Showing posts with label Chicago. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chicago. Show all posts

Crime down after Supreme Court overturns city gun bans



What about the claim that accidental gun injuries are rising? Despite the claim, I think that it is very hard for anyone to say that accidental gun injuries have been rising. Indeed, the general trend has been clearly downward.














Well, gun injuries are not very well tracked, but accidental gun deaths are falling.






Just a note on the claim that 30,000 people die each year from guns.

Latest numbers
8,775 firearms 2010
554 accidents 2009
18,735 suicides 2009

Total: 28,064

percent suicides: 67%

Even those few studies that say that gun bans reduce gun suicides don't find that they change total suicides.

Some nutty comments on the Fox News piece by Media Matters. Media Matters doesn't seem to understand that you can get some benefit from loosening gun control laws and still want to loosen them even more to get more benefits. I know that it is a deep concept for Media Matters. One big benefit from the Supreme Court decision is that over 70,000 DC residents who have registered long guns could now use them for self defense.
DC's phony crime closure rates

DC's phony crime closure rates

This is one way to increase the closure rate. Put solved cases from many years in the numerator and only this year's cases in the denominator. From the Washington Post:

For the past two months, D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier has touted the city’s astronomically high homicide closure rate — 94 percent for 2011 — and warned anyone contemplating murder in the District to think twice.

“Your risk of being caught is pretty high if you commit a homicide in D.C.,” Lanier told The Washington Post in December.

The closure rate she presents for the District is 154 percent higher than Boston’s and at least 104 percent higher than Baltimore’s, and it gives residents reason to believe that D.C. police have been remarkably successful at solving homicide cases under her watch.

But an examination of District homicides found that the department’s closure rate is a statistical mishmash that makes things seem much better than they are. The District had 108 homicides last year, police records show. A 94 percent closure rate would mean that detectives solved 102 of them. But only 62 were solved as of year’s end, for a true closure rate of 57 percent, according to records reviewed by The Post.

D.C. police achieved the high closure rate last year by including about 40 cases from other years that were closed in 2011. . . .
Chicago Most Corrupt City In Nation?

Chicago Most Corrupt City In Nation?

From the local CBS Chicago Radio affiliate:

A former Chicago alderman turned political science professor/corruption fighter has found that Chicago is the most corrupt city in the country.
He cites data from the U.S. Department of Justice to prove his case. And, he says, Illinois is third-most corrupt state in the country.
University of Illinois professor Dick Simpson estimates the cost of corruption at $500 million.
It’s essentially a corruption tax on citizens who bear the cost of bad behavior (police brutality, bogus contracts, bribes, theft and ghost pay-rolling to name a few) and the costs needed to prosecute it. . . .
Remember how Chicago murder rate fell last year?  Well, don't look to arrests for murder being the cause

Remember how Chicago murder rate fell last year? Well, don't look to arrests for murder being the cause

"Only 30 Percent Of Last Year’s Murders Have Been Solved"

Murders in Chicago were down last year, but it’s a different story when it comes to the number of murders actually solved.

As WBBM Newsradio’s Steve Miller reports, the murder clearance rate – the number of homicides that were solved the same year – has slipped. . . .

So what happened to Chicago's Murder and Violent Crime rates after the Supreme Court decision in June 2010 striking down Chicago's gun laws?

In DC, the change in gunlock laws as a result of the Supreme Court decision meant that about a third of adults already had registered long guns that they were now allowed to legally load and fire for self defense.  In Chicago, very few new guns have been allowed and that gun ownership is essentially restricted to relatively well to do areas (see below).  Yet it is the poorest parts of the city where crime is the worst and where people need guns the most for self protection.  One would thus expect a much bigger change in crime rates from the Heller than the McDonald decisions.  Still, for Chicago, the change in the law has not had the bad effect that many had predicted.



This data is available here. Since murder and other crime rates vary over the course of the year, it is important to compare the same months in 2010 and 2011. Data for other months is available here. I had some discussion on the data for the last half of last year here.

