Chicago could require gun owners get training, liability insurance if handgun ban ove

Chicago could require gun owners get training, liability insurance if handgun ban ove

This is a discussion on Chicago could require gun owners get training, liability insurance if handgun ban ove within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Chicago gun owners could be required to take a training course, register their firearms, allow police to perform ballistics tests and even purchase liability insurance, ...

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 67
  1. #1
    Member Array Sgt Z Squad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Democratic Socialist Connecticut
    Posts
    120

    Angry Chicago could require gun owners get training, liability insurance if handgun ban ove

    Chicago gun owners could be required to take a training course, register their firearms, allow police to perform ballistics tests and even purchase liability insurance, if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the cityís strictest-in-the-nation handgun ban.

    Mayor Daley isnít saying precisely what he will do in the face of almost certain defeat.

    But to protect first-responders, heís prepared to go above and beyond the replacement model crafted by Washington D.C. after its handgun ban bit the dust.....City could require gun owners get training, liability insurance if handgun ban overturned :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: City Hall
    Certifed Sig Classic Pistol Armorer
    USMC: 1975-1979
    Lawdog: 1980 to ???
    Soldier of Christ: January 2000 to Eternity
    A Sheepdog who has found the Shepherd
    Romans 5:8


  2. #2
    Member Array Griffworks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Central Arkansas
    Posts
    343
    My first thought is that the article comes across as Mayor Daley being extremely Anti-2A. His proposals smack more of trying to drum up hysteria and make excuses than honest concerns for his First Responders.

    In depth, tho... Requiring owners receive Firearms Training isn't at all a bad idea, IMNSHO. After all, how can making you more familiar w/your firearm(s) and how to safely handle them be a Bad Thing? Making owners more conversant w/the basics of the laws ain't at all bad, either.

    All the rest, tho...? Doesn't seem quite right to me, but then again a lot of states require automobile owners to have at least collision insurance, right? On the outside, that seems like the proposal is along those lines, as well.

    'Course, if firearm insurance is even remotely expensive, not so sure I'd want to live in Chi-Town - or any other city/state that requires same.

    As to registering your firearm(s), that doesn't seem like quite a big deal to me. After all, the vast majority of us are law abiding citizens, so what do we have to hide by registering our pieces? On the other hand, tho, when Russia & China invade us, wouldn't it be that much easier for them to find those of us who own?

    (and yeah, I'm just kidding about Russia and China invading. I'm more worried about the very real danger of the Zombie Apocalypse starting)
    Arkansas Concealed Carry Instructor #12-751

    If guns kill people, then:
    Pincels miss spel werds;
    Cars make people drive drunk;
    And spoons made Rosie O'Donnel fat.

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Griffworks View Post
    My first thought is that the article comes across as Mayor Daley being extremely Anti-2A. His proposals smack more of trying to drum up hysteria and make excuses than honest concerns for his First Responders.

    In depth, tho... Requiring owners receive Firearms Training isn't at all a bad idea, IMNSHO. After all, how can making you more familiar w/your firearm(s) and how to safely handle them be a Bad Thing? Making owners more conversant w/the basics of the laws ain't at all bad, either.

    All the rest, tho...? Doesn't seem quite right to me, but then again a lot of states require automobile owners to have at least collision insurance, right? On the outside, that seems like the proposal is along those lines, as well.

    'Course, if firearm insurance is even remotely expensive, not so sure I'd want to live in Chi-Town - or any other city/state that requires same.

    As to registering your firearm(s), that doesn't seem like quite a big deal to me. After all, the vast majority of us are law abiding citizens, so what do we have to hide by registering our pieces? On the other hand, tho, when Russia & China invade us, wouldn't it be that much easier for them to find those of us who own?

    (and yeah, I'm just kidding about Russia and China invading. I'm more worried about the very real danger of the Zombie Apocalypse starting)
    If you require registration you can be taxed more, denied certain privileges simply because you're a gun owner, passed over for a job by someone who doesn't like the fact that you own firearms (he or she might think you're a nut), hassled by LEO and government officials because you own a lot of guns and they think you're going to go crazy shooting up everything, and worst of all they know which house to go to when they start picking them up from people.

