Daley hints he may drop fight to keep handgun ban (Chicago)

[davepc]

Mayor Daley on Friday cracked the door open to abandoning the costly fight to uphold Chicago's 1982 handgun freeze -- if he can fashion a replacement ordinance that protects the safety of first-responders.

Until now, Daley had promised to defend Chicago's ordinance all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, despite what he called the dangerous precedent set by the court.

On June 26, the Supreme Court overturned a Washington, D.C., handgun ban on grounds that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to possess a handgun in your home for self-defense.

The National Rifle Association then filed lawsuits seeking to overturn handgun bans in Chicago, Morton Grove, Evanston and Oak Park.

Wilmette and Morton Grove preemptively repealed their bans.

Now that both suburbs have thrown in the towel, and newspaper editorials have urged Daley to do the same to save millions in legal costs on a fight he can't win, he appears to be having second thoughts.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/1087669,CST-NWS-guns02.article#

[1620rock]

1. Increasingly in today's Amerika you may have to be armed to stay alive.

[aspergris]

2. I don't grok yer point

Violent crime and homicide are down significantly in the last 10 and 20 yrs.

So, how does that jibe with "increasingly"

Note that I fully oppose daley's handgun ban of course. Heller is the law of the land, and he needs to get with the program.

[spin]

6. Stranger in a Strange Land...

To grok (pronounced /ˈgrɒk/) is to share the same reality or line of thinking with another physical or conceptual entity. In Heinlein's view of quantum theory, grokking is the intermingling of intelligence that necessarily affects both the observer and the observed.

As first used in the Heinlein novel Stranger in a Strange Land:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok

It has been a long time since I read that novel. I will have to read it again.

I agree that Daley needs to adjust with the times. Maybe the reason that crime and homicide are down is the fact that many states now have eased their restrictions on gun ownership and concealed carry. We still have a long way to go.

[aspergris]

13. i certainly agree

that allowing CCW (citizens to arm themselves) has helped lower violent crime.

i don't think anybody can argue it's INCREASED it, that much is certain.

My interpretation of the data is that it has helped contribute to the decrease, but that's harder to prove.

[tburnsten]

3. Well spoken

Chicago's murder rate is pretty high, last I knew, and the people overwhelmingly committing those murders are people who have previous arrest records, 97% overwhelming, so they are almost exclusively being committed by people who would be prohibited from owning a gun even in a less restrictive part of the country. So clearly, unless a citizen has lost their rights through due process, such as felons and people who have a tendency to assault others, it makes little to no sense to unduly restrict their ability to acquire firearms. Firearms are the great equalizer, because a frail old man or woman with a pistol becomes at least a match for the young person who decided that nighttime when people are home and asleep is the best time to break in and burglarize them, while the same old man or woman with no weapon basically flips a coin and hopes they won't become a casualty of local law.

[jody]

4. "first-responders" are law-abiding citizens/victims who may or may not have arms with which to

defend themselves.

I don't mean my comment to demean LEO who I support but they are not obligated to protect each individual nor do they have sufficient officers to do that job.

Self-defense is a personal problem!

Why doesn't Mayor Daley lobby for a law making his city government 100% responsible for all damages caused by a criminal?

That would really show me Daley is serious about fighting crime and its effect.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. I am a first responder. I carry a firearm. It's a good idea.

I have no idea what Daley is proposing. If it involves stripping law abiding citizens of weaponry they are entitled to, it's a bad idea. Looking at his track record, I think it's a safe assumption he's up to no good.

[jeepnstein]

8. Me too.

I've never really been that concerned about a lawful citizen being armed. There are times when we'll have the dispatcher advise them to holster or secure their weapon before we arrive but that is pretty rare. It's just not a huge issue that some politicians make it out to be. Crime will continue to be the real issue long after the Second Amendment is settled.

The justice system in this nation is bursting at the seams. Local governments are under increasingly expensive demands from a system that is growing by leaps and bounds. We need a national discussion of the state of our drug laws, reform our immigration policy, and do something about the state of public mental health care. Our schools are cranking out a legion of semi-literate working poor whose prospects rise and fall at the whim of global capital. Too many of our laws simply go unenforced and that breeds contempt for a system that used to be highly respected.

[WWFZD]

16. Terse and accurate

"The justice system in this nation is bursting at the seams. Local governments are under increasingly expensive demands from a system that is growing by leaps and bounds. We need a national discussion of the state of our drug laws, reform our immigration policy, and do something about the state of public mental health care. Our schools are cranking out a legion of semi-literate working poor whose prospects rise and fall at the whim of global capital. Too many of our laws simply go unenforced and that breeds contempt for a system that used to be highly respected."

