HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » $399,950 check for legal ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:19 PM

$399,950 check for legal fees makes Rahm a big gun rights contributor

On February 1st the City of Chicago cut their first check for $399,950 to the Second Amendment Foundation for partial payment for the legal bills in the McDonald v. Chicago case. That probably makes Rahm and Chicago one of the bigger contributors to gun rights in the country. How's that for irony?

Just too bad Daley isn't paying anything out of his own pocket. He's gone but the taxpayers will be paying for his stubborn approach for years to come.

Now, Oak Park that was all "Gung Ho" to participate in the lawsuit, claims that tight budgets prevent them from paying any portion of the legal fees. Maybe the SAF can just take a few libraries, fire trucks or police cars as partial payment?

You can see the check here:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150576423202200&set=a.409829107199.184009.97479067199&type=1&theater

Sorry, I wasn't able to copy and paste the picture for some reason. Maybe someone else with better skillz can cut and paste it.

31 replies, 3580 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply $399,950 check for legal fees makes Rahm a big gun rights contributor (Original post)
DonP Feb 2012 OP
MicaelS Feb 2012 #1
DonP Feb 2012 #3
rfranklin Feb 2012 #2
DonP Feb 2012 #7
rfranklin Feb 2012 #10
DonP Feb 2012 #11
rfranklin Feb 2012 #12
DonP Feb 2012 #13
badtoworse Feb 2012 #16
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2012 #21
Atypical Liberal Feb 2012 #23
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2012 #22
oneshooter Feb 2012 #4
slackmaster Feb 2012 #5
Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2012 #6
virginia mountainman Feb 2012 #8
burf Feb 2012 #9
one-eyed fat man Feb 2012 #15
ellisonz Feb 2012 #14
liberal_biker Feb 2012 #17
Simo 1939_1940 Feb 2012 #18
ellisonz Feb 2012 #26
Simo 1939_1940 Feb 2012 #27
ellisonz Feb 2012 #30
Simo 1939_1940 Feb 2012 #31
Remmah2 Feb 2012 #19
Atypical Liberal Feb 2012 #24
Simo 1939_1940 Feb 2012 #28
Simo 1939_1940 Feb 2012 #20
DonP Feb 2012 #25
Simo 1939_1940 Feb 2012 #29

Response to DonP (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:24 PM

1. Boy that's sweet....

And that's just SAF's fees. Imagine how much the city actually spent on their end of things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:29 PM

3. They still owe the NRA and ISRA and the meter is still running

Rahm may not want to keep following Daley over that cliff and cut his losses now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:28 PM

2. Supporting more gun sales!

 

Glock's investment really paid off big time! (Gold sponsor of the Second Amendment Foundation.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rfranklin (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 02:38 PM

7. Gee, I sure hope so

But with record high firearm sales for more than 3 years now, it will be hard to beat the current rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 04:15 PM

10. Hope you are getting a percentage as a corporate shill...

 

otherwise, you are a useful idiot, in the words of Lenin (attribution in question.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rfranklin (Reply #10)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 04:22 PM

11. Nothing as sweet as a sore loser - Ha!

Get used to it, you have many more losses and big checks to the SAF, NRA and state associations to come.

Some of us actually believe in the entire Constitution, you really ought to try it some time.

In the meantime keep mailing those checks to Brady and Bloomie, you do actually support gun control with more than your mouth, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 04:32 PM

12. I have lost nothing...

 

I am a licensed handgun owner but I find this cheerleading for the gun makers tiresome. If you aren't getting paid, I wonder why you have a compulsion to taunt those who do not want a firearm in every purse and pocket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rfranklin (Reply #12)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 04:38 PM

13. I want everyone to be able to make the same choice you made

With the exception of felons and the mentally unstable, why shouldn't others have the same choices?

Or do you think that somehow the citizens of Chicago and DC aren't as worthy to make the same choices you did?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #13)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 09:52 PM

16. Kicking. I'd love to see an answer to your question,...

...but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 01:01 PM

21. Kicking again. Another "Gun control for thee, but not for me" advocate, it seems. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 01:08 PM

23. AAaaaand the crickets chirp.

 

"Guns for me, but not for thee."

Obviously the people that live in urban areas are just too stupid to know how to properly exercise their Constitutional rights, and they need the government to protect them from themselves. (sarcasm)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rfranklin (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 01:02 PM

22. Looks like Chicago is now a SAF Gold Sponsor.

I hope Rahm Emanuel got at least a kiss out of the deal...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:58 PM

4. Just hope the check don't bounce!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 02:04 PM

5. There's plenty more where that came from, and I'm sure that Rahm and his men will spend it too

 

It's what they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 02:14 PM

6. sweet, sweet irony

delicious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:05 PM

8. They need to do them, like these folk forclosed on bank of america! VIDEO at link!

http://www.digtriad.com/news/watercooler/article/178031/176/Florida-Homeowner-Forecloses-On-Bank-Of-America

After more than 5 months of the judge's ruling, the bank still hadn't paid the legal fees, and the homeowner's attorney did exactly what the bank tried to do to the homeowners. He seized the bank's assets.

"They've ignored our calls, ignored our letters, legally this is the next step to get my clients compensated, " attorney Todd Allen told CBS.

Sheriff's deputies, movers, and the Nyergers' attorney went to the bank and foreclosed on it. The attorney gave instructions to to remove desks, computers, copiers, filing cabinets and any cash in the teller's drawers.


That will teach them a lesson...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:27 PM

9. On the Oak Park thing,

Chicago won't shield Oak Park from NRA's legal costs

The city of Chicago will not shield Oak Park from paying a portion of the cost for the National Rifle Association's lawyers, despite the village board passing a resolution two years ago that said otherwise.

snip

Part of the reason that Oak Park chose to fight was because the law firm of Mayer Brown agreed to represent the village free of charge. And in March 2009, the village board passed a resolution, accepting Chicago's offer of "limited indemnification" against paying legal fees in the event that the NRA won in court.

But Heise told Wednesday Journal on Monday that Chicago's corporation counsel ultimately did not agree to indemnification. Rather, the two communities worked out an "agreement on contribution" that has Oak Park and Chicago splitting the NRA's legal fees, based on which of the gun group's legal expenses were specifically applied to fighting each town's two separate ordinances.

http://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles/06-14-2011/Chicago_won't_shield_Oak_Park_from_NRA's_legal_costs

Sounds as though Chicago left Oak Park hangin'.

I wonder how many of the good folks who are so eager to quote the "militia clause" of the Second Amendment and the dissenting opinion of Justice Souter will be making a contribution to the Chicago Treasurer to help out paying for the cost of the violation of a citizens Constitutional freedoms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to burf (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 08:35 PM

15. Oak Park got snookered

Chicago, that is, Mayor Daley, had promised to pay any legal expenses incurred by Oak Park if it would stay "steadfast" in its support of its ordinance and Chicago's ordinance, has now refused to honor its commitment, leaving Oak Park with unfunded liability of up to $800,000.

They got what anyone stupid enough to take Richard Daley at his word should get, a complete and total screwing!

The only shame is that instead of getting two fucking city cars, and a full time security detail Dickhead Daley ought to be paying this off out of his city funded pension!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Original post)

Tue Feb 7, 2012, 08:01 PM

14. I don't know how I'm supposed to take you guys...

...seriously on gun control when you can't figure out how to load a picture to DU...



You can thank me by laying down your arms!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #14)


Response to ellisonz (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 09:46 AM

18. How do you expect to be taken seriously when you distract


from the actual content of arguments with critiques on grammar, punctuation, and other irrelevant issues?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Simo 1939_1940 (Reply #18)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 01:28 PM

26. ^^^^^

Needs to work on his sense of humor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #26)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 05:19 PM

27. Hardly.


But that's a convenient back door you've built for yourself. Get called out for statement/behavior X, have no honest defense - and claim that others "have no sense of humor".

And simply because I don't insert the ROFL icon every third post as some rather juvenile individuals do doesn't suggest the lack of a sense of humor either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Simo 1939_1940 (Reply #27)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 06:21 PM

30. Ok

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #30)


Response to ellisonz (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 09:55 AM

19. Thanks!

 

LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 01:13 PM

24. You didn't do it right.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #24)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 05:21 PM

28. Now this is a sense of humor I enjoy! NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Original post)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 10:22 AM

20. The photo would be sweet only anti gun-rights Chicagoans


were picking up the tab IMO.

Too bad the pro-restriction supporters aren't compelled to pay for their folly:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117212198

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Simo 1939_1940 (Reply #20)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 01:26 PM

25. That photo should be on the front page of the Tribune and Sun Times

But as of today, there's not a single mention of it in the papers or on the news.

Considering the usual gun control stance of the Tribune though, I'm not surprised. But then again, the Tribune is in bankruptcy.

But if the citizens knew why their library was being closed every Monday, or why the local police station was being consolidated a few miles away because of budget shortfalls, partially because of this kind of nonsense from Daley and now Rahm, they might want their elected officials to stop dicking around with their ego, the Constitution and very expensive losing issues.

But then again, Daley's brother is a senior partner with the law firm hired by the city to help with this case. Some coincidence, huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #25)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 05:26 PM

29. "But then again, Daley's brother is a senior partner with the law firm hired


by the city to help with this case. Some coincidence, huh?"

I'd say that this was unbelievable, but...........

But if the citizens knew why their library was being closed every Monday, or why the local police station was being consolidated a few miles away because of budget shortfalls, partially because of this kind of nonsense from Daley and now Rahm, they might want their elected officials to stop dicking around with their ego, the Constitution and very expensive losing issues.

I'd have absolutely no problem chipping in to advertise this story in a major Chicago publication. I think it would be a great idea for gun rights organizations to start getting more aggressive in letting the public know what the actual pricetag is for bankrupt ideology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread