illegal guns in the city!!! Of course you NEED the range time to QUALIFY for the CFP...
sfdoc5 Posted July 2, 2011 at 01:17 PM Posted July 2, 2011 at 01:17 PM I just hope the court case is not dismissed UNTIL there is a range up and running!!!!!
GarandFan Posted July 2, 2011 at 01:19 PM Posted July 2, 2011 at 01:19 PM All I can say is that this guy is attempting to slick the uninformed into thinking that he is offering them something tangible. No, I suspect he's trying to avoid the city losing a lawsuit. We might not agree with Rahm on certain things, but the man is intelligent. He's not so entrenched into "gun control" as Daley was, and although he's a gun control supporter, Rahm is just being practical here. But we all know that Chicago will give up as little and as slowly as possible, in terms of their gun restrictions. I don't think Chicago gun owners are uninformed, at least anymore. They know they live in a very oppressive environment, yet they see nearly everyone else enjoying rights that Chicagoans don't have. Over time, they will continue to grow in number, volume, and victories. This thing with Rahm offering to "give up" on the gun range ban is just one small step in a number of victories that are coming. It's going to take years ...
mikew Posted July 2, 2011 at 01:52 PM Posted July 2, 2011 at 01:52 PM This thing with Rahm offering to "give up" on the gun range ban is just one small step in a number of victories that are coming. It's going to take years ...We still have the cost and the inconvenience, and we have the city refusing to issue CFPs to people with age old misdemeanors on file.
Joeyl Posted July 2, 2011 at 02:17 PM Posted July 2, 2011 at 02:17 PM "Mayor Rahm Emanuel will introduce an ordinance next week to allow gun ranges to operate in Chicago." --SunTimes. 7-2-2011.Well, we only have to wait until next week to see what the ordinance contain. I'm holding off any conjecture until then. You never know. But I bet Rahm is ignoring Daleys phonecalls right now.
Buzzard Posted July 2, 2011 at 03:12 PM Posted July 2, 2011 at 03:12 PM All I can say is that this guy is attempting to slick the uninformed into thinking that he is offering them something tangible. No, I suspect he's trying to avoid the city losing a lawsuit. We might not agree with Rahm on certain things, but the man is intelligent. He's not so entrenched into "gun control" as Daley was, and although he's a gun control supporter, Rahm is just being practical here. But we all know that Chicago will give up as little and as slowly as possible, in terms of their gun restrictions. I don't think Chicago gun owners are uninformed, at least anymore. They know they live in a very oppressive environment, yet they see nearly everyone else enjoying rights that Chicagoans don't have. Over time, they will continue to grow in number, volume, and victories. This thing with Rahm offering to "give up" on the gun range ban is just one small step in a number of victories that are coming. It's going to take years ... Garand has the correct assessment - "Chicago will give up as little and as slowly as possible, ... It's going to take years ..."
Lou Posted July 2, 2011 at 03:18 PM Posted July 2, 2011 at 03:18 PM All I can say is that this guy is attempting to slick the uninformed into thinking that he is offering them something tangible. No, I suspect he's trying to avoid the city losing a lawsuit. We might not agree with Rahm on certain things, but the man is intelligent. He's not so entrenched into "gun control" as Daley was, and although he's a gun control supporter, Rahm is just being practical here. But we all know that Chicago will give up as little and as slowly as possible, in terms of their gun restrictions. I don't think Chicago gun owners are uninformed, at least anymore. They know they live in a very oppressive environment, yet they see nearly everyone else enjoying rights that Chicagoans don't have. Over time, they will continue to grow in number, volume, and victories. This thing with Rahm offering to "give up" on the gun range ban is just one small step in a number of victories that are coming. It's going to take years ... I think they will make it as easy to build a range in the city as they've made it to obtain a CFP. The hurtles will be numerous and high.Still, it is a step in the right direction.
Tvandermyde Posted July 2, 2011 at 06:37 PM Posted July 2, 2011 at 06:37 PM Rahm is smarter than Daley and is wantign to cut his losses on something indefenseable. He heard about the Appealate hearing and knows which way it's going to go. this is not his ordinance, its what he got stuck with. cut the loss and run away, he's got a lot more to defend
GarandFan Posted July 2, 2011 at 06:50 PM Posted July 2, 2011 at 06:50 PM John Richardson runs the "No lawyers, only guns and money" blog. If you don't know this blog, check it out. It is generally excellent. Here is what he posted on this current issue: http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2011/07/is-rahm-afraid-of-alan-gura.html Friday, July 1, 2011Is Rahm Afraid Of Alan Gura? When the New Chicago Gun Law was passed in 2010, shooting ranges for civilians were banned. This became the basis of the lawsuit brought by the Second Amendment Foundation in Ezell v. Chicago. Judge Kendell's denial of a preliminary injunction was appealed by Alan Gura to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals where it appears quite likely he will win his injunction. When a judge says to you, "Mr. Gura, what would you like your injunction to say", any reasonable person would take that as a good sign. Against this background comes a report in the Chicago Sun-Times that Mayor Rahm Emanuel will introduce an ordinance next week to allow shooting ranges in Chicago. The new ordinance should address the concerns raised in the lawsuit, officials say. The proposed ordinance limits gun ranges to areas zoned for manufacturing. Outdoor ranges would be banned. Anyone opening a gun range would have to obtain a gun permit from the city and obtain approval from the Chicago Police Department for a safety plan. The Court of Appeals has not rendered a decision in this case and, presumably, an ordinance allowing shooting ranges would moot the case. Posted by John Richardson at 11:43 PMLabels: Alan Gura, Ezell v. Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, Second Amendment Foundation
Federal Farmer Posted July 2, 2011 at 11:32 PM Posted July 2, 2011 at 11:32 PM Nope, it was excellent question in the virtual town hall!
mauserme Posted July 3, 2011 at 12:14 AM Posted July 3, 2011 at 12:14 AM I think the issue is not whether there are ranges in Chicago, but whether those wishing to exercise their rights are able to avail themselves of those ranges. If ranges are limited by zoning to areas generally inaccessable via public transportation, if public transportation will not allow transport of the firearm to the range (a possibility raised in another thread), or if ming's scenario above plays out whereby only a registered firearm can be used at the range but range time is first needed in order to register the firearm, then the city will still be guilty of discrimination by creating a disparate effect against groups unable to utilize the facility.
soundguy Posted July 3, 2011 at 01:09 AM Posted July 3, 2011 at 01:09 AM I think the issue is not whether there are ranges in Chicago, but whether those wishing to exercise their rights... ...whereby only a registered firearm can be used at the range but range time is first needed in order to register the firearm, then the city will still be guilty of discrimination by creating a disparate effect against groups unable to utilize the facility. The big win will be to do away with the CFP and registration altogether.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.