What makes Chicago one of the best cities in the world for some, but one of the most violent in the world for others? Colion Noir goes to Chicago—walks the streets the politicians avoid, and talks to the people the media will never feature—to get the real story. Media perceptions and influences. Politics. Identity. Pop-culture. Instagram. Backgrounds. The glorification of gangs. Economics. Modern segregation. History. Jobs. Education. These are the chapters that make up Chicago: The Real Story. And Colion Noir reads them without fear, finding truth through interviews with Karim Shakir, owner of Hyde Park Barber Studio; Dave Jeff of PHLI, Inc.; Leonard "GLC" Harris, Hip-Hop artist and community organizer; and Chip Eberhart, Master Instructor of Top Shot Academy.
Get the latest breaking current news and explore our Historic Archive of articles focusing on The Mafia, Organized Crime, The Mob and Mobsters, Gangs and Gangsters, Political Corruption, True Crime, and the Legal System at TheChicagoSyndicate.com
Showing posts with label NRA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NRA. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 12, 2018
Chicago: The Real Story - The Story of #Chicago the Media Won't Tell
What makes Chicago one of the best cities in the world for some, but one of the most violent in the world for others? Colion Noir goes to Chicago—walks the streets the politicians avoid, and talks to the people the media will never feature—to get the real story. Media perceptions and influences. Politics. Identity. Pop-culture. Instagram. Backgrounds. The glorification of gangs. Economics. Modern segregation. History. Jobs. Education. These are the chapters that make up Chicago: The Real Story. And Colion Noir reads them without fear, finding truth through interviews with Karim Shakir, owner of Hyde Park Barber Studio; Dave Jeff of PHLI, Inc.; Leonard "GLC" Harris, Hip-Hop artist and community organizer; and Chip Eberhart, Master Instructor of Top Shot Academy.
Saturday, April 02, 2016
Attend the Gold Standard in Firearms Law Classes with @OliverNorthFNC
The Annual National Firearms Law Seminar will be held on Friday, May 20, 2016 as part of the NRA Annual Meetings. The gold standard in firearms law classes, this day-long seminar provides legal instruction for attorneys and all others interested in Second Amendment law. CLE credit for all states is available.
Topics will include: current constitutional challenges across the country, how to best analyze and bring constitutional cases, executive orders and dangers from the administrative agencies (including the VA and Social Security Administration gun grabs), FFL compliance issues and ATF’s new guidance on who is a "firearms dealer," firearms instructor liability, preemption cases across the country, rights restoration, and gun trusts after 41F. The special luncheon speaker will be LtCol. Oliver North, who will give us his thoughts on arming our military personnel on U.S. soil.
Registration for attorneys is only $245 and $150 for non-attorneys through April 29th. Special pricing is available for active-duty military and police and current law students. Tuition includes the course, study materials, continental breakfast, luncheon, and meet & greet reception.
Seating will be limited. For more information and to register, please visit the Seminar website at http://lawseminar.nrafoundation.org/ or call 1-877-NRF-LAWS.
Topics will include: current constitutional challenges across the country, how to best analyze and bring constitutional cases, executive orders and dangers from the administrative agencies (including the VA and Social Security Administration gun grabs), FFL compliance issues and ATF’s new guidance on who is a "firearms dealer," firearms instructor liability, preemption cases across the country, rights restoration, and gun trusts after 41F. The special luncheon speaker will be LtCol. Oliver North, who will give us his thoughts on arming our military personnel on U.S. soil.
Registration for attorneys is only $245 and $150 for non-attorneys through April 29th. Special pricing is available for active-duty military and police and current law students. Tuition includes the course, study materials, continental breakfast, luncheon, and meet & greet reception.
Seating will be limited. For more information and to register, please visit the Seminar website at http://lawseminar.nrafoundation.org/ or call 1-877-NRF-LAWS.
Friday, July 10, 2015
Is Gun Control a Civil Right? Antigun Radical Michael Pfleger's Launches Latest Publicity Stunt Circus
The NRA has seen a lot of strange legal theories asserted by gun control advocates over the years, but a lawsuit filed on Tuesday by a group of Chicagoans still managed to distinguish itself in this dubious tradition by asserting that the plaintiffs have a "civil right" to specific forms of gun control.
The basis of the lawsuit is a May 27, 2014 “study” published by the City of Chicago entitled, “Tracing the Guns: The Impact of Illegal Guns on Violence in Chicago.” The report finds that a disproportionate number of guns recovered from crime scenes in Chicago from 2009 to 2013 originated at gun shops in the three suburban villages being sued. Of course, it’s hardly surprisingly that most Chicago crime guns originated outside the city, as sales of firearms within the city itself (as well as mere possession of handguns) were unconstitutionally banned for much of the reporting period covered by the study.
