His big idea? Issue titles for guns.
Mayor Emanuel compared his proposed legislation to requiring a title for a vehicle....but what is different now? That doesn't answer the question. You have a long history of doing what, exactly?
“You already buy a title for a car. There are other things – you buy a title for a boat,” Emanuel said. “I’m not asking you to do anything you don’t do already.”
Police Supt. Garry McCarthy calls the proposed legislation common sense.
“This law is not a gun grab. It does not infringe upon anyone’s Second Amendment rights,” he said.
The idea came from the activist priest the Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina parish.
“It’s not conservative issue, and it is not a progressive issue. It is not a Chicago or downstate issue,” Pfleger said. “It is a human life issue.”
Mayor Emanuel acknowledged that a statewide gun registry has been proposed before, and has failed. What is different now?
“I have a long history, both on the Brady Bill, assault weapon ban, and passing gun legislation,” Emanuel said.
So when you buy a gun you pay the state $65 and you get a title to your gun.
"It's not a gun grab," the chief of police says. The mayor says he's looking to "close a loophole".
What they're doing is looking to make a statewide registry of guns so that--when they find a way around the second amendment--they can go door-to-door and confiscate weapons and know they got all the legally-owned firearms. That's all it's for; registration always precedes confiscation.
Canada is only the most recent example; they were only going to register firearms to "close loopholes" and to "reduce gun crime", you know, and it "wasn't a gun grab" at all!
No, the "gun grab" came a few years later on.
I do not and will not and never will trust government with too much power. I don't want the government to know how many and what kinds of guns I've got; first off it's none of their damned business and secondly one of the founding principles of the country is innocent until proven guilty. Laws like this demonstrate a philosophy of, "We know that you're going to commit crimes with that weapon, because as a
* * *
This kind of thing is why I don't trust government, especially these days. Obama's making changes to Bush's idiotic "No Child Left Behind" on his own authority.
See, here's how law is supposed to be changed:
1) Some Congresscrit or another suggests a change to an existing law.
2) The change is voted on by both houses of the legislature.
3) If the change passes, it then goes to the President, who either signs or vetos the law. If he signs it, it's law; if he vetos it, it's not.
4) If Congress can pass the law again with a 2/3 majority, it becomes law anyway. (I think it was 2/3. It was at least 2/3; maybe it was 3/4.)
Notice that the procedure for changing a law is exactly the same as the procedure for enacting a law in the first place? There's a reason for that: it's this little thing called "rule of law" and it's a founding principle of the nation. Everyone has to follow the rules. Even the President.
But here's what Obama is doing:
1) Obama's staff writes an executive order for him to sign, exempting certain parties from the law, even though "...[N]othing in federal law grants Obama the power to issue these conditional waivers. He is unilaterally rewriting federal education policy through selective enforcement."
2) Obama signs it.
If this is allowed to stand it will basically allow future Presidents to rewrite any law they find inconvenient, to say nothing of giving Obama himself unprecedented power.
* * *
It's always fun to get blogrolled! Bluesun over at Dead Man Dance has added the Fungus to his blogroll. Thank you!
This being LJ there's no good way for me to do a blogroll, and I still haven't gotten around to doing my blogroll post. *sigh* Soon, soon....
* * *
It's getting later and I still haven't gotten my shit together to go to CompUSA. Part of me wants to put it off until tomorrow; part of me says, "Go now! WTF?"
Bleah. All I want is to go back to bed; this anxiety stuff is draining.