    Registration can be nothing but bad and should NEVER happen ever.

    One thing I don't understand is the liability insurance. No insurance company I know of offers some type of insurance that guards against your use of firearms against another person which is the only reason this would even be brought up. You assume your own risk when you purchase and use firearms and might even have coverage through the NRA's insurance program to cover your injuries while hunting or other usages. IL would be better served to go to castle doctrine so there can be no liability in a self defense situation. Bad guy down, save the state money prosecuting him and prevent tying up the court system with bogus "i'm gonna sue you for shooting my poor boy who never did no wrong" (even though he's been in and out of jail for years for all manner of crimes and violence.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Laws are restrictive but sometimes necessary to maintain a civil society. Rights are nonrestrictive but are always necessary to maintain a free society.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Array JohnK87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Hastings, MN
    Posts
    600
    Training can be expensive and difficult to schedule, insurance rates can be arbitrarily raised (with pressure from the state insurance commissioners), ballistics tests are worthless, and registration is a prelude to harassment and confiscation. Other than that, not too many problems.
    ‎An enemy of liberty is no friend of mine. I do not owe respect to anyone who would enslave me by government force, nor is it wise for such a person to expect it. -- Isaiah Amberay

  5. #5
    Senior Member Array rmodel65's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    934
    training is a back door ban on the low income....
    S&W M&P40/M&P9c OC rigs
    S&W 640-1 or Sig P238 as a CC rig
    proud www.georgiacarry.org member
    Second Amendment Foundation Life member

  6. #6
    Member Array Griffworks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Central Arkansas
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by cmdrdredd View Post
    If you require registration you can be taxed more, denied certain privileges simply because you're a gun owner, passed over for a job by someone who doesn't like the fact that you own firearms (he or she might think you're a nut), hassled by LEO and government officials because you own a lot of guns and they think you're going to go crazy shooting up everything, and worst of all they know which house to go to when they start picking them up from people.

    Registration can be nothing but bad and should NEVER happen ever.
    Very good points. Thanks for pointing them out.


    Quote Originally Posted by JohnK87 View Post
    Training can be expensive and difficult to schedule, insurance rates can be arbitrarily raised (with pressure from the state insurance commissioners), ballistics tests are worthless, and registration is a prelude to harassment and confiscation. Other than that, not too many problems.
    In the state of Arkansas, Training from a certified instructor is required in order to apply for a CHL. Various instructors charge - obviously - different rates. The most expensive I've seen listed was $150, while there's another guy near in the greater Little Rock Area who charges $50 for most civilians, but for Military it's only $25. There's another fella and his wife who teach CHL classes to females for FREE. The class I took cost me $75 - and to which I later found out I didn't require as Military have a "by" on taking a class if they're already M9 qualified w/in the last year (I am), have lived in AR for at least 90 days (been a Resident since 1978) and have a letter from their CO or designee stating that they are a person of good character, which waves the need for a class, and something my instructor failed to let me know about! (Needless to say, that instructor won't be getting any recommendations from me for his class )

    Some of the instructors do their class twice a month, while others every weekend. There's a core critieria that the instructor has to teach or they lose their certification as an instructor. Making sure folks know how to properly handl and fire their weapon is a part of that class, as well.

    Perhaps it's my Military experiences, but I really think that training of some sort should be a requirement in all states. Heck, even knowing some of the Military folks I know, I'm not real fond of some of them handling firearms just for training purposes, let alone every day carry. I know a few more civilians who make me even more fearful that they might be allowed to handle a firearm w/o some sort of formal training, even if it's just a four to six hour class.

    So, I reiterate my thinking that having folks go thru some sort of training is a Good Thing.

    I won't argue the point on the other issues you bring up, as I agree w/you on them to a point.

    Quote Originally Posted by rmodel65 View Post
    training is a back door ban on the low income....
    How so? Seems a bit reactionary to me. Registration costs can be more so than training costs, in my experiences. It costs $144 to the state of Arkansas to apply for your CHL. Training class costs aren't regulated, as I mention above, and I only paid $75 for the class. If someone wants something bad enough, they'll budget for it.
    Arkansas Concealed Carry Instructor #12-751

    If guns kill people, then:
    Pincels miss spel werds;
    Cars make people drive drunk;
    And spoons made Rosie O'Donnel fat.

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,037
    In FL you have to take a basic gun safety class. No specific curriculum required or specified. LEO and Military, both current and retired, only need provide proper documentation to prove that you are an LEO or served in the military (Military ID or DD214 is ok) and you get your permit. No specific training requirements either. You could even apply and receive a non-resident FL permit without any training as former military and it's good in WA, ID, MT, WY, UT, AZ, AK, NM, TX, LA, OK, AR, ND, SD, NE, KS MS, AL, GA, NC, VA, WV, KY, TN, IN, OH, PA, DE, & VT. While NH, SC, CO, and MI only honor resident permits from FL.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Laws are restrictive but sometimes necessary to maintain a civil society. Rights are nonrestrictive but are always necessary to maintain a free society.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array rmodel65's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by Griffworks View Post

    How so? Seems a bit reactionary to me. Registration costs can be more so than training costs, in my experiences. It costs $144 to the state of Arkansas to apply for your CHL. Training class costs aren't regulated, as I mention above, and I only paid $75 for the class. If someone wants something bad enough, they'll budget for it.


    umm lets see i have no income so i should be denied my RTKBA because i cant pay a fee to exercise a civil right?? it is an outright ban on people who dont have funds to pay a fee....i already had to pay 40$ for the permit so i wouldnt be jailed

    if i have a right to do something i dont need permission(permit) they are contradictions in terms. i have the right because there is no one to get permission from the right is inherent in my humanity and it can not be taken by government because government doesnt give any rights. govt only has the privileges i allow it to have


    but requiring a fee to exercise a right isnt legal...what would you do if tomorrow you woke up and had to pay money to the state to go to church...or print a flyer up or to speak in public??

    no state shall convert a right into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.
    -murdok v. pennsylvania, 319 US 105

    if the state converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.
    -shuttleworth v. city of birmingham alabama 373 US 262

    the court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secure rights
    -boyd v. u.s., 116 US 616

    where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    -miranda v. arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)

    an unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as though it had never been passed.
    -norton v. shelby county, 118 US 425
    S&W M&P40/M&P9c OC rigs
    S&W 640-1 or Sig P238 as a CC rig
    proud www.georgiacarry.org member
    Second Amendment Foundation Life member

  9. #9
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,037
    Unfortunately the 2008 Heller vs DC decision also stated...
    "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

    So it still leaves open the idea of requirements be met.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Laws are restrictive but sometimes necessary to maintain a civil society. Rights are nonrestrictive but are always necessary to maintain a free society.

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,078
    This is why my parents are moving out of IL to a free state....

    And Daley running his mouth about licensing and training is PRECISELY why training should NOT be mandated or required to exercise a right.
    Magazine <> clip - know the difference

    martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
    You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know

  11. #11
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,356
    He should face jail time for every home invasion murder in his city (if courts rule against ban) for obstruction of justice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sgt Z Squad View Post
    Chicago gun owners could be required to take a training course...
    Most likely, such a thing could be put into place for carry, but not ownership, and be constitutional.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sgt Z Squad View Post
    ...register their firearms, allow police to perform ballistics tests...
    As long as it is done in a timely manner, would be considered constitutional.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sgt Z Squad View Post
    ...and even purchase liability insurance....
    This is the most interesting one. I'm guessing it will be determined it is constitutional to do prior to permit to carry. I'm not sure how the courts would rule on this concerning ownership, but I'm thinking they can't require this for ownership.

    I could be wrong, I don't think the government can require insurance on personal property (they can require a title) that is out of public view and not used outside the home. Zoning codes are relevant (commercial machinery, etc). While some will point out motor vehicles, I don't think you are required in the U.S. for say a car in a storage unit (not in public view).

    Not provideing my views, just guessing how it might turn out.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  12. #12
    Member Array Griffworks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Central Arkansas
    Posts
    343
    I'd like to clarify something I said earlier about training....

    What I mean is that there should be required training in every state for CHL/P. To me, you need to be conversant w/the laws, how to better carry concealed and how to properly employ/operate your firearm before you are licensed to carry same in a concealed fashion.

