McDonald for Dummies...

[melloyello]

"The Second Amendment IS my Concealed Carry Permit" - Ted Nugent

I know this might be a tad off subject but Ted Nugget being a special duty sheriff and reserve constable .... has no skin in this game. Being an elite Citizen, he is protected by the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act to carry concealed in every state.

http://www.aele.org/hr218specimen.html
" H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA), was enacted July 22, 2004 as Pub. L. 108-277, and is codified as 18 U.S. Code §926B and §926C.

1. The Act permits the nationwide carrying of concealed handguns by qualified current and retired law enforcement officers and amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213) to exempt qualified current and retired law enforcement officers from state and local laws prohibiting the carry of concealed firearms."

[Bohemian]

I know this might be a tad off subject but Ted Nugget being a special duty sheriff and reserve constable .... has no skin in this game. Being an elite Citizen, he is protected by the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act to carry concealed in every state.

Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act
" H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA), was enacted July 22, 2004 as Pub. L. 108-277, and is codified as 18 U.S. Code §926B and §926C.

1. The Act permits the nationwide carrying of concealed handguns by qualified current and retired law enforcement officers and amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213) to exempt qualified current and retired law enforcement officers from state and local laws prohibiting the carry of concealed firearms."

First and foremost The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a (UNCONSTITUTIONAL) United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows (AND CREATES) two classes of persons—the "qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law enforcement officer" -- to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of any state or local law to the contrary, with certain exceptions...

It is irrelevant if Ted Nugent has no skin in the game as you put it...

His quote speaks volumes...

"The Second Amendment IS my Concealed Carry Permit"

The Second Amendment Does Not State: ... "Shall Not Be Infringed" Except...
If your zip code is x, your standing at y, or the type or class of weapon or firearm you wish to carry is z; or if you wish to carry said weapon/firearm openly or concealed...

[Bohemian]

Daley's (Obama Supported) gun ban emboldens thugs

May 29, 2010

BY ALAN GOTTLIEB AND DAVE WORKMAN

The U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to nullify Chicago's draconian handgun ban, and nothing clarifies Daley's dilemma with guns more dramatically than the slaying of home invader Anthony "Big Ant" Nelson, a 29-year-old career thug who has, according to the Chicago Tribune, a "13-page rap sheet that includes a number of drug and weapons convictions dating to 1998, according to police and court records." This neighborhood predator made what nationally recognized self-defense expert Massad Ayoob calls "a fatal error in the victim selection process."

Nelson reportedly fired a shot from a handgun -- you know, they're banned in Chicago, and convicted felons like "Big Ant" aren't supposed to have them anyway; yet another failure of gun control -- through the bedroom window of an 80-year-old Army veteran who served in the Korean War.

Most likely to Nelson's great, and terminal, surprise, the older man fired back, with his own handgun that almost certainly was not registered in the city. Had he followed the law, this gentleman, his wife, and possibly their 12-year-old grandson, who was in the next room, might all be dead right now.

Fortunately, thanks to the Illinois Legislature's override of Rod Blagojevich's veto of SB 2165 in November 2004, the older gentleman will not face prosecution. That was the "Hale DeMar" act, which protects homeowners who shoot in self-defense even if there is a local ordinance against handgun possession.

DeMar shot a burglar in his Wilmette home and was initially charged with violating that community's handgun ban, but public outrage forced the Cook County prosecutor to drop the charge.

The question remains in this case whether the old gentleman will get his gun back from the police when the investigation is completed.

Daley wants his citizens, including elderly people, to remain disarmed while only someone living in monumental denial would believe that creeps like Nelson might be deterred from packing guns illegally.

Daley has practiced anti-gun demagoguery for years, but that may soon come to a screeching halt, not only because of an affirmative high court ruling in the case of McDonald vs. City of Chicago -- the Second Amendment Foundation's case before the U.S. Supreme Court -- but also because public reaction to the Nelson shooting is decidedly in support of the man who shot him.

Chicago residents have grown weary of living in dangerous neighborhoods where, because of Daley's anti-gun policies that defend the city's ban, they have been stripped of the tools to fight back. It is their plight against armed criminals like Nelson that compelled the Second Amendment Foundation to join with the Illinois State Rifle Association and four Chicago residents to sue the city.

Reaction among Chicago residents to Wednesday's fatal shooting clearly demonstrates that the public supports this lawsuit.

