Chicago's City Council will vote today on whether or not to repeal many of Chicago's most oppressive gun laws. The vote, in what the Chicago Tribune refers to as "the latest blow to the city's gun control efforts," is expected to be in favor of repeal, because the state's new concealed carry law leaves the city little choice in the matter, by preempting most local gun laws (with the notable exception of "grandfathering" preexisting bans of so-called "assault weapons").
The NRA describes the expected changes, already approved Monday by the City Council's Public Safety Committee:
If the City Council passes this amended ordinance tomorrow [today], the following pro-gun changes will be made to current Chicago firearm laws:
- No requirement to register lawfully owned firearms, eliminating the necessity to obtain a Chicago Firearms Permit (CFP).
- No requirement to complete the five additional hours of training required to obtain a CFP.
- May possess and transport lawfully owned handguns outside of the home.
- No prohibition from carrying or possessing ammunition.
The proposed changes would still seem to fall short of bringing Chicago's gun ordinances (ordnance ordinances?) into line with Illinois' new preemption of firearms laws, let alone shall not be infringed. Chicago intends, for example, to continue to require that all guns not "on the person" of the owner be locked up in any household containing "children" under the age of 18 (even for a momentary visit). State law only imposes such a requirement when the children are under 14, and even then, the gun owner is only prosecuted if a child's access to the gun leads to death or great bodily harm.
Alderman Edward Burke chastised NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde for objecting to Chicago's stricter (and illegal) requirement. From the Chicago Sun-Times:
“So you’re against an ordinance that mandates, if you have a gun in your house, it ought to be secure….You oppose an ordinance that tries to increase safety in the homes in Chicago?” said Ald. Edward M. Burke (14th), who sponsored the trigger-lock ordinance.
Vandermyde countered, “We don’t oppose safety measures by and large. But we see these as being impediments to the lawful use of self-defense."
Mr. Vandermyde's (who got off a beautifully devastating zinger on Burke) point is, of course, a valid one, and not only by virtue of the fact that in an emergency, the gun owner will (somehow) have to unlock the gun in time to stop the threat. Chicago law will continue to mandate that responsible kids, proficient in the use of firearms, be disarmed and helpless in the event of sheer evil coming to visit--and this is not a hypothetical scenario, nor is the vastly happier alternative.
Chicago also intends to maintain its ban on laser sights for guns, apparently on the theory that improved accuracy is "too dangerous." If accuracy is the problem, one cannot help but wonder why they haven't bothered to ban all gun sights.
Chicago has an even longer, harder slog out from under the thumb of forcible citizen disarmament tyranny than the rest of the state does. Good to see that the process has started. It's vital--for the children.