The complaint in Coalition for Safe Chicago Communities v. Village of Riverdale alleges that the Illinois Civil Rights Act prohibits local units of government from using “criteria or methods of administration” that have “the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of that person’s race.” The plaintiffs go on to insist that the three Chicago suburbs being sued have violated this provision of law by failing to enact policies for gun dealers that the plaintiffs claim would prevent dangerous guns from reaching criminal hands. This, the plaintiffs argue, has “a disparate and terrible impact on African Americans who live in neighborhoods afflicted by such illegal gun use ….” The plaintiffs also claim that illegal gun use in their neighborhoods leads others in African American neighborhoods “to seek and obtain guns,” including by legal means, which they argue leads to “a high level of disorder and violent crime” that makes their neighborhoods a less desirable place to live.
The plaintiffs request the court to order defendants “to put in place by ordinance or regulation the kind of measures or methods of administration … set forth in the City of Chicago’s own municipal code to replace or supersede the current lax methods of administration or licensing of dealers ….”
It’s a remarkable theory, to say the least, that residents of city have a “civil right” to force other localities to adopt their city’s version of gun control. Even putting aside the broad preemption provisions of Illinois’ Firearm Concealed Carry Act of 2013, which reserve most regulation of firearms to the state, the job of courts when ruling on legislation is limited to determining whether or not it a given activity is constitutionally permissible. It’s not to cherry pick policies from one jurisdiction and force them upon another.
No surprise, the plaintiffs in the suit include antigun radical Michael Pfleger, who cloaks his political activism in the mantel of the Catholic priesthood. Known for highly dramatic publicity stunts, Pfleger infamously threatened to “snuff out” a gun store owner during a public protest in front of his shop. Equally unsurprising, Barack Obama himself once cited the Chicago cleric as among his closest “spiritual advisors.”
Whether or not Pfleger’s latest antics get any traction with the court is likely beside the point. The suit is already being widely covered by the media, which provides yet another opportunity for incessant pontification and holier-than-thou finger-pointing by Chicago’s antigun establishment. Hopefully the court will make quick work of this latest antigun abuse of the legal system, but Chicago’s well-funded antigun circus will no doubt continue.
The basis of the lawsuit is a May 27, 2014 “study” published by the City of Chicago entitled, “Tracing the Guns: The Impact of Illegal Guns on Violence in Chicago.” The report finds that a disproportionate number of guns recovered from crime scenes in Chicago from 2009 to 2013 originated at gun shops in the three suburban villages being sued. Of course, it’s hardly surprisingly that most Chicago crime guns originated outside the city, as sales of firearms within the city itself (as well as mere possession of handguns) were unconstitutionally banned for much of the reporting period covered by the study.
The complaint in Coalition for Safe Chicago Communities v. Village of Riverdale alleges that the Illinois Civil Rights Act prohibits local units of government from using “criteria or methods of administration” that have “the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of that person’s race.” The plaintiffs go on to insist that the three Chicago suburbs being sued have violated this provision of law by failing to enact policies for gun dealers that the plaintiffs claim would prevent dangerous guns from reaching criminal hands. This, the plaintiffs argue, has “a disparate and terrible impact on African Americans who live in neighborhoods afflicted by such illegal gun use ….” The plaintiffs also claim that illegal gun use in their neighborhoods leads others in African American neighborhoods “to seek and obtain guns,” including by legal means, which they argue leads to “a high level of disorder and violent crime” that makes their neighborhoods a less desirable place to live.
The plaintiffs request the court to order defendants “to put in place by ordinance or regulation the kind of measures or methods of administration … set forth in the City of Chicago’s own municipal code to replace or supersede the current lax methods of administration or licensing of dealers ….”
It’s a remarkable theory, to say the least, that residents of city have a “civil right” to force other localities to adopt their city’s version of gun control. Even putting aside the broad preemption provisions of Illinois’ Firearm Concealed Carry Act of 2013, which reserve most regulation of firearms to the state, the job of courts when ruling on legislation is limited to determining whether or not it a given activity is constitutionally permissible. It’s not to cherry pick policies from one jurisdiction and force them upon another.
No surprise, the plaintiffs in the suit include antigun radical Michael Pfleger, who cloaks his political activism in the mantel of the Catholic priesthood. Known for highly dramatic publicity stunts, Pfleger infamously threatened to “snuff out” a gun store owner during a public protest in front of his shop. Equally unsurprising, Barack Obama himself once cited the Chicago cleric as among his closest “spiritual advisors.”
