Second Amendment
Cook County, Illinois, Sued For New Gun Tax
“You’re welcome to sue. We’ve looked at this and we believe we can survive any challenge.”
-Cook County, Illinois, Board President Toni Preckwinkle, on proposed new taxes on firearm and ammunition purchases within the county, October 18, 2012
On November 9, 2012, the Cook County, Illinois, Board of Commissioners voted 16 to 1 in approving Board President Toni Preckwinkle’s $2.95 billion budget for 2013- and a new $25 per gun “violence tax” on firearm purchases by law-abiding citizens to pay for the carnage caused by violent criminals.
On November 12, I blogged that there was talk of two lawsuits being drawn up against the county as a result of this tax on residents exercising a Constitutional right.
And Thursday night, I came across the following from Cook County Reporter Lisa Donovan on the Chicago Sun-Times website:
A group of Chicago area gun dealers and owners filed a lawsuit Thursday in Cook County Circuit Court, aiming to halt a new $25 tax on every gun purchase in Cook County…
“Proponents of the tax have admitted that its purpose is to curb the number of firearms in circulation. The Tax thus is intended to deter individuals from exercising their fundamental right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second and the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and… the Illinois Constitution,” the lawsuit states.
The suit claims the tax infringes “on the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear, and law-abiding Retailers to sell, arms as guaranteed” by state and local constitutions.
The gun tax is scheduled to go into effect on April 1.
It’s been claimed that the new tax is also a gun registration scheme being carried out by the second most populous county in the United States. On November 23, 2012, I wrote:
From the website of Maxon Shooters Supplies & Indoor Range (one of the gun shops affected) in nearby Des Plaines:
Did you know the “Violence Tax” would give the city of Chicago & Cook County COMPLETE ACCESS to all records of firearm sales, ammunition and etc. This would ALLOW law enforcement agencies to ENTER YOUR HOME to inventory and audit all your firearms & ammunition WITHOUT A WARRANT!
With the recent passage of Cook County Ordinance Number 13-O-13, which requires “persons who own or possess firearms within Cook County to promptly report to the Cook County Sheriff the loss, theft, destruction or transfer of firearms,” gun registration- whether intended or not- is now in effect in the county. From section 58-190, “Report of transferred firearms:”
A person reporting the sale, transfer, inheritance, or other disposition of a firearm shall provide the following information:
(1) Owner name;
(2) Owner address;
(3) Owner Firearm Owner’s Identification Card number;
(4) Date of acquisition;
(5) Place of acquisition;
(6) Means of acquisition;
(7) Firearm type;
(8) Firearm serial number;
(9) Date of sale, transfer, inheritance or other disposition; and
(10) The name, address, and Firearm Owner’s Identification Card number of the transferee.
No doubt about it, gun registration now exists in Cook County, Illinois. And history shows that confiscation often follows.
By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)
Source:
Donovan, Lisa. “Gun owners, dealers sue over Cook County’s $25 tax on firearms.” Chicago Sun-Times. 14 Mar. 2013. (http://www.suntimes.com/news/18859382-418/gun-owners-dealers-sue-over-cook-countys-25-tax-on-firearms.html). 16 Mar. 2013.
Washington County, WI, Sheriff Blasts Milwaukee Police Chief, Feinstein, And Obama On Gun ‘Control’
While my family’s Wisconsin residence is not in Washington County, I thought I’d share with you this morning something residents of the nearby county received from Sheriff Dale Schmidt last week:
To Washington County Residents, 03-08-2013
Recent comments on gun control by Milwaukee Police Chief Flynn highlight, for me, a problem with law enforcement in this country. Too often, law enforcement leaders confuse all citizens with criminals, and see themselves as “kings” of their jurisdiction instead of employees of the people.
In 2009, when Wisconsin’s Attorney General issued his advisory memo on open carry, it created little discussion within my department. That is because we already knew it was legal and protected by the Constitution. Chief Flynn’s position quoted from JSOnline was, “my message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we’ll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it.” Sounds like a man who makes no distinction between law-abiding citizens and criminals. That is one example, but I believe other law enforcement leaders operate under the “end justifies the means” policing model, Constitution be damned.
Law enforcement in America was never supposed to be about “ruling the people.” We are hired by “the people” to do that part of crime fighting they cannot do themselves. The citizens never gave up their protection against unlawful search of their persons, or seizure of their property, or the right to own guns and defend themselves, in that process. Does that make it harder to ferret out the criminals amongst us and arrest them? Yes it does, but it is how we protect our free society from a tyrannical government. I believe Chief Flynn is truly concerned about the safety of his officers, but law-abiding citizens are not the threat, and any law to improve officer safety must first be Constitutional.
The way it is supposed to work, is that the citizens elect people to run the government. Those elected people then hire police chiefs and officers to enforce society’s laws within the confines of the Constitution. In the case of Sheriffs, the people elect them directly. Either way, we are all accountable to the people, we are not their rulers. The law-abiding people are on our side and we should be focused on protecting their Constitutional rights, not limiting them! How did this get so backward?
The assertion, by President Obama, Senator Feinstein and Chief Flynn, that if certain types of guns or features of guns are banned, then violent crime will go away, is a fantasy. More importantly, they should not even be talking about it because the people hired them to protect that right. We should be talking about how to identify and stop people before they commit mass murders. We should be talking about why criminals remain on the street after multiple convictions for violent crimes. And we should be talking about how to change the sub-culture in this country that places no value on human life or personal responsibility.
Every American was appalled when they learned Adam Lanza inexplicably killed 20 children in their own classroom. But President Obama showed no leadership when he immediately took the focus to banning guns. That “kingly” position, shared by Senator Feinstein and Chief Flynn, essentially blames any American who supports the 2nd Amendment for those deaths, and excuses the perpetrator.
What if after Sandy Hook, President Obama had said, “this is bad; dangerous people are committing mass killings in public places, drug addicts are robbing banks, pharmacies and gas stations, and the Drug Cartels are operating in our central city neighborhoods. The violence in this country is more than our law enforcement people can handle right now. We work for you, and we need your help.” Might that have produced something more positive for this country than a threat to turn half its citizens into criminals for owning guns?
Rotten and disturbed individuals commit violent crimes, and that is where law enforcement leaders need to focus their energies. We were elected and hired by the people, and then took an oath to protect their Constitutional rights. I suggest we try a fresh angle on violent crime by inviting the law-abiding public to be a part of the solution instead of carpet bombing their individual rights. It would do Sheriffs, Chiefs and the President well to remember Sir Robert Peel’s 7th Principle of Policing:
Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
Mr. President, Chief, it’s time to trust the People, not rule them.
Dale K. Schmidt, Sheriff
Washington County, WI
All I can say is, thank God for Wisconsin county sheriffs like Milwaukee County’s David Clarke Jr. and Washington County’s Dale Schmidt.
By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)
Michelle Malkin: Chicago A ‘War Zone’ After Century Of Democratic, ‘Progressive’ Rule
I know someone out there who wants to talk about what they see as incompetent political leadership in the Chicago area.
Enter Michelle Malkin, a conservative blogger, political commentator, and author. The FOX News contributor recently spoke to Cam Edwards over at NRA News, and this is what she had to say about my hometown in a video segment that was published Monday:
It’s contortions of the most astonishing sort. But they’re shameless in blaming the NRA, Second Amendment activists, the Republican Party, George Bush- whatever conservative figure is around to blame. But they’ve had a lock, a monopoly on the “Windy City.” For almost a century now they’ve had their way. And it is ground zero for every last failed social justice experiment. Of course, foremost, gun “control.” And it’s not that they have a lot of it, it’s the most, ever (laughing) in the entire country. And these fatalities, these awful examples of violence go on daily. And it wasn’t until the death of this poor, innocent girl- who just happened to have performed during the Inauguration- that Obama and his team finally felt they needed, or were compelled, to go back to their bloody hometown.
