1. - How Ironic - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 7:23 am:

   I’m a gun owner, and this ‘plea’ for funds rings hollow for me. I’m very tired of the overwrought, over the top hyperbolic rantings as if AT ANY SECOND jack booted police are going to arrest me and take my guns from my home.

   It sounds like the rantings of a crazy person, and I certainly don’t want them to represent me.




2. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 7:36 am:

   The ISRA and the brave plaintiffs brought us McDonald v Chicago, Ezell v Chicago, Shepard v Madigan and Wilson v Cook County.

   Give until it hurts.




3. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 7:48 am:

   Oh and let’s not forget ISRA v Illinois State Police, or all of us FOID holders would be reading our names in the SJ-R,the Trib, and other Illinois media with AP feeds; along with lists of firearms purchases that we’ve made.




4. - Left Out - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 8:04 am:

   One can only wish that the ISRA would work as hard on stopping all the killing with guns as they do in going to court.




5. - South of Sherman - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 8:11 am:

   This is the same hysterical rhetoric that the pro-gun right uses against Obama all the time, too. Can anyone identify a single gun that has been grabbed by either Obama or Quinn?




6. - MrJM - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 8:16 am:

   I am the latest in a long line of firearms owners and I find the ISRA’s hyperbole to be disturbing at best.

   There is no better way to turn moderates against firearms ownership than for a gun advocacy group to demonstrate an inability to recognize, much less hold, temperate viewpoints on the subject of weaponry.

   “So, you’re hyper-defensive and expressing a fully developed persecution complex coupled with symptoms of paranoia — and you want me to support your right to pack a hidden Glock at the Taste of Chicago?!? You know what — I don’t think so.”

   While I’m very skeptical of most national gun-control legislation — too many firearms restrictions are an attempt to forge a rural solution to the problem of urban violence — I find the apocalyptic ravings of the ISRA to be some of the most compelling arguments for regulating the ownership of firearms in Illinois.

   – MrJM




7. - Dirt Digger - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 8:21 am:

   Anytime I see these ridiculous yet consistently effective fundraising drives from the right I mostly think I work for the wrong team.




8. - beserkr29 - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 8:43 am:

   Though I fervently believe that gun control laws have done, and will continue to do, nothing to significantly curb violence in urban and rural areas, this kind of stuff is scary to read. There are ways to make your point without hyperbolizing the issue. And name-calling. Seriously, this kind of thing freaks me out a bit.




9. - wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 8:54 am:

   The courts seem to be breaking the ISRA way recently. You wouldn’t know that from the funder letter.




10. - Ray del Camino - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 8:55 am:

    ” . . . prohibits Cook County residents from owning popular hunting and target shooting firearms.”

    No, those rapid-fire, high-capacity-clip rifles are not hunting or target guns. That is ridiculous. I am a multi-gun owner, FOID card holder, pretty decent target shooter, and occasional bird hunter, not some crybaby tree-hugger, and these claims have no merit.

    Yes, some IL regulations are a minor pain, but these guys are acting crazy. A media campaign like this damages what little credibility they have left.

    Geez.




11. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 9:30 am:

    Remington 7400 and Ruger mini-14 are two examples of civilian semi-auto rifles impacted by regulations like those in Cook Co, as they function exactly the same as the “scary black rifles”.

    The Second Amendment protects the possession of of firearms suitable for militia usage, including the ones that look scary to non-gun owners or to Second Amendment Apologists.




12. - gathersno - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 9:55 am:

    I wouldn’t imagine there would be much left of the game to eat after being hit with an assault rifle.




13. - Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 10:03 am:

    - The Second Amendment protects the possession of of firearms suitable for militia usage -

    And that militia is to be well regulated, if you care to recall. My buddies back shooting in the field behind their house does not a “well regulated militia” make.




14. - How Ironic - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 10:06 am:

    @Gathersno

    1. Hunters don’t usually ‘hit’ their target with the rifle. Typically they actually shoot it at them.

    2. The game isn’t rabbit, squirrel or raccon. It’s deer, elk, bear or other large animals. These can be as large as a cow, or larger.

    It takes a large caliber rifle to kill the animal humanely and quickly.

    You need to stop watching hollywood movies to get your information on firearms. The bullets don’t explode, cause the animal to catch fire, or blow limbs off.




15. - wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 10:07 am:

    –The Second Amendment protects the possession of of firearms suitable for militia usage, including the ones that look scary to non-gun owners or to Second Amendment Apologists.–

    The Second Amendment:

    –A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.–

    JJJS, where does one go to join that well-regulated militia? Who regulates it? If it can be well regulated, presumably that would include the firearms, particularly those that were not envisioned at the time of the Constitution’s ratification.




16. - Ray del Camino - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 10:19 am:

    H.I.– It’s not the large caliber that’s prohibited; it’s the large clip and the rapid-fire function.

    Word–The Supreme Court neutered the “well-regulated militia” part. We may never get it back.




17. - mark walker - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 10:25 am:

    This is way overblown, but not surprising.

    Some people project their fears and blame their own shortcomings on a mythical enemy: sometimes it’s a different race, faith, or ethnic group, sometimes immigrants, sometimes government or big business, in this case it’s gun regulation.

    Fear is easy to promote and reinforce by exaggerating the evils and power of the enemy, and fighting the overblown enemy makes fundraising easier.

    As a combat veteran, with a healthy respect for guns, the people who make a religious movement out of the 2d Amendment make me laugh.




18. - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 10:51 am:

    Once again the gun lobby is its own worst enemy. The screed seems like it was written by a cranky 16 year old. Moderates who might be pro-gun read it and think that the gun lobby must be nuts.




19. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 10:55 am:

    The meaning of “well-regulated” as it applied to the militia was the ability of groups of them to load, aim, fire, wait, clean & then load, aim, fire again all in unison.

    Regulation as in time-regulation, not as in trigger locks on the muskets or a waiting period to by more lead ball.




20. - How Ironic - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 10:56 am:

    @Ray,

    Clips haven’t been used for years. I believe you are meaning large capacity magazines are prohibited.

    Which in this particular case can be problematic. If a gun mfg in the USA produces a firearm that is ‘ok’ with current regulations, then a third party mfg (say in China) begins producing a large capacity magazine…it could potentially cause the firearm owner to be breaking the law w/out realizing or intending to.




21. - dupage dan - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 10:56 am:

    I thought the SCOTUS ruled re the whole regulated militia thing. The right of an individual to keep and bear arms is seperate from the militia part, per those guys and gals in DC.

    The idea that the framers of the US constitution meant for us to be able to only own firearms of the 18th century vintage is ludicrous. The writings of the time reveal that the framers were concerned about the potential tyranny of a strong central gov’t and the need to make sure that citizens had the right to possess firearms to be able to fend off said tyranny. They felt that state militias would be important since states at the time felt keely that they may have cause to fight off the central gov’t. While that has faded somewhat, and militias are seen more as arms of the federal armed forces, the right remains. As it does for the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

    BTW - my son, a gun enthusiast, makes sure I use the more proper word “magazine” as opposed to “clip” when discussing the device used to hold bullets. The devices mentioned above are spring fed units which are properly called magazines. Clips usually mean devices to hold bullets that are then loaded into the weapons’ internal magazine. Just sayin’.




22. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 11:07 am:

    Pat Ruberry will represent ISRA pro bono, and I’m sure there are plenty of other highly qualified lawyers out there who would be more than willing to do the same.

    Being a lawyer in Illinois is a dangerous job, especially for divorce lawyers, and you’d be surprised how many of them are packing.




23. - Fed up - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 11:45 am:

    I own a firearm and have no problem with reasonable laws regarding the possession of firearms. No one needs high capacity magazines or automatic weapons. This is just another example of our political leaders unable to reach a reasonable compromise.




24. - wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 11:49 am:

    DD, the move to draft the Constitution was to build a stronger central government to replace the Articles of Confederation.

    No small impetus for this was Shay’s Rebellion, where authorities in Massachusetts were unable to deal with armed insurrection.

    The first test to the central government after the Constitution was the Whiskey Rebellion in PA. Pres. Washington led federal troops to put it down.

    Militias and service in the militias were believed to be necessary in order to put down insurrection, and most importantly, slave rebellions. There was no large standing army or even police forces at the time.




25. - How Ironic - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 11:57 am:

    @ Fed Up

    1. Nobody ‘needs’ a car that goes 200mph on a racetrack either. If you don’t want to go to a firing range and be constantly reloading every 8 shots…you get a bigger magazine.

    2. When have allowing automatic weapons entered this discussion? No one is suggesting that they be allowed.

    Try again.




26. - D.P. Gumby - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 12:19 pm:

    I seem to remember AEsop also had a fable like this….




27. - Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 12:25 pm:

    I get hyperbole like this in the mail and through e-mail daily, mostly from various groups espousing causes or their own organizations.

    My position when I encounter such over the top language is to promptly file them away in the circular file next to my desk.




28. - Ace Matson - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 12:31 pm:

    This solicitation is just fund-raising for the overpaid lawyers!




29. - Bill - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 12:39 pm:

    Anyone dumb enough to give these guys money is too stupid to own a gun.




30. - Ryan from Carrollton - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 12:44 pm:

    ARs (think semi-auto M-16 5.56 NATO/.223) and Mini-14/M1A SOCOM (think M-14 7.62 NATO/.308) are both used frequently in rifle marksmanship competitions. A Remington 700 (originally a hunting rifle adopted by the military for use as a sinper rifle as the M-40, currently the M-40A5) is typically used in long range shooting, but ARs and Mini 14s are pretty popular at these events. So to say that the ISRA’s claims are irrelevant is not accurate.

    Additionally, while Obama and Quinn have not explicitly tried to “grab” guns, the Obama Administration for a while (not sure what the current status is) suspended the importation of M-1 rifles and M-1 carbines that were sold or traded to U.S. allies during the Cold War and are now sought after by collectors, enthusiasts and history buffs.




31. - Ryan from Carrollton - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 12:56 pm:

    Ray, you hit on exactly what makes firearms lethal, the caliber. A Ruger 10/22 with a banana clip is not as lethal as a single-action .357 magnum revolver. Simply limiting the size of a detachable magazine on a semi-auto firearm will not do a thing to reduce crime. Talk to a combat vet that used a grease gun or an M2 and they will tell you that they often staggered two or three clips and taped them together to eliminate having to reach back into an ammo belt or bandoleer for a period of time.

    Illinois Issues had an article a few years ago in which FBI crime data showed that handguns were the weapon of choice for criminals instead of so called assault rifles, combat shotguns, or submachine guns.




32. - WAK - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 12:56 pm:

    I find it ironic that the origin of the modern interpretation of the 2nd amendment touted by guns rights advocates is routed in the Black Panther Party. And that the regime of gun control laws the Panthers were reacting to was put in place by the NRA and other similar organizations in the late 1800s and early 1900s for the purpose of restricting gun ownership for minorities.




33. - MrJM - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 1:01 pm:

    Administration for a while (not sure what the current status is) suspended the importation of M-1 rifles and M-1 carbines that were sold or traded to U.S. allies during the Cold War and are now sought after by collectors, enthusiasts and history buffs.

    Worst. Rights Violation. Evar.

    – MrJM




34. - Ryan from Carrollton - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 1:12 pm:

    Couldn’t agree with you more MrJM




35. - Stateline - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 1:24 pm:

    I am also an owner of firearms and I disagree with the ISRA’s rhetoric. They certainly don’t represent my views.




36. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 1:30 pm:

    @Bill - there’s a reason you were only required to get a 50% score on the firearms proficiency and safety test in order to get a concealed weapon permit.




37. - Todd - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 1:52 pm:

    ” . . . prohibits Cook County residents from owning popular hunting and target shooting firearms.”

    No, those rapid-fire, high-capacity-clip rifles are not hunting or target guns. That is ridiculous. I am a multi-gun owner, FOID card holder, pretty decent target shooter, and occasional bird hunter, not some crybaby tree-hugger, and these claims have no merit.

    Yes, some IL regulations are a minor pain, but these guys are acting crazy. A media campaign like this damages what little credibility they have left.

    Geez.

    Ray — you’re wrong. My turkey gun hqs a pistol grip and another one has a thumbhole stock, both illegal under the ordinance.

    I hunt coyotes in Cook County with an AR-15. I am not interested in the meat., but even if i were, my 12 ga slug does more damage to meat than my .223 AR.

    And the fastest non-machine gun type firearm is a single action colt or clone, just look up bob mundlne i believe or springfields very own bad lands bill ogeslby they can fire faster than my AR

    And based upon the hearing yesterday, i think Cook County has a big problem on their hands




38. - howie - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 2:45 pm:

    All the fuss about a pro-gun group soliciting funds to further their cause…..as if the anti-gun groups aren’t doing the same thing?




39. - Todd - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 3:28 pm:

    Word — I thought you knew better:

    “The Second Amendment protects the possession of of firearms suitable for militia usage, including the ones that look scary to non-gun owners or to Second Amendment Apologists.–

    The Second Amendment:

    –A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.–

    JJJS, where does one go to join that well-regulated militia? Who regulates it? If it can be well regulated, presumably that would include the firearms, particularly those that were not envisioned at the time of the Constitution’s ratification. ”

    Common now. The Court settled this augument once and for all. We can debate if an AR is protected or not, if right to carry is included or not, but this is settled and not just by dicta:

    “Held:
    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
    traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

    end of story. Game over. Do not pass go do not collect $200. The individual right enumerated under the Second Amendment has no relation to the malitia cluase — it doesn’t matter.

    you can jump up and down about it, pound your fist on the table, whatever. The fact is the Court said:

    “The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.”

    And they didn’t just ignore it, they qualified it. It annouces a purpose, but does not limit it to that concept.

    As soon as I can break away from Indy, we need to have that beer.




40. - dupage dan - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 3:41 pm:

    word,

    I know the history. You may remember that the reason why states were reluctant to abandon the articles of confederation is that they feared a stronger central gov’t. That is one of the reasons for the bill of rights being added after the constitution was ratified. It is interesting to note that the second most important right was put #2, right after the free speech provision. Many who worked on the bill of rights were keen to make sure that folk had the right to keep and bear arms, so as to allow for the citizens to be able to protect the first amendment from the possible tyranny of a strong central gov’t.

    That is not a coincidence.




41. - dupage dan - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 3:45 pm:

    really, word, when do we see an end to your rhetoric re this. Todd added the PLAIN LANGUAGE that came from SCOTUS. end. of. story.




42. - mark walker - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 3:48 pm:

    This rewrite of history, which is a 20th century fable, that the authors and original supporters of the 2d Amendment were talking about maintaining militias to resist a central American government, are laughable. This was about security during ongoing conflicts with Britain, and a minor flap with the French, prior to the War of 1812. This whole argument is obviously negated by personal writings of the authors, the Federalist papers, and the reaction to Shay’s rebellion. It was also not part of the recent Supremes decision.

    Why are we so susceptible to rewrites of American history, broadcast by advocacy groups, when they support our current political positions?




43. - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 4:11 pm:

    Du Page,

    What people like you seem to have a tough time with is that there are people who could go either way on some of these gun issues, but when one side is screeching about “gun grabbers”, that side look pretty insane.

    When you want more people to have guns, looking insane is a very bad thing.

    I’m not sure who actually wrote that letter, but I sure don’t want that person to have a gun, or even to be around sharp objects.




44. - Retired Non-Union Guy - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 4:21 pm:

    As a gun owner and NRA member, I cringe at the over the top rhetoric used on BOTH sides. However, when having to choose between them, I will land on the side of the organizations making sure 2A rights are maintained … and send them funds so they can keep up the litigation.

    At the State level, in some ways Illinois is stricter the national norm (no concealed carry) but it is also somewhat less restrictive with the FOID card (register the owner, not the firearm as a number of other states require).

    Note that a lot of the current litigation cited was /is against local municipal laws.

    In my opinion, if Illinois had a firearms law preempting home rule which included ‘must issue’ concealed carry and was combined with the current FOID requirement, that would be a reasonable regulatory environment.




45. - Demoralized - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 4:33 pm:

    What I laugh about is the contention that somehow the 2nd Amendment gives citizens an absolute right to own any firearm under any circumstances. The Supreme Court held, and has always held, that some regulations are acceptable.

    And where exactly are the people running around the streets grabbing everybody’s guns away from them . . .




46. - Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 4:58 pm:

    - no relation to the malitia cluase — it doesn’t matter. -

    Todd, I think what word and I both were responding to was JJJS’s statement:

    - The Second Amendment protects the possession of of firearms suitable for militia usage, including the ones that look scary to non-gun owners or to Second Amendment Apologists. -

    I don’t know what qualifies as “suitable for militia usage” means, but I’m pretty sure the jury isn’t out on exactly which firearms the citizenry have rights to.




47. - Cheryl44 - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 5:19 pm:

    I’m not an owner, but I’m also not opposed to gun ownership. I don’t want these people owning or packing heat. They’re crazy.




48. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 6:42 pm:

    >>>>I don’t know what qualifies as “suitable for militia usage” means

    The SCOTUS judges did not know either but they used it as criteria to rule against Miller in absentia.
    US v Miller




49. - wishbone - Thursday, Jan 19, 12 @ 10:27 pm:

    “…would include the firearms, particularly those that were not envisioned at the time of the Constitution’s ratification.’

    Yawn, and freedom of the press only applies to hand fed presses, and certainly not to that newfangled internet.




50. - wordslinger - Friday, Jan 20, 12 @ 11:52 am:

    –really, word, when do we see an end to your rhetoric re this.–

    I’m guessing never. Try to cope.

    You all can attribute all sorts of rights to Justice Scalia’s 5-4 ober dictum, but it doesn’t change the facts that regulations on the carrying of firearms in the public way have existed since the Constitution was ratified.

    For the record, I don’t have a problem with guns in the home or hunting. But I don’t believe you have a right to pack when I’m on the el or at the bar.

    You never have. See “She Wore a Yellow Ribbon.” Or “Tombstone.”

    Todd, you’ve been in Indy so long, I hope you get Super Bowl tickets.

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.