If some one living in NYC or DC wants legally purchase a gun and keep it in
their house/apartment, how is this done?

Are the gun bans in these cities a violation of the 2nd amendment?

Thanks,
Brett

Larry wrote:
"Richard" wrote: Brett wrote:
Are the gun bans in these cities a violation of the 2nd amendment?
If it is a carte blanche ban, yes. The "right to keep and bear arms" may not be denied by any state or city government.
Actually, iRichard, it is illegal to own, buy, or possess a hangdgun in the city of Chicago. What do you have to say about that?

I say it's a good thing that the city of Chicago doesn't know what I might
happen to have in my bags when I drive through Chicago.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3F242F95.E34F8D5E@worldnet.att.net... Larry wrote: "Richard" wrote: Brett wrote:> Are the gun bans in these cities a violation of the 2nd amendment? If it is a carte blanche ban, yes. The "right to keep and bear arms"
may not be denied by any state or city government. Actually, iRichard, it is illegal to own, buy, or possess a hangdgun in the city of Chicago. What do you have to say about that? I say it's a good thing that the city of Chicago doesn't know what I might happen to have in my bags when I drive through Chicago.

That's just it. Is it worth it to try? You can be stopped for anything.
Having the weapon in your possession will ruin you.
-- Theodore A. Kaldis kaldis@worldnet.att.net

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:15:18 -0500, Brett <bbsouth@Bellsouth.net> wrote:"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in messagenews:3F242F95.E34F8D5E@worldnet.att.net... Actually, iRichard, it is illegal to own, buy, or possess a hangdgun in the city of Chicago. What do you have to say about that? I say it's a good thing that the city of Chicago doesn't know what I might happen to have in my bags when I drive through Chicago.That's just it. Is it worth it to try? You can be stopped for anything.Having the weapon in your possession will ruin you.

If there's an interstate travel aspect to your trip, you should be able
to find a federal court to throw out the charges.

But even so - why would anyone travel _through_ Chicago? Traffic is horrid.

--
Conservatives never seem to fully appreciate the fact that the issues are
never the issue where liberals are concerned. For liberals the issue is
power. Whatever serves their need for power is right; whatever frustrates
it is wrong.
- David Horowitz

"Brett" <bbsouth@Bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ghWUa.4067$jI6.466@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com... "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:3F242F95.E34F8D5E@worldnet.att.net... Larry wrote: "Richard" wrote:> Brett wrote:>> Are the gun bans in these cities a violation of the 2nd amendment?> If it is a carte blanche ban, yes. The "right to keep and bear arms" may> not be denied by any state or city government. Actually, iRichard, it is illegal to own, buy, or possess a hangdgun
in the city of Chicago. What do you have to say about that? I say it's a good thing that the city of Chicago doesn't know what I
might happen to have in my bags when I drive through Chicago. That's just it. Is it worth it to try? You can be stopped for anything. Having the weapon in your possession will ruin you.

You can't be "stopped for anything" not legally.

-*MORT*-

"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:none-2707031506180001@192.168.2.4... In article <bg13vi02n7g@enews1.newsguy.com>, "Richard" <anom@anom> wrote:"Brett" <bbsouth@Bellsouth.net> wrote in messagenews:RMTUa.6597$oq.2001@fe04.atl2.webusenet .com... Are the gun bans in these cities a violation of the 2nd amendment?If it is a carte blanche ban, yes.The "right to keep and bear arms" may not be denied by any state or citygovernment. Actually, iRichard, it is illegal to own, buy, or possess a hangdgun in the city of Chicago. What do you have to say about that?

How does one qualify for the "need" part of possessing a firearm in the
mentioned cities? Meaning, not concealed but keeping it in the apartment
and transporting to the firing range.

Thanks,
Brett

Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:
Brett wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> Actually, iRichard, it is illegal to own, buy, or possess a hangdgun in> the city of Chicago. What do you have to say about that?
I say it's a good thing that the city of Chicago doesn't know what I might happen to have in my bags when I drive through Chicago.
That's just it. Is it worth it to try? You can be stopped for anything. Having the weapon in your possession will ruin you.
If there's an interstate travel aspect to your trip, you should be able to find a federal court to throw out the charges.
But even so - why would anyone travel _through_ Chicago? Traffic is horrid.

