National Rifle Association

Chicago-Area Democrats Push To Expand ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Throughout Illinois

After a federal court upheld an “assault weapons” ban by the City of Highland Park, gun “control” supporters in Chicago’s far north suburbs are trying to expand the ban on these military-pattern semi-automatic rifles throughout the state of Illinois- under the guise of “local control.” Deb McCarver reported on the Illinois Senate Democrats website Tuesday:

In response to a recent federal court ruling in support of Highland Park’s assault weapons ban, state Senator Julie Morrison introduced a measure to restore the right to ban assault weapons to every city and village in the state.

“This is about local control,” the Deerfield Democrat said. “Highland Park decided to protect its citizens by banning assault weapons. Every other city and village in Illinois should have that same right.”

The highly controversial 2013 law that allowed Illinois residents to carry concealed weapons also prohibited local governments from banning assault weapons…

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)

According to the “synopsis” of Illinois Senate Bill 2130:

the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Deletes provision that the regulation of the possession or ownership of assault weapons are exclusive powers and functions of this State. Deletes provision that any ordinance or regulation, or portion of that ordinance or regulation, that purports to regulate the possession or ownership of assault weapons in a manner that is inconsistent with the Act, shall be invalid unless the ordinance or regulation is enacted on, before, or within 10 days after the effective date of Public Act 98-63 (July 9, 2013). Deletes provision that any ordinance or regulation described in the stricken provision enacted more than 10 days after the effective date of Public Act 98-63 is invalid. Effective immediately…

This Tuesday I noted something Robert McCoppin reported on the Chicago Tribune website April 28. From his piece:

A federal court Monday upheld Highland Park’s ban on assault weapons — possibly setting the stage for a showdown over the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court…

Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson said he was confident the law could be overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court, but the National Rifle Association would have to decide whether to make a costly appeal.

“The Second Amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms,” Pearson said. “The government doesn’t get to pick the list.”

After Senator Morrison’s action- supported by Highland Park Mayor and Democratic candidate for Congress (10th Congressional District) Nancy Rotering (as evidenced later on in that McCarver piece)- don’t be surprised if an appeal is now launched by pro-gun rights forces- costs be damned.

As for Highland Park, which is making a strong bid for wrestling away the title of “Ground Zero for Gun ‘Control’” from Oak Park, Illinois, these days, I suspect they could be on the hook for some astronomical legal fees after all is said and done.

You can track the status of SB2130 on the Illinois General Assembly website here.

Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Source:

McCarver, Deb. “Morrison: Illinois should let cities ban assault weapons.” Illinois Senate Democrats. 5 May 2015. (http://www.illinoissenatedemocrats.com/index.php?option=com_tag&task=tag&tag=sb2130). 7 May 2015.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Highland Park, Illinois, ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Latest

Back on December 23, 2013, I blogged about the City of Highland Park on Chicago’s far North Shore passing an ordinance banning “assault weapons” within its city-limits at a June city council meeting.

Subsequently, the Illinois municipality was sued for its “assault weapons” ban.

Last week, a federal court rendered a decision on the lawsuit. From the website of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action on May 1:

The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision on Monday allowing a Chicago-area gun and magazine ban to stand. Such bans are justifiable, according to the court, merely on the basis that they “may increase the public’s sense of safety.”

The case, Friedman v. Highland Park, was filed in 2013, and sought to invalidate a city ordinance that banned “assault weapons or large capacity magazines (those that can accept more than ten rounds).” Highland Park was one of several Chicago suburbs that hastily enacted municipal ordinances regulating or banning the possession of “assault weapons” before the state’s 2013 concealed carry law preempted home-rule authority to do so.

This week, in a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel upheld the ban. According to the majority opinion, “A ban on assault weapons won’t eliminate gun violence in Highland Park, but it may reduce overall dangerousness of crime that does occur ….” Remarkably, the majority went on to suggest that even if the ban’s incursion on Second Amendment rights had no beneficial effect on safety whatsoever, it could still be justified on the basis of the false sense of security it might impart to local residents. “[I]f it has no other effect,” the majority wrote, “Highland Park’s ordinance may increase the public’s sense of safety. Mass shootings are rare, but they are highly salient, and people tend to overestimate the likelihood of salient events.”

The majority acknowledged that “assault weapons” can be beneficial for self-defense because they are lighter and more accurate than alternative options and can be wielded more effectively by householders. Yet they quickly threw their own logic aside to reassert the city’s interest in reducing perceived risk over the tangible benefits that that modern firearms provide to their owners. “If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit,” the opinion argued.

Judge Daniel Anthony Manion dissented from the majority opinion. Manion forcefully and persuasively argued that the ruling opinion is “at odds with the central holdings in Heller and McDonald: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.”

