Chicago Firearms Confiscation Begins

Have you ever read the Illinois State Constitution?


SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Source: Illinois Constitution.)
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm

 

the right to bear arms is predicated on a responsibility of the community to defend itself. Unstable, unethical, deranged or criminal persons are not fit for militia duties and present a threat to their communities.

The FOID excludes such from owning weapons. No problem. Just keep it up to date and don't break any laws that result in the loss of your FOID.

If a suspect in any action is found to have a weapon and no FOID, obviously, the cops can now disarm him.

What is wrong with that? Is there some violation, the penalty for which includes loss of one's FOID, that you think is unfair? Tell us about it.

 

people aren't property.

this is why the South lost. Morality wasn't on their side.

 

The Mayor doesn't recall the Founding Fathers going to the movies during the Constitutional Convention. Perhaps you could provide a reference to your imaginary scenario?

Yes, go learn what a socialist is.

And, naturally, as a socialist, you immediately pretended to not know what the Framers meant when they said "arms" not "weapons" in the Second Amendment.

Unlike socialists, the Framers used English accurately. For them, language wasn't a tool for lying, as it is for socialists.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, the South lost because industry wasn't on their side.

 

Where in the Constitution is ANY right "renewed" with permission from the planation owners?

 

Where the constitution gives the states the power to discipline the militia.

 

Under what system of laws has anyone the right to do that which can cause public panic and disorder that will likely result in bodily harm to others? None that I know of. You need to think a little more about what the language of that Supreme Court ruling meant.

As Benjamin Franklin wrote, "Your right to swing your arms ends at the point of my nose."

Go learn what a socialist is.

Nor were a great many thinking people, including those factory workers who realized that slave labor could become a threat to their own freedom and way of life. Many of the churches had already become quite strongly abolitionist, along with many of the intellectuals.

Not even Jefferson was really all that crazy about the idea.

It is really hard to raise an army to fight against an idea or way of life of which the majority of citizens agree. Read Clausewitz' vom Kriege some time.

 

Nor, it seems, do the gun-nuts.

You can't have it both ways. You can't flat out ignore well regulated while shouting over and over again that militia means "the people".

Even if we were to ignore that well regulated somehow doesn't apply to gun control, the original meanings was trained and disciplined, as backed by the Supreme Court and the "meaning of the word at the time".

TRAINED and DISCIPLINED is NOT "hurr anyone who wants a gun".

That is the issue. Regulation, as with gun control that works in the rest of the civilized First World, should be applies. Militia should mean the National Guard, especially as the Founding Fathers of the United States weren't anarchists. But IF we ARE going to go by the gun-nut logic, then their claims that we must adhere to "The People" as a militia means they also have to adhere to the "well regulated" aspect of the Constitution.

It's not a matter of one or the other. The ENTIRE thing must be adhered to, as it is not contradictory in relation to the Bill of Rights.

A well regulated militia is a well trained and disciplined militia. As you are not required, in fact gun-nuts blatantly opposing, to go through training in order to own a firearm or get a firearm license, then the very defining aspect of this "peoples militia" has been blatantly ignored.

If the United States chose Switzerland's route and actually required very disciplined training and safety procedures in order to own a firearm, then NOBODY would have an issue. The serious problems with gun violence, directly correlated to the lack of firearm regulation in the US, would be incredibly miniscule. You wouldn't have a gun violence and crime issue to complain about changing.

The problem is that gun-nut conservatives have absolutely no argument against gun control and they refuse to admit it. They can't hide behind the constitution either, as they are blatantly defying gun control in the form of training and regulation.

 

The National Guard is not a militia nor it is the militia.....

Decision

"The Supreme Court held:[43]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

1) I dont own any guns
2) I have never fired a gun
3) I am not a conservative but i do know the facts

Now if you reply to me keep all three on mind. Thanks.

 

I am okay if gun rights are taken away in just 2 or 3 cities. Let Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles do what they want. They're almost entirely gun-hating Liberal cities anyway.

 

Which would be GREAT...

If I said they were.

Perhaps you should keep in mind reading my post before replying with a pointless, ridiculous reply like that. But nice attempt to ignore the very specifically detailed argument pointing out that whole pesky well regulated aspect of the constitution.