Whether or not Pfleger’s latest antics get any traction with the court is likely beside the point. The suit is already being widely covered by the media, which provides yet another opportunity for incessant pontification and holier-than-thou finger-pointing by Chicago’s antigun establishment. Hopefully the court will make quick work of this latest antigun abuse of the legal system, but Chicago’s well-funded antigun circus will no doubt continue.
Diverse Chicagoans Exercise Their Right-to-Carry
A recent report by the Chicago Sun-Times reveals the diversity of the Chicagoans choosing to exercise their Right-to-Carry, offering some rare good news regarding the city’s beleaguered gun owners. According to a Sun-Times analysis of Right-to-Carry permit data obtained from the Illinois State Police, the city zip codes with the most permit-holding residents span from “upper middle-class, safe and predominately white neighborhoods” to “high-crime, minority neighborhoods.” Delving into further detail, the article states “Chicago’s highest concentration of permits is in the 60617 ZIP… According to the census, about 55 percent of the residents in 60617 are black, 34 percent are Hispanic and 7 percent white.”
The piece goes on to note that the Auburn Gresham, Avalon Park and Chatham neighborhoods also rank high in their number of permit holders. These areas are described as “minority neighborhoods that have been plagued by gun violence.”
The abundance of Right-to-Carry permit holders in high-crime and predominantly minority communities helps to break down pernicious stereotypes about the “typical” gun owner and permit holder. The data also proves that the protection offered by exercising the Right-to-Carry is being used by those most vulnerable to violent crime.
Under the rule of anti-gun Clinton and Obama staffer Rahm Emanuel, Chicagoans have been forced to cope with severe, and frequently-debated, levels of violent crime that the authorities often appear helpless to contain. In this climate of rampant crime, even the mayor’s son was the victim of a robbery only a short distance from the family home. Taking a brief respite from his usual spin on public safety, in January, the notoriously combative mayor conceded that city residents don’t feel safe, noting “Too many families, too many parents do not let their kids go outside because they're scared.” This feeling was likely further cemented following the July 4th holiday weekend, during which 55 were wounded by illegal gunfire and 10 killed. In this environment, permit-holding Windy City residents are wise to provide for their own self-defense. Hopefully, the breadth and diversity of permit-holding Chicagoans revealed by the Sun-Times will encourage more residents to follow their lead and get the tools of protection to the communities where they are most needed.
The piece goes on to note that the Auburn Gresham, Avalon Park and Chatham neighborhoods also rank high in their number of permit holders. These areas are described as “minority neighborhoods that have been plagued by gun violence.”
The abundance of Right-to-Carry permit holders in high-crime and predominantly minority communities helps to break down pernicious stereotypes about the “typical” gun owner and permit holder. The data also proves that the protection offered by exercising the Right-to-Carry is being used by those most vulnerable to violent crime.
Under the rule of anti-gun Clinton and Obama staffer Rahm Emanuel, Chicagoans have been forced to cope with severe, and frequently-debated, levels of violent crime that the authorities often appear helpless to contain. In this climate of rampant crime, even the mayor’s son was the victim of a robbery only a short distance from the family home. Taking a brief respite from his usual spin on public safety, in January, the notoriously combative mayor conceded that city residents don’t feel safe, noting “Too many families, too many parents do not let their kids go outside because they're scared.” This feeling was likely further cemented following the July 4th holiday weekend, during which 55 were wounded by illegal gunfire and 10 killed. In this environment, permit-holding Windy City residents are wise to provide for their own self-defense. Hopefully, the breadth and diversity of permit-holding Chicagoans revealed by the Sun-Times will encourage more residents to follow their lead and get the tools of protection to the communities where they are most needed.
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Support @NRAILA and Stop Obama's Planned Gag Order on Firearm-Related Speech
It's happening again— President Obama is using his imperial pen and telephone to curb your rights and bypass Congress through executive action.
Even as news reports have been highlighting the gun control provisions of the Administration's "Unified Agenda" of regulatory objectives (see accompanying story), the Obama State Department has been quietly moving ahead with a proposal that could censor online speech related to firearms. This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second. Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published.
To understand the proposal and why it's so serious, some background information is necessary.
For the past several years, the Administration has been pursuing a large-scale overhaul of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The Act regulates the movement of so-called "defense articles" and "defense services" in and out of the United States. These articles and services are enumerated in a multi-part "U.S. Munitions List," which covers everything from firearms and ammunition (and related accessories) to strategic bombers. The transnational movement of any defense article or service on the Munitions List presumptively requires a license from the State Department. Producers of such articles and services, moreover, must register with the U.S. Government and pay a hefty fee for doing so.
