Chicago Mayor Daley Annoyed
The Chicago Tribune reported this week that Mayor Richard Daley is annoyed that the “Chicago Police Department has not set up a database to let police officers and firefighter know how many firearms are registered in each home in the city.”
Daley has stated that the registry would “help protect first responders by letting them know what kind of situation they might encounter.”
The police department has responded that the entries are being entered and that the system will be up in place in the coming weeks. Wouldn’t you feel safer knowing that the police would have a registry that will tell whether you have a gun, and how many you have?
Personally, we wouldn’t like such a system. Imagine if it could be hacked, and used by criminals to determine whose houses to rob? And there is always the possibility that such a database would make it vastly easier for the police to collect your firearms. Wouldn’t that be a lot more than annoying?
Chicago’s Daley Calls for Strict Registration and Training
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley looks to make it, or rather keep it, difficult to legally obtain a handgun in the Windy City. While the long standing handgun ban has been overturned in the recent SCOTUS ruling, Daley seems to be on the offensive offering that the process of obtaining a gun should be as difficult as possible.
The Chicago Sun Times offered some thoughts in a news item, noting that Daley is hiding behind “first-responders” and could model new laws after those in place in Washington, D.C. The nation’s capital’s laws were noted in the paper:
“Washington requires gun owners to get five hours of safety training, register their firearms every three years and face criminal background checks every six years. Gun owners there are further required to submit fingerprints and allow police to perform ballistic tests. They must keep revolvers unloaded and either disassembled or secured with trigger locks unless they have reason to fear a home intruder.”
While this might seem reasonable, consider that the point of the case was so that people could have guns to defend their homes. What good is a disassembled firearm when you have an armed intruder in your home? And the suggestion of “unless they have reason to fear,” is vague at best. The rest of these restrictions are also a bit extreme. What exactly is done in five hours of safety training? And more importantly, the costs of these measures isn’t mentioned.
Couldn’t it be argued that these are just additional taxes on the poor and middle class? Rich people might not need to buy a gun for protection for example. But the paper further notes it could be even more expensive for those who want a gun:
“Those provisions apparently don’t go far enough for Daley, who hinted strongly at an insurance component to protect public safety workers and taxpayers.”
Here too Daley is off the mark. While we admit that first responders should be protected, is there really an added danger for them if an individual owns a gun? Couldn’t it be argued that first responders might not need to respond if criminals suddenly have to worry about breaking into homes where the owner might be armed? It wouldn’t be open season on every elderly person’s home any longer.