He went on to press the point that only individuals “make the ultimate decision for what constitutes the most effective means of defending one’s home, family, and property.” In stark contrast to the majority, Judge Manion was willing to recognize the constitutional dimensions that individual choice makes in the Second Amendment realm, just as it does with other fundamental rights. “Ultimately, it is up to the lawful gun owner and not the government to decide these matters,” he wrote.

Judge Manion’s reminder that when it comes to our fundamental rights, “The government recognizes these rights; it does not confer them,” cannot be overemphasized. Unfortunately, his colleagues refused to uphold their duty to recognize either the right at stake or Highland Park’s violation of it. Rest assured, however, that your NRA will continue the fight to see that injustice corrected.

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)

Robert McCoppin reported on the Chicago Tribune website on April 28:

A federal court Monday upheld Highland Park’s ban on assault weapons — possibly setting the stage for a showdown over the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court…

Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson said he was confident the law could be overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court, but the National Rifle Association would have to decide whether to make a costly appeal.

“The Second Amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms,” Pearson said. “The government doesn’t get to pick the list.”

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)

Stay tuned…

Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

(Editor’s note: Permission to reproduce this piece granted by the NRA-ILA)

Source:

McCoppin, Robert. “Appeals court upholds Highland Park assault weapons ban.” Chicago Tribune. 28 Apr. 2015. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/highland-park/news/chi-assault-weapons-ban-highland-park-20150427-story.html). 5 May 2015.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Proposed Ban Of Common AR-15 Rifle Ammunition Suspended

In case you haven’t heard the latest about that proposed ban on common M855 ball ammunition (or SS109 as it’s sometimes referred to) for the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action reported on their website yesterday:

Fairfax, Va. – The National Rifle Association (NRA) was instrumental in stalling the Obama Administration’s initial attempt to ban commonly used ammunition for the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15. The announcement that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) will suspend its proposed framework to ban M855 ammunition validates the NRA’s assertion that this effort was nothing more than a political maneuver to bypass Congress and impose gun control on the American people.

“Today’s announcement proves what we have said all along — this was 100% political. President Obama failed to pass gun control through Congress, so he tried to impose his political agenda through executive fiat. But every gun owner in America needs to understand Barack Obama’s hatred of the Second Amendment has not changed,” said Wayne La Pierre, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association.

Chris Cox, Executive Director of NRA-ILA criticized the dishonest campaign to ban this common ammunition: “The lies used to justify the ban were shameful. This proposal was never about law enforcement safety – it was about the Obama Administration’s desire to pander to billionaire Michael Bloomberg and his gun control groups. Since they haven’t been able to ban America’s most popular rifle, they are trying to ban the ammunition instead.”

Since the BATFE announced its plan to ban commonly used ammunition less than a month ago, the NRA rallied its five million members and tens of millions of supporters across the country in strong opposition. In addition, the NRA worked with congressional leaders in both the U.S. House and Senate to oppose this misguided proposal.

“The NRA would like to thank House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and House Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Culberson for leading the fight against this unconstitutional attack on our Second Amendment freedoms,” continued Cox. “This was a significant victory for our five million members and tens of millions of supporters across the country.

“Make no mistake, this fight is not over. We will remain vigilant and continue to fight against President Obama’s attempt to dismantle the Second Amendment,” concluded LaPierre.

To view the congressional letters to BATFE, along with the Member signatures, click here and here.

To view recent op-ed in the Daily Caller by Chris Cox on the proposed ammunition ban, click here.

Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Congressional Democrats Push ‘High-Capacity’ Magazine Ban

Like I blogged Monday, the gun “control” crowd is off-and-running several weeks into the new year. In addition to a ban on certain AR-15 rifle ammunition, they’re also pushing to ban “high-capacity” firearm ammunition magazines. From the website of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislation Action (NRA-ILA) last Friday:

Anti-gun U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and U.S. Representative Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.), have introduced their Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act (S. 407 and H.R. 752, respectively), in yet another attempt to ban magazines that accept more than 10 rounds. Similar legislation has been introduced in previous Congresses, and has repeatedly failed since the expiration of the Clinton “large” magazine ban in 2004.

Firearms designed to use magazines that hold more than ten rounds have been around for more than a hundred years. Today they constitute a majority of all new firearms manufactured, imported and sold in the United States, for what the Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), called the central purpose of the Second Amendment: self-defense. While gun control supporters claim that the magazines are unnecessary for self-defense, millions of Americans disagree, and the Supreme Court has ruled in Heller that laws are unconstitutional if they prohibit firearms that are in common use for defensive purposes.

Moreover, studies have shown that magazine bans don’t reduce crime. The congressionally-mandated study of the 1994-2004 federal “large” magazine “ban” concluded that its 10-round limit on new magazines wasn’t a factor in multiple-victim or multiple-wound crimes. A follow-up study concluded that “relatively few attacks involve more than 10 shots fired,” and “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” And a majority of law enforcement in the United States acknowledges that banning standard-capacity magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds will not increase public safety.

