Evanston IL drops gun law to avoid post-Heller law
The fruits of the DC v. Heller decision continue to grow. Another community's anti-gun-rights ordnance that restricts only law-abiding citizens, bites the dust. Of course, the legislators think it's a BAD thing. The idea that letting law-abiding citizens have the ability to defend themselves might actually HELP them, never occurs to these people. And/or is not what they want the citizens to be able to do.
But that's OK. The purpose of the Heller decision and all the rest of the pro-gun-rights argument, si not to persuade the big-government fanatics that we are right. Tossing pearls to swine has never been productive. Its purpose is simply to shove them out of the way and let people exercise their rights whether the big-govt fanatics like it or not.
I especially like the reaction of the disgruntled alderthing who suggested that they publish the names of everybody who has an Illinois FOID card. She seems to think that would be some sort of punishment to the people who had the gall to wanted to (a) have the ability to defend themselves, and (b) obey the law.
In reality, the criminals would just love to get such a list. The would use it while casing a house or apartment block for a burglarly or home-invasion robbery etc. If the people in the house were NOT on the FOID list, the crooks would know it was safe to break in, rape and steal, etc. Another great example of government harming the law-abiding while helping the lawbreakers.
http://evanstonnow.com/public-safety/bill-smith/story/2008/08/11/city-drops-gun-ban-to-resolve-suit
City drops gun ban to resolve suit
Submitted by Bill Smith on Mon, 08/11/2008 - 8:10pm.
Evanston aldermen approved revisions to the city's gun control ordinance tonight designed to bring it in line with a recent Supreme Court ruling.
The National Rifle Association sued Evanston and other Illinois communities with gun bans after the court ruled in June that a gun ban in Washington, D.C., is unconstitutional.
In response the city's legal staff drafted a new ordinance that would let most residents keep guns in their homes, but ban possession of most guns by minors and of all guns by narcotics addicts, mental patients, the mentally retarded and persons under 21 years of age with criminal records.
Despite pleas from gun control advocates at the council's last meeting to stiffen the ordinance, the version the council adopted tonight is identical to the one proposed by the city's legal staff.
Alderman Ann Rainey, 8th Ward, said in support of the decision to modify the ordinance that the city of Chicago, which so far has refused to modify its gun ban "is starting to see that they could spend the entire city budget defending the ordinance if they leave it alone."
The revision of the Evanston ordinance is expected to lead to the dismissal of the NRA suit against the city.
City attorney Elke Tober-Purze said that the ordinance does not include several issues that are covered under state criminal statutes.
"Criminal charges should be prosecuted under state law," Tober-Purze said, "They do fingerprinting and create a criminal record. I don't think you want to prosecute felons under a local ordinance."
Rainey suggested that the city might want to consider printing the names of all those who have state firearms cards in the local paper.
"Do you want your grandchild going to visit someone who has a gun?" Rainey asked. But no action was taken on that suggestion.
Police Chief Richard Eddington said he would recommend against establishing a local registration program for firearms owners. He said the cost of the program couldn't be justified under the city's tight budget. In addition, Eddington said, the registration program would depend on everybody telling the truth, "which in my professional opinion isn't always true."
But that's OK. The purpose of the Heller decision and all the rest of the pro-gun-rights argument, si not to persuade the big-government fanatics that we are right. Tossing pearls to swine has never been productive. Its purpose is simply to shove them out of the way and let people exercise their rights whether the big-govt fanatics like it or not.
I especially like the reaction of the disgruntled alderthing who suggested that they publish the names of everybody who has an Illinois FOID card. She seems to think that would be some sort of punishment to the people who had the gall to wanted to (a) have the ability to defend themselves, and (b) obey the law.
In reality, the criminals would just love to get such a list. The would use it while casing a house or apartment block for a burglarly or home-invasion robbery etc. If the people in the house were NOT on the FOID list, the crooks would know it was safe to break in, rape and steal, etc. Another great example of government harming the law-abiding while helping the lawbreakers.
http://evanstonnow.com/public-safety/bill-smith/story/2008/08/11/city-drops-gun-ban-to-resolve-suit
City drops gun ban to resolve suit
Submitted by Bill Smith on Mon, 08/11/2008 - 8:10pm.
Evanston aldermen approved revisions to the city's gun control ordinance tonight designed to bring it in line with a recent Supreme Court ruling.
The National Rifle Association sued Evanston and other Illinois communities with gun bans after the court ruled in June that a gun ban in Washington, D.C., is unconstitutional.
In response the city's legal staff drafted a new ordinance that would let most residents keep guns in their homes, but ban possession of most guns by minors and of all guns by narcotics addicts, mental patients, the mentally retarded and persons under 21 years of age with criminal records.
Despite pleas from gun control advocates at the council's last meeting to stiffen the ordinance, the version the council adopted tonight is identical to the one proposed by the city's legal staff.
Alderman Ann Rainey, 8th Ward, said in support of the decision to modify the ordinance that the city of Chicago, which so far has refused to modify its gun ban "is starting to see that they could spend the entire city budget defending the ordinance if they leave it alone."
The revision of the Evanston ordinance is expected to lead to the dismissal of the NRA suit against the city.
City attorney Elke Tober-Purze said that the ordinance does not include several issues that are covered under state criminal statutes.
"Criminal charges should be prosecuted under state law," Tober-Purze said, "They do fingerprinting and create a criminal record. I don't think you want to prosecute felons under a local ordinance."
Rainey suggested that the city might want to consider printing the names of all those who have state firearms cards in the local paper.
"Do you want your grandchild going to visit someone who has a gun?" Rainey asked. But no action was taken on that suggestion.
Police Chief Richard Eddington said he would recommend against establishing a local registration program for firearms owners. He said the cost of the program couldn't be justified under the city's tight budget. In addition, Eddington said, the registration program would depend on everybody telling the truth, "which in my professional opinion isn't always true."
0
-
Your not going to get much of a responce from the "patriots" on this. They say the Heller decision is bad for gun owners. You would think that they would be happy that thousands of Americans denied firearms can now legally have them. It is a step in the right direction. 0 -
Well, Stevie, if the King and the NRA didn't throw you a bone now and again...you TOO would become a Patriot...now wouldn't you ? 0 -
Highball, Heller so far is all plus-side. Thats why you cant make an intelligent arguement against it. Your theory that its a bad decision is just that, THEORY. That thousands of people have legal access to guns that they did'nt have before is FACT. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
3 comments