City’s Restrictive Gun Laws Are Rarely Enforced

[GarandFan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/us/29cncguns.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

 

Mayor Richard M. Daley has long insisted that the city’s restrictive gun laws — including the handgun ban that was essentially nullified recently by the United States Supreme Court — have been a key crime-fighting tool.

 

But court records show that relatively few people were convicted of violating the laws, and even top city officials have questioned how useful they are in deterring crime.

 

Read more at link above.

[Buzzard]

From the article:

 

"In June, Mara Georges, the city’s top lawyer, told reporters the law was rarely invoked to put criminals behind bars. But later, Jennifer Hoyle, Ms. Georges’s spokeswoman, sought to clarify her boss’s remarks.

 

“We do bypass our ordinance because the penalties are more serious under state laws,” Ms. Hoyle said. “But there’s this idea that we didn’t really enforce the ordinance, and that’s just not true. We prosecute people all the time.”

 

Those prosecutions, however, rarely result in convictions, according to the data from the clerk’s office. While the police have made 12,967 arrests since 2000, city attorneys have won just 2,068 convictions."

 

12,967 arrests and just 2,068 convictions?? That equates to less than a 16% conviction rate! Sounds like the Chicago city attorneys aren't very good at their game.

[Lou]

The same goes for the Crook County "Assault Weapons" ban.

I spoke with a supervisor at the at the Crook County States Attorney's office and asked how many time the AW ban has been prosecuted. He could not come up with a single case.

 

Another fine example of useless anti-gun laws which make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens but do nothing to reduce violent crime.

Another example of feel-good/do-nothing laws.

[soundguy]

The same goes for the Crook County "Assault Weapons" ban.

I spoke with a supervisor at the at the Crook County States Attorney's office and asked how many time the AW ban has been prosecuted. He could not come up with a single case.

 

Another fine example of useless anti-gun laws which make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens but do nothing to reduce violent crime.

Another example of feel-good/do-nothing laws.

 

Knee jerk reaction... I'm thinking Ms Georges is kinda full of it. The old Chicago gun ordinance (I never refer to it as a law) was far more punitive, potentially, than state law. An FOID holder under Illinois law has mo penalty for possession. Under the old Chicago ordinance, a fine of $500 per unregistered gun PLUS a fine of $500 per round of ammo with Cook County jail time is a much greater penalty. And, for

most unregistered gun owners... The ordinance was never used.

 

She is disingenuous and striving to maintain the party line. But you all know this. Sheesh...

 

We must vote these folks out of office.

[Federal Farmer]

The same goes for the Crook County "Assault Weapons" ban.

I spoke with a supervisor at the at the Crook County States Attorney's office and asked how many time the AW ban has been prosecuted. He could not come up with a single case.

 

Another fine example of useless anti-gun laws which make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens but do nothing to reduce violent crime.

Another example of feel-good/do-nothing laws.

 

Knee jerk reaction... I'm thinking Ms Georges is kinda full of it. The old Chicago gun ordinance (I never refer to it as a law) was far more punitive, potentially, than state law. An FOID holder under Illinois law has mo penalty for possession. Under the old Chicago ordinance, a fine of $500 per unregistered gun PLUS a fine of $500 per round of ammo with Cook County jail time is a much greater penalty. And, for

most unregistered gun owners... The ordinance was never used.

 

She is disingenuous and striving to maintain the party line. But you all know this. Sheesh...

 

We must vote these folks out of office.

 

I don't see how you can compare Chicago's ordinance to any state law. There is no state law requiring registration of firearms, so there is no punishment for violating said mythical law.

 

Of course a FOID holder has no punishment for possession of a firearm, because s/he is not violating it. However, possession without a FOID (which would roughly be comparable to possession of an unregistered gun in Chicago) is a felony that results in a lifetime ban on firearm possession. I don't see how you can say that penalty, even without whatever fines, court costs, and jail time, not to mention loss of income due to becoming a felon and serving time (my job wouldn't be there for me) is less punitive than simple fines and confiscation.

[soundguy]

The same goes for the Crook County "Assault Weapons" ban.

I spoke with a supervisor at the at the Crook County States Attorney's office and asked how many time the AW ban has been prosecuted. He could not come up with a single case.

 

Another fine example of useless anti-gun laws which make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens but do nothing to reduce violent crime.

Another example of feel-good/do-nothing laws.

 

Knee jerk reaction... I'm thinking Ms Georges is kinda full of it. The old Chicago gun ordinance (I never refer to it as a law) was far more punitive, potentially, than state law. An FOID holder under Illinois law has mo penalty for possession. Under the old Chicago ordinance, a fine of $500 per unregistered gun PLUS a fine of $500 per round of ammo with Cook County jail time is a much greater penalty. And, for

most unregistered gun owners... The ordinance was never used.

 

She is disingenuous and striving to maintain the party line. But you all know this. Sheesh...

 

We must vote these folks out of office.

 

I don't see how you can compare Chicago's ordinance to any state law. There is no state law requiring registration of firearms, so there is no punishment for violating said mythical law.