Next time you should probably read up on your facts. Preferably starting with reading the post.

 

No you implied they should be.

Also talk about not reading a post i guess you missed this part....

Decision

"The Supreme Court held:[43]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. "


You have a right to own a gun outside of being part of a militia per the USSC so your obsession with well regulated proves nothing.

 

As always, the Constitution is built around the interpreter. If such is the case, then the 4th & 5th amendments will be played in this arena. Thus, it becomes an unreasonable search & seizure and any information the cops find, in the home, can be used to criminalize the person(s) in the home. As such, both amendments, to the Constitution, are being broken.

What folks aren't looking at is the fact that these folks obtained their guns legally. Even the Police Superintendent, McCarthy, says that this seizure isn't the right way to go about it.

 

Frankly I'm not sure confiscation is constitutional, BUT why are folks letting their registration lapse? My God, how much effort is it to renew such things?

 

Well, it's kind of a mixed bag, to be honest. Some of them had their FOID cards revoked, because after they obtained their gun legally, they were charged & convicted of a crime. Thus, some of those gun confiscations are under that context. So it's not just letting it lapse, I at least wanted that to be clear.

Secondly, I agree. Folks knew what the law and chose to disobey it, if they let it lapse. However, then the question comes down to is why are the cops confiscating guns? Of which, I absolutely believe that confiscation isn't constitutional, at all. Regulations, fine, but the individuals did go the legal route and obtained them legally, not illegally. I can see them going around confiscating guns from criminals that didn't obtain their guns legally, I have no qualms over that. My only issue is when the cops go after those that obtained their guns legally.

To me, it sets a very unsettling presidence to the rest of the law abiding citizen gun owners. Whether or not it becomes a reality, that remains to be seen. I hope it doesn't, but now is the time, more than ever, to keep a watchful eye over this issue.

 

Honestly, I've no problem with confiscation in cases where a person has became a felon. I mean I believe laws making it illegal for a felon to own guns are unconstitional, but that ship has sailed (not saying I think felons should be able to own guns, only that the 2nd should have prevented such laws from being made )

However, in the case of people who simply let their card expire, Just fine then and move on, I can see if they just refuse to renew, but they should have a chance to renew before confiscation.

My bet is that they do.

 

I agree with your first statement. The other aspect that would need to be looked at is what laws are classified to be a felon in the first place? I'm not saying these laws need to be thrown out, but I do think it's high time that all of the laws are looked at and re-evaluated to ensure it's validity & consistency. Not only that, but draw them out in clear text so it doesn't become another 'interpretation'.

They do. Dispondent looked up the FAQ for the FOID cards in Chicago and they are sent a notice 60 days prior to it being expired. So, FOID card owners had a chance to renew it, but some chose not to renew it. I can see why, as I don't believe the FOID cards are constitutional either. Just more bureaucratic tape that's unnecessary, in my opinion.

 

Then I'm 100% sure you are all for such registration and licensing for all your other rights, right?

 

I don't trust the government. Not even a little bit.

But they are the best one to evaluate and determine who is mentally capable to own a weapon. And thus, I support gun licensing requirements.

Once again, Ill ask, since everybody refuses to answer. Do you support people being able to walk down the streets with grenades on their belt and PRGs on their shoulder if they should desire?

- - - Updated - - -

Whats your point?

 

Who said anything about movies? Yes, they had theaters back then.

Nice dodge Mayor, like a true politician.

 

can summarize your attitude in those 3 words can't we

 

I suppose if you are so deluded that you are incapable of rational and objective discussion... sure, you can reduce my opinion to a sound bite to avoid discussing it.

Of course, this would make your position, and you inability to defend it, very telling.

 

it is the hive instinct. People who are incompetent in life skills want no responsibility for their own failures. People who are self reliant scare the living crap out of them and show them exactly how inferior they are compared to what they should be. People who are lazy and want cradle to grave government care find people who are capable being able to defend themselves and provide food for themselves threatening, hence their irrational fear of people who want to arm themselves. The elitist politicians promote that because how can they become gods on earth when the people can defend themselves against political tyranny

 

Once again no law abiding citizens are having their guns confiscated. Period

 

Once again no one is arguing that point. Period.