Otis McDonald One Step Closer to Exercising His Second Amendment Rights


From The Chicago Tribune:

Two years after filing a lawsuit that ultimately forced the city to dismantle its 28-year-old handgun ban, Otis McDonald walked into a police station Monday and applied for a permit allowing him to keep a gun at home.

The process took only 20 minutes, but McDonald said some of the requirements to obtain the permit seemed excessive. And though a gun permit was worth any price for him, he said he is concerned that the $100 fee could deter some law-abiding citizens from buying a handgun.

Read the whole story here. Reason's coverage of the Chicago gun case is here.


NEXT: Department of Literary Litigation

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I thought Mayor Daley had vowed to fight to the end to keep people from excercising their right to keep and bear arms? Seems like this went through pretty quickly.

    1. With a $100 fee, renewable every 3 years and a $15 per gun fee on top of that – maybe that’s exactly what he’s doing.

      1. That mayor is ridiculous.

    2. If I’m reading the article right, Mr. McDonald has been allowed to apply for a permit. I don’t think it has been approved.

      After that, it strikes me that all of the limitations of the permit will make it useless or nearly so. Besides, I wouldn’t be surprised if Daley set up a scheme to “approve” all the permits, and then revoke them later, keeping the fees of course!

      1. Do you get the fee back if you’re turned down?

        1. That’s +1000 funny!

          1. No, it’s not funny – for instance, the application fee for a US visa is non-refundable even if you’re rejected, and those things can range from $140.00 to $390.00

            I would not doubt for a single minute that the Chicago gov would pull a similar ploy against American citizens trying to exercize their 2nd Amendment-protected right.

            1. I thought asking the refund question at all was funny.

            2. There’s also an application for ammunition. Six bullets, six pages…

            3. I applied for a pistol permit here in Connecticut; it cost over $400 for the whole process, including the class fee ($150), town fee($75), state fee($75), background check fee($50), and a few other random fees and duties. I could have been rejected at any point in time if they found a reason to, and I don’t think any of the money was refundable.

              1. That is unconscionable.

        2. In MA you don’t get the fee back if you’re rejected. And it is also $100.

        3. Of course not. Then it would clearly be a tax on your right to own a gun, which would be unconstitutional.

          By keeping it regardless of outcome, they’re indicating that it is merely a charge for processing the application — a usage fee on the time of bureaucrats, which you have no right to.

  2. the $100 fee could deter some law-abiding citizens

    Boo-hoo. Graft ain’t cheap. And we won the election, remember?

    1. And yet I’m the bad guy for wanting to crack some skulls and shoot some kneecaps. No respect i tells ya, no respect.

  3. The good news: if is house is broken into before he gets a gun, the burglars are getting $100 less from him. Take that, suckers!

  4. Since poll taxes were struck down as an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, how can these fees be constitutional?

    1. Well, if the state can force to buy car insurance they can force you to buy gun insurance.

      Or something like that.

    2. Well, if the state can force you to buy car i n s u r a n c e, then they can force you to buy gun i n s u r a n c e.

      Or something like that.

      (and “Yo, Fuck the spam filter.”)

      1. Car insurance

        The filter is fickle mistress.

      2. You know, I’m surprised that states don’t require owners to get gun insurance.

        1. Another gaff in the “stop giving them ideas” department. My bad.

          1. What has been seen can never be unseen.

        2. I’m surprised that rent-seeking insurance companies haven’t yet given them the motivation… er, kickbacks.

        3. I have gun insurance, but that’s to protect me in the event my guns come to harm/are stolen.

        4. If you’re talking about liability insurance, most people are covered by their homeowners policy. Back when I worked in insurance the paperwork writing a separate policy or rider specifically to cover the insurable liability for firearm accidents would have cost more than the added policy amount.

          Under insurance law you can only cover accidents, which are too rare to worry about separately covering. Insurance cannot cover a situation where you intentionally illegally shoot someone.

          The gun control folks, however, sell the idea of insurance by saying it’s needed to cover all the gang-banger shootings.

          1. Can one get liability insurance for firearms? As in, “I shot your stupid ass when you tried to steal my kegerator and now you drool compulsively and your dick doesn’t work so you’re filing a lawsuit” insurance?

            The gun control folks, however, sell the idea of insurance by saying it’s needed to cover all the gang-banger shootings.

            You mean the ones that would be covered by health insurance in case of personal injury, or by car or homeowners insurance in case of property damage?

            Gungrabbers are fucking retarded.

        5. The Illinois legislature considered such a bill last year. It required owners to carry a $1 million policy, which no insurance company would offer, and effectively terminate your 2nd amendment rights. Luckily, even the idiots in Illinois decided this too be a bad idea. Mainly because they couldn’t obtain enough votes for passage.

