Chicago--Yes, Alderman Richard Mell wanted a new window to register his guns including the one he can carry because of the office he holds. Daley normally fought this idea for over two decades. There can only be an ulterior motive for his change of heart. Chicago’s politicians know they will lose their gun ban because of that D.C. Vs. Heller to be decided any time by the U.S. Supreme Court. Daley also knows that if gun ownership is a right he can’t charge to register guns. I fully expect Daley to jack up the fees to fill the city’s coffers at the expense of lawful gun owners.
If Chicago invites gun registration they will be able to misuse the gun owner data for future plans to harass gun owners.
5 comments:
Aldermen don't have a right to carry a weapon by virtue of their office. That's a myth they've been spreading for a while. If they go through firearms training, they can become "conservators of the peace", which allows them to make arrests, but doesn't qualify them to carry weapons.
Daley's "change of heart" on gun registration is just a smokescreen. He's trying to provide cover for Mell by spinning it to look like the city is opening a window to allow people to re-register, but the window is already closed - if you didn't apply between 5/07 and 4/08, you don't get to try again. The only person who benefits from this is Mell.
Daley looks like he has a well repaired double cleft pallet.
spoken like a true dictator little ritchies comment on the supreme court decision on the second ammendent (why not ban the court system ) no ritchie thats not the answer now that we all as americans have the rite to own its your duty along with all your crooked aldermen to decide do we carry them on our hip or under our jacket .
Daley is such a boob !
First off, the gun bans only affect the law abiding. The criminal world will always have an assortment of weapons. So, the more gun laws you create, nothing will change other than loosing more of your Constitutional rights.
Secondly, does Ritchie remember Meigs field? Tearing up runways in the middle of the night...like taking the law in to his own hands...like the wild west. Whatta goof !
I'm not for carry to conceal, but believe I should choose to protect my family/home/business with any means nesscessary. The criminals follow NO rules, yet we are expected to jump through hoops and legal bills just to defend yourself.
Daley uses excuses of children and guns at home yet fails to mention that the greater majority of these situations happen with either people already involved in criminal activity or morons who have no right having children much less a weapon.
Why do intelligent law abiding citizens have to constantly be affected by the morons of the world...and the polital goofs with their body gaurds 24/7 continue to preach to us about not needing protection for your family.
" Pull this leg and it plays jingle bells too ! "
One of the"boobs" is Anonymous: "I'm not for carry to conceal." whatever that means. The Supreme Court affirmed that the word: "bear" means: "carry". That affirms the right of U.S. citizens to bear or "carry" weapons for self defense. By the way, it really doesn't matter what anyone including Anonymous is "for" or against. The Court reaffirmed the Constitutional right for individual U. S. citizens to keep and bear arms.
Post a Comment