A person attacked in a parking lot, or at home in the middle of the night, will probably have only the magazine within the firearm. No one should be arbitrarily limited in the number of rounds he or she can have for self-defense.

The NRA opposes this legislation and will continue to fight attempts in Congress to limit magazine capacity.

As I type this, each and every co-sponsor of this legislation is a Democrat (16 in the Senate and 107 in the House).

You can track the status of Senate Bill 407 here and House Bill 752 here via Congress.gov.

Permission has been granted by the NRA-ILA to reproduce the above.

Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

NRA: BATFE To Ban Common AR-15 Ammo

It was only a matter of time. Several weeks into the new year, and the gun “control” crowd is off-and-running again. There’s been a number of developments lately, but here’s one that seems to be really worrying American gun owners- particularly those possessing the popular AR-15 rifle. From the website of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislation Action (NRA-ILA) this past Friday:

In a move clearly intended by the Obama Administration to suppress the acquisition, ownership and use of AR-15s and other .223 caliber general purpose rifles, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives unexpectedly announced today that it intends to ban commonplace M855 ball ammunition as “armor piercing ammunition.” The decision continues Obama’s use of his executive authority to impose gun control restrictions and bypass Congress.

It isn’t even the third week of February, and the BATFE has already taken three major executive actions on gun control. First, it was a major change to what activities constitute regulated “manufacturing” of firearms. Next, BATFE reversed a less than year old position on firing a shouldered “pistol.” Now, BATFE has released a “Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes’ Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c)”, which would eliminate M855’s exemption to the armor piercing ammunition prohibition and make future exemptions nearly impossible.

By way of background, federal law imposed in 1986 prohibits the manufacture, importation, and sale by licensed manufacturers or importers, but not possession, of “a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely . . . from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium.” Because there are handguns capable of firing M855, it “may be used in a handgun.” It does not, however, have a core made of the metals listed in the law; rather, it has a traditional lead core with a steel tip, and therefore should never have been considered “armor piercing.” Nonetheless, BATFE previously declared M855 to be “armor piercing ammunition,” but granted it an exemption as a projectile “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.”

Now, however, BATFE says that it will henceforth grant the “sporting purposes” exception to only two categories of projectiles:

Category I: .22 Caliber Projectiles

A .22 caliber projectile that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) will be considered to be “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile weighs 40 grains or less AND is loaded into a rimfire cartridge.

Category II: All Other Caliber Projectiles

Except as provided in Category I (.22 caliber rimfire), projectiles that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition will be presumed to be “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile is loaded into a cartridge for which the only handgun that is readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade is a single shot handgun. ATF nevertheless retains the discretion to deny any application for a “sporting purposes” exemption if substantial evidence exists that the ammunition is not primarily intended for such purposes.

BATFE is accepting comments until March 16, 2015 on this indefensible attempt to disrupt ammunition for the most popular rifle in America. Check back early next week for a more in-depth analysis of this “framework” and details on how you can submit comments.

How to comment – from the BATFE

ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before March 16, 2015, and will give comments received after that date the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before March 16, 2015. ATF will not acknowledge receipt of comments. Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method):

ATF email: APAComments@atf.gov

Fax: (202) 648-9741.

Mail: Denise Brown, Mailstop 6N-602, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226: ATTN: AP Ammo Comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Brown, Enforcement Programs and Services, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7070.

Permission has been granted by the NRA-ILA to reproduce the above.


“BATF to ban M855/SS109 ammo”
YouTube Video

Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

So You Think Your Vote Doesn’t Matter?

A number of eligible American voters won’t be casting a ballot tomorrow because they think their vote doesn’t matter. Here’s something the National Rifle Association has been passing around in an e-mail to members that reinforces the idea that even a single vote is much more important than most people think:

In the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by only 537 votes out of over 100 million cast.

In 2008, Minnesota Senator Al Franken defeated Norm Coleman by only 312 votes out of over 2.8 million cast.

And in a recent state legislative race in Florida, the election was decided by only 2 votes out of nearly 12,000 cast.

In the upcoming General Election, yours could be the deciding vote in any race or on any issue on the ballot…

A number of eligible voters won’t be casting ballots Tuesday because they’re skeptical of the major national political parties (“one monster with two heads”) or as a protest. I get it. But for those others that think their vote isn’t really necessary because there are lots of other people going to the polls (“how is one vote going to make a difference?”), they might want to keep the above in mind.

And that’s my public service announcement for the day…

By Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Tags: , , ,

Chicago Train Passengers Robbed At Gunpoint

“The National Rifle Association backs conceal-carry being extended to public transportation. Now the Chicago Transit Authority is weighing in, saying, ‘No way.’

