User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/14/2014 9:01:36 PM EDT
[#1]
was also cited with having unregistered guns. What is the status of gun registration in Chicago? Didn't some of that crap go away? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/14/2014 9:50:58 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What is the status of gun registration in Chicago? Didn't some of that crap go away? Quote HistoryQuoted:
was also cited with having unregistered guns. What is the status of gun registration in Chicago? Didn't some of that crap go away? This is exactly what makes no sense. It did go away. This act by CPD should concern anyone that lives in a community that had a registration scheme before the preemption took effect last year. See/read notice A-2 of the CPD Notice below. CPD Notice |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2014 2:54:25 AM EDT
[#3]
Prolly a stupid reporter.
It's not like reporters are infallible in their reporting of gun stories. You know, like .9mm bullets and .12 gauge shotguns. And then there's the "everything is an AK-47" poster... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2014 3:18:08 AM EDT
[#4]
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE98A15220130911?irpc=932
Chicago Reluctantly Ends Gun Registration
By Renita Young CHICAGO (Reuters) - Chicago on Wednesday reluctantly abolished a 45-year-old requirement that gun owners register their weapons with the city, marking a victory for advocates of gun rights such as the National Rifle Association. The city council voted to end the gun registry in place since 1968 to comply with court rulings against Chicago and Illinois gun control laws, and to bring the city into line with a state concealed carry law. "I happen to think the court's wrong. I think their interpretation is wrong," Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said of the rulings that forced Chicago to eliminate the registry. He spoke after the council voted. Chicago has faced a wave of gang-related violence that pushed its murder rate to a five-year high in 2012. While the number of homicides is down this year, police have complained that the city is awash in guns. The Chicago decision came one day after the gun rights lobby scored a victory in Colorado, ousting two lawmakers who had supported gun control in the state legislature. The powerful NRA, which boasts millions of gun owners as members, has successfully employed tactics, such as recalls and challenges to gun control laws in court, as a way to get strict enforcement of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which sets out the right to bear arms. "We're glad the Chicago firearm registration is gone," said Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, the local affiliate of the NRA. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2010, in a case challenging Chicago's gun restrictions, that every state and city must adhere to the Second Amendment. The ruling did not strike down the Chicago restrictions directly, but sent the case back to a U.S. appeals court for review. In December 2012, the appeals court ruled that Illinois's ban on concealed carry was unconstitutional and gave the state six months to create a law allowing guns to be carried in public. Illinois approved a concealed carry law in July, giving control of gun regulations to the state and essentially nullifying Chicago's power to require that gun owners register their weapons and have a city firearms permit. The measures approved by a voice vote on Wednesday complied with the new state law. In addition to eliminating the gun registry, the measures eliminated the requirement for gun owners to have a Chicago firearm permit. (Reporting by Renita Young; Additional reporting by Brendan O'Brien; Editing by Greg McCune, Nick Zieminski and Leslie Adler) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2014 4:50:22 AM EDT
[#5]
I sure thought that the registration crap was gone but, wondered if I had missed something.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2014 6:00:47 AM EDT
[#6]
I hope we hear more about this case. Is this a case of a reporter adding to the story, or are the CPD charging people on laws that no longer exist?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2014 6:09:22 AM EDT
[#7]
Some IllinoisCarry members contacted the Dr. and he said the registration offense was in the police report.
This isn't surprising...The Cook County government workers in general just don't get the law...They still try to goof around with passing new handgun laws and restrictions. They are either blissfully ignorant or just can't get their heads around the fact that they don't have that power anymore. (sucks to be them) Those charges (registration) will be thrown out at some point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2014 6:12:23 AM EDT
[#8]
there is no current chicago ordinance that he would be in violation of. it is possible he was dumb enough to admit to having the guns while the ordinance was still in effect. I don't know what the statute of limitations is on ordinance violations.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2014 6:36:46 AM EDT
[#9]
I doubt the firearm registry violation will go anywhere.
