That’s Otis McDonald of the italicized McDonald decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. The five to four ruling struck down Chicago’s 28-year-old handgun ban, incorporated the Second Amendment (made it trump state law) and opened the door to an extended magazine of lawsuits, thanks to its green light for “reasonable” gun control regulations. As we continue to follow the arc of that story, let’s pause for a moment as an African American who secured the right to bear arms in the highest court in the United States applies for a handgun license at a Chicago police station . . .
The process took only 20 minutes, but McDonald said some of the requirements to obtain the permit seemed excessive. And though a gun permit was worth any price for him, he said he is concerned that the $100 fee could deter some law-abiding citizens from buying a handgun.
Remember: McDonald already has the required Illinois’ firearm owner’s identification card (FOID). He’s completed four hours of classroom training and an hour’s range time—outside the city of Chicago (’cause they’re illegal there). Factor in the time and money needed to jump through that hoop and the hundred bucks easily quadruples.
As the Divine Mr. M asserts, that’s a lot of money for some people. But I suppose that’s a bit difficult to understand for a Mayor who draws down $175,240 a year, plus full health care, pension and the 24-hour protection of two to five fully armed personal bodyguards.
chicagotribune.com reports that McDonald sees the fee and other bureaucratic hurdles as an infringement on his—and his fellow citizens’—right to bear arms.
“I can’t see to save my life why our government would infringe this on law-abiding taxpaying citizens,” he said. “This is an inherent right. It was not given based on how much money we’ve got or what we can afford financially.”
Robert,
Both CBS2 and the Tribune are reporting that EACH handgun requires a $100 Chicago Firearms Permit.
I'm not finding this substantiated anywhere. My understanding is that it is 1 permit, and multiple registrations (at $15/each).
What is your take on the ordinance?
Thanks.
Paperwork, fingerprints, photographs, fees, and background checks to allow people to carry a side-arm? What kind of nonsense is this?
The right of self-defense is a corollary to the right to life; to deny one is to deny the other. The purpose of government is to insure our rights, not to infringe on them.
The fact is that governments should not be involved in permitting the carriage of weapons, either openly or concealed, by anyone.
Our constitution states that the right of the people to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed. Marbury v. Madison (1803) decided that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that any law that contradicts the Constitution is null and void. "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed … An unconstitutional law is void." (16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 178)
In Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) the Supreme Court stated that a constitutionally-protected right may not be licensed, nor a fee charged. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of those protected natural rights.
In Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama (1962) the Supreme Court decided that “If the state does convert a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” (That means they can't punish you, folks!)
To paraphrase an oft-quoted movie line, "Permits? We don' need no steenking permits!"
Somehow I bet he gets it! But you know that these people are going to fight freedom down to the last tax dollar. It doesn't cost them a thing, and they will never pay any price, for the injuries and deaths they've caused, by denying self-defense to crime victims.
This is and they are, the face of tyranny.
Neil, actually, this is to merely have one in your home in Chicago, and not even in an operable state. You can, in fact, be subject to arrest for transporting the firearm from one side of your house to the other.
Comments are closed.