The Chicago Transit Authority carries 1.6 million riders a day. The National Rifle Association says those riders should have the right to carry guns on board busses and trains under any Illinois conceal-carry law…

“We think it would be disastrous to allow passenger to carry concealed weapons on our trains and buses,” said CTA President Forrest Claypool.

Claypool said Thursday that the transit agency would fight all attempts to allow gun-carrying passengers on board trains and buses, even if legislators allow drivers to have guns in their personal vehicles…”

-Chuck Goudie, ABC 7 Chicago website, February 21, 2013

I’ll bet Survival And Prosperity readers could have guessed what was coming down the pipeline for the CTA.

The Chicago news media is reporting that a number of Chicago Transit Authority train passengers fell prey to armed robbers late this afternoon. Carlos Sandovi wrote on the Chicago Tribune website:

Two men armed with guns robbed several people on the Orange Line CTA train this afternoon, police said.

The armed robberies occurred at 4:15 p.m. as the train was between the Halsted Street and Roosevelt Road stops on the Orange Line, said Chicago Police News Affairs Officer Thomas Sweeney.

The men, whose descriptions were not immediately available, went into a train car on that line and announced an armed robbery, said Sweeney.

They robbed several people and fled with items when the train arrived at the Roosevelt stop, police said…

(Editor’s note: Bold added for emphasis)

I thought CTA trains were supposed to be “gun-free” zones? As a matter of fact, it says so right here on their website.

“Gun-free” zones. What a cruel joke. Glad to hear the passengers made it through the ordeal okay, considering one of them reportedly resisted (successfully) being robbed.

She’s lucky, if you ask me. More-hardened criminals might have turned to violence to make an example out of her for the others.

Hope the police catch these creeps.

As for the CTA and its riders? Something like this will probably happen again, unfortunately.

Why? It’s a “gun-free” zone. And criminals love gun-free zones.

By Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Source:

Sandovi, Carlos. “Cops: 2 armed men robbed passengers on Orange CTA Line.” Chicago Tribune. 16 July 2014. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-cops-2-armed-men-robbed-passengers-on-orange-cta-line-20140716,0,3250364.story). 16 July 2014.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chicago’s Gun ‘Control’ Fetish Costing City Big Bucks

If I still lived in Chicago, I’d be livid at City Hall the way those guys keep pissing away hard-earned taxpayer dollars challenging litigation in defense of gun rights.

How many dollars? Recently, over $1.5 million.

From the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action website on July 11:

Check, Please! Chicago Once Again Learns an Expensive Lesson About the Second Amendment

While litigants generally bear their own costs in the American legal system, certain provisions of federal law allow parties who prevail in “proceedings in vindication of civil rights” to be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees. NRA has once again used these provisions to recoup attorney’s fees from the City of Chicago. You would think that Chicago’s disarmament-focused politicians would have learned their lesson after being court ordered to pay NRA over $600,000 in legal fees for work done by NRA attorneys on McDonald v. City of Chicago. Nevertheless, Chicago has once again been court ordered to pay NRA’s legal fees, this time $940,000 for work on Illinois Association of Firearm Retailers v. City of Chicago (formerly Benson v. City of Chicago). That case challenged the prohibition on lawful gun sales within the city. As noted earlier this week, this brings Chicago’s recent total for NRA legal fees to over $1.5 million.

That’s a lot of cash, even to politicians who are spending their constituents’ money. Still, the city’s new push to keep gun dealers away through over-regulation may well indicate that its aldermen and its mayor, Rahm Emanuel, remain willing to spend even more taxpayer funds to support even more symbolic and ineffective gun control.

“May well indicate?” Try “indicate.” Here’s what Mayor Emanuel had to say after the Chicago City Council passed what critics says is a de factor ban on gun stores in the city (special-use zoning would keep gun stores out of 99.5 percent of Chicago) late last month. Don Babwin of the Associated Press wrote June 25:

Emanuel, while not welcoming a lawsuit, suggested it was important to pass the toughest ordinance possible whether or not it prompted a legal challenge.

“You have to do what you think is right,” he said.

Easy to say- and do- such things when it’s other people’s money on the line.

By Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

(Editor’s note: Permission granted to reproduce NRA-ILA article)

Source:

Babwin, Don. “Chicago City Council passes strict gun store law.” Associated Press. 25 June 2014. (http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s3271400.shtml#.U8VYyJVOXIU). 15 July 2014.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, July 15th, 2014 Firearms, Government, Gun Rights, Legal No Comments

Comprehensive Anti-Gun Legislation Introduced In Illinois

Last night, I received the following e-mail from the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA):

Illinois: Anti-Gunner “Wish List” Legislation Introduced

This week, Senate Bill 3659, misnamed the “Illinois Public Safety Act,” was introduced by notorious anti-gun state Senator Dan Kotowski (D-28). SB 3659 seeks to ban the possession, delivery, sale and purchase of many semi-automatic firearms and accessories, as well as .50 caliber rifles and cartridges unless the items have been previously owned and registered within an arbitrary period of time. SB 3659 would also amend the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act to require background checks for private transfers of firearms, except those between family members, and would restrict magazine limits to those with a capacity of 15 rounds and smaller.

