Anti-gun Mentalities in Chicago

Police Superintendent Jody Weiss:

"These numbers can overcome any amount of violence, any amount of evil that may be lurking on our streets. The power of a group of people like this is more powerful than any weapon that a gangbanger may be carrying."

Which clearly explains why murders have risen 13% this year alone and the city has 5x the murder rate of the rest of the state.

Chicago Resident Angela Hongo:

"It's not a good ruling. It is not, because we do have children, and children do not have enough education to know what's good and bad for them."

Huh? With a 50% drop out rate, obviously most of the adults don't either.

And from Brady Bunch spokesperson Barbara McKee:

"The cavalry isn't coming in to save us. We have to save ourselves. We have to take our communities back, house by house, block by block."

Ironically enough, this is the same argument that we've been using to support our rights.

So what's your plan Barbie? Ask the gang-bangers to start playing nice? Ask the families to start turning in their criminal members? More police? Mandatory house searches? What?

Over 25 years of gun bans and "reasonable, common-sense laws" have done nothing for the city. What are you going to do besides push for more of the same?

Quote of the Day..

From the wife while watching a transvestite get arrested on COPS:

"That makes me so mad! I can't even walk in heels that high."

I stimulated her....

And she thanked me.



Using my stimulus check, my Heller celebration is a POSP 3-9x42 scope and a tin of 7N1 7.62x54R ammo.

I know what I'm doing tomorrow.

Down the Memory Hole, Heller edition

As the scrubbing begins, Winston Smith is working overtime at the Brady Campaign.



Soon there will be no mention of the Brady support for "collective rights" on their site.

Setting up the Dominoes

San Francisco, CA
Chicago, IL
Evanston, IL
Morton Grove, IL
Oak Park, IL

It feels like we're playing DefCon.

Wilmette, IL has already suspended their handgun ban.

In a 5-4 decision, the court struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns, a prohibition similar to those used in several major cities, including Chicago, and a handful of suburbs including Wilmette, Evanston, Winnetka and Oak Park."The Law Department and the Police Department have suspended enforcement of the ordinance pending further review by the Village Board," Wilmette village attorney Tim Frenzer said Thursday. "Based on the decision today, at a minimum it calls into serious question the continued viability of the ordinance."

Morton Grove to follow suit?

More Chicago PSH and flat out nonsense

In the Sun Times:

"If the broadest interpretation of this decision is vindicated, police are going to lose the ability to engage in stop-and-frisk tactics when they see a suspicious bulge in the waistband of a known gang member standing in a known drug market. That's going to make police effectively helpless in combatting gang crime. Those are the stakes," said Rosenthal, a law professor at Chapman University.

Um, no. No it won't. Convicted felons and others still can't legally own firearms and IL still doesn't have CCW so if they see one w/ a firearm, they still can stop them.

This coming from a "Law Professor". So much for a quality education there.

Return of Kalishnakitty 2008

UPDATE for 2009: The current information is available here.




I got these shirts for my daughter and wife last year so I'm going to give him some more free advertising:

Kalishnakitty Shirts

Note: These are not my shirts. Follow the instructions below.

OK, guys and gals, I have gotten a lot of emails in the past few months about people wanting Kalashnikitty shirts and have decided to do up another special run.

Here's the procedure for getting the shirts (this makes it a LOT easier for me to track and ship these things ASAP)

Email me (erickelly1@verizon.net)with the following:

1 - Number and sizes you want - sizes are Child's Medium, Child's Large, Adult Small, Adult Medium, Adult Large, Adult XL, Adult 2XL, and Adult 3XL.

2 - Your name and address

3 - How you would like to pay for them

Only one color - a light ash grey (very nice) - shirts are high-quality, do not fade or shrink, long lasting, very soft. Image is screen printed, NOT iron on or transfers. I've never gotten an email from any of my previous customers saying, "The shirt shrunk, faded, looks horrible after 3 months, etc." - these really are quite nice shirts.

Pricing - I have, in the past 6 years, never raised the price, even though my cost has gone up. I'm STILL not raising the price yet - even though shipping has gone up, I'm going to eat that since you all have been so great to me over the years and I want to make these available to as many people as I can.

Any size up to XL is $20, 2XL is $21.50 and 3XL is $22.00

Shipping via 2-3 day Priority Mail with Delivery Confirmation is $5.00 for 1 shirt, and an extra $2.50 per shirt after that.

