Quote of the day—City of Chicago Attorney

Where people are known to gather with guns can be attractive to criminals.

City of Chicago Attorney
April 4, 2011
Starting at about 29:15 in the recording of the oral arguments.
[I couldn’t quite figure out what the attorney’s name was perhaps it was “Feldman”. But that doesn’t matter as much as he represented Chicago and that he and probably others that wrote the Chicago brief had never been to a gun range yet proclaimed they knew enough to justify banning them in the city.

I question the factual basis of the above assertion and even if it were conceded as a fact that would not be sufficient grounds to infringe upon the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Using the same logic as above they could also ban parking lots because they can attract car thieves, grade schools because they can attract child molesters, and banks because they can attract robbers. I view the statement above just as bigoted as saying places where people with dark skin loiter attracts an illegal drug trade hence those kind of people are not allowed to loiter on public streets.

It was very pleasant to hear the attorney get slapped around pretty hard by two of the judges.

H/T to Sebastian and David Hardy.—Joe]

6 thoughts on “Quote of the day—City of Chicago Attorney

  1. “But that doesn’t matter as much as he represented Chicago and that he and probably others that wrote the Chicago brief had never been to a gun range yet proclaimed they knew enough to justify banning them in the city.”

    That came up during during arguments. He said he’d never actually been to a gun range.

  2. Gun banners don’t actually know what the features on so-called “Assault Weapons” do or why they’re on those guns. They don’t know what a clip or a magazine is. They don’t know why 10 rounds are good, but 11 rounds are evil.

    I believe it was Ron Barret who said that all supporters of gun control were either ignorant or evil.

    I’d say he’s 100% correct. Either they have NO fucking clue what they’re talking about…or they know they’re lying, but its worth it to deprive good people of their human rights.

  3. At one point after your quote the female judge tries– for about the sixth or seventh time– to remind the city’s attorney that the injury is not the travel to a gun range but the complete ban on their existence, and she states, “The City requires this as a component of ownership but prohibits a citizen from getting that training without leaving the city. How do they even think that’s rational?” She obviously doesn’t speak to gun-grabbers much. Rationality has nothing to do with the argument!

  4. At one point, it got so bad, I was just waiting for one of the judges to come out and say “look, you just don’t think civilians should have guns right? You just don’t trust civilians other than cops to have guns. Just admit it”.

  5. “Where people are known to gather with guns can be attractive to criminals.”

    You know, that does makes a little sense. Capital hill has a lot of armed guards, there seems to be a lot of criminal types inside the capitol.
    What do they call themselves again, I know there is a funny name they use for themselves.

    Oh yeah, they call themselves Politicians…

Comments are closed.