SB 3659 embodies the anti-gunner “wish list” in Illinois. This legislation is a comprehensive anti-gun package which echoes the unconstitutional legislation passed in New York and Connecticut last year. The laws passed in those states are currently subject to lawsuits due to their significant infringement on Second Amendment rights.

With the 2014 legislative session winding down, this bill has not yet been assigned to a policy committee. However, your NRA-ILA will continue to keep you updated when more information is available on this legislation.

Stay tuned…

By Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chicago To Fight Gun Sale, Transfer Ban Ruling?

Supporters of gun rights scored a big victory in Chicago yesterday, continuing to undermine gun “control” efforts pushed by former Mayor Richard M. Daley and current Mayor Rahm Emanuel. The Associated Press reported this morning:

A federal judge on Monday overturned Chicago’s ban on the sale and transfer of firearms, ruling that the city’s ordinances aimed at reducing gun violence are unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang said in his ruling that while the government has a duty to protect its citizens, it’s also obligated to protect constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. However, Chang said he would temporarily stay the effects of his ruling, meaning the ordinances can stand while the city decides whether to appeal…

So is Mayor Emanuel and the City of Chicago going to appeal the ruling of Judge Chang, an Obama appointee?

Dahleen Glanton and Jason Meisner reported on the Chicago Tribune website today:

Roderick Drew, a spokesman for the city’s Law Department, said in a written statement Monday that Mayor Rahm Emanuel “strongly disagrees” with the judge’s decision and has instructed city attorneys “to consider all options to better regulate the sale of firearms within the city’s borders.”

So here’s a question Chicagoans might want to ask City Hall before a potential appeal is filed:

Seeing that all this stems from a 2010 lawsuit filed by three Chicago residents and an association of Illinois firearm dealers, how much, if any, is the City already on the hook for when it comes to the victors’ legal bills?

I seem to remember a certain check for $399,950 being coughed up by the City of Chicago to pay the Second Amendment Foundation for their legal costs in fighting the city’s handgun ban in the U.S. Supreme Court case of McDonald v. City of Chicago.

Followed shortly thereafter by a check for $663,294.10 to the National Rifle Association for their attorney fees related to the lawsuit.

Enquiring minds want to know…

By Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Sources:

“Chicago gun sale ban unconstitutional, judge rules.” FOXNews.com. 7 Jan. 2014. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/06/chicago-gun-sale-ban-unconstitutional-judge-rules/). 7 Jan. 2014.

Glanton, Dahleen and Meisner, Jason. “Judge scraps Chicago’s ban on retail gun shops.” Chicago Tribune. 7 Jan. 2014. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-citys-gun-ordinance-ruled-unconstitutional-by-federal-judge-20140106,0,7182171.story?page=1). 7 Jan. 2014.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, January 7th, 2014 Firearms, Government, Gun Rights, Legal, Self-Defense No Comments

Resource Of The Week: Pursuit Channel Free On VIDillion.TV

Back when I lived in Chicago I used to have satellite television. And a few channels at that time carried firearm-related programming. One of these was the Pursuit Channel. From their website:

In 2008, Pursuit Channel was established by producers for producers and for the good of the outdoor community. With this founding commitment to the outdoor industry it has propelled Pursuit Channel into the most widely distributed, pure hunting and fishing television network. Our goal with Pursuit Channel is and always will be to create a place that everyone in the industry can call home. We’re here for the good of the industry, for the good of outdoor traditions, and we’re here to stay. Our distribution, our content and our overall viewer appeal are all on the rise, and we’re looking forward to an exciting future. Pursuit Channel is the only outdoor network delivered in satellite providers DISH and DIRECTV’s BASIC package, channels received by every subscriber regardless of their level of service. With a solid, growing portfolio of cable and high power TV stations as well, the network now reaches more than 38 million households.

While the Pursuit Channel does have an awful lot of hunting and fishing shows in its lineup, there’s plenty of self-defense and shooting sports programming available as well. Case in point, the Pursuit Channel’s “NRA Freedom Friday,” which features the following shows every Friday evening:

Trigger Time TV
American Airgunner
-American Trigger Sports Network’s Stop The Threat
Gun Talk TV
Doug Koenig’s Championship Season
Guns & Gear TV
3-Gun Nation TV

I’ve seen most of these TV shows, and they’re really good. In fact, I’ve blogged about a few of them (American Airgunner, Trigger Time TV) already.

