Chicago police stop immediate responses to burglaries and thefts

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Lordhat**

dogma wrote:
Lordhat wrote:
Wikipedia has this to say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois

In Chicago, gun owners are required to have a Chicago Firearm Permit, which costs $100 and must be renewed every three years.[31] Before getting the permit, the resident must complete a training course that includes at least four hours of classroom training and one hour of range time. Each gun must be registered with the Chicago Police Department at a one-time cost of $15 per gun, and an annual registration report must be filed every year.[32] Gun possession is permitted only inside a dwelling, not in a garage or on the outside grounds of the property. Only one gun at a time may be kept in a usable state.[33][34][35] Chicago's ordinances are being challenged in court, with plaintiffs alleging that they are so restrictive and burdensome as to interfere with citizens' Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.[14][36][37]

Sp people in Chicago have the opportunity to obtain guns.

Indubitably.

**dogma**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
And no guns to protect themselves either.

As above, they seem to have guns.

**KalashnikovMarine**

dogma wrote:
Lordhat wrote:
Wikipedia has this to say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois

In Chicago, gun owners are required to have a Chicago Firearm Permit, which costs $100 and must be renewed every three years.[31] Before getting the permit, the resident must complete a training course that includes at least four hours of classroom training and one hour of range time. Each gun must be registered with the Chicago Police Department at a one-time cost of $15 per gun, and an annual registration report must be filed every year.[32] Gun possession is permitted only inside a dwelling, not in a garage or on the outside grounds of the property. Only one gun at a time may be kept in a usable state.[33][34][35] Chicago's ordinances are being challenged in court, with plaintiffs alleging that they are so restrictive and burdensome as to interfere with citizens' Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.[14][36][37]

Sp people in Chicago have the opportunity to obtain guns.

If you could call it that, and they have no Concealed Carry Laws at this time though a Federal Court has mandated that change with a quickness, so we'll see if it helps.

**dogma**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

If you could call it that, and they have no Concealed Carry Laws at this time though a Federal Court has mandated that change with a quickness, so we'll see if it helps.

It isn't really a case of whether or not the opportunity exists; it does. The presence or absence of concealed carry has no affect on that.

Certain guns may be banned, and their ban may be extended by situation, but calling that a ban on guns as whole is just lazy. Lazy on the level of "We advocate an Assault Weapons Ban!"

**Seaward**

dogma wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:

If you could call it that, and they have no Concealed Carry Laws at this time though a Federal Court has mandated that change with a quickness, so we'll see if it helps.

It isn't really a case of whether or not the opportunity exists; it does. The presence or absence of concealed carry has no affect on that.

Certain guns may be banned, and their ban may be extended by situation, but calling that a ban on guns as whole is just lazy. Lazy on the level of "We advocate an Assault Weapons Ban!"

I believe Chicago is a "may issue" rather than "shall issue" city.

So, no.

**Frazzled**

Exactly.

**Vulcan**

Anyone want to bet Chicago's going to see a major spike in burglaries and car thefts in the next couple months?

**Easy E**

Depends on how they use the freed up Police resources.

**Tanakosyke22**

I live in the Chicago area, and I am not really surprised by this a little.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Seaward wrote:
dogma wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:

If you could call it that, and they have no Concealed Carry Laws at this time though a Federal Court has mandated that change with a quickness, so we'll see if it helps.

It isn't really a case of whether or not the opportunity exists; it does. The presence or absence of concealed carry has no affect on that.

Certain guns may be banned, and their ban may be extended by situation, but calling that a ban on guns as whole is just lazy. Lazy on the level of "We advocate an Assault Weapons Ban!"

I believe Chicago is a "may issue" rather than "shall issue" city.

So, no.

The entire state bans concealed carry, they have till June to put a law governing it into effect per the Federal court ruling knocking that law down

**dogma**

Seaward wrote:

I believe Chicago is a "may issue" rather than "shall issue" city.

So, no.

FOIDs are must-issue.

So, again, the ability to obtain a firearm exists. The absence of concealed carry has no effect on that. The restrictions regard carry, not possession.

**djones520**

dogma wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:

If you could call it that, and they have no Concealed Carry Laws at this time though a Federal Court has mandated that change with a quickness, so we'll see if it helps.

It isn't really a case of whether or not the opportunity exists; it does. The presence or absence of concealed carry has no affect on that.

Certain guns may be banned, and their ban may be extended by situation, but calling that a ban on guns as whole is just lazy. Lazy on the level of "We advocate an Assault Weapons Ban!"

Illinois, in the form of a FOID card requires you to pay a fee to be granted your 2nd Amendment right. It is illegal to possess a gun without obtaining that card, and you cannot obtain that card without paying money.

Now, in that vein, it has been succesfully argued that photo ID in order to vote is illegally because it costs money to get such an ID.

What is the differance? Both are constitutionally gauranteed rights, but it's ok that Illinois charges someone money for one, but not the other? Chicago is even worse, tending to make it cost prohibitive for most citizens.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
Seaward wrote:

I believe Chicago is a "may issue" rather than "shall issue" city.

So, no.

FOIDs are must-issue.

So, again, the ability to obtain a firearm exists. The absence of concealed carry has no effect on that. The restrictions regard carry, not possession.

Yes, they are must issue. But there isn't really a "when" attached to that must. It took over 6 months for mine to be processed. They certainly don't rush themselves on the matter.

**dogma**

djones520 wrote:

Illinois, in the form of a FOID card requires you to pay a fee to be granted your 2nd Amendment right. It is illegal to possess a gun without obtaining that card, and you cannot obtain that card without paying money.

Now, in that vein, it has been succesfully argued that photo ID in order to vote is illegally because it costs money to get such an ID.

What is the differance? Both are constitutionally gauranteed rights, but it's ok that Illinois charges someone money for one, but not the other? Chicago is even worse, tending to make it cost prohibitive for most citizens.

There is no difference*, but the opportunity for possession still exists. Keep in mind I'm not defending Illinois gun laws. But in order to have any kind of constructive discourse, within this forum or (hopefully) elsewhere, there needs to be a certain level of agreement regarding terminology, as that implies a certain level of respect and the ability to communicate.

*It depends on the limitations on the right that SCOTUS decides are acceptable, or can be ascertained to be acceptable; but that's a long discussion.

djones520 wrote:

Yes, they are must issue. But there isn't really a "when" attached to that must. It took over 6 months for mine to be processed. They certainly don't rush themselves on the matter.

Fair enough, and that should be rectified.