It certainly was the last I drove through. (But then, I didn't have a gun
with me that time.) How else do you get from Grand Rapids to O'Hare? (You
don't have all those toll booths along I-94 / I-90 / I-190 that you have
along I-294.)
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Morton Davis wrote:
Brett wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Larry wrote:> "Richard" wrote:>> Brett wrote:
>>> Are the gun bans in these cities a violation of the 2nd amendment?
>> If it is a carte blanche ban, yes. The "right to keep and bear arms">> may not be denied by any state or city government.
> Actually, iRichard, it is illegal to own, buy, or possess a hangdgun in> the city of Chicago. What do you have to say about that?
I say it's a good thing that the city of Chicago doesn't know what I might happen to have in my bags when I drive through Chicago.
That's just it. Is it worth it to try? You can be stopped for anything. Having the weapon in your possession will ruin you.
You can't be "stopped for anything" not legally.

If they want to stop you, they'll find a reason.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

"Scout" <scout_x@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:KDZUa.24327$Mc.1860464@newsread1.prod.itd.ear thlink.net... "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:3F24517A.9BD67BD@worldnet.att.net... Morton Davis wrote: Brett wrote:> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:>> Larry wrote:>>> "Richard" wrote:>>>> Brett wrote:>>>>> Are the gun bans in these cities a violation of the 2nd
amendment?>>>> If it is a carte blanche ban, yes. The "right to keep and bear arms">>>> may not be denied by any state or city government.>>> Actually, iRichard, it is illegal to own, buy, or possess a
hangdgun in>>> the city of Chicago. What do you have to say about that?>> I say it's a good thing that the city of Chicago doesn't know what I>> might happen to have in my bags when I drive through Chicago.> That's just it. Is it worth it to try? You can be stopped for anything.> Having the weapon in your possession will ruin you. You can't be "stopped for anything" not legally. If they want to stop you, they'll find a reason. Which simply illustrates how low we gave gone, where a cop is freely
allowed to make up excuses to stop someone going about their lawful business....

And how low Theo has gone with his ready acceptance of such practices....

"Scout" <scout_x@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:KDZUa.24327$Mc.1860464@newsread1.prod.itd.ear thlink.net... "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:3F24517A.9BD67BD@worldnet.att.net... Morton Davis wrote: Brett wrote:> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:>> Larry wrote:>>> "Richard" wrote:>>>> Brett wrote:>>>>> Are the gun bans in these cities a violation of the 2nd
amendment?>>>> If it is a carte blanche ban, yes. The "right to keep and bear arms">>>> may not be denied by any state or city government.>>> Actually, iRichard, it is illegal to own, buy, or possess a
hangdgun in>>> the city of Chicago. What do you have to say about that?>> I say it's a good thing that the city of Chicago doesn't know what I>> might happen to have in my bags when I drive through Chicago.> That's just it. Is it worth it to try? You can be stopped for anything.> Having the weapon in your possession will ruin you. You can't be "stopped for anything" not legally. If they want to stop you, they'll find a reason. Which simply illustrates how low we gave gone, where a cop is freely
allowed to make up excuses to stop someone going about their lawful business....
No, they aren't. We had an outfit like that in Mary Esther, Florida. The
town fired them all.

-*MORT*-

"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:none-2707031506180001@192.168.2.4... In article <bg13vi02n7g@enews1.newsguy.com>, "Richard" <anom@anom> wrote:"Brett" <bbsouth@Bellsouth.net> wrote in messagenews:RMTUa.6597$oq.2001@fe04.atl2.webusenet .com... Are the gun bans in these cities a violation of the 2nd amendment?If it is a carte blanche ban, yes.The "right to keep and bear arms" may not be denied by any state or citygovernment. Actually, iRichard, it is illegal to own, buy, or possess a hangdgun in the city of Chicago. What do you have to say about that?

Somebody needs to remind them that the constitution says that doing so is a
legal right.
If I live in Oklahoma, and happen to be passing through chicago, and have my
hand gun(s) in the trunk of my car, get stopped, searched, and they find the
weapons, then get busted, then they are in violation of a number of federal
laws, not just the constitution.
As a non resident of chicago, it is not my duty to know that it is illegal
to possess.

As I have seen on news web sites, it appears that the city of chicago is
taking this battle into the burbs.
By planning on filing lawsuits on dealers who knowingly sell to city
residents.
Fine by me. The city of chicago can not impose laws or enforce laws on
residents of other cities.
This would also be seen as a restraint of trade.
So let them file the lawsuits and they will soon be explaining to a higher
authority as to why their prescious law should be allowed to stand.

As I said, no state government or government within the state, may enact
laws which prohibit the citizens the rights granted to them by federal law.
The "Right to keep and bear arms" makes no distinction between rifle,
shotgun or a handgun.

Likewise, if the federal government says growing marijuana is illegal, a
state government may not enact a law making it legal to do so.

So if it's illegal to sell a handgun in chicago, where do the officers get
their's?

In article <bg1qd302535@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Richard" <anom@anom> wrote:
As a non resident of chicago, it is not my duty to know that it is illegalto possess.

So by this logic, I can go to another state, kill someone, and say I'm not
from there, so I didn't know killing someone was illegal?
As I have seen on news web sites, it appears that the city of chicago istaking this battle into the burbs.By planning on filing lawsuits on dealers who knowingly sell to cityresidents.

Already done. And they've won a majority of the civil suits. And a
majority of the criminal cases against the gun dealers for unlawful sales.
As I said, no state government or government within the state, may enactlaws which prohibit the citizens the rights granted to them by federal law.The "Right to keep and bear arms" makes no distinction between rifle,shotgun or a handgun.Likewise, if the federal government says growing marijuana is illegal, astate government may not enact a law making it legal to do so.

Richard, we've had this disucssion before. California has such a law. DO
I need to explain it to you again?
So if it's illegal to sell a handgun in chicago, where do the officers gettheir's?

There's an exception for duly authorized law enforcement, you twit.

"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:none-2707032205450001@192.168.2.4... In article <bg1qd302535@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Richard" <anom@anom> wrote:As a non resident of chicago, it is not my duty to know that it is
illegalto possess. So by this logic, I can go to another state, kill someone, and say I'm not from there, so I didn't know killing someone was illegal?

No. Since murder is such a common knowledge item, you could not use that as
a defense.
If a city has a peculiar law which persons from out of state, such as from
california, would not necessarily know about, that can be used as a defense.

As I have seen on news web sites, it appears that the city of chicago istaking this battle into the burbs.By planning on filing lawsuits on dealers who knowingly sell to cityresidents. Already done. And they've won a majority of the civil suits. And a majority of the criminal cases against the gun dealers for unlawful sales.

How are they unlawful? The city of chicago may not enforce their laws on
residents of Oak Park.
If Oak Park says it is legal to sell to any one, regardless of where that
person lives, then Oak Park laws over rule Chicago laws.
Likewise, Oak Park can not enforce their laws on Chicago residents.
Got a link to prove your point with?
What if the Chicago resident bought a handgun in Milwaukee?
Chicago can not legally sue the retailer in milwaukee.

As I said, no state government or government within the state, may enactlaws which prohibit the citizens the rights granted to them by federal
law.The "Right to keep and bear arms" makes no distinction between rifle,shotgun or a handgun.Likewise, if the federal government says growing marijuana is illegal, astate government may not enact a law making it legal to do so. Richard, we've had this disucssion before. California has such a law. DO I need to explain it to you again?

Post the link to the actual law. Marijuana is illegal to grow within the
boundaries of the USA.
Last time I looked, that includes california.

So if it's illegal to sell a handgun in chicago, where do the officers
gettheir's? There's an exception for duly authorized law enforcement, you twit.

"Richard" <anom@anom> wrote in message
news:bg1qd302535@enews4.newsguy.com... "Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:none-2707031506180001@192.168.2.4... In article <bg13vi02n7g@enews1.newsguy.com>, "Richard" <anom@anom>
wrote:"Brett" <bbsouth@Bellsouth.net> wrote in messagenews:RMTUa.6597$oq.2001@fe04.atl2.webusenet .com...> Are the gun bans in these cities a violation of the 2nd amendment?If it is a carte blanche ban, yes.The "right to keep and bear arms" may not be denied by any state or
citygovernment. Actually, iRichard, it is illegal to own, buy, or possess a hangdgun in the city of Chicago. What do you have to say about that? Somebody needs to remind them that the constitution says that doing so is
a legal right. If I live in Oklahoma, and happen to be passing through chicago, and have
my hand gun(s) in the trunk of my car, get stopped, searched, and they find
the weapons, then get busted, then they are in violation of a number of
federal laws, not just the constitution. As a non resident of chicago, it is not my duty to know that it is illegal to possess. As I have seen on news web sites, it appears that the city of chicago is taking this battle into the burbs. By planning on filing lawsuits on dealers who knowingly sell to city residents. Fine by me. The city of chicago can not impose laws or enforce laws on residents of other cities. This would also be seen as a restraint of trade. So let them file the lawsuits and they will soon be explaining to a higher authority as to why their prescious law should be allowed to stand.