So here’s the great thing about this resource. While the Pursuit Channel can be viewed via satellite television on Direct TV (Channel 604) and DISH Network (Channel 393), the channel can also be watched for free via the Internet through VIDillion.TV.

You can start watching the Pursuit Channel now on VIDillion.TV here. And for more information about the channel, its shows, and schedule, you can visit their website here.

By Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

(Editor’s note: Link added to “Resources” page)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Update On Illinois Legislation For Raising Mandatory Minimum Prison Sentences And Imposing Truth In Sentencing For Gun Crimes

“Illinois law already mandates a minimum 15-year sentence when a person with a gun commits any felony offense, and a one-year minimum for unlicensed gun possession and licensed possession of a loaded gun.”

-Illinois State Senator and Illinois Senate Criminal Law Committee member Patricia Van Pelt (D-Chicago), in a Chicago Tribune commentary, October 23, 2013

Here’s the latest on legislation at the state level that’s been backed by the Emanuel administration and Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez that would not only raise mandatory minimum prison sentences for gun crimes but would require offenders to serve 85 percent of their sentences. From the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action earlier today:

The NRA-ILA has just learned that new changes to recent legislation aimed at imprisoning law-abiding Illinois citizens for a victimless crime will likely be proposed very soon. While no language is currently available for review, the NRA-ILA has obtained information that the proposed changes will eliminate any mandatory minimums from the legislation for first-time offenders of the Unlawful Use of Weapons (UUW) or Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon (AUUW) statutes, with no aggravating factors such as previous felonies or gang membership.

However, current law provides that probation is not available as a sentencing option, so individuals would still be sentenced to jail time, for which they are required to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence. This policy change continues to create a scenario in which an unsuspecting citizen who has chosen to carry a firearm for self-defense, could serve significant jail time for a regulatory infraction.

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

So, to update a scenario that critics of this legislation have been putting out there, if a man with a concealed-carry permit left his firearm in his car because he and his spouse are going some place where guns are banned, and she leaves without him while taking the car, and subsequently gets pulled over by police, the spouse would still get slapped with a jail sentence since probation is not an option. At least that’s what I take away from all this.

Why the apparent insistence on punishing the “unsuspecting citizen”?

A number of observers suspect this is a conscious effort being carried out by anti-gun politicians in the state, hoping to make poster-children out of these unfortunate individuals and scare away other Illinois residents from exercising their Second Amendment right.

Stay tuned…

By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Source:

“Illinois: Proposed New Changes to Mandatory Minimum Bill.” NRA-ILA. 4 Nov. 2013. (http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/11/illinois-proposed-new-changes-to-mandatory-minimum-bill.aspx?s=&st=10477&ps=). 4 Nov. 2013.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

D.C. Navy Yard Shootings Suspect African-American Male Entering With Only A Shotgun?

I only recently heard about the tragic shootings that took place at the Washington, D.C., Navy Yard earlier today. While information about the incident is still coming in- and a lot of nonsense is already being spouted-off (“declare the NRA a terrorist organization!”)- I read the following on the website of NBC4 Washington, D.C. a short time ago:

At least 12 people are dead after a shooting Monday morning in a heavily secured building at the D.C. Navy Yard, and authorities now say they have identified the gunman.

That gunman, 34-year-old Aaron Alexis of Fort Worth, Texas, is among the 12 dead. Officials said he recently began working as a civilian contractor.

On the home page of the NBC affiliate, a young, African-American male sporting a bald/shaved head is shown superimposed on a banner which reads:

“Gunman ID’d in Navy Yard Shooting That Killed 13”

Hmm. A number of people were probably real disappointed that it wasn’t a “creepy cracker” that was shown.

In addition, there’s this:

Survellance video shows the gunman entered the building at the Naval Sea Systems Command Headquarters, at 1336 Isaac Hull Ave., with a shotgun, News4’s Jackie Bensen reported.

He shot the security guard in the head, killing him. The shooter then continued through the building, and seemed to target his victims, who were mostly on the third and fourth floors.

D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department and several other law enforcement agencies responded, Bensen said. During that response, a MPD officer was shot in the leg.

The gunman was then shot by a FBI hostage response team, Bensen said.

According to what witnesses are telling investigators, by the time the shootings ended, the gunman was seen with a semiautomatic 9 mm pistol and an AR-15 assault rifle. Authorities are investigating whether the gunman took the security guard’s service weapon – likely a 9 mm pistol – and hid in wait for the first responding D.C. police officers, who would be specially armed with AR-15s.

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

An African-American male suspect possibly armed with just a shotgun initially?

No “assault weapon” or “scary” handgun?

