For the first time in 28 years, it is legal to own a handgun in Chicago after the City Council voted 45-0 to approve Mayor Richard M. Daley‘s ordinance to regulate the firearms.
The move comes just four days after the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ended the blanket handgun ban that had been in place in the city since 1982.
Under the new ordinance, which Daley unveiled on Thursday, handguns owners will be able to register one weapon per month after undergoing classroom and firing range training.
There will be a 90-day grace period to let owners of guns to register their weapons.
But gun owners will not be able to wield the firearms anywhere outside their homes — not on porches, not in back yards and not in cars.
The measure also bans gun shops from operating in Chicago.
After the vote, the mayor recognized the presence in the council chambers of relatives of gun-violence victims.
The ordinance will allow “reasonable, law-abiding adults” to have guns for self-defense but still help fight crime, Daley said.
“As long as I’m mayor, we will never give up dealing with gun violence,” the mayor said after the vote.
The 80-minute council debate on the ordinance featured many speeches noting the prevalence of crime in Chicago.
“This is a very comprehensive and intelligent approach to a very emotional issue,” said Alderman Edward Burke (14th Ward), who blamed Republican strategist Karl Rove for making gun control, as well as abortion and gay rights, into controversial issues.
Gun rights advocates have promised to challenge the new law. In anticipation of such a challenge, the mayor pulled back this week from his original proposal to set a limit of one gun per home.
So if you take your gun from your home, get in your car, then drive to that required range training, you should be arrested and your new gun taken?
Sounds great, Chicago! Keep up the good work.
I wish more logic and less emotion was used in analyzing many problems. More people are killed each year in automobile-related issues than in firearm-related deaths. Search here (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html).
What we need it to work on teaching PEOPLE to not get emotional when someone throws out “insults.” This whole “they don’t respect me…” attitude means what?
Someone yells, “You are stupid” or “Your mother (fill in the insult here)” says something only about the person speaking and not about the person spoken about (or anyone else for that matter). If you respond emotionally or otherwise get “upset” due to the spoken word, you are letting the speaker control your emotions, your mood, and your actions. Why would you let them do that?
When someone yells “You are stupid,” nobody’s IQ immediately drops severely… Rather, the person spoken to often has an emotional response that makes them seem as if their IQ has dropped…
What we need to do is rationalize that the person speaking either feels bad about themselves or about others and is trying to make them seem “better.” We don’t need to sink to their level or think that someone’s subjective opinion matters.
Imagine… That “crazy guy,” the one on the corner with the sign that reads “The world ends tonight!”) in New York City yells at you that you should repent and pray for salvation because the world is ending does NOT mean the world will end. Likely, you either feel sorry for the “dude,” you try to help, or you just laugh and go on your way… Why not just “go on your way” when others attempt to insult you? THIS is what we need to teach in elementary schools so that kids learn to act appropriately rather than “act” through an emotional response… If this was accomplished, it wouldn’t matter if machine guns or grenades were available, people wouldn’t reach a point of anger and feel a need to take a life. Instead, we would be better at solving the issue through discourse. Hopefully, parents can teach this method to their kids… Isn’t it a better alternative?