I would be more concerned about the Reckless Discharge of a Firearm charge. He is lucky he did not hit someone when he fired the round. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2014 6:38:10 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
there is no current chicago ordinance that he would be in violation of. it is possible he was dumb enough to admit to having the guns while the ordinance was still in effect. I don't know what the statute of limitations is on ordinance violations. An innocuous-sounding "How long have you had these firearms" and "Have you always kept them here" and instant self-incrimination. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2014 7:32:05 AM EDT
[#11]
Registration is the least of this idiot's problems. A conviction for felony reckless discharge of a firearm will result in his loss of ability to possess a firearm anyway. Doofus. Who puts a round into a neighbors house and calls it a "nervous tic"?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2014 8:03:08 AM EDT
[#12]
I might suggest he sell all of his firearms, including revolvers, and purchase the older H&R Model 32s.
Those were notorious for having near 20 lb trigger pulls. I doubt his "nervous tick" could overcome that. Or maybe even better, use some common sense and buy guns with external safeties, and assume they are loaded until you check, EVERY TIME. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2014 8:07:29 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I might suggest he sell all of his firearms, including revolvers, and purchase the older H&R Model 32s. Those were notorious for having near 20 lb trigger pulls. I doubt his "nervous tick" could overcome that. Or maybe even better, use some common sense and buy guns with external safeties, and assume they are loaded until you check, EVERY TIME. Either that or a nagant revolver lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2014 1:42:46 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Registration is the least of this idiot's problems. A conviction for felony reckless discharge of a firearm will result in his loss of ability to possess a firearm anyway. Doofus. Who puts a round into a neighbors house and calls it a "nervous tic"? Yeah, nice excuse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2014 9:11:29 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An innocuous-sounding "How long have you had these firearms" and "Have you always kept them here" and instant self-incrimination. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
there is no current chicago ordinance that he would be in violation of. it is possible he was dumb enough to admit to having the guns while the ordinance was still in effect. I don't know what the statute of limitations is on ordinance violations. An innocuous-sounding "How long have you had these firearms" and "Have you always kept them here" and instant self-incrimination. I thought it was sort of an ex post facto thing - can't charge someone for breaking a law that didn't exist when they committed an act and can't charge someone for breaking a law that no longer exists.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2014 10:36:14 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought it was sort of an ex post facto thing - can't charge someone for breaking a law that didn't exist when they committed an act and can't charge someone for breaking a law that no longer exists.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
there is no current chicago ordinance that he would be in violation of. it is possible he was dumb enough to admit to having the guns while the ordinance was still in effect. I don't know what the statute of limitations is on ordinance violations. An innocuous-sounding "How long have you had these firearms" and "Have you always kept them here" and instant self-incrimination. I thought it was sort of an ex post facto thing - can't charge someone for breaking a law that didn't exist when they committed an act and can't charge someone for breaking a law that no longer exists.... That would be correct Sage. I consulted a lawyer friend whom confirmed your statement. Much of what has been printed should not be. The Doc should have kept his mouth SHUT. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 7:53:04 AM EDT
[#17]
It will be very interesting to see why he was charged with unregistered firearms. I'm hoping details of this case leak out. At IC, another member had communicated with the reporter to verify that he was charged with unregistered guns. The reporter replied to say he had received numerous inquiries from other people asking the same question but that the police would not comment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 9:00:09 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Either that or a nagant revolver lol Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I might suggest he sell all of his firearms, including revolvers, and purchase the older H&R Model 32s. Those were notorious for having near 20 lb trigger pulls. I doubt his "nervous tick" could overcome that. Or maybe even better, use some common sense and buy guns with external safeties, and assume they are loaded until you check, EVERY TIME. Either that or a nagant revolver lol He can just buy a new Bodyguard .380 if he doesn't like revolvers. First one I shot had me convinced it was somehow broken. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 2:42:28 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It will be very interesting to see why he was charged with unregistered firearms. I'm hoping details of this case leak out. At IC, another member had communicated with the reporter to verify that he was charged with unregistered guns. The reporter replied to say he had received numerous inquiries from other people asking the same question but that the police would not comment. Any link to that reporters report would be appreciated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 5:34:28 AM EDT
