Chicago abolishes 45 year old gun registry

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Chicago on Wednesday reluctantly abolished a 45-year-old requirement that gun owners register their weapons with the city, marking a victory for advocates of gun rights such as the National Rifle Association.

The city council voted to end the gun registry in place since 1968 to comply with court rulings against Chicago and Illinois gun control laws, and to bring the city into line with a state concealed carry law.

Chicago has faced a wave of gang-related violence that pushed its murder rate to a five-year high in 2012. While the number of homicides is down this year, police have complained that the city is awash in guns.

The Chicago decision came one day after the gun rights lobby scored a victory in Colorado, ousting two lawmakers who had supported gun control in the state legislature.

The powerful NRA, which boasts millions of gun owners as members, has successfully employed tactics, such as recalls and challenges to gun control laws in court, as a way to get strict enforcement of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which sets out the right to bear arms.

Chicago abolishes gun registry in place since 1968
 

Lurk

Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
I would be interested in finding out how much the city loses in registration fees and fines that resulted from the 1968 rules.
 
Also out of Illinois there is today's decision from that state's supreme court in Illinois v Aguilar. Illinois' highest court found that the individual right recognized in Heller, and applicable to state actions as per McDonald, does indeed apply to carrying firearms outside of one's home.

Of course, in concluding that the second amendment protects the right to possess and use a firearm for self-defense outside the home, we are in no way saying that such a right is unlimited or is not subject to meaningful regulation. See infra ¶¶ 26-27. That said, we cannot escape the reality that, in this case, we are dealing not with a reasonable regulation but with a comprehensive ban. Again, in the form presently before us, section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) categorically prohibits the possession and use of an operable firearm for self- defense outside the home. In other words, section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) amounts to a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a personal right that is specifically named in and guaranteed by the United States Constitution, as construed by the United States Supreme Court. In no other context would we permit this, and we will not permit it here either.
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Also out of Illinois there is today's decision from that state's supreme court in Illinois v Aguilar. Illinois' highest court found that the individual right recognized in Heller, and applicable to state actions as per McDonald, does indeed apply to carrying firearms outside of one's home.

WOW... just plain WOW!!! :yahoo:
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Also out of Illinois there is today's decision from that state's supreme court in Illinois v Aguilar. Illinois' highest court found that the individual right recognized in Heller, and applicable to state actions as per McDonald, does indeed apply to carrying firearms outside of one's home.

That's a great ruling, but it's almost similar to the Heller ruling.

"We acknowledge people can carry outside the home for protection, but it can be limited"

Not sure if it will help the Wollard case, but I guess we'll find out. We've yet to hear what those limits are...and I assume, on purpose.
 
Top