 

Of course a FOID holder has no punishment for possession of a firearm, because s/he is not violating it. However, possession without a FOID (which would roughly be comparable to possession of an unregistered gun in Chicago) is a felony that results in a lifetime ban on firearm possession. I don't see how you can say that penalty, even without whatever fines, court costs, and jail time, not to mention loss of income due to becoming a felon and serving time (my job wouldn't be there for me) is less punitive than simple fines and confiscation.

Sorry. Guess I was trying (poorly) to express two thoughts:

 

The Chicago ordinance was rarely used.

 

The Cbicago ordinance, had it been used as written, was far more punitive than the state laws as it included hefty penaties for mere possession. A .22 target pistol and a 550 round box of ammo could have set an otherwise upstanding citizen back $275,500.

 

Obviously it's not a felony. However, the ridiculous penalty could have put any of us "out of business" had it been used.

[Xwing]

Isn't is simply not a felony because local ordinances are not allowed to be felony's per Illinois statute? Chicago tried to punish innocent gun owners as much as possible. They are still doing that, but they can no longer punish us as much as they did in the past, because the Supreme Court stopped the worst of the unconstitutional laws.

[soundguy]

Isn't is simply not a felony because local ordinances are not allowed to be felony's per Illinois statute? Chicago tried to punish innocent gun owners as much as possible. They are still doing that, but they can no longer punish us as much as they did in the past, because the Supreme Court stopped the worst of the unconstitutional laws.

 

I believe you are right on the felony thing.

 

In many, many instances, Chicago historically did not pursue charges under the old ordinance. On the first news story on guns that I ever worked on, a 15 year old boy was showing his best friend the Berreta .380 with a tip up barrel that he wasn't supposed to know was in the top dresser drawer. He took it out, dropped the magazine and racked the slide not knowing that there was no extractor. He put it to his buddies head and pulled the trigger. Death resulted. The gun was confiscated. It was not registered. FOID was current. No further charges were applied in this stupid ADD because it would have added "undue hardship" to a tragic accident. This was in the late eighties or early nineties.

 

If there are a million residents in Chicago, why have only 255 or so applied for the CFP? I am fairly certain there are far more residents who own guns legally pursuant to the laws of the state who are unwilling to comply with the new ordinance. I'd bet they never will. The new ordinance is ineffective from it's inception.

[BobbyT]

I know they toughened the penalties for trying to bear arms, but what are the specific changes to simply possessing a pistol that hasn't been "registered"?

 

Assuming valid FOID, but nothing further...

[soundguy]

I know they toughened the penalties for trying to bear arms, but what are the specific changes to simply possessing a pistol that hasn't been "registered"?

 

Assuming valid FOID, but nothing further...

You sbould read the ordinance yourself. It's posted on this forum somewhere.

 

Looks like the basic penalty is $500 to $1000 per offense plus 20 to 90 days in jail; confiscation of contraband items; impoundment of your vehicle if you were transporting when discovered. Revocation of CFP if you have one and have an unregistered item.

[BobbyT]

I saw a post about the penalties for carrying a loaded pistol (gasp) out and about, but I didn't see one just for owning one in the city, which is why I asked.

 

And what you described sounds more like the former...in half the cases where thugs get arrested with priors, no FOID, and drugs and guns on them, they serve no time, so I really doubt simply not having your otherwise legal gun unlicensed earns a 4 figure fine and jail time.

[soundguy]

I saw a post about the penalties for carrying a loaded pistol (gasp) out and about, but I didn't see one just for owning one in the city, which is why I asked.

 

And what you described sounds more like the former...in half the cases where thugs get arrested with priors, no FOID, and drugs and guns on them, they serve no time, so I really doubt simply not having your otherwise legal gun unlicensed earns a 4 figure fine and jail time.

 

If you read the ordinance, all 29 pages, you will find info about the fines and penalties near page 23. I looked before I replied... But I'm using an iPhone and it's difficult to cut and paste or make a link. The ordinance is posted on this forum. It looked like the took the old ordinance and updated it as little as they felt they needed to in order to "comply" with the post SCOTUS world. There was something in there about violating the ordinance a second time... The penalties doubled and each day you are in violation counts as a new violation. This is if you have a valid FOID.

 

The old ordinance was rarely used... Reserved for the "creepy mailman or teacher with an arsenal" types. The potential penalties in the new ordinance could bankrupt an otherwise upstanding resident if the city used it.

 

Added 9/3/2010:

 

"RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERSHIP ORDINANCE

 

Article V. Violation of Chapter Provisions

8-20-300 VIOLATION - PENALTY

 

A fine of not less than $1000 nor more than $5000 and be incarcerated not less than 20 days nor more than 90 days. Each day a violation exists is a separate and distinct offense."

 

You could earn this penalty for cleaning your registered gun on your deck... for having more than one registered gun in an operable state...for having ammo in a caliber you dont have a gun registered for...

[BobbyT]

Ha, they've gone so far overboard with this they risk getting themselves laughed out of court. This makes me want to move into the city for a year, then call up Daley and dare him to charge me with 365 separate counts of having the same pistol sitting in my nightstand I could in the other 99% of the country with no issue. Then there'd be the half million dollar fine and a couple dozen years in prison.

 

Even in Crook County, what judge could take that seriously? I think I'd feel pretty comfortable offering a "f*ck you" as my entire defense.