[#20]
He should not have been charged for the multiple counts of "unregistered" firearms, obviously these officers didn't read the notice that was sent out via Corp Counsel. What's worst is the fact that a supervisor approved the charges in the arrest!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 12:27:37 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He should not have been charged for the multiple counts of "unregistered" firearms, obviously these officers didn't read the notice that was sent out via Corp Counsel. What's worst is the fact that a supervisor approved the charges in the arrest! I don't think you'll hear a more qualified opinion than this one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:53:05 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He should not have been charged for the multiple counts of "unregistered" firearms, obviously these officers didn't read the notice that was sent out via Corp Counsel. What's worst is the fact that a supervisor approved the charges in the arrest! Thank you for the input CPD1515. I am not disappointed that Chicago is such a legal mess. As of late it's been a Constitutional rights battle ground, and depending on who you ask, the pro 2A side is winning. Chicago can't afford another lawsuit and this case is headed there. We'll see where this goes, but I guess it quietly goes away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 3:16:00 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Registration is the least of this idiot's problems. A conviction for felony reckless discharge of a firearm will result in his loss of ability to possess a firearm anyway. Doofus. Who puts a round into a neighbors house and calls it a "nervous tic"? Well it's from a person not wanting to admit the truth and just one of many excuses I've read when someone was playing with a gun, didn't follow the rules and had an ND. I'm surprised he didn't say "it just went off." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 8:32:45 AM EDT
[#24]
Getting a felony charge for the reckless discharge seems excessive to me if noone was hurt.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 5:56:43 PM EDT
[#25]
(720 ILCS 5/24-1.5) Sec. 24-1.5. Reckless discharge of a firearm. (a) A person commits reckless discharge of a firearm by discharging a firearm in a reckless manner which endangers the bodily safety of an individual. (b) If the conduct described in subsection (a) is committed by a passenger of a moving motor vehicle with the knowledge and consent of the driver of the motor vehicle the driver is accountable for such conduct. (c) Reckless discharge of a firearm is a Class 4 felony. (d) This Section does not apply to a peace officer while in the performance of his or her official duties. Olivieri admitted to discharging the firearm. The prosecutor will just need to prove he did it recklessly. Based on the limited info from the various news sources, that doesn't seem like a large leap. I'm not saying it's right, but it's the law of the land right now. It could also be a ploy to get him to plea down to UUW, which would also end up with him losing his FOID and firearms. Hopefully he has a good lawyer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 6:48:05 PM EDT
[#26]
What if it would have been a slamfire? Would that count as reckless? It doesn't suprise me that it was in cook county.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 7:43:21 PM EDT
[#27]
Good question. I bet he would be charged anyway, because it's Cook County. Anything to get those "illegal guns" off the streets. What the guy really needs is a good, hard slap to the back of the head.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2014 1:06:31 AM EDT
[#28]
"Olivieri admitted to discharging the firearm. The prosecutor will just need to prove he did it recklessly. Based on the limited info from the various news sources, that doesn't seem like a large leap. I'm not saying it's right, but it's the law of the land right now.
It could also be a ploy to get him to plea down to UUW, which would also end up with him losing his FOID and firearms. Hopefully he has a good lawyer." ----Not UUW, please refer to following language in 720 ILCS 5/24-1: "............except when on his land or in his own abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission." This case will go nowhere, more than likely he will just receive probation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2014 7:47:40 AM EDT
[#29]
he can likely afford a good lawyer and probably should get one pronto and let his lawyer do his legal thinking for him.
it is not unusual for cases like this to get pled down. the felony charge might be an issue with his medical license. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2014 12:40:47 PM EDT
[#30]
I like the "except police officers".
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