While Daley appears at a press event and suggests he might like to poke a gun barrel into the rump of a reporter and fire a round, neighbors of the Army veteran who killed Nelson in self-defense, along with Chicago Sun-Times columnist Stella Foster, are telling the mayor that he needs to "come up with a better solution [to crime] than just saying 'turn in your guns.' "

Daley's stubborn defense of his city's handgun ban shows him to be so out of touch with the public, and with the reality of his city's crime problem, that he may not even be jolted to good sense by a Supreme Court loss.

Well, here is the reality: Richard Daley's policies are directly responsible for people like Nelson, because the Chicago gun ban has emboldened Windy City thugs to prey on good people they know will be disarmed. Tough luck for Nelson that one courageous older man -- a man who had been robbed at gunpoint last year in his own home for $150 -- had the fortitude and good sense to arm himself in spite of Daley's ban, and now his neighborhood is "one short" of the kind of scum that the Chicago ban has essentially protected for more than a quarter-century.

Alan Gottlieb is executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation. Dave Workman is senior editor of Gun Week. They are co-authors of 'America Fights Back: Armed Self-Defense in a Violent Age.'

Daley's gun ban emboldens thugs :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Other Views

[Bohemian]

Let's Face It, Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley Wants to Ban Guns, All Guns

By John Lott http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/
Published July 12, 2010 | FoxNews.com

As always, gun control proponents say they merely want "reasonable" gun control laws. Yet, when listing the actual laws they favor, they go well beyond what most people would possibly consider "reasonable." Just look at the gun bans in Chicago and Washington, D.C. that local politicians and gun control organizations such as the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center have fought to protect.

Today, exactly two weeks after the Supreme Court struck down Chicago's handgun ban, the city's strict new gun control laws go into effect. These new restrictions surely do not seem "reasonable" but rather intended to make life as difficult as possible for those who legally want to own a gun. Among the regulations is a complete ban on selling guns in Chicago. Also five hours of training is required, which may seem reasonable, but that training is forbidden to take place within the Chicago city limits.

And the list of odd restrictions in Chicago goes on. While people can own a handgun for protection in their homes, it only applies to some parts of what most people would consider their home: the gun cannot be used for self-defense in one's yard or garage, nor on your porch, even if it is enclosed. But certainly a garage is a possible place for criminals to strike. Is it "reasonable" that if criminals attack a family member in the garage, you aren't allowed to effectively defend them?

Further, Chicagoans are permitted to own only one handgun that is "in operating order." If you own a jewelry store that criminals might want to rob, forget it. You cannot even place your one functional handgun in your business instead of your home if you think that is the best place to put it.

Multiple residences or a very large house would not qualify for more than one gun either.

Break any of these or the numerous other regulations and you face up to a $5,000 fine and 90 days in jail.

For the second offense, the fine goes up to $10,000 and jail time goes up to six months.

Then there are the various fees and other costs of obtaining a handgun legally. A comparison with the First Amendment is useful: If Chicago were to put a tax on newspapers, even just a penny, courts would throw it out as an abridgment of freedom of speech. Why should the Second Amendment be treated any differently?

Apparently, the city of Chicago sees no constitutional problem in imposing a $100 Chicago Firearms Permit fee plus another $15 per firearm (even on the non-operational ones) every three years. A valid Illinois Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card is also required, at a cost of $10, although it seems redundant as the Chicago permit and the Illinois FOID card do the same things. On an annual basis, Chicago's fees are about 2.5 times the cost for the average concealed handgun permit.

Administrative costs are not an excuse as the Chicago fees are well exceed the costs of running the permit and registration system. Given that training requirements for concealed handgun permits don't make people who carry guns more effective at deterring criminals nor less accident prone, there is no evidence that Chicago's training requirements will make gun owners better at owning guns. What training requirements do is reduce the number of gun owners. The five hour training class, which includes one hour of range training, and the extra costs government imposes on those who want to get a single gun will run at least $200.

Let's face it, Mayor Richard Daley wants to ban guns, all guns. And he thinks that a complete ban is a "reasonable" regulation. The Supreme Court has ruled that he is not allowed to ban guns, but this is not going to change his mind about guns in the slightest. Daley now wants to place as restrictive rules as he thinks that the courts will let him get away with. Pretending that these rules are anything more than an attempt to limit gun ownership as much as possible is simply dishonest.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "More Guns, Less Crime."(University of Chicago Press, 2010), the third edition of which was published in May.

FOXNews.com - Let's Face It, Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley Wants to Ban Guns, All Guns



http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/022...hnrlotttrip-20





http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/