Chicago Suburb Defends Gun Registration Law

(AP)

Yesterday I wrote about a federal appeals court declaring that a Chicago suburb's anti-gun laws were perfectly constitutional.

Since then, I've had the chance to speak with a spokesman for Cicero, Ill., population approximately 83,000 and onetime home of Al Capone, who said the town is intent on defending its firearm-related ordinance from legal challenges.

"We want to use every means within our disposal to be able to combat crime in our communities," spokeman Elio Montenegro said. "We see the proliferation of firearms as a hazard to the safety and health of our citizens. At every opportunity we want to be able to regulate weapons so that we can protect the safety and health of our citizens."

Cicero's weapons-related laws are among the most restrictive in the country. Cicero makes it illegal to possess "any slingshot" (sorry, kids) or any "laser sight accessory" (sorry, target shooters). Non-dealer firearm transfers are prohibited. Carrying a "concealed" knife is prohibited. The unlicensed sale of a "Bowie knife" is prohibited. And, of course, "all firearms" must be registered and the registration renewed every two years.

A few years ago, Cicero's mandatory registration law would have been unremarkable: after all, Washington, D.C., New York, Chicago and some of its other suburbs had extremely strict laws too. (San Francisco tried to follow suit, but was slapped down because state law didn't permit it.)

But the decision by the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals came a year after the Supreme Court tossed out the District of Columbia's handgun ban in the D.C. v. Heller case, saying the Second Amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear arms. The appeals court ruled last week: "There is a critical distinction between the D.C. ordinance struck down in Heller and the Cicero ordinance. Cicero has not prohibited gun possession in the town. Instead, it has merely regulated gun possession..."

"We're very confident and pleased that we went ahead and defended the ordinances, because we felt that all along that we had that right," Montenegro, the Cicero spokesman, said. "We're pleased that the court agreed we had the authority."

Montenegro added: "The end result has been that we've seen a 70 percent reduction in gang homicide in the last five years. We attribute it in part to these type of ordinances." (He was unable, however, to say when the law was enacted. If it dates back 30 years, it's unlikely it was the cause of a reduction in gang homicides.)

It's true that after Heller's decision, some Chicago-area municipalities including Morton Grove, Evanston, Wilmette, and Winnetka have rescinded their handgun bans, and Chicago's is probably headed for the Supreme Court.

Cicero's law is different in two ways: first, it's mandatory registration instead of a ban, and second, it applies to all firearms, including rifles and shotguns. So, although gun rights supporters may not like it, even if we assume the Second Amendment applies to the states, current law seems to offer Montenegro a defensible position. More on this tomorrow.

---

Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBSNews.com. He can be reached at [e-mail]. You can bookmark the Taking Liberties site here, or subscribe to the RSS feed.

[gunownerdan]

I have been attacked and carjacked by strangers in the past.
Friends of mine have been robbed by strangers and even shot.
It can be dangerous living in a liberal "blue" state with strict gun laws!
I refuse to be a victim ever again and I will do whatever it takes to protect myself and those around me.
There are people walking the streets who have rap sheets a mile long!
They can get illegal guns as easily as they can get a bag of crack.
No laws can stop the crack and no laws can stop dangerous people from getting their hands on weapons!
What can stop dangerous people is equal or greater force.
It's as simple as that!

[jackp32]

Can you carry pepper spray and mace?

[gunownerdan]

Of course, I carry tear gas all the time along with various other self defense tools.
Legality is not an issue.
I would much rather be able to protect myself and others than be defenseless against a dangerous violent criminal.
"It's much better to be alive and in court than dead and 6 feet under."

A-HUMAN-RIGHT . com

[debinok1]

All ANTI groups have one thing in common, Anti-guns, anti-abortion, anti-drugs, they ALL want to CONTROL other people based on their own personal moral beliefs. ALL of these groups have the perception that THEIR BELIEFS are more valuable than the beliefs of anyone else. What happened to the concept of their rights stop where mine start?

[Hosheen]

This is just one more totally ignorant gun law from "The Brady Bunch" It seems in their frenzy to disarm all legal citizens they fail to comprehend that NO gun law ever stopped any criminal from obtaining a firearm.

Apparently, to join the anti-gun crowd, you have to have all of you ability to recognize facts and think logically removed.

[canislupus16]

Was just scanning comments and yours happened to catch my attention. Not really picking on you. But did you actually read this story? You say "...in their frenzy to disarm all legal citizens..."

Huh? Would appear that quite the opposite is true. Cicero clearly has no intent to "disarm" gun owners carte blanche. The intent of their local ordinance is consistent with the 2nd Amendment, i.e., they support a citizen's right to keep and bear arms. They do require registration, but in no way attempt to take arms away from "legal citizens" (actually, what do you mean by "legal citizens"? Are you referring to born-here citizens, naturalized citizens, or does this relate to a citizen never convicted of a crime?)

If the fall-out from Cicero's laws is that those with criminal records, or garner convictions after receiving registration, or some nut job, is denied registration to have arms, good, and fine with me. I say it is not the state that is taking away the right to keep and bear arms, but the individual lost those rights himself/herself. It's like voting. Get convicted of a felony, lose your right to vote.

By the way, I'm not some soft lefty liberal. I own five long guns and am planning for more. My handgun permit application is in progress and my current plans are to acquire 3 handguns (btw, for the anti-gun crowd reading this, I happen to enjoy guns, shooting them - target and clays, don't hunt - grew up with them, reading about ammo and the history of arms - so get over it). I fight for 2nd amendment rights when they are threatened. Do you Hosheen? I attend hearings when proposed laws are anti-2nd Amendment, write legislators at all levels, and stay on top of things. Or do you just rant?