  5. Under this permitting regime the government takes in more money than the weapon vendor (for a cheap .38 special). Over 10 years you’d spend $400 in taxes and fees (including sales tax) on a $400 handgun.

    1. If you think that’s bad, lookup what people have to do to own a silencer.

      1. In Washington state, you can own a suppressor but cannot fire a weapon with it attached.

      2. The $200 NFA tax doesn’t seem so bad now, but it hasn’t been increased since 1934. Originally, the tax to own a Thompson submachine gun cost as much as the gun itself.

    2. Does that mean the State Attorneys General can sue each other for letting dangerous products cross state lines?

  6. Well they have to pay for those background checks somehow. I mean without sufficiently strong regulation and oversight owning a gun in Chicago could be full of loopholes, and the wrong sort could get them! Imagine the bloodshed if every thug, drug trafficker, and libertarian could just go out and buy a gun, all willy-nilly!

    1. How do you tell the difference between the drug trafficker and the libertarian?

      1. The libertarian thinks drugs should be legal.

    2. Right. We don’t mind the thugs, its the libertarians we don’t want to arm.

    3. Imagine the bloodshed if every thug, drug trafficker, and libertarian could just go out and buy a gun, all willy-nilly!

      As opposed to mayors, aldermen, and cops?

      1. Obviously, they are members of the Government and therefore can be trusted absolutely to do the right thing. Don’t even think about the evils that would arise should Corporations gain the right to arm themselves. Their only goal in life is to make profits, how could you possibly trust them?

  7. This story sounds fishy. I have it on good authority from various regressives that only redneck, racist, paranoid, rat-bagging, tea fuckers feel the need for a gun.

    1. +1 and an additional five bonus points working in a rat bagging tea fucker reference.

    2. True. More reasonable people wait for the police to come outline their corpses.

      1. In Chicago, it’s quite reasonable to expect the police to get there right before the rapist has an orgasm. Cops there have impeccable timing.

        1. Assuming rapists come as quickly as most men or faster, that’s a pretty impressive feat.

          Further assuming they pull the guy off before he actually comes, at least the victim gets the consolation of knowing her rapist will get blue balls. It’s not much, but in a totalitarian regime you have to take what you can get 🙁

        2. Oftentimes in Chicago, the cops are the rapist.

          1. In Soviet Union, the state rapes you!

            Wait, come to think of it, that’s not really different from what goes on here.

            1. At least we won the Cold War…

        3. Only if the rapist is considerate.

      2. True. More reasonable people wait for the police to come outline their corpses.


  8. Otis- my man!

    1. This makes me wanna shout!

      1. “We shall overcome!”

  9. I would not doubt for a single minute that the Chicago gov would pull a similar ploy against American citizens trying to exercize their 2nd Amendment-protected right.

    “And the best part is- they PAY to put themselves on our ‘enemies list’.”

  10. Harry Reid’s midnight skulduggery has the DISCLOSE Act on the fast track to passage TOMORROW afternoon. That’s right; Harry Reid and his anti-gun allies in the Senate are scheduled to shred the First Amendment tomorrow at 2:45pm EST. And unless the American people stand up and say NO, they will succeed. I need you to call BOTH Senator Evan Bayh at (202) 224-5623 and Senator Richard Lugar at (202) 224-4814 immediately and demand that they vote AGAINST and publicly oppose the DISCLOSE Act. As you know, the DISCLOSE Act was written to protect the anti-gun Establishment in Washington, D.C. If passed into law, it could silence virtually every state and national conservative organization in the country, including the National Association for Gun Rights and any state level gun rights organization you belong to.

    Old terms for Chicago’s New Tough New Gun Law Treason Mayor Richard M. Daley “Direct Criminal Constitutional Contempt of Court, The Supreme Court ruled Your Bans Are Unconstitutional. like HR 2640 the “Veterans Disarmament Act”, The States Rights or Constitution is to be Governed By the Federal Constitution Any act by the leadership of common defense to Dis Miss Self Defense rights is unconstitutional, So Out lined By the Bill of rights Bill of rights “Amen”dment 2 . When Common defense leadership seeks to hold you in rebuke for self defense with or with Out Arms is dereliction of duty to the Oath of office as the leadership of common defense, the blacks law dictionary outlines these actions as Direct criminal constitutional Contempt. The Term Sanctum Mcgallium give us a way to sue the Appointed persons or elected person for such Kings rule actions Sue them out. Its helps to remove immunity the other law that came be used is U.S. Title 42 usc section 1983. Shall Not be Infringed.

