SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      Mobile Version     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact
CapitolFax.com
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
It’s not just about concealed carry, and their reasoning

Wednesday, Dec 12, 2012

* Most of the media coverage of yesterday’s appellate ruling was about concealed carry. But the case was about much more than that, as Justice Posner outlined in his opening paragraph

An Illinois law forbids a person, with exceptions mainly for police and other security personnel, hunters, and members of target shooting clubs… to carry a gun ready to use (loaded, immediately accessible—that is, easy to reach—and uncased). There are exceptions for a person on his own property (owned or rented), or in his home (but if it’s an apartment, only there and not in the apartment building’s common areas), or in his fixed place of business, or on the property of someone who has permitted him to be there with a ready-to-use gun… Even carrying an unloaded gun in public, if it’s uncased and immediately accessible, is prohibited, other than to police and other excepted persons, unless carried openly outside a vehicle in an unincorporated area and ammunition for the gun is not immediately accessible.

This appears to be about everything to do with carrying a weapon outside one’s home - in your car, in your briefcase as well as on your person. It looks to be a very broad decision, specifically referencing the state’s Unlawful Use of Weapons statute.

* Now, on to the reasoning behind the decision. We won’t delve into everything, but let’s start with this

Both Heller and McDonald do say that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home… but that doesn’t mean it is not acute outside the home. Heller repeatedly invokes a broader Second Amendment right than the right to have a gun in one’s home, as when it says that the amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and… carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Confrontations are not limited to the home.

The Second Amendment states in its entirety that “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” (emphasis added). The right to “bear” as distinct from the right to “keep” arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of “bearing” arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.

* Some history was invoked

And one doesn’t have to be a historian to realize that a right to keep and bear arms for personal self-defense in the eighteenth century could not rationally have been limited to the home. Suppose one lived in what was then the wild west—the Ohio Valley for example (for until the Louisiana Purchase the Mississippi River was the western boundary of the United States), where there were hostile Indians. One would need from time to time to leave one’s home to obtain supplies from the nearest trading post, and en route one would be as much (probably more) at risk if unarmed as one would be in one’s home unarmed. […]

Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower. A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress.

But Illinois wants to deny the former claim, while compelled by McDonald to honor the latter. That creates an arbitrary difference. To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald.

It is not a property right—a right to kill a houseguest who in a fit of aesthetic fury tries to slash your copy of Norman Rockwell’s painting Santa with Elves. That is not self-defense, and this case like Heller and McDonald is just about self-defense.

* And the majority justices used a bit of wry humor to reject the reasoning of a New York case

Our principal reservation about the Second Circuit’s analysis (apart from disagreement, unnecessary to bore the reader with, with some of the historical analysis in the opinion— we regard the historical issues as settled by Heller) is its suggestion that the Second Amendment should have much greater scope inside the home than outside simply because other provisions of the Constitution have been held to make that distinction.

For example, the opinion states that “in Lawrence v. Texas, the [Supreme] Court emphasized that the state’s efforts to regulate private sexual conduct between consenting adults is especially suspect when it intrudes into the home.”

Well of course—the interest in having sex inside one’s home is much greater than the interest in having sex on the sidewalk in front of one’s home. But the interest in self-protection is as great outside as