I don't see where the Cicero law runs counter to the 2nd Amendment. I favor taking guns out of the hands of criminals and nut jobs wherever and whenever possible and by any means. I do not favor banning everyone from owning a gun in a misguided attempt to achieve that end - only from those who have taken it upon themselves and chosen to lose the right to have guns. It's their screw-up - and good riddance, not society's or the state's screw-up.

[brianbwb-2009]

To declanm-2009

You quoted the following statement,

"The end result has been that we've seen a 70 percent reduction in gang homicide in the last five years. We attribute it in part to these type of ordinances."

Then you add an opinion that does not necessarily follow,

"(He was unable, however, to say when the law was enacted. If it dates back 30 years, it's unlikely it was the cause of a reduction in gang homicides.)"

Many states, cities, municipalities, parishes and other subdivisions of the country have laws that have been on the books for decades, if not centuries, but have been ignored, for various reasons.

It is not impossible that, while searching for a legal basis to take control over the rampant abuse of weapons, someone might have "discovered" the law, perhaps five years ago, then the city decided to restart enforcement of it.

As for slingshots, you haven't been keeping up with the state of development, it seems you're still thinking of the clothes-hanger/rubber band toys of your youth.

"High Velocity Folding Sling Shot
High velocity slingshot uses a special all new polymer providing effective rages of well over 300 meters. Light weight aluminum frame and heavy duty leather pouch shoots marbles, steel balls and paint balls.

FS1 - Folding Slingshot................................................$11.50
SA30 - Pack of 120 5/16" Steel Balls...........................$4.50
RR1 - Normal Pull Replaceable Power Band............$4.50
RR2 - Heavy Pull Replaceable Power Band...............$5.50"

Check that 300-meter range?

Imagine what a steel ball would do from ten to twenty feet. Or maybe through your windshield as you drive under a bridge.

Imagine someone with AIDS using one from his mouth on you.

My point is that these are also potentially lethal weapons, no longer the Y-shaped rubber-band-powered toy of Huck Finn.

Also, what use is there of a Bowie knife in a metropolitan area? do you skin animals?

Being from Detroit, I have repelled chain, and knife-wielding attackers in my youth with "alley apples", fist sized rocks, or chunks of brick, which are in good supply. You can draw blood, break bones, and crack skulls with a well-thrown one.

I, for one, applaud the town for taking whatever measures it can to reduce the chance of people being killed, hurt, or at least robbed in their city limits.

For those who object, don't go armed into Cicero, it is really that simple, Cicero has nothing you cannot get somewhere else.

[declanm-2009]

brianbwb-2009: You make some good points. I'd say in response that a flat ban on all slingshots, including weak and relatively harmless child's toys, is more likely to run afoul of the Second Amendment than a narrowly-tailored one. You may have repelled chain- and knife-wielding attackers in your youth with only hand weapons, but that option isn't available to the infirm, crippled, or elderly; firearms are a force leveler, and courts have recognized that. --Declan

[brianbwb-2009]

Understandable, your point about "force levelling", however the law is also a "force leveler" and the means it shooses to accomplish that is registration.

Again you seem to confuse the need for an accounting of weapons on the streets with a ban.

Why cannot the old, infirm, or crippled register their weapons? I would tend to assume that a disability that prevents them from registering their weapons very well might indicate an inability to use them effectively, or "safely", even for self protection.

[ubrew12]

Fvck you Declan:

You obviously want Chicago blacks to continue killing each other, the better to reduce the population.

[declanm-2009]

Yes, you found me out. If I write about a court case involving a city, and give the city a chance to explain its position, I clearly must have genocidal urges. Thanks for your cogent analysis. --Declan

[nextgenman09]

you have heard from both sides maj. Your side screeches with ignorance because you don't know anything about the history of Gun Control in America and the other side passes laws that are ruled Constitutional.

[gunownerdan]

Gun Licensing and Registration in the 20th century...

Turkey registered guns in 1911. From 1915 to 1917 over 1 million
defenseless civilians were exterminated by the Turkish government.

The Soviet Union registered guns in 1918. From 1929 to 1945 over
20 million defenseless civilians were murdered by the Soviet government.

Germany registered and licensed guns in 1928. From 1933 to 1945 over 15 million
defenseless civilians were rounded up and butchered by the German government.

China registered and licensed guns in 1914. From 1927 to 1976 well over 30 million
defenseless Chinese civilians were killed by their own government.

Guatemala registered guns in 1932. From 1960 to 1981 over 100,000
defenseless civilians were slaughtered by the Guatemalan government.

Uganda registered and licensed guns in 1955. From 1971 to 1979 about 300,000
defenseless civilians of Uganda were executed by their own government.

Cambodia registered and licensed guns in 1938. From 1975 to 1979 2 million
defenseless civilians were massacred by the Cambodian government.

Rwanda registered and licensed guns in 1979. In 1994 roughly 800,000
defenseless civilians were exterminated by the Rwandan government.

For more information go to JPFO.org!

[paddyhayes]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

One of my favorite logical fallacies.

[slownewsday_5]

Are we the USSR, or China, or Guatemala, or Cambodia, or Rwanda???

I am all for gun ownership. I am all for car ownership. Registration of either one will not take away your rights.

Bad comparison, gunownerdan.

We are the United States of America.


.

[waypasthadenough]

And done by republicrat judges appointed by republicrats. When will we say "enough!?" They should all be arrested, tried for treason and executed. No registration without "Liberal" season needs to be our mantra.

It will take many expensive suits hanging along Pennsylvania Ave. to fix this mess if it can be fixed.

Don?t understand? Start here:

http://willowtown.com/promo/quotes.htm

Think globally, fight locally. Aim small, miss small. One shot, one dead "Liberal"(communist/fascist).