Very well stated. Especially to imply that if we didn't incarcerate dope smokers and recreational drug users we'd have all the prison space we need for violent sociopaths.
That and the fact that our schools would much rather crank out little automatons by the megascore than teach them how to think.

[HALO141]

18. Think?

Oh my, we can't have that! It gets really, REALLY difficult to control people if they all start thinking for themselves. On top of that, they might start to take responsibility for their own well being and better their lot in life. What would the politicians do then if they ran out of people to sell their snake oil to?

Cogs for the wheels, man. That's all the system is interested in.

[spin]

7. People with guns in their homes need insurance?

Under further questioning, the mayor said city attorneys would simultaneously contest the law and work on a possible replacement.

Chicagoans with guns in their homes might be required to have insurance to protect taxpayers from frivolous lawsuits, he said.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/1087669,CST-NWS-guns02.article#

Strange argument.

I've owned firearms legally for many years and I never heard any suggestion that I needed insurance to protect taxpayers from anything.

Somebody must have had a lot of sleepless nights to come up with this asinine bullshit.

[DonP]

9. Guns in the home = no additional risk for insurance companies, Hmmmm?

Now that is an interesting point.

The insurance companies do a scary detailed job of keeping their actuarial table and risk issues up to date. If there is a way to charge you a higher premium for what is perceievd as "high risk" behavior they are damn well going to find it. Hypertensive, overweight, smoker, drive a high perfomrance car, they look for any way they can up the cost to a person.

If you are a private pilot, or taking flying lessons, you are charged a higher premium or denied life insurance in some cases.

Same thing goes if you have a "dangerous" hobby like sky diving or rock climbing. They either up your premium or deny you coverage.

If a gun in the home is so dangerous, why don't they even ask if you have any when you apply and raise your premium to reflect the "danger" a gun in the home must represent, at least according to Helmke, Brady et. al.?

Has anybody here ever had an insurance agent ask about guns in your home?

[jody]

10. You raise a very good point. If the insurance industry collects data, it might find out that

law-abiding citizens with firearms in their homes may be safer than those without firearms if all elements of risk are considered.

It would be blatantly wrong to isolate firearms.

That would mean lower rates for those with firearms and higher rates for those without.

[krispos42]

26. They might find this out...

...and not tell anybody about it, playing perfectly in the memes of the Brady Campaign and others and padding their coffers with extra money.

[spin]

11. My insurance company in Tampa was well aware...

that I had firearms in the house. I had a rider on the policy to cover the weapons. No problem, they didn't increase my basic homeowners insurance because of it.

[Recursion]

12. Yes, my renter's insurance asked once

Didn't seem to jack up my rate at all since I had a really low premium.

[virginia mountainman]

15. Yes....For value...Not anything else

My rate went up a somewhat, to cover their loss, due to fire, or theft.

Just like my wife's engagement ring, drove up the value a little bit.

I use "Agreed Amount" for most of my Firearms and a few other possessions, and that is and amount that me, and my insurer has "agreed on" in advance.

Every year, I and my insurer sit down, and "re-evaluate" the amount.
.

By doing this, I do pay significantly more than most, BUT, that is offset if I ever need to file a claim...Their will be NO haggling...


Now, I MUST STATE, that most folks, whom have normal collections of firearms, would be fine under a typical homeowners policy. But I have some historical significant, and very valuable arms. If I was have a fire, it would hurt immensely, to have their value to be considered part of the "personal property" loss in a typical homeowners policy.

Some of my firearms, are worth more than the car I drive.

[SteveM]

23. Insurance cos. have never asked about guns & don't care about pot-smoking (nt)

[pipoman]

14. The only reason an agent has ever asked me was to

try to sell me a rider for the guns. Most homeowners policies have limits on how much coverage is standard with the policy for guns and jewelery. If you exceed that amount you may need a rider to cover additional items.

As for Daley, insurance rates are determined based on risk. Risk is determined by actuaries who analyze stats to determine risk, then assign premium increases or decreases based on the stats. Insurance companies are for profit and compete with other companies. The competition is the check/balance for insurance cos rates.

[Tejas]

17. I don't get this part

Chicagoans with guns in their homes might be required to have insurance to protect taxpayers from frivolous lawsuits, he said.


What am I missing here?