A discussion on what happened in DC after the Heller decision is available here (also here).




Predictions:

District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty had his own prediction: "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence."


Or this:

Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley predicted disaster. He said that overturning the gun ban was "a very frightening decision" and predicted more deaths along with Wild West-style shootouts and that people "are going to take a gun and they are going to end their lives in a family dispute." . . .


Crime was a central concern among the dissenters in the Heller case.
If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self- defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence. If it is indeed the case, as the District believes, that the number of guns contributes to the number of gun- related crimes, accidents, and deaths, then, although there may be less restrictive, less effective substitutes for an outright ban, there is no less restrictive equivalent of an outright ban. . . . In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.
—Justice Stephen Breyer, dissenting in District of Columbia v. Heller, June 26, 2008


The possible harm from guns was central to his dissent, and the words “crime,” “criminal,” “criminologist,” “homicide,” “murder,” “rape,” “robbery,” "suicide," and “victim” were used a total of 122 times in forty-four pages.

I like this justification by then Mayor Daley about his request for five round the clock armed police bodyguards for after he retires:

"The safety of my family comes first,” said Daley, who leaves office on May 16. “I’ve been mayor for 22 years, and my wife has made a commitment [to the city]. … Former mayors received security appropriately. … It’s appropriate for every former mayor. Yes, it’s always appropriate.”


A couple follow up articles on who gets handguns in Chicago http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/chicago-gun-registration/Content?oid=4066384">here. From Mick Dumke's article in the Chicago Reader:

John Lott, an economist who argues that gun control laws like Chicago's actually lead to higher crime, says the cost of meeting the gun application's training and registration requirements essentially discriminates against low-income black communities. In Chicago, the training and permit fees cost about $250 on top of the price of the gun.

"Those who are most likely to be victims of crime benefit the most from owning guns, and unfortunately, that is one very well defined group in our country, poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas such as Chicago," Lott wrote in an e-mail. "But these white, middle class areas can much more easily afford the fees to register their guns and to go through the training requirements."

Roderick Sawyer, alderman of the Sixth Ward, is skeptical of that theory. "It's like buying a car," he says. "If you want one you'll find a way to do it." . . .

UPDATE: Here are the crime data for Chicago in 2011.



Where is the ACLU in Chicago and DC gun fee cases?

Where is the ACLU in Chicago and DC gun fee cases?

The ACLU in Missouri is suing to stop a proposal that would require voter IDs. One of their arguments is that even though the IDs are given out for free initially, eventually people will be required to buy one. The ACLU states that this requirement for the law would "disenfranchise impoverished voters." Yet, the fee for these IDs that they eventually will have to get is small compared to the fees required to register handguns in Chicago or DC. So if the ACLU believes their claim about the voter IDs, why isn't the ACLU trying to protect "impoverished" citizens who are being denied their ability to defend themselves and their families in those cities?

By the way, since the voter IDs are initially given out for free, it seems like it will be years before there will be standing to bring this part of the ACLU case.
Possibly the Alderman should just carry a concealed handgun: Powerful Chicago Politicians have been getting armed bodyguard protections for decades

Possibly the Alderman should just carry a concealed handgun: Powerful Chicago Politicians have been getting armed bodyguard protections for decades

This powerful city alderman supported gun control at the same time that he demanded two armed body guards protect him at all times.

Mr. Burke, 67 years old, received his security detail in 1983, when he was a prominent critic of Harold Washington, the city's first black mayor, and the city was deep in racial and political strife.

In 1986, the acting Chicago police commissioner tried to reduce the number of Mr. Burke's bodyguards to two from four. The alderman sued the city, arguing that the move was political retaliation. The police countered that the manpower was no longer necessary because threats against Mr. Burke had petered out, according to court transcripts.

Mr. Burke's attorney argued at the time that his client wouldn't be safe with only one officer assigned to him. If he was being pursued by an attacker at high speed in a car, the lone bodyguard would have difficulty driving while simultaneously calling for backup and shooting at the pursuer, the lawyer said, according to transcripts filed in Cook County Circuit Court.