Check, MO, or Paypal/Gearpay is good for payments. If using Paypal/Gearpay, add 4% to the total payment, including the shipping.

** When you email me your order, include your full name and mailing address. I will email you back with the total.

I'm going to take orders until the morning of the 21st of July, and then the shirts should be in my hands and shipped out by the end of July.

More Details

And so it begins..

ChicagoGunCase

The wording has already changed

From the Joyce Funded "Freedom States Alliance":

Those necessary measures include: requiring background checks on all gun purchases; limiting handgun purchases to one per month; requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms to law enforcement officials; cracking down on illegal guns and gun trafficking; and regulating military-style assault weapons and .50 caliber sniper rifles."

What? Banning is no longer a "necessary measure"?

Mayor Daley says "We're F*cked!!"

In order to keep his city safe (in lieu of the 12.7% rise in murders so far this year) he will fight all attempts to throw out Chicago's own (oh so successful) handgun ban.

The PSH would be amusing if it weren't so pathetic:

"We've shown time and time again how many children have been killed in their homes by guns," he said. "Parents are away, they get the gun. Parents are away, the child takes the gun, runs out in the street and has an argument, comes back and shoots somebody."

Of course this is happening in his city where handguns are banned.

But this bit of sweet irony just makes it all worth while:

"This decision really places those who are rich and those who are in power [to] always feel safe," Daley said. "Those who do not have the power do not feel safe, and that's what they're saying."

Coming from the man who has 24 hr security, I'm sure he doesn't see it.

Obama official statement on Heller

I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

Nice and vague, just like we expect from a politician. No word on whether he still endorses lawsuits, semi-auto bans, or handgun bans etc nor his backpedaling on his people saying he thought DC was constitutional.

ISRA Files lawsuit against Chicago

According to Illinois Carry.

Details as the come.

We're F*cked! Give Us Money!

So says the Brady Bunch.

Now with commentary.

"“The Heller decision, however, will most likely embolden criminal defendants, and ideological extremists, to file new legal attacks on existing gun laws."

So according to the Brady Bunch, anyone who supports this decision is a criminal or extremist.

Statement from the NRA

Fairfax, VA – Leaders of the National Rifle Association (NRA) praised the Supreme Court’s historic ruling overturning Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns and on self-defense in the home, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.

“This is a great moment in American history. It vindicates individual Americans all over this country who have always known that this is their freedom worth protecting,” declared NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. “Our founding fathers wrote and intended the Second Amendment to be an individual right. The Supreme Court has now acknowledged it. The Second Amendment as an individual right now becomes a real permanent part of American Constitutional law.”

Last year, the District of Columbia appealed a Court of Appeals ruling affirming that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the District’s bans on handguns, carrying firearms within the home and possession of functional firearms for self-defense violate that fundamental right.

“Anti-gun politicians can no longer deny that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right,” said NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox. “All law-abiding Americans have a fundamental, God-given right to defend themselves in their homes. Washington, D.C. must now respect that right.”

The Sour Grapes begin...

From Josh Sugarmann

Fifteen months after receiving the "Sport Shooting Ambassador Award" from the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities (WFSA), Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has done his part to make sure that, at least in the U.S., the future for his gun industry friends and their lobbying pals is a little bit brighter.

He can't critique the ruling so he ad hominems the judge. That's all the VPC and their ilk have left.

"Dangerous and Unusual"

The only words that the Brady's, VPC, and Bryan will focus on and try to expand on to continue to justify "assault weapon" bans and .50 cal bans.

Heller

No fancy titles for me. Just waiting.

Interesting to note that 47% of the people watching claim NRA membership.

Update: Heller affirmed. 5-4 Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg.

The decision HERE.

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing
rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights,prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

Hydroshock

Before:


After:

New Reports

GunFacts 5.0

Chicago Crime Summary through April.

Note that the Murder numbers have gone up to 12.7% for May while the Robbery numbers are 'down' to an increase of 'only' 10.2%

Must be the water

causing all the PSH in Mexico.

Another problem is that most of the weapons used by the traffickers come from the United States. Typically, the drug smugglers have much more firepower than local police departments, and sometimes can even outgun the federal police and the Army with high-caliber machine-guns and grenade launchers.



So the Mexican Gov't continues to claim that you can buy machine guns and grenade launchers at your local gun show.

Or is it more likely that the Cartels are getting them from corrupt Mexican officials and from smugglers heading north?

Hmm. Let me think.