(Editor’s note: Some have already suggested this account of the incident may get “sanitized” real quick once the mainstream media get their marching orders from the powers-that-be)

Something tells me the hopes of the anti-Second Amendment crowd in furthering their agenda with the Navy Yard shootings will fade pretty fast if what NBC4 Washington is reporting this afternoon is found to be true.

In the meantime, my prayers go out to all those affected by this violence.

By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Source:

“Gunman ID’d in D.C. Navy Yard Shooting That Killed 13.” NBC Washington, D.C. 16 Sep. 2013. (http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Confirmed-Shooter-at-Navy-Yard-One-Person-Shot-223897891.html). 16 Sep. 2013.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Who Is Colion Noir?

“Calling me an Uncle Tom simply because I’m into firearms, it doesn’t even make sense. My entire identity as a black guy is based on my ownership of guns? Really? Some of the most influential black individuals have advocated for the use of firearms, so how come when I do it, I’m vilified? Take a look at the Black Panthers, MLK, Malcolm X.”

-Colion Noir, in the August 4, 2013, edition of the Chicago Tribune

Anyone every heard of a guy by the name of Colion Noir?

The name has been popping up with more frequency in my personal safety research.

I heard he was some sort of celebrity connected to gun rights. But yesterday, I finally got the low-down on Mr. Noir from my Sunday paper. Molly Hennessey-Fiske wrote in the Chicago Tribune:

Colion Noir belongs to the NRA and owns several guns, including a sleek Glock 17 handgun and a customized AR-15 rifle. But as Noir frequently points out, he does not fit the stereotype of NRA members, or what he calls OFWG: “Old, fat white guys.”

At 29, he’s not old. Nor is he fat — he’s slender and stylishly dressed with sneakers made by Prada. He’s also not white.

In the world of gun owners, Noir, an African American, has become an Internet sensation and his popularity is growing…

This is Colion Noir, an attorney, firearm owner, and growing celebrity in one of his YouTube videos from earlier this year:

Chicago is raking up body counts like it’s a video game, yet has the highest form of gun control…

Is the U.S. Army going to be in Chicago when somebody’s house gets invaded? Are the police going to be there when somebody gets robbed? Or are they just going to show up and take the report about what happened?

All the while you’re rolling around with 50 body guards and living in a modern-day fortress.


“Why Are Black ‘Leaders’ Anti Gun?”
YouTube Video

Mr. Noir is blunt, no doubt.

And not surprisingly, some have already taken to calling him an “NRA pawn” and “Uncle Tom,” according to Hennessy-Fiske.

However, Hennessy-Fiske pointed out he’s only a paid commentator- not a spokesman.

“NRA pawn.” “Uncle Tom.” Reminds me of that quote I bring up every once in a while by the American editor and novelist Charles Simmons:

Ridicule is the first and last argument of a fool.

You can read more of Hennessy-Fiske’s interesting piece here.

And find out more about Mr. Noir on his website here.

By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Only 7 Illinois Municipalities Pass ‘Assault Weapon’ Bans By State-Imposed Deadline

On July 1, I wrote the following concerning new “assault weapon” bans being considered by a number of Illinois municipalities:

As Illinois Governor Pat Quinn has only until July 9 to sign Illinois House Bill 183 (so-called “Firearm Concealed Carry Act”), discussion and implementation of “assault weapons” bans in Chicago-area municipalities has been ongoing. Back on June 21 I mentioned an e-mail I received from the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action that pointed out:

HB 183 contains a provision that allows certain localities up to ten days from the date of enactment to make laws prohibiting so-called “assault weapons” before this legislation prohibits local governments from doing so at a later date.

Well, Illinois House Bill 183 is now law, and the deadline for enacting new “assault weapon” bans has passed. From the NRA-ILA yesterday:

Illinois: Many Local Governments Rush to Enact Last-Minute Gun Bans, But Few Succeed in Circumventing Statewide Regulation of Firearms

With enactment into state law of concealed carry legislation, House Bill 183, a new fight for gun rights in Illinois was started. A clause included in this new law allowed home rule local governments to enact their own so-called “assault weapon” bans within ten days of House Bill 183’s enactment. In the days preceding and immediately following enactment, a flurry of city council meetings were scheduled to discuss or pass a ban on popularly owned semi-automatic firearms.

Approximately sixty different local meetings were scheduled in total, and many Illinois NRA members and gun owners attended those meetings and contacted their local officials in opposition to these hastily crafted restrictions. Due to the efforts of those law-abiding citizens defending their Second Amendment rights, only seven new “assault weapon” bans were enacted throughout the state (listed below) before the deadline – Friday, July 19.

If you or anyone you know have been arrested or harassed under a local ban or ordinance, please contact the NRA Legislative Counsel’s office at (703) 267-1161.