    He wants to:

    * Limit the number of handguns Chicago residents can register to one per month and prohibit them from having more than one functional handgun at a time.
    * Require residents with children to keep firearms in lock boxes or equipped with deadly trigger locks.
    * Require those looking to purchase firearms to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. Buyers would even have to leave Chicago because the city limits the use of ranges to police officers.
    * Prohibit people from owning a gun if they have two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
    * Maintain a centralized registration database with the names and addresses of every handgun owner in the city.

    Cut from an Mixed with my own words
    Dudley Brown
    Executive Director
    National Association for Gun Rights
    Bruce Anderson

  11. The Counter Suits for Arizona to defend themselves Should be an Could be based on this matter of Voluntary Taxes History to the bill of Rights Amendment 2 The rights to Arms Shall Not Be Infringed an the Terms that outlines the base of defense Common defense Support from the Federal Defense failure to Secure the Border that has give way to let Foes Come Across an kill people rape an Steal. It’s time to suit out the leadership for each one to we suit out the Ones that are worthless common defense Leadership. Taxes was only to be force Able if a war was on United States.

    The federal government failed to Secure the Gate Causing Death. the Action of The Leadership at the federal Level Failed to Act to known Threats It is dereliction of duty to the Oath of office as the leadership of common defense, Use Direct criminal constitutional Contempt, Sanctum Mcgallium use the International Maritime Jurisdiction clauses.
    They claim a War With drugs, When there is really not , the war on drugS is the Stock Market an the white house either way They Failed to secure the Gate an then seek to dis Arm an Jail we the people when we are attacked is Treason,

    H.R. 2159, the Disarming American Citizens Act allowing anti-gun Attorney General Eric Holder to revoke the Second Amendment rights of ANY American he chooses based on pure “suspicion”; This is dereliction of duty to the Oath of office as the leadership of common defense, Use Direct criminal constitutional Contempt, Sanctum Mcgallium Use U.S. Title 42 usc section 1983. Flood the small claims courts it is also unconstitutional dis mis Freedom of speech, action is one thing Talking is another Eric Holder knows He But is in the Hot set,

    Like this
    HR 2640 the “Veterans Disarmament Act”

    *** A new so-called “Assault Weapons” Ban, targeting ALL semi-automatic rifles and shotguns — which, unlike the Clinton ban, will NEVER expire;

    *** H.R. 45, the “Catch-All” Obama Gun Control Bill, which would create a national gun registry, require a two-day waiting period, hike taxes on gun sales, federally ban ALL private firearms sales, and FORCE you to take a written exam just to prove you’re “fit” to own a firearm;

    *** The U.N.’s so-called “Small Arms Treaty,” which would confiscate and destroy ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms and set the stage for INTERNATIONAL gun confiscation.

    Read Imprimis from
    or Call for free mail outs 1-800-437-2268
    Go Israel And her Self defense Esther 8:11
    Bruce Anderson

  12. This is off-topic, but yesterday Jhon posted a link about Michelle Obama’s upcoming trip to Spain, which will require 30 rooms in a 5-star hotel. I went to the article and read that some of the rooms are for her friends.

    Who are these friends? I’m quite curious.

    Who is paying for their rooms and airfare?

    Is it the taxpayers?

    1. Unless he is willing to pay for all transportation, security and entourage out of his own pocket, the President and his family should not be allowed out of the White house for anything not essential to the performance of his duties ever. The expense and imposition on other people is just too much.

      1. I agree Zeb. I got caught heading southbound on the West Side Highway when the POTUS & his motorcade were heading north for their 1st date night. NYPD was forcing all SB traffic into the Brooklyn-Battery tunnel, it took 3 1/2 hours to get from Chelsea Piers to the tunnel entrance (just under 3 miles).

      2. With teleconferencing, there’s no reason the president ever has to leave the White House.

        1. Of course if you locked him in what amounted to a gilded prison for four years, you really couldn’t complain much when he ended up crazy as a loon at some point.

          1. I think by this point “crazy as a loon” is pretty much a prerequisite for the job.

            1. The election process does sort of self select for that.

            2. The election process does sort of self select for that.

              1. You can say that again…

      3. I don’t think the taxpayers should be paying for rooms or security for friends of POTUS.

    2. I linked to that story on C-SPAN’s Facebook page and was quickly responded to thusly “…and if she or the prez didnt make the trip, you’d bitch that they don’t care enough to bother themselves. You people make me sick, you cry and whine regardless of what takes place. You’re malcontents who have no agenda other than to spread your discontent to as many as possible. I consider you Hitlerites. Blame,point, whatever as long as it tears down and focuses a biased opine without reasonability.”
      Nothing like a poorly written Godwin to defend the waste of tax dollars.

      1. without reasonability

        If only that person knew that you’d come and tell H&R about it…then we’d have a DRINK! moment.

