Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:37 am

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 6 posts ] 
 Copying full text of news articles 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 12:48 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
For posterity:

Quote:
Chicago defies forgotten 2nd Amendment

Steve Chapman
November 27, 2008

Since the Supreme Court upheld the individual right to own guns last summer, one municipality with handgun bans after another has faced reality. Washington, which lost the case, changed its law. <a class="taxInlineTagLink" href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/us/illinois/cook-county/morton-grove-PLGEO100100501960000.topic" title="Morton Grove" id="PLGEO100100501960000">Morton Grove</a> repealed its ban. So did <a class="taxInlineTagLink" href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/us/illinois/cook-county/wilmette-PLGEO1001005011510000.topic" title="Wilmette" id="PLGEO1001005011510000">Wilmette</a>. Likewise for <a class="taxInlineTagLink" href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/us/illinois/cook-county/evanston-PLGEO100100501430000.topic" title="Evanston" id="PLGEO100100501430000">Evanston</a>. Last week, Winnetka followed suit.<br><br>Then there is Chicago, which is being sued for violating the 2nd Amendment but refuses to confront the possibility that what the Supreme Court said may apply to this side of the Appalachians. <br><br>When it comes to firearms, <a class="taxInlineTagLink" href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/politics/government/richard-m.-daley-PEPLT007475.topic" title="Richard M. Daley" id="PEPLT007475">Mayor Richard Daley</a> is no slave to rationality. "Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society?" he asked after the ruling came down. "Then why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West, where you have a gun and I have a gun and we'll settle it in the streets?"
From listening to him, you might assume that the only places in North America that don't have firefights on a daily basis are cities that outlaw handguns. You might also assume that Chicago is an oasis of concord, rather than the site of 443 homicides last year.

Steve Chapman Steve Chapman Bio | E-mail | Recent columns

So it's no surprise that Daley refuses to make the slightest change to the handgun ordinance, preferring to fight the lawsuits filed by the National Rifle Association. He is not impressed that 1) the law almost certainly violates the Constitution, which elected officials are supposed to uphold, and 2) it would cost taxpayers a lot of money to fight lawsuits the city is bound to lose.

The Chicago ban dates back to 1983, when no one had to worry about the forgotten 2nd Amendment. The ordinance prohibited the possession of all handguns (except those acquired before the law took effect).

It had no obvious benefits: Homicides climbed in the ensuing years and by 1992 were 41 percent higher than before. But the policy rested undisturbed until last summer, when the Supreme Court ruled that Washington's ban on handguns violated the individual right to use arms for self-defense in the home.

If that logic applies to the Washington statute, it very likely applies to Chicago's law. The city, however, notes that the nation's capital is a federal enclave, and that the court did not say states must respect the 2nd Amendment. That's true. The court's ruling also did not say that China is in Asia, which doesn't make it part of South America.

Once upon a time, the Bill of Rights restricted only what the federal government could do: States were free to restrict free speech, conduct unreasonable searches and impose cruel and unusual punishments. But nowadays the court says that because of the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, states must respect virtually all the rights set out in the Constitution.

There is no reason to think the justices would exempt the 2nd Amendment from that rule. Ronald Rotunda, a constitutional scholar at Chapman University law school, thinks the Chicago ban has no more than a one in five chance of surviving court review.

That might be worth the gamble except for all the money the city is asking to be relieved of. The losing side would not only have to cover the costs of its own lawyers, but also pay the winning attorneys. In the Washington case, the amount has not been settled, but the lawyers who handled the suit asked the court for nearly $3.6 million, while Washington offered $800,000. So if Daley insists on fighting all the way to the Supreme Court, the total tab would probably run into multiple millions.

The city says this is not necessarily money that can be saved, because even a revised ordinance could face a court challenge. But sensible changes might deter opponents from pursuing a lawsuit and, if not, at least the new version would stand a good chance of being upheld. Judging from its lawsuit, the NRA is aiming only at eliminating the city's ban on handguns, which is what the Supreme Court would almost surely demand anyway. Daley's recalcitrance may be viscerally satisfying to him and some others, but it doesn't change the choice the city faces. It can change the law now, or it can change it later. Later would be a lot more expensive.

Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board and blogs at chicagotribune.com/chapman.

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 2:50 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 4:05 pm
Posts: 312
Location: SE Metro
While I have done it here in the past, I don't generally post the text from copyrighted sources to avoid causing problems for the site owner.

Is this okay in the future?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:52 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
I have generally quoted the full text and included a link. My thinking was then it was cited and credit given. Online news often goes down the memory hole quickly so a static link to a moving target is inefficient.

You raise a good point about copyright but I'm not a Copyright lawyer so I simply don't know. Opinions?

_________________
Certified Carry Permit Instructor (MNTactics.com and ShootingSafely.com)
Click here for current Carry Classes
"There is no safety for honest men, except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edwin Burke


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:14 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:22 pm
Posts: 339
Location: Suburban Twin Cities, MN
Technically, wholesale copying of an article, like above, is a copyright no-no.
Unless you have the permission of the author or the material has been explicitly placed (or already was) in the public domain copying COULD get you in trouble. Is the Chicago Tribune going to come after Andrew for "saving" the opinion piece? Probably not, but they do own the article.

My understanding of fair-use allows a brief/partial quote of the material and a link.

More reading here: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:02 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am
Posts: 5270
Location: Minneapolis
If they were to come after anyone for violating fair use, odds are very good the first thing they would do is send a "cease and desist" letter notifying them of the alleged violation and offering them the opportunity to remedy or rebut the situation.

I wouldn't lose any sleep about it until that happens.

_________________
I am defending myself... in favor of that!


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:11 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
On the other hand, quoting the whole article for the purpose of fisking it might meet the fair use test.

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 6 posts ] 

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group