Localities with new bans:

• Calumet Park – (No language available)
• Dolton – Assault Weapon Ban (No language available)
• Evanston – Assault Weapon Ban (Page 11)
• Highland Park – Assault Weapon Ban
• Melrose Park – Assault Weapon Ban (No language available)
• North Chicago – Assault Weapon Ban
• Skokie – Assault Weapon Ban (Page 50)

Other local governments passed ordinances pertaining to firearms storage and transportation. Those localities include:

• Country Club Hills
• Deerfield
• University Park
• Winnetka

Thank you to all members who attended local meetings and voiced their opposition to bans or unreasonable regulations on firearms commonly owned for self-defense. While Illinois now has concealed carry, continued vigilance is necessary to ensure protection of our rights. Your NRA-ILA will continue to fight unreasonable restrictions and will keep you updated.

Next up for these 7 municipalities concerning this issue?

Lawsuits, I suspect.

By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,



Survival And Prosperity
Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Est. 2010, Chicagoland, USA

Successor to Boom2Bust.com
"The Most Hated Blog On Wall Street" (Memorial Day 2007-2010)

Please Rate this Blog HERE

Limited Time Offers

Via Banner Ads Below (navigate to vendor home page if necessary); Updated 8/31/15:
ANY CHARACTER HERE
>CHIEF Buy 2 Pants Get 1 Free Thru 8/31 11:59PM ET (code needed)
ANY CHARACTER HERE
>BUDK 30% Off Sale ($29 min. order; code needed)
ANY CHARACTER HERE
>Pyramyd Air Get 20% Cash Back On All Purchases 8/15/15-8/31/15 If It Rains 9/12/15; Overstock Sale
ANY CHARACTER HERE
>Nitro-Pak Labor Dale Sale Save Up To 40% Off
ANY CHARACTER HERE
>Food Insurance Bonus Bucks Are Back!; Save Up To 43% On Freeze-Dried Seasoned Ground Turkey Pieces
ANY CHARACTER HERE
>Airsoft Megastore Free Shipping On All Orders (no code required)
ANY CHARACTER HERE
>BulletSafe Bulletproof Baseball Cap $119 Pre-Order Price; Ballistic Plate Only $169
ANY CHARACTER HERE
>Tractor Supply Co. Free UPS Ship To Store
NEW! Advertising Disclosure HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
Buy Gold And Silver Coins BGASC Review Coming Soon
ANY CHARACTER HERE
Free UPS ship to store on all Tractor Supply Company orders! Shop now! Tractor Supply Co. Review Coming Soon
ANY CHARACTER HERE
Nitro-Pak--The Emergency Preparedness Leader Nitro-Pak Reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
MyPatriotSupply.com Reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
Food Insurance Reviewed HERE
BullionVault BullionVault.com Reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
CHIEF Supply Reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
BulletSafe Reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
BUDK bowie knife BUDK Reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
Pyramyd Air is your one-stop shop for everything airgun related. PyramydAir.com Reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
Airsoft Megastore Reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
Survival Titles Save 20% Paladin Press Reviewed HERE
 

Categories

Archives

Prepper Website
  • Observation, Theory About Greek Bank Safe Deposit Box Restrictions

    Continuing “Greek Week” on Offshore Safe Deposit Boxes, Greek state television has announced Greek banks will remain closed for the remainder of this week. Both Reuters and the Associated Press have reported cash withdrawals from Greek bank safe deposit boxes have been prohibited. Reuters ran its story Sunday while the Associated Press revealed Monday: No […] ...
  • Safe Deposit Boxes In Private Vaults See ‘Huge Increase In Demand’ By Wealthy Greeks

    While pouring over the latest news of Greece’s sovereign debt crisis tonight, I spotted the following snippet on the Daily Mail (UK) website. Nick Fagge reported Wednesday: Safety-box deposit firms have reported a huge increase in demand with wealthy Greeks storing their cash and other valuables anywhere other than their bank… (Editor’s note: Bold added […] ...
  • Confusion Over Accessing Cash In Greek Bank Safe Deposit Boxes

    Yesterday, I blogged about a Reuters piece from Sunday which said cash withdrawals from Greek bank safe deposit boxes were now prohibited. Monday, the Associated Press reported that accessing currency from these containers might be left to the legislative process. From the Fox News website: There was confusion Sunday night over the fate of bank […] ...
  • Cash Withdrawals From Greek Bank Safe Deposit Boxes Forbidden

    Something tells me confidence in bank safe deposit boxes is going to plummet as word of the following gets out. Reuters’ Lefteris Papadimas and George Georgiopoulos reported Sunday: Greeks cannot withdraw cash left in safe deposit boxes at Greek banks as long as capital restrictions remain in place, a deputy finance minister told Greek television […] ...
  • Happy Independence Day!

    Just wanted to wish readers of Offshore Safe Deposit Boxes a happy Independence Day. Christopher E. Hill Editor ...