I would think that the people in Chicago would be entirely fed up and disgusted with how they’ve been used as pawns, and how their city continues to be a war zone, even after a century of Democratic, “progressive” rule.
Which isn’t the case, as evidenced by “The Machine” being in power for as long as it has been.
“Malkin: Progressives, Democrats Have Had a 100-Year Monopoly on Running Chicago Into the Ground”
YouTube Video
By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)
Illinois State Rifle Association: Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy ‘Crosses The Line’
ISRA: Chicago Police Superintendent McCarthy Crosses The Line (via PR Newswire)
SPRINGFIELD, Ill., Feb. 17, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ –The following was released today by the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA): Chicago’s embattled police superintendent dug himself deeper into a pit of controversy today by claiming that lawful firearm owners are agents of political corruption…
By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)
California Democrats Propose Semi-Automatic Rifle Ban, Sweeping Gun ‘Control’ Measures
How many of you have heard that old saying?
“As goes California, so goes the rest of the country.”
Well, Democratic lawmakers are pushing sweeping gun “control” in the “Golden State” these days. And gun rights supporters across the nation are watching intently, fully-aware that what transpires on the “Left Coast” may be coming to their “neck of the woods” soon. From the CBS News website yesterday morning:
Weeks after New York enacted the nation’s toughest gun laws, California lawmakers said Thursday they want their state to do even more in response to recent mass shootings, particularly the Connecticut school massacre.
Democrats who control the state Legislature revealed 10 proposals that they said would make California the most restrictive state for possessing firearms…
Among the measures is one that would outlaw the future sale of semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. The restriction would prevent quick reloading by requiring bullets to be loaded one at a time.
(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)
See this firearm?
It’s a Ruger 10/22 semi-automatic rifle that’s often used by younger shooters but whose utility, ergonomics, and performance is appreciated by older ones so much that it’s been one of the most popular firearms in the United States for a long time now (it’s been produced since 1964). By the way, it also has a detachable rotary magazine that holds 10 cartridges.
Gone- if these California lawmakers get their way.
Thursday evening on the San Francisco Chronicle website, Wyatt Buchanan listed the other gun “control” measures being proposed:
Not all of the measures announced Thursday have been put in bill form, but they and other recent proposals include:
– Requiring all handgun owners to obtain an annual safety certificate akin to that required for obtaining a concealed weapons permit, which requires holders to take hours-long courses in gun use and safety.
– Barring the loaning or sale of a firearm between people who know each other personally.
– Requiring gun owners to purchase insurance to cover the cost of any damage that could result from use of a firearm.
– A 5-cent tax on each bullet purchased, with the money to be spent on either policing in high-crime areas or mental-illness screening and treatment for children.
– Requirements for ammunition sellers to be registered and sales reported to state officials.In all, state Senate Democrats plan to introduce seven bills; while in the Assembly, 13 bills and one resolution have been introduced so far, and more may be coming. The bills contain multiple gun regulations.
“The bills contain multiple gun regulations.”
Since there’s that bit about “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” in the United States Constitution, I suspect the State of California will be slapped with a lawsuit should the sweeping gun “control” ever be implemented.
By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)
Sources:
“Calif. lawmakers seek toughest gun laws in nation.” CBS News/Associated Press. 8 Feb. 2013. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57568322/calif-lawmakers-seek-toughest-gun-laws-in-nation/). 9 Feb. 2013.
Buchanan, Wyatt. “State lawmakers propose tough gun laws.” San Francisco Chronicle. 8 Feb. 2013. (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/State-lawmakers-propose-tough-gun-laws-4261890.php). 9 Feb. 2013.
Rudy Giuliani Blasts Obama Gun ‘Control’ Push As ‘False, Misleading, And To Some Extent, Unconstitutional’
Yesterday morning I happened to catch a segment on FOX News in which former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani ripped on President Obama’s new push for more gun “control.” From the exchange:
FOX NEWS: So, from your point of view, how do you characterize what’s been presented so far from the White House?