        1. for a magazine called Reason you sure do shill for Big Alcohol.

      2. “and if she or the prez didnt make the trip, you’d bitch that they don’t care enough to bother themselves.”

        What does that even mean? I don’t remember anyone ever complaining that a President just didn’t vacation enough.

        1. Devil’s advocate: If Bush had vacationed more maybe he wouldn’t have had time to invade Iraq and pass Medicare part D.

        2. i remember the press hating the fact they had to hang out in crawford.

          1. Yes they did. One of the things I liked about Bush is he totally fucked with the media. Crawford sucks. And everywhere within 100 miles of it sucks. I brings a smile to my face to think of all of those assholes in the Whitehouse Press corps spending weeks at a time in a place where Waco is the big town.

        3. I would be delighted if we elected a president who went on vacation immediately after inauguration and stayed there.

          Let Congress override all those pocket vetoes if they want something done.

    3. Meh. At least she’ll be telling the Spaniards what not to eat instead of Americans.

    4. Rush was talking about this earlier. It was along with the story of Obama claiming that his daughters are babysitting to help make ends meet.

      1. If they have not filled out 1099’s on the income, they are so busted!

        1. Oh, the poor Obama kids… they only get to vacation in Spain this month. I feel soooo bad for them.

  13. Reason continues to ignore the Oliver Stone story. No, I don’t want it in place of this one. In addition to this one and the love of sharia one would be nice.

    1. What story? Dumb director says some dumb things? Why should I care?

      1. Every stupid director who thinks Hitler got a bad rap from “The Jews” story isn’t for you.

        1. Wait… Are we talking about Mel Gibson?

          1. You are so last decade. Oliver Stone is the Mel Gibson of the teens. You read it from me first.

    2. Funny how you can complain about the lack of a story about an anti-semite non-elected official whilst defending an anti-muslim potential elected official in the same small post.

      1. That is another post. Go back to morning links, student.

        That guy is not anti-Muslim either. He is anti-sharia in the USA. Want to try to stone me? Bring it on bitch, I have a 6″ spike heel waiting for you and it will not be hidden by the tent you make your sister wear.

  14. You’re malcontents

    *puffs out chest*

    Fuckin’ A Johnny Squad Car, motherfucker.

  15. A right delayed is a right denied.

  16. That dude is just WAY too full of himself.


    1. Shut up and open the pod bay doors you stupid bot.

  17. I think I’ll go buy a gun today. Might take 20 minutes, but most of that time will be picking out which one I want.

    I do love Texas.

    1. Hey, thanks for reminding me. The local “best gun shop on the east coast” is having a sale, and I meant to swing by last night on the way home from work and pick up that S&W .22 semi-auto pistola. I’ll have to do that tonight.

      And while I’m there, I just might paw on some of those ARs chambered in .308.

      1. I might do the same thing.

        Great thing about Texas and Georgia….neither state requires a licence or state permit to own a firearm. You only need a permit to carry. And only then its with handguns.

        In fact, Georgia actually one ups Texas in this department, because in Georgia you can actually get open carry permits! In Texas open carry its prohibited outside of one’s property!

        1. Georgia also considers active-duty military to have the same weapons privileges as peace officers.

          So, because of state law, I could carry a concealed weapon virtually everywhere, but I was prohibited from carrying at all on base (as a military member) due to federal restrictions.

        2. In Washington open carry is legal everywhere without permit. There are a few common sense restrictions like courthouses and bars, but otherwise they’re remarkably liberal about open carry.

        3. Open carry permit? In Virginia, anyone who is not disqualified from possessing a handgun can open carry. Period, no permit required. You need permit only to conceal – and it’s shall issue.

          And of course, no license or permit or registration or anything like that required to purchase or own. Just the regular NICS check.

          We do, however, have the silly one gun a month for handguns. But if you have a CHP, you’re exempt from the OGAM limit.

          As of July 1, we now can legally carry concealed in premises with ABC on-premises licenses (i.e., you can carry concealed in TGI Fridays or Red Robin, even though they serve alcohol). The antis really got their panties in a bunch over that one.

    2. The Texas prohibition on open carry is mysterious to me. One of these days I’ll have to look into it, see where it came from.

      1. An Act to Regulate the Keeping and Bearing of Deadly Weapons Law of April 12, 1871, ch. 34, ?1, 1871 Tex. Gen. Laws 25.

        Passed during Reconstruction, the law prohibited carrying a list of weapons, including handguns openly or concealed. It remained substantially unaltered until Governor Bush signed the concealed handgun license act in 1995.

  18. Every cop in Chicago who wants to carry a gun should have to pay the same fee.

  19. If we get rid of every privately-owned gun, we can get one step closer to preventing Death Itself!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.