The court sided with Mr. Burke, who went on to become Mayor Richard M. Daley's key legislative ally. The court also said the matter should be reviewed every few years. . . .

In May, before he stepped down, Mr. Daley told reporters he had been the subject of threats throughout his career and defended the need for a continued security detail. "The safety of my family comes first," he said.
7th Circuit Appeals Court strikes down Chicago ban on gun ranges within the city limits

7th Circuit Appeals Court strikes down Chicago ban on gun ranges within the city limits

This major decision says that the 2nd Amendment should be treated like the Freedom of the Press in the 1st Amendment. This is really a major decision. It also clearly says that gun rights are protected outside the home just as they are in the home. A copy of the Court's decision is available here. Regarding Chicago's claim that people could go to gun ranges in other jurisdictions, the court ruled:

It’s hard to imagine anyone suggesting that Chicago may prohibit the exercise of a free‐ speech or religious‐liberty right within its borders on the rationale that those rights may be freely enjoyed in the suburbs. That sort of argument should be no less unimaginable in the Second Amendment context. . . .

the Court quoted at length from the “massively popular 1868 Treatise on Constitutional Limitations” by judge and professor Thomas Cooley: “[T]o bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them . . . ; it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.” 554 U.S. at 616, 617‐18 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also id. at 619 (“ ‘No doubt, a citizen who keeps a gun or pistol under judicious precautions, practices in safe places the use of it, and in due time teaches his sons to do the same, exercises his individual right.’” . . .

we can distill this First Amendment doctrine and extrapolate a few general principles to the Second Amendment context. First, a severe burden on the core Second Amendment right of armed self‐defense will require an extremely strong public‐interest justification and a close fit between the government’s means and its end. Second, laws restricting activity lying closer to the margins of the Second Amendment right, laws that merely regulate rather than restrict, and modest burdens on the right may be more easily justified. How much more easily depends on the relative severity of the burden and its proximity to the core of the right. . . .


After the decision, the City of Chicago changed its law, but it is my understanding that it will still have trouble with this new law. From the Peoria Journal Star:

Chicago's City Council has swiftly approved allowing gun ranges to set up shop on the same day a federal court ruled the city can't ban the ranges.

The council approved the Mayor Rahm Emanuel-backed ordinance Wednesday because they anticipated the ruling by the federal appellate court in Chicago would be coming. The court struck down a provision of the city's gun ordinance banning the ranges.

Chicago has long fought to ban gun ownership outright. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the city's handgun ban last year. Then-Mayor Richard Daley pushed through an ordinance that required gun owners to receive firing range training but prohibited ranges in the city. . . .


Thanks to Tony Troglio for this last link.

UPDATE: There is some fallout from this Circuit Court decision.

Capitalizing on its federal appeals court victory Wednesday in Ezell v. City of Chicago, the Second Amendment Foundation today moved for a preliminary injunction against the State of Illinois to prevent further enforcement of that state's prohibitions on firearms carry in public by law-abiding citizens.
The motion was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in Springfield. Joining SAF in this motion are Illinois Carry and four private citizens, Michael Moore, Charles Hooks, Peggy Fechter and Jon Maier. The underlying case is known as Moore v. Madigan.
Illinois is the only state in the nation with such prohibitions. The state neither allows open carry or concealed carry, which runs afoul of recent U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment rulings, including last year's landmark ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, another SAF case. SAF was represented in McDonald and Ezell by attorney Alan Gura, who noted after yesterday's appeals court win – forcing a temporary injunction against the city's ban on gun ranges that the city immediately changed after the decision was announced – that "Even Chicago politicians must respect the people's fundamental civil rights…Gun rights are coming to Chicago. The only question is how much the city's intransigence will cost taxpayers along the way."
"Now that the Seventh Circuit has recognized that the deprivation of the right of armed self-defense is an inherently irreparable injury, it is clear that Illinois' law-abiding gun owners are entitled to a protective injunction," said attorney David Jensen of New York, who, along with Glen Ellyn, IL attorney David Sigale, is representing SAF and the other plaintiffs. . . .

Do high fees help prevent poor people from getting guns for protection?


High fees to obtain a gun prevent poor people from getting guns. I have pointed to panel evidence of this not only in my book, More Guns, Less Crime, but in cross-sectional data (see for example this data from Texas). Here is some new evidence for Chicago from the Chicago Reader. The panel data allows for better controls for the different reasons that people own guns, but, at least in this case, the cross-sectional data is still consistent.

John Lott, an economist who argues that gun control laws like Chicago's actually lead to higher crime, says the cost of meeting the gun application's training and registration requirements essentially discriminates against low-income black communities. In Chicago, the training and permit fees cost about $250 on top of the price of the gun.

"Those who are most likely to be victims of crime benefit the most from owning guns, and unfortunately, that is one very well defined group in our country, poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas such as Chicago," Lott wrote in an e-mail. "But these white, middle class areas can much more easily afford the fees to register their guns and to go through the training requirements."

Roderick Sawyer, alderman of the Sixth Ward, is skeptical of that theory. "It's like buying a car," he says. "If you want one you'll find a way to do it."


A surveys of readers on the question "Does the city's gun registration law discriminate against low-income residents?" is available at ChicagoNow.
Daley asks for five round the clock armed police bodyguards for after he retires

Daley asks for five round the clock armed police bodyguards for after he retires

Chicago police might be down 2,300 below authorized strength, but soon to be retired Chicago Mayor Daley thinks that his safety is so important that he should have five armed bodyguards. It is nice to know that Daley continues to believe that guns are very important for his own and his family's personal protection.  From the Chicago Sun-Times:
Mayor Daley on Thursday defended his request to continue using Chicago Police officers as bodyguards after he leaves office — a courtesy that former Mayor Jane Byrne never received and considers unnecessary.

“There’s been threats all through my career. … The safety of my family comes first,” said Daley, who leaves office on May 16.
“I’ve been mayor for 22 years, and my wife has made a commitment [to the city]. … Former mayors received security appropriately. … It’s appropriate for every former mayor. Yes, it’s always appropriate.”

Daley refused to comment on reports that he had requested a pair of vehicles in political retirement — one for himself, the other for his wife, Maggie, who is battling breast cancer and remains hospitalized with flu-like symptoms. . . .

Byrne, Daley’s political arch rival, took issue with Daley’s claim that “former mayors received security appropriately.”

When Byrne was defeated in 1983 after serving a single term, she was neither offered nor received bodyguard protection — and that was just fine with her.

“I expected it to end, and it did. Once you leave, you leave. You have to take care of yourself. You’re no longer mayor,” Byrne said. . . .

Fraternal Order of Police President Mike Shields called the mayor’s request ill-timed when a two-year police hiring slowdown has left the Chicago Police Department more than 2,300 officers-a-day short of authorized strength, counting vacancies and officers on medical leave and limited duty.

“We have an extreme manpower shortage. The citizens of Chicago can feel that shortage. To ask for five bodyguards is ridiculously excessive,” Shields said.

“If the department were up to 13,500 officers, it would not be a problem. But officers are working in one-man cars. Police officers can’t go to weddings and family events because there is such a shortage.” . . .
How can Mayor Daley get guns so backwards?

How can Mayor Daley get guns so backwards?

Daley opposes permitted concealed handguns because of assassinations? How many permit holders have engaged in an assassination? This is like the notion of gun-free zones around politicians. You will end up with only bad guys near the politician.

Speaking out against the legislation, Daley invoked the assassination of Martin Luther King, Junior.

"We have learned nothing from that assassination. We have learned nothing that guns are killing another generation of young people. There have to be more people to stand up. Not those that have lost their loved ones, but anybody standing up on behalf of some child lost today or tomorrow or last week." . . .

My newest Fox News piece: "My Scary Encounter With Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley"

My newest piece starts this way:

Chicago-style politics is infamous for kickbacks, dead people voting, and thuggery. Alas, it is not just a relic of the past. In fact, witness recent stories of Chicago city workers being hired or promoted based on how well they got voters to the polls and not how well they did their official jobs, children getting admitted to prestigious city schools based on political connections, and the granting of city contracts.
Unfortunately, I know first hand more than I would like about Chicago politics. A decade ago, I was working at the University of Chicago Law School as an Olin Fellow, doing research and some teaching, when I happened to cross paths with Mayor Richard Daley. As he is now about to retire from office, it is time for the facts to come out.
As the author of the book "More Guns, Less Crime" and someone living and working on Daley's home turf in Chicago, I was not one of his favorite people. . . .

Oak Park's crime rates fall after handgun ban is ended


This article is from the January 18th issue of the Wednesday Journal, the weekly newspaper for Oak Park and River Forest. Burglaries feel by 34 percent. Do you think that making it easier for people to own handguns in the home might have had some impact of this crime category? A brief history of Oak Park's gun ban is available here. On July 19, 2010, Oak Park amended its town ordinance "to allow registered owners to use handguns for protection in their homes."

Thanks very much to George Sandersfl for sending me this copy of the newspaper article.
Rahm Emanuel says the residency rules for running for office be damned if they don't work for him

Rahm Emanuel says the residency rules for running for office be damned if they don't work for him

Apparently there is an exception in the residency law if the president gives you a job offer.

"Fundamentally, when a president asks you to serve the country as his chief of staff, you do it," Emanuel said. “Fundamentally, when a president asks you to serve the country as his chief of staff, that counts as part of serving your country," Emanuel said. "I have no doubt that in the end we will prevail at this effort. As my father always used to say, nothing is ever easy in life. This is just one turn in the road.

“The Supreme Court has an obligation -- not an obligation -- to hear the case, to make a decision quickly, so both not only voters have a clarity they need, but there’s a clarity to the issues we are discussing in front of the voters as it relates to the challenges that we have as a city for our future," Emanuel said. . . .


The law isn't as important as what Emanuel decides that the end goal should be. You know that there is a reason why there are residency requirements.
"I do believe that the people of the city of Chicago deserve the right to make a decision on who they want to be their next mayor,” Emanuel said. . . .

The judges were pretty clear and what they say seems obvious.
The judges panel said it had concluded that Emanuel “neither meets the Municipal Code’s requirement that he have ‘resided in’ Chicago for the year preceding the election in which he seeks to participate nor falls within any exception to the requirement.” . . .

Weren't Chicago's murder rates supposed to soar after the Supreme Court Decision?


The data are available here, here, here, here, and here.

In June this last year, people were worried that Chicago's murder rates were going up:

Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis released sobering statistics on city crime Sunday morning, announcing that homicides were higher through May 2010 than they were to that point last year.
The results were more encouraging in other areas, as total crime was down nearly 6 percent and other violent crimes fell 12 percent.
But the murder rate was particularly troubling to Weis. "Homicides have continued to challenge us," he said.
"This is still a work in progress," Weis said of the city's effort to reduce murders. "We study it and are working to get officers in the right place to stop acts of violence."
Across Chicago, 164 homicides were recorded through May of this year. That's a 4 percent increase over the 158 homicides in January through May of 2009, according to figures reported by the Chicago Sun-Times. . . .


In late April last year with murders outpacing the rate over the same time during 2009, one headline read: "Ill. State Reps Ask Gov. For National Guard to Cut Murder Rate."

Mayor Daley was using the higher murder rate to call for even more gun control.

The homicide rate in Chicago has jumped in the past month, and the city is grappling with how best to respond.
At least two weekends in a row have been marred by multiple killings. For many Chicagoans, the breaking point was last Wednesday, when a 20-month-old girl was shot in the head while in a parked car on the South Side. The alleged gunman, who turned himself in, was reportedly aiming for the girl’s father.
As of last Sunday, Chicago tallied 113 homicides for 2010, compared with 101 for the same period last year.
The city’s mayor, state lawmakers, and the Chicago Police Department, among others, are weighing in on what should – and shouldn’t – be done.
On Sunday, state Reps. John Fritchey and LaShawn Ford, both Democrats, suggested that the National Guard should be dispatched to curb the recent rise in violence. They made the proposal to Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D). . . .


Among the predictions about what would happen after the court's decision, you have this:

Justice John Paul Stevens, who warned that the McDonald ruling "could prove far more destructive - quite literally - to our nation's communities" than the precedent case, Heller. He was hardly alone. The ruling is "bad news for democracy and public safety," warned the Kansas City Star. "Today's decision will only add to" the firearms death toll, wrote the Violence Policy Center's Josh Sugarman, who insisted that "more guns means more gun death." The McDonald ruling "moves us toward anarchy," shrieked The Washington Post's David Ignatius. "Perhaps Chief Justice Roberts and other enthusiasts for our newly-created universal right to bear arms should take a trip to Beirut or Baghdad and see how this idea works out in practice." . . .


Now what a difference six months makes. This month the Chicago Tribune's headline read: "Chicago homicides in 2010 fell to lowest level since 1965."

Chicago police Superintendent Jody Weis largely credited computerized research that helps police determine where violent crimes are likely to occur for what he called a historic drop in homicides in 2010.
Homicides fell to 435, the city's lowest total in almost half a century and a 5.4 percent drop from 460 in 2009. That marked the fewest murders since Chicago recorded 395 homicides in 1965, Weis said at a news conference Monday. . . .


Note that Chicago enacted a new gun control law that went into effect two weeks after the Supreme Court decision in McDonald.

Bucking a national trend toward more tolerance for firearms, Chicago today begins enforcing the toughest gun law in the nation -- and it's already under fire.
Two lawsuits have already been filed against the ordinance, which bans gun shops in the city and limits permit holders to one ready-to-fire weapon inside the home -- excluding the porch, the garage or the yard. People are allowed to own more guns, but they cannot be loaded.
Legal experts say the law is not bulletproof and could be headed toward the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in June that Americans have the right to possess handguns for self-defense. That ruling made the Chicago's existing gun ban, which had been in effect for 28 years, unenforceable. In its place Mayor Richard M. Daley and the City Council created the new law that goes into effect today. . . .


Some anecdotal evidence of increased gun sales.

After a Supreme Court decision affirming the right to bear arms was handed down in June, the owners of Midwest Sporting Goods, just outside of Chicago, started noticed something any retailer would find encouraging – an increasing number of customers. . . .
"It's not like sales suddenly went through the roof," he said. "There are still restrictions and waiting periods. But we are anticipating a major increase in sales going forward. It's not going to happen overnight, but it's going to happen."
Others in the industry agree that sales of firearms, particularly pistols and revolvers, could explode. . . .


My discussion on the new law is here.

For a discussion of the rate that new permits have been issued see here.
A note on the person making the residency decision for Rahm Emanuel in Chicago's Mayorial race

A note on the person making the residency decision for Rahm Emanuel in Chicago's Mayorial race

John Fund has this in the WSJ Political Diary. The most interesting point that I had missed was that the hearing officer is a conservative Republican. Fund might also have mentioned that Emanuel only amended his return after Daley announced that he wasn't running for re-election.

. . . Mr. [Rahm] Emanuel is being challenged by citizens who say his candidacy runs afoul of a law requiring the mayor to have been a resident of the city for a year prior to winning election. Mr. Emanuel, who has lived in Washington, D.C., for the past two years while working at the White House, claims the law doesn't apply because he always intended to resettle in Chicago and left some boxes stored in the Chicago home that he rented out when he moved away.

At a raucous hearing last week, Mr. Emanuel was confronted with his 2009 Illinois state income tax return, on which he listed his residency status as "part-time." He said that he had made a mistake and amended the return, even though he had read and signed the original document.

The initial decision on whether Mr. Emanuel is eligible for the ballot will be made by hearing officer Joe Morris, a distinguished Chicago attorney and staunch conservative. Mr. Morris has been praised by all sides for his fairness during the hearing. He said that both sides should trust him because "a Republican has no dog in the fight." . . .
Rahm Emanuel claimed that he wasn't a full-time resident in Chicago during 2009

Rahm Emanuel claimed that he wasn't a full-time resident in Chicago during 2009

For those following whether Rahm Emanuel is eligible to fun for mayor in Chicago, Emanuel's tax return for 2009 indicates that he isn't eligible.

When Rahm Emanuel originally filed his 2009 Illinois tax return, he indicated he was only a “part-year resident’’ of the state that year, since he had moved to Washington D.C. to serve as President Obama’s chief of staff.
But after he decided to return to Chicago to run for mayor this fall -- and after several people challenged whether he was eligible to run based on the fact that he hadn’t lived in the city for a full-year prior to the Feb. 2 election -- he filed an amended return, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. . . .


But there is no reason that these rules should apply to Emanuel. In fact, as just noted above, after all this became an issue Emanuel refiled his returns. I have a hard time believing that any normal court could accept such a change, but rules are probably not rules for Democrats such as Emanuel.

The Chicago Tribune has this about the date of the amended tax return.

In his original 2009 Illinois tax return, Emanuel checked the box "part-year resident" and noted he lived in Chicago through June 30, 2009. The amended return is dated Nov. 24 of this year, the same day the first formal objections against Emanuel were filed with city elections officials. . . . .
Former Chi. Alderman: weapons are so much easier to obtain illegally that the gun laws only make it more cumbersome for citizens to register firearms.

Former Chi. Alderman: weapons are so much easier to obtain illegally that the gun laws only make it more cumbersome for citizens to register firearms.

The new Chicago rules make it a time consuming process for even retired police officers to register their handguns.

The city ordinance has also been used to keep guns from citizens who try to register them legally. Gun owners rejected for registration violations have the right to appeal the decision and have an administrative hearing.

In 2009, Niles Sherman’s effort to register a handgun was denied, even though he had been allowed to register the weapon and four others since before the handgun ban went into effect. Mr. Sherman, 81, an alderman of the 21st Ward from 1979 to 1987, is supposed to be exempt from the handgun ban because he had been a Chicago police officer. But last year he was told that the city had no evidence that he was collecting a police pension.

Mr. Sherman said that was because his police pension was wrapped into the pension he got from his time on the City Council. Presented with further documentation, a hearing officer reversed the police department’s decision.

“The whole thing was so much you-know-what,” Mr. Sherman said. “I earned the right to have those guns, I bought them and, last but not least, if need be, I can use them.”

Mr. Sherman said he recently tried to register under the new ordinance, along with 255 others as of mid-August, a police spokesman said, adding that 156 applications have been approved. Mr. Sherman’s was not one of them; he was told he had to undergo a new round of training on a shooting range.

The original intent of the handgun ban was to make it more difficult to get a firearm in Chicago. Now, Mr. Sherman said, weapons are so much easier to obtain illegally that the gun laws only make it more cumbersome for citizens to register firearms.

“Why don’t I just do like these punks on the street have done,” he said, “and put my guns away and pull them out and use them when I want?”
Gun sales increase in Chicago area?

Gun sales increase in Chicago area?

ABC News seems to think that there are signs of it occurring.

After a Supreme Court decision affirming the right to bear arms was handed down in June, the owners of Midwest Sporting Goods, just outside of Chicago, started noticed something any retailer would find encouraging – an increasing number of customers.

With Chicago's 28-year ban on handgun ownership rendered unconstitutional, more people were coming into Midwest, in Lyons, Illinois, to exercise their Second Amendment rights, according to Noel, the store's owner. He asked that his last name not be published.

Lock and Load
"It's not like sales suddenly went through the roof," he said. "There are still restrictions and waiting periods. But we are anticipating a major increase in sales going forward. It's not going to happen overnight, but it's going to happen." . . .