10 replies to this topic

[xmikex]

Just saw this article - cut-and-pasted some quotes below.  A lot of it is obvious to those of us on this site but it's still interesting to hear others' opinions / angles.



Emanuel finds compromise in gun-control fight

http://www.chicagotr...0,2492746.story



Mayor still battles NRA, but shifts tactics after losses in court


------------------

Though Patton said he believes the litigation will end soon, NRA lawyers said they have no intention of easing their all-out offensive.
Alan Gura, who represented the NRA in the landmark Supreme Court cases against Chicago and Washington, D.C., said there are many problems with Chicago's ordinance. After the federal appeals court ordered Chicago last year to allow gun ranges, the city rewrote the ordinance in a way that sill amounted to a de facto ban, he said.
"Upon losing a case, the city makes some symbolic changes and digs in for the inevitable," said Gura, who also represents plaintiffs in the suit, Ezell v. City of Chicago. "In Ezell, the city chose to defy the court and re-enact what is, for all intents and purposes, another range ban. And it's defending this absurdity with the legal equivalent of nuclear war."

--------------------





Eugene Kontorovich, a constitutional law professor at Northwestern University, said the city still has failed to internalize the message of the Supreme Court ruling. He said the city is looking at gun rights as a privilege that can be heavily regulated.
"The city is losing bits and pieces of the ordinance — so far, very small bits," Kontorovich said. "They rewrote it very narrowly, and it was a calculation. They made a laundry list of regulations to restrict as much as they can. If a few fall by the wayside, you still have most of the kitchen sink."
Some have the attitude that the Second Amendment is different from other constitutional rights, Kontorovich said, because it involves guns, and guns get people killed.
---------------

The NRA has used the other side of that argument in its attacks on the ordinance. The group has made the case that law-abiding citizens are at a disadvantage when their rights are restricted, and that criminals don't register their handguns or take lessons at gun ranges.
"If the city wants to take guns off the streets, all they have to do is enforce the law and make sure criminals don't have guns," said Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the NRA. "Good people are not the problem. That's a simple concept the city of Chicago has not been able to grasp."

[ChicagoSigFan]

I read the article...but I don't see the compromise.  I still think they are doing everything they can to create as much of a de facto ban on guns as they think they can get away with.

[xmikex]

Agreed.  The title is misleading.

[mauserme]

Maybe they meant he's compromising the rights of the citizens of Chicago.

Or perhaps it's a reference to their compromised safety.

[Xwing]

I don't see any compromise.  The Chicago Machine Dems have no give in them.  They are too used to the fact that their word is law...

[moon]

I see no compromise...I see ducking and dodging by city leaders looking to find away around court rulings.

[oneshot]

"Emanuel Slithers Like a Snake In Gun-Control Fight"

[Gray Peterson]

xmikex, on 21 July 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

Though Patton said he believes the litigation will end soon, NRA lawyers said they have no intention of easing their all-out offensive.
Alan Gura, who represented the NRA in the landmark Supreme Court cases against Chicago and Washington, D.C., said there are many problems with Chicago's ordinance. After the federal appeals court ordered Chicago last year to allow gun ranges, the city rewrote the ordinance in a way that sill amounted to a de facto ban, he said. been able to grasp."

The above statement about Alan Gura representing the NRA is beyond insulting.

It's SAF, not NRA.

[Tvandermyde]

Gray Peterson, on 25 July 2012 - 03:18 AM, said:

xmikex, on 21 July 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

Though Patton said he believes the litigation will end soon, NRA lawyers said they have no intention of easing their all-out offensive.
Alan Gura, who represented the NRA in the landmark Supreme Court cases against Chicago and Washington, D.C., said there are many problems with Chicago's ordinance. After the federal appeals court ordered Chicago last year to allow gun ranges, the city rewrote the ordinance in a way that sill amounted to a de facto ban, he said. been able to grasp."

The above statement about Alan Gura representing the NRA is beyond insulting.

It's SAF, not NRA.

Gray -- it is just the lazyness of reporters. I kinda chuckled at it.

BTW did you see the fees memo in the NRA side of the case?

[Xwing]

Gray Peterson, on 25 July 2012 - 03:18 AM, said:

The above statement about Alan Gura representing the NRA is beyond insulting.

It's SAF, not NRA.

I thought that too.  To all reporters:  Any pro-2a organization = NRA.  It's the only one that the antis have heard of, so they get all the blame and all the credit for anything...

[Gray Peterson]

Tvandermyde, on 25 July 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:

Gray Peterson, on 25 July 2012 - 03:18 AM, said:

xmikex, on 21 July 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

Though Patton said he believes the litigation will end soon, NRA lawyers said they have no intention of easing their all-out offensive.
Alan Gura, who represented the NRA in the landmark Supreme Court cases against Chicago and Washington, D.C., said there are many problems with Chicago's ordinance. After the federal appeals court ordered Chicago last year to allow gun ranges, the city rewrote the ordinance in a way that sill amounted to a de facto ban, he said. been able to grasp."

The above statement about Alan Gura representing the NRA is beyond insulting.

It's SAF, not NRA.

Gray -- it is just the lazyness of reporters. I kinda chuckled at it.

BTW did you see the fees memo in the NRA side of the case?

Yes, I'm well aware.  1.3 million, split between Oak Park and Chicago.