I agree with you. However, if you do have to go through and win, your record
will still be tainted for life. It isn't uncommon for some of those that
view your record (i.e. employer) to see what happened and for some reason
think it negative. Thereby depriving you of an opportunity you may have had
otherwise.
As I said, no state government or government within the state, may enact laws which prohibit the citizens the rights granted to them by federal
law. The "Right to keep and bear arms" makes no distinction between rifle, shotgun or a handgun. Likewise, if the federal government says growing marijuana is illegal, a state government may not enact a law making it legal to do so. So if it's illegal to sell a handgun in chicago, where do the officers get their's?

In article <bg21qk02e08@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Richard" <anom@anom> wrote:
"Larry" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in messagenews:none-2707032205450001@192.168.2.4... In article <bg1qd302535@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Richard" <anom@anom> wrote:As a non resident of chicago, it is not my duty to know that it isillegalto possess. So by this logic, I can go to another state, kill someone, and say I'm not from there, so I didn't know killing someone was illegal?No. Since murder is such a common knowledge item, you could not use that asa defense.

Great, so now we get to have legal arguments over what is "common
knowledge"? How about identity theft? A few years ago it was unheard
of. Then one state passed a law criminalizing it, then another, then a
bunch, now mosat, but not all states do. Is it common knowledge that it's
illegal? At what date did it become common knowledge? After all, before
that date, we can't have held people responsible for not knowing the law,
right?

Or how about a change in the law? In NY, the DWI level dropped from a .10
to a .8 recently. Is the change in the law common knowledge yet,
Richard? If not, when will it be? And whatever happened to "ignorance of
the law is no excuse"?

"Common knowledge." Damn, what a dumb legal premise. At least you seem
to have abandoned our prostitution thread, as you had no argument there,
either.
If a city has a peculiar law which persons from out of state, such as fromcalifornia, would not necessarily know about, that can be used as a defense.

It can be? There is *ONE* case that suggests there MAY be a due process
issue with this, but that case is far and wide acknowledged to be an
isolated fact pattern, and its reasoning hasn't been adopted by SCOTUS in
any other case since.
As I have seen on news web sites, it appears that the city of chicago istaking this battle into the burbs.By planning on filing lawsuits on dealers who knowingly sell to cityresidents. Already done. And they've won a majority of the civil suits. And a majority of the criminal cases against the gun dealers for unlawful sales.How are they unlawful? The city of chicago may not enforce their laws onresidents of Oak Park.If Oak Park says it is legal to sell to any one, regardless of where thatperson lives, then Oak Park laws over rule Chicago laws.Likewise, Oak Park can not enforce their laws on Chicago residents.Got a link to prove your point with?What if the Chicago resident bought a handgun in Milwaukee?Chicago can not legally sue the retailer in milwaukee.As I said, no state government or government within the state, may enactlaws which prohibit the citizens the rights granted to them by federallaw.The "Right to keep and bear arms" makes no distinction between rifle,shotgun or a handgun.Likewise, if the federal government says growing marijuana is illegal, astate government may not enact a law making it legal to do so. Richard, we've had this disucssion before. California has such a law. DO I need to explain it to you again?Post the link to the actual law. Marijuana is illegal to grow within theboundaries of the USA.Last time I looked, that includes california.

Right. I never said it was legal to grow, I said California passed a law
decriminalizing it. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Growing MJ is against FEDERAL LAW. So in every state but California,
you're in violation of both federal and state law. Both the state and
federal governments can prosecute you for it. In California, you're ionly
in violation of federal law, and the federal government will prosecute you
- not the state government. Get it?

"Brett" <bbsouth@Bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<RMTUa.6597$oq.2001@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com>...
If some one living in NYC or DC wants legally purchase a gun and keep it in their house/apartment, how is this done?

Move somewhere else.


Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO ProvNRA LPWV
--
North's Law of Bureaucracy: There is no government regulation, no matter
how plausible it initially appears, that will not eventually be applied
by some bureaucrat in a way that defies common sense.
United Airlines Must Die! http://www.dont-fly.com
Abuses by the BATF http://www.elfie.org/~croaker/batfabus.html