Also regulated under ITAR are so-called "technical data" about defense articles. These include, among other things, "detailed design, development, production or manufacturing information" about firearms or ammunition. Specific examples of technical data are blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation.
In their current form, the ITAR do not (as a rule) regulate technical data that are in what the regulations call the "public domain." Essentially, this means data "which is published and which is generally accessible or available to the public" through a variety of specified means. These include "at libraries open to the public or from which the public can obtain documents." Many have read this provision to include material that is posted on publicly available websites, since most public libraries these days make Internet access available to their patrons.
The ITAR, however, were originally promulgated in the days before the Internet. Some State Department officials now insist that anything published online in a generally-accessible location has essentially been "exported," as it would be accessible to foreign nationals both in the U.S. and overseas.
With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be "clarifying" the rules concerning "technical data" posted online or otherwise "released" into the "public domain." To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the "authorization" of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.
Penalties for violations are severe and for each violation could include up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $1 million. Civil penalties can also be assessed. Each unauthorized "export," including to subsequent countries or foreign nationals, is also treated as a separate violation.
Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities. Prior restraints of the sort contemplated by this regulation are among the most disfavored regulations of speech under First Amendment case law.
But then, when did the U.S. Constitution ever deter Barack Obama from using whatever means are at his disposal to exert his will over the American people and suppress firearm ownership throughout the nation?
Time is of the essence! Public comment will be accepted on the proposed gag order until August 3, 2015. Comments may be submitted online at regulations.gov or via e-mail at DDTCPublicComments@state.gov with the subject line, ‘‘ITAR Amendment—Revisions to Definitions; Data Transmission and Storage.''
Finally, please contact your U.S. Senators and Member of Congress. Urge them to oppose the State Department's attempt to censor online speech concerning the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition. Use the "Write Your Lawmakers" feature on our website or call the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 225-3121.
Thanks to NRA-ILA.
Even as news reports have been highlighting the gun control provisions of the Administration's "Unified Agenda" of regulatory objectives (see accompanying story), the Obama State Department has been quietly moving ahead with a proposal that could censor online speech related to firearms. This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second. Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published.
To understand the proposal and why it's so serious, some background information is necessary.
For the past several years, the Administration has been pursuing a large-scale overhaul of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The Act regulates the movement of so-called "defense articles" and "defense services" in and out of the United States. These articles and services are enumerated in a multi-part "U.S. Munitions List," which covers everything from firearms and ammunition (and related accessories) to strategic bombers. The transnational movement of any defense article or service on the Munitions List presumptively requires a license from the State Department. Producers of such articles and services, moreover, must register with the U.S. Government and pay a hefty fee for doing so.
Also regulated under ITAR are so-called "technical data" about defense articles. These include, among other things, "detailed design, development, production or manufacturing information" about firearms or ammunition. Specific examples of technical data are blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation.
In their current form, the ITAR do not (as a rule) regulate technical data that are in what the regulations call the "public domain." Essentially, this means data "which is published and which is generally accessible or available to the public" through a variety of specified means. These include "at libraries open to the public or from which the public can obtain documents." Many have read this provision to include material that is posted on publicly available websites, since most public libraries these days make Internet access available to their patrons.
The ITAR, however, were originally promulgated in the days before the Internet. Some State Department officials now insist that anything published online in a generally-accessible location has essentially been "exported," as it would be accessible to foreign nationals both in the U.S. and overseas.
With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be "clarifying" the rules concerning "technical data" posted online or otherwise "released" into the "public domain." To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the "authorization" of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.
Penalties for violations are severe and for each violation could include up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $1 million. Civil penalties can also be assessed. Each unauthorized "export," including to subsequent countries or foreign nationals, is also treated as a separate violation.
Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities. Prior restraints of the sort contemplated by this regulation are among the most disfavored regulations of speech under First Amendment case law.
But then, when did the U.S. Constitution ever deter Barack Obama from using whatever means are at his disposal to exert his will over the American people and suppress firearm ownership throughout the nation?
Time is of the essence! Public comment will be accepted on the proposed gag order until August 3, 2015. Comments may be submitted online at regulations.gov or via e-mail at DDTCPublicComments@state.gov with the subject line, ‘‘ITAR Amendment—Revisions to Definitions; Data Transmission and Storage.''
Finally, please contact your U.S. Senators and Member of Congress. Urge them to oppose the State Department's attempt to censor online speech concerning the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition. Use the "Write Your Lawmakers" feature on our website or call the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 225-3121.
Thanks to NRA-ILA.
Friday, March 06, 2015
Bipartisan Majority of the U.S. House Opposes Obama Administration’s Ammo Ban
In an overwhelming show of bipartisan opposition, 238 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives have signed a letter to the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, opposing the Obama Administration’s attempt to ban commonly used ammunition for the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15. The National Rifle Association worked closely with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) to gather signatures on this critical effort.
“This letter sends a clear message to President Obama that Congress opposes his attempt to use his pen and phone to thwart the will of the American people,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “Obama said he would enact his gun control agenda ‘with or without Congress.’ He is now trying to make good on that promise. The NRA would like to thank Chairman Goodlatte and all who signed the letter for opposing this unconstitutional attack on our Second Amendment freedom.”
The NRA is working with Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on a similar letter of opposition from the U.S. Senate.
“This letter sends a clear message to President Obama that Congress opposes his attempt to use his pen and phone to thwart the will of the American people,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “Obama said he would enact his gun control agenda ‘with or without Congress.’ He is now trying to make good on that promise. The NRA would like to thank Chairman Goodlatte and all who signed the letter for opposing this unconstitutional attack on our Second Amendment freedom.”
The NRA is working with Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on a similar letter of opposition from the U.S. Senate.
Monday, January 13, 2014
Florida Alert! Stop Discrimination against Gun Owners by Insurance Companies
Senate Bill 424 by Senator Tom Lee (R-Brandon) is scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee on Tuesday, January 14, at 2:00 pm.
SB-424 is a bill to stop insurance companies from discriminating against gun owners. Click here to view the bill text SB-424
Please E-MAIL Committee members and ask them to SUPPORT SB-424
IN THE SUBJECT LINE PUT: SUPPORT SB-424 -- Stop Discrimination of Gun Owners
(To send your message to all just Block and Copy All email addresses into the "Send To" box)
simmons.david.web@flsenate.gov,
benacquisto.lizbeth.web@flsenate.gov,
clemens.jeff.web@flsenate.gov,
detert.nancy.web@flsenate.gov,
portilla.miguel.web@flsenate.gov,
hays.alan.web@flsenate.gov,
lee.tom.web@flsenate.gov,
margolis.gwen.web@flsenate.gov,
montford.bill.web@flsenate.gov,
negron.joe.web@flsenate.gov,
richter.garrett.web@flsenate.gov,
ring.jeremy.web@flsenate.gov,
Committee members need to hear from you. There are cases of insurance companies refusing to provide insurance to gun owners because they own guns, as well as cases where applications for insurance contain questions about gun ownership. SB-424 will stop such practices.
Please e-mail Committee Members today.
SB-424 is a bill to stop insurance companies from discriminating against gun owners. Click here to view the bill text SB-424
Please E-MAIL Committee members and ask them to SUPPORT SB-424
IN THE SUBJECT LINE PUT: SUPPORT SB-424 -- Stop Discrimination of Gun Owners
(To send your message to all just Block and Copy All email addresses into the "Send To" box)
simmons.david.web@flsenate.gov,
benacquisto.lizbeth.web@flsenate.gov,
clemens.jeff.web@flsenate.gov,
detert.nancy.web@flsenate.gov,
portilla.miguel.web@flsenate.gov,
hays.alan.web@flsenate.gov,
lee.tom.web@flsenate.gov,
margolis.gwen.web@flsenate.gov,
montford.bill.web@flsenate.gov,
negron.joe.web@flsenate.gov,
richter.garrett.web@flsenate.gov,
ring.jeremy.web@flsenate.gov,
Committee members need to hear from you. There are cases of insurance companies refusing to provide insurance to gun owners because they own guns, as well as cases where applications for insurance contain questions about gun ownership. SB-424 will stop such practices.
Please e-mail Committee Members today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Best of the Month!
- Mob Hit on Rudy Giuilani Discussed
- Mafia Wars Move to the iPhone World
- The Chicago Syndicate AKA "The Outfit"
- Aaron Hernandez: American Sports Story - The Truth About Aaron: My Journey to Understand My Brother
- Village of Stone Park Place Convicted Mob Felon on Pension Board, Trustees Hide and Sneak Out Back Door, When Asked About It
- Prison Inmate, Charles Miceli, Says He Has Information on Mob Crimes
- Hank Muntzer Sentenced to Prison on Felony and Misdemeanor Charges for Actions During Insurrection and Attack of the US Capital on January 6, 2021
- Growing Up the Son of Tony Spilotro
- Mafia Princess Challenges Coco Giancana to Take a DNA Test to Prove She's Granddaughter of Sam Giancana
- Mob Boss Dies