    I also don't see it as a bad thing for folks to go thru some basic firearms training to own a firearm - regardless of CHL/P. I don't see how it could do any harm. It's really not any different than how some states require hunters to go thru a hunters safety course (usually w/in a timeframe of two to three years) prior to being issued a license/permit to hunt - or operate a motor vee-hickle.
    Arkansas Concealed Carry Instructor #12-751

    If guns kill people, then:
    Pincels miss spel werds;
    Cars make people drive drunk;
    And spoons made Rosie O'Donnel fat.

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,002
    Unless and until the SCOTUS comes down heavily on the side of a relatively unencumbered application of the 2A to all states, it'll be up to each state to vary its implementation.

    Illinois most certainly will continue to dig exceedingly deep holes in front of anyone seeking the right to bear arms, making it as difficult as possible to legally carry and to remain legal while carrying.

    The fingernail marks will be evident on every CHL card issued, clearly. Wouldn't surprise me if training and a few other hurdles were implemented, at least for a long while. But, corrupt officials will come and go. The People remain. The People will carry, at some point. It's going to happen. Though, it's going to take a sea change of the sort that Illinois hasn't seen in 100yrs in order for generally accepted carry of arms to become the norm. IMO, it can't occur soon enough.

    Hang in there, IL citizens. Hang in there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Griffworks View Post
    It's really not any different than ... hunters safety course ... operate a motor vee-hickle.
    Except for the little wrinkle of being a protected right. All the difference in the world, right there.

    Uncertain about the "right" in IL. Not every free state has embedded this right of the people in the state constitution.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Griffworks View Post
    I'd like to clarify something I said earlier about training....

    What I mean is that there should be required training in every state for CHL/P. To me, you need to be conversant w/the laws, how to better carry concealed and how to properly employ/operate your firearm before you are licensed to carry same in a concealed fashion.

    I also don't see it as a bad thing for folks to go thru some basic firearms training to own a firearm - regardless of CHL/P. I don't see how it could do any harm. It's really not any different than how some states require hunters to go thru a hunters safety course (usually w/in a timeframe of two to three years) prior to being issued a license/permit to hunt - or operate a motor vee-hickle.
    Someone should not ever be told they need a class to own a firearm. If someone wants a shotgun for the home, let them do the waiting period if there is one and that's that. You don't need to tell me I'm qualified to protect myself and my family at my own home. I take all responsibility once i leave the store, what happens in my home is my business unless it is illegal and protecting oneself is not illegal. Now to walk around with a concealed handgun then one should be versed in the laws of his or her state. So a class to explain that seems reasonable, but just to own a gun? Hell no! If you want one go buy one, the RIGHT to bear arms shall NOT be infringed.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Laws are restrictive but sometimes necessary to maintain a civil society. Rights are nonrestrictive but are always necessary to maintain a free society.

  15. #15
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,762
    If you think training should be required to own a firearm, then you probably wouldn't mind having a college speech course required before you can be allowed to practice 'free speech'...gotta' be careful how you use your words ya' know.

    RKBA is pretty clear to me.
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Liability Insurance
    By Kahrdoor in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 17th, 2010, 12:11 AM
  2. Insurance for CIVIL liability suit in Self Defense Injury or Death
    By Bag Man in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: October 23rd, 2009, 09:42 PM
  3. Firearms Liability Insurance
    By Pikachu711 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2009, 11:31 PM
  4. Is firearms training a legal liability?
    By Dusty Miller in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: November 21st, 2007, 04:07 PM
  5. Liability Insurance
    By Bumper in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: February 14th, 2005, 12:54 PM

Search tags for this page

chicago firearm certification classes

,

chicago gun insurance

,

chicago gun owner forum

,

chicago gun owners insurance

,

could you buy a pistol without take a gun class in chicago

,

firearm becomes permanently unregisterable

,

florida, gun owner liability insurance

,

gun insurance chicago

,

gun training insurance

,

handgun carry liability insurance

,

how much does it cost to register your firearm in chicago

,

in chicago, if you already own a hand gun can you still register the hand gun?

,

libility insurance for handgun owners

,

required training for gun owners

,

sgt z cop chicago

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors