Mayor Daley, never one to let himself be limited to . . . being sane, is responding to the Heller-inspired lawsuits aimed at overturning Chicago's handgun ban by looking at passing more gun laws.

In fact, Daley is talking about drafting yet another ordinance to spell out the responsibilities and liabilities of homeowners in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision to overturn Washington D.C.'s handgun ban.

Daley's chief concern at the moment, supposedly, is the safety of emergency service personnel (police, firefighters, etc.).

"You have to look at a new ordinance in order to protect firemen and policemen going to the scenes of people who have armed themselves in their home. ... We serve and protect. We're not supposed to lose our lives [who is this "we"?]... Morton Grove can do anything they want. What I'm saying is you have to look at the first- responders and how it's gonna jeopardize their lives."

So what, specifically, kinds of restrictions does he have in "mind" (being generous here)?

"It's just not allowing people to arm themselves. How many guns do you have -- 50, 60? Can they have a .357 Magnum? Can they have ammunition that will go through a wall? What is the liability of the owners? ... Do you have to have insurance if you have a gun? How much ammunition can you have if there's a fire? If a fireman is going to your home and you have 40 weapons and 1,000 rounds, do we have a responsibility to notify all the neighbors?" Daley said.

Hmm--hopefully, he makes more sense in his native language. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find a translator from whatever planet inflicted this spluttering nitwit on us. It might make sense to work with him on ammunition limits during fires--if you return from a trip to stock up on ammo, only to find your house on fire, I can see insisting that the fire be gotten under control before you're allowed to move more than a few thousand rounds inside.

I'll be sure to keep an eye out for this "ammunition limit during house-fire" ordinance.

(Source Link)