Person has a gun in their home, badguy breaks in, gets perforated.

Insurance for.....?

[AtheistCrusader]

19. I would guess...

overpenetration, or wild shots. But I fail to see how the city would feel liable for an individuals actions, whether that individual was justified in shooting or not.

[Rabon]

20. Insurance for

Maybe insurance for a civil lawsuite.

[Tejas]

21. to protect the taxpayers?

"insurance to protect taxpayers from frivolous lawsuits"

Still doesn't make sense.

Otherwise, unless the local insurance lobby is greasing the rails (imagine that), insurance paid for by individuals to protect themselves from liability in a good shoot is silly.

It should simply be written into law such as was done here in Texas. Bad guy breaks in etc, gets shot, then:

'do not pass go',
'do not collect any $',
'go directly to jail'.

[spin]

22. Or in Florida...

Florida's New Self-Defense Law:

Florida Governor Jeb Bush recently signed Senate Bill 436, which expands and clarifies Floridians’ self-defense rights against violent attackers. The bill was the creation of former NRA President Marion Hammer, who is also head of Unified Sportsmen of Florida, the state’s major pro-gun group. The NRA has announced that it plans to take SB 436 national, and urge other states to adopt similar measures.

******snip******

The final section of the bill prohibits tort lawsuits against persons who act in conformity with the law. A criminal who sues a crime victim will be liable for the victim’s legal expenses. Police officers are not allowed to arrest a victim who defended herself, unless the officers have probable cause to believe the victim violated the laws:

Section 4. Section 776.032, Florida Statutes, is created to read:
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s.776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
http://volokh.com/posts/1116516262.shtml

[Tejas]

25. Some don't realize that Florida has led the way for many good things

Salute to the good people of Florida!

[spin]

27. Many thanks to Marion Hammer...

One very impressive woman who was in great part responsible for the rational weapons laws in Florida. These laws have been used s an example and a basis for laws passed in many other states.

Marion P. Hammer was the first female President of the National Rifle Association, an American gun-owners' rights organization.

She served from 1995 to 1998 and remains on the Board of Directors. Hammer has been the National Rifle Association`s lobbyist in Tallahassee for more than three decades. Credit her with the intense, three-year push for the controversial guns-to-work bill that the Republican Legislature and Gov. Charlie Crist made law this session. She was nominated by Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist (R) for the state's Women's Hall of Fame, has been chosen as one of ten finalists from all the nominees, by the Florida Commission on the Status of Women. said Crist.


"Marion Hammer has long proven herself to be a worthy recipient of appointment to the Florida Women's Hall of Fame. "Throughout her career she has diligently and uncompromisingly pursued issues that are beneficial to women and their families, as well as her community, her state and her nation." -Charlie Crist

"I have had the great fortune to know Marion for a quarter of a century and to have worked closely with her, especially during her historic term as the first woman President in the National Rifle Association's long history. I have always sought and valued her counsel, not only because of her legislative and political acumen, but more importantly, because of her rock-solid integrity. I concur 100% with Florida Governor Jeb Bush (R), who stated of Marion: 'When she says it, you know she means it, and you know her word is golden.'" - NRA Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_P._Hammer



It's a shame that the Democratic Party looks like it still likes draconian gun laws. Joe Biden bragging about how he was the original author of the Assault Weapons ban is an example. It's a losing political position that has cost Democrats close elections in the past and possibly may continue to hurt the party in the future.

Democrats are right on almost all issues. The party needs to change its attitude on gun control and focus more on criminal control. If they were to do this, they would undoubtedly win many more close elections and would be able to fight for the future of the middle class and implement much needed programs such as health care for all.

Florida gun laws are reasonable and fair. Implemented across this nation, they might reduce violent crime. Couple Florida's gun laws with draconian laws directed at criminals who use firearms and drug gangs who terrorize their committees and the results could be very impressive. Add in legislation that would improve education, provide job opportunity and reduce outsourcing, protect workers rights and regulate the big corporations.

We could once again live in JFK's Camelot.

[Tejas]

29. I like that, I like that a lot

"draconian laws directed at criminals"

I should say in a daydreaming way of course, but I do like the concept.

[SteveM]

24. I think it's another contrivance to discourage gun-ownership (nt)

[the_real_38]

28. Well, I guess he figured out it's not the Mayor of Chicago's job...

... to rewrite the Constitution or determine what it means. If he doesn't drop his fight against the 2nd amendment, I hope the SCOTUS holds him in contempt.