GIULIANI: I think the President’s program is false, misleading, and to some extent, unconstitutional.
FOX NEWS: Where is it unconstitutional?
GIULIANI: Well, I think that, the original Assault Weapons Ban was passed before the Heller case, before the Supreme Court made it crystal-clear that there’s a constitutional right to bear arms, that includes the right to defend yourself. So now, if you are reducing, significantly, the ability of a legitimate person to defend themselves- aren’t you violating that Constitutional right? Now consider that there are somewhere between 270 million and 300 million guns out there. A large percentage of the guns are in the hands of bad guys. So now you pass a law and you say in a Glock, you have to have a magazine that carries only 10 bullets, right? Now, it carries 15 or 16 bullets, I forget exactly what- but only 10. So now, all the legitimate people have to comply with that. Even if that’s possible to do, they all go down to 10. Every bad guy doesn’t do it (laughing). Every bad guy is now at 15 or 16. So now if you think of it this way- we have these 300 million guns, some of them are in the hands of good guys who follow the law, some are in the hands of bad guys who don’t care about the law- you’ve just increased the firepower and advantage of the bad guys over the good guys, including the police. I don’t know if the police are exempt from these laws- I’m not sure, I hope they are. I’m not sure if the ex-police officers, many of whom are in security jobs, are exempt from these laws. And then, with regard to me personally, being able to defend myself, you’ve just reduced, significantly, my ability to defend myself. You’ve just given the bad guy a great advantage over me that he didn’t have before. Does that violate the Constitutional right to bear arms where it says you cannot infringe? Cannot infringe. I think it might. It think that would be a very, very good argument.Second, everyone agrees that the definition of “assault weapon” is vague. It’s very hard to define an “assault weapon.” When does something become an “assault weapon?” The first law was notoriously ineffective because it defined “assault weapon” very vaguely. You define it vaguely now, with the new Constitutional decision, then you have an argument that it’s void for vagueness. You can’t write a vague law that restricts a Constitutional right. You have to write a very specific law that is clear. So, I think this if filled with Constitutional issues that didn’t exist the first time they went through this. I don’t see any of these people who are kind of just being very political even talking about this.
You can watch the entire FOX News segment here.
By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)
‘Huge Show Of Support’ On Gun Appreciation Day
“One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.”
-Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796 (GunCite.com)
“A huge show of support today across the country for the Second Amendment…”
“Gun owners come out in support of ‘Gun Appreciation Day’”
FOX News Video
By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)
John Wesley, Rawles On Latest Gun ‘Control’ Push
While I don’t think there is a single “face” to the Prepper Movement, a number of individuals are closely-identified with modern survivalism. One of these is James Wesley, Rawles of SurvivalBlog.com-fame. Rawles, a former U.S. Army intelligence officer and author of a number of survival-related works including Patriots: Surviving the Coming Collapse and How to Survive the End of the World as We Know It: Tactics, Techniques, and Technologies for Uncertain Times
, had this to say on his blog yesterday regarding the latest push for gun “control” in the aftermath of the Newtown, Connecticut, shootings:
Now that BHO has trotted out the kiddies to pull America’s heart strings, it is a good time to again contact your elected representatives, and insist that they draw the line in the sand on semi-auto rifles and full capacity magazines. Modern battle rifles are our rightful militia weapons, and without full capacity magazines we’d be at a disadvantage when going up against foreign invaders or domestic despots. The Second Amendment is not negotiable.
“The Second Amendment is not negotiable.”
One word comes to mind here:
Succinct.
By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)
Source:
Rawles, James Wesley, “Notes from JWR:” SurvivalBlog.com. 17 Jan. 2013. (http://www.survivalblog.com/2013/01/notes-from-jwr-598.html). 18 Jan. 2013.
Gun Appreciation Day, January 19, 2013
By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)
Too Much Uninformed Chatter About Firearms, Gun ‘Control’
“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right name.”
-Ancient Chinese proverb
On Saturday, I was watching FOX News when one of their liberal contributors, while talking about gun “control,” mentioned ammunition clips and magazines. She proceeded to complain about people making such a big deal regarding the differences between the two, displaying an attitude of “it doesn’t really matter.”
At which point I changed the TV channel.
Her ignorance regarding firearms is representative of what I’ve been witnessing in the gun “control” conversation after the Newtown, Connecticut, mass shooting. While this lack of knowledge about guns and their so-called “control” existed before, never have I’ve seen it so magnified to the degree it’s being displayed these days by politicians, journalists, bloggers, activists, Main Street, what have you.
Granted, a lot less Americans have grown up around guns than previous generations.
Still, pushing uniformed opinion as fact is inexcusable.
Which is why I’m going to suggest everyone who wishes to participate in the ongoing discussion about guns gets informed.
At risk of sounding like that talking head.
And subsequently getting tuned out by your audience.
This is what I recommend. First, learn as much as you can about firearms. There’s a lot of free, quality introductory material on these personal safety tools out there on the Internet. Query “gun basics” in a search engine and see what turns up.
Second, download and read Gun Facts, a free firearm reference book by Guy Smith I first blogged about back in December 2010. Regularly-updated, it’s now on version 6.1. From their website:
Gun Facts is a free e-book that debunks common myths about gun control. It is intended as a reference guide for journalists, activists, politicians, and other people interested in restoring honesty to the debate about guns, crime, and the 2nd Amendment.
Gun Facts has 112 pages of information. Divided into chapters based on gun control topics (assault weapons, ballistic finger printing, firearm availability, etc.), finding information is quick and easy.
Any doubts over what’s presented in Gun Facts? Try and debunk what’s been claimed.
I wrote in that December 2010 post:
While researching personal safety issues, it’s amazing how often I see people put forth arguments about guns without knowing the facts (now that I think about it, this just doesn’t apply to firearms). I learned a long time ago that if you want others to take you seriously- you’ve got to know what you’re talking about.”
I still feel the same way more than two years later. It’s time to get serious and learn the facts if you haven’t done so already.
Being an uninformed fool is one thing. However, pulling stuff out of one’s butt doesn’t cut it in a discussion about firearms and gun “control” where the implications of widely-disseminated misinformation can lead to future restrictions on a Constitutional right.
Gun Facts version 6.1 can be downloaded for free here.
Recent Posts
- Number Of Poor In Chicago Suburbs Increased 99% Over Last Decade
- RSS Feed Setting Changed
- Peter Schiff On Recovery Talk: ‘Would Have Thought People Might Have Learned Something By Now’
- Jim Rogers On What’s Happening With Commodities, Gold
- Civic Federation: Funding Continues To Decline For Chicago-Area Public Employee Pension Funds
- Standard-Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban Passes Out Of Illinois Senate Executive Committee
- Oklahoma Tragedy
- Former High-Ranking Treasury Official: Fed Ordered Attack On Gold
- Marc Faber: U.S. Government Could Manipulate Gold Price Down, Make Illegal And Confiscate, Then Revalue At Much Higher Price
- Quote For The Week
Recent Comments
- Editor on RSS Feed Setting Changed
- anonymous on RSS Feed Setting Changed
- Editor on A Lesson For Preppers From ‘The Twilight Zone’
- zooeyhall on A Lesson For Preppers From ‘The Twilight Zone’
- Editor on Quote For The Week
- Editor on Chicago Reporter Goes Off Anti-Gun Reservation
- Nina Impuesta on Quote For The Week
- Nina Impuesta on Chicago Reporter Goes Off Anti-Gun Reservation
- Editor on Quote For The Week
- tj & the bear on Quote For The Week
Blogroll
Websites
Tags
Categories
Archives
grekland resor
Finance blogs
Resa K�penhamn
SEO services provided by Search Engine Optimization
Add blog to our directory.