Group taunts Chicago mayor with gun giveaway

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Yeah, but are you allowed to have weapons in your on campus housing? I know Georgia Tech is quite annoying about that. (I can't honestly see what the problem with keeping a dull sword around is.)

Even a dull sword can be lethal.

Trust me.

[Victor Galis]

Yes, but so can a lot of the textbooks that we're being sold

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I think Illinois and Chicago could go after him, since he is inciting people to committ a felony.

CQ, 60 years ago, commies were arrested for the same thing - advocating the overthrow of the US government. But the Supreme Court ruled that they had a right of free speech. I am surprised today that you, of all people, are advocating arrest and prosecution for someone exercising their first amendment rights.

Now, actually giving a gun to a person who lives in Chicago may be a crime – but in Chicago. Birch does not live there. Again, the US constitution protects him because what he is doing, where he is doing it, is not a crime.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Echinda


No, it isn't. In almost every state, the elements of conspiracy only require an agreement between two or more people to accomplish an unlawful purpose. Here the unlawful purpose is to carry a concealed weapon in Chicago. The crime is committed by a member of the conspiracy when they perform an act in furtherance of the unlawful purpose (the act itself does not have to be illegal). And it is not a required element that every member of the conspiracy actually commit or plan to commit the illegal act. It's enough that one will and the others act to help that person accomplish the illegal goal.

It seems that so far, though, this guy is just blowing smoke. But once he hands the gun over to the Chicago resident, a conspiracy charge would probably stick.

Politically though, it would make more sense to wait until the guy actually commits the crime and bust the supplier as an accomplice. It's cleaner that way.

Che: Solicitation (or inciting) may not work in this case as many states have restricted common law solicitation to serious felonies. I'm not sure where Illinois stands on this.

Echinda, Has Illinois made it illegal to sell a gun to a person who they have reason to believe will take that gun into Chicago? I would find it very, very hard to believe that the legislature would ever pass such a law.

I also believe is may be unconstitutional.

[Victor Galis]

CQ, 60 years ago, commies were arrested for the same thing - advocating the overthrown of the US government. But the Supreme Court ruled that they had a right of free speech. I am surprised today that you, of all people, are advocating arrest and prosecution for someone exercising their first amendment rights.

-There is a significant distinction between speech and arming someone and sending them back across the city limits into Chicago.

Now, actually giving a gun to a person who lives in Chicago may be a crime – but in Chicago. Birch does not live there. Again, the US constitution protects him because what he is doing, where he is doing it, is not a crime.

-If you help someone say burglarize a local jewlery shop, you can get in trouble for it even if you personally did not do anything that was illegal. Why not for inciting someone to commit a felony and providing them with the tools to do it?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


-There is a significant distinction between speech and arming someone and sending them back across the city limits into Chicago.



-If you help someone say burglarize a local jewlery shop, you can get in trouble for it even if you personally did not do anything that was illegal. Why not for inciting someone to commit a felony and providing them with the tools to do it?

Very true, but CQ advocated arresting him for "incitement." This is speech. Not only is Birch's advocacy speech, it is political speech.

Besides, Birch did not arm anyone and "send" them anywhere.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


-There is a significant distinction between speech and arming someone and sending them back across the city limits into Chicago.



-If you help someone say burglarize a local jewlery shop, you can get in trouble for it even if you personally did not do anything that was illegal. Why not for inciting someone to commit a felony and providing them with the tools to do it?

True, but let us say that if you help one do an act that is legal where you are it is not a crime to even though you conspired with the person to commit the act. The act has to be illegal where it is committed.

For example, suppose I run a legal brothel on the Nevada/California border. I service Californians. Can the California police come and arrest me for prostitution or pandering? I sincerely doubt it. The act is legal where it is committed. The fact that I know the person serviced is from California makes no difference whatsoever.

[CygnusZ]

I wish I knew the word of law on the issue, but based on what I know it goes something like this:

If I sell you a gun in a suburb of chicago and have no reason to believe that you plan to take a firearm there it is legal for me to sell you the weapon.

However, if I give or sell you a gun in the suburbs of chicago knowing that your explict intent is to break the law with that gun then I have commited a crime.

[Ned]

CZ, Would that be a crime under the laws of the State of Illinois or of the City of Chicago?

[Victor Galis]

For example, suppose I run a legal brothel on the Nevada/California border. I service Californians. Can the California police come and arrest me for prostitution or pandering? I sincerely doubt it. The act is legal where it is committed. The fact that I know the person serviced is from California makes no difference whatsoever.

-But that's different. Here there is a crime being committed at some point (the guy crossing into Chicago with his new gun), whereas in your scenario at no point is anyone guilty of a crime.

[CygnusZ]

If you were to attempt to find the law you'd have to look through the Common Law, and the Model Penal Code (MPC), which deals with issues of criminal libaility.

The venue would certainly be state court, and nearest to the location where the law was being broken. That would mean the gentleman selling the gun would be brought to the court nearest to his house. The person who bought the firearm legally and then broke the law by entering the city would be going to court in the courthouse nearest to the entry point to Chicago. Obviously the amount of money involved and the jurisdiction would disallow this case from going to federal court except the Supreme Court via appelas (VERY unlikely).

[CygnusZ]

Originally posted by Ned
For example, suppose I run a legal brothel on the Nevada/California border. I service Californians. Can the California police come and arrest me for prostitution or pandering? I sincerely doubt it. The act is legal where it is committed. The fact that I know the person serviced is from California makes no difference whatsoever.

That's not a difficult one. Here are your situations:

1)A californian crosses the border to have sex in a brothel. It's legal end of story.

2)A californian crosses the border and asks to ride with your prostitute across the border to have sex. You know it's illegal and yet you charge an extra $50 and let him do it. Now you do have criminal liability.

[Ned]

Somehow I sincerely doubt the city of Chicago has the legal right to make ownship of a gun a felony. Most municipal jurisdictions power stops at misdeamenors. This is why I believe that if it is a felony to own a gun in Chicago, it must be a state law. But since Chicago is alone has banned guns, I would doubt that the state would make it a felony just for Chicago.

Which leads to the interesting point - if the cops in Oak Park would arrest Birch at all for doing something in Oak Park that is entirely legal and prosecuting him for the benefit of Chicago. I doubt it.

This harkens back to the Dred Scot decision in a way. There the Supreme Court ruled that a slave remained the property of the owner if the owner took the slave from a slave state into a free state. If the slave escaped, the free state police would have to arrest him and turn him back over to his owner. This so offended the people of the North that it lead directly to the civil war.

I suggest that Oak Park will not help Chicago enforce its anti-gun laws.

[Q Classic]

as far as i know, most chicago suburbs don't give a damn about most chicago laws...

[Felch]

I would say that based on the fact that this is an act whose intent is to influence the government to make changes to the law, it is protected speech so long as the people are not being issued firearms with the express purpose of harming others.

The divisiveness of the debate here shows that this is a political issue. As long as you don't hurt people, you are able to protest a political issue any number of ways. While the government may arrest you, it would be inappropriate to press severe charges. Maybe spending the night in jail would be an appropriate penalty.

In any event I think that these laws are ridiculous, and do not serve the public interest. The Financial Times had a good editorial about gun control in the UK, and just from what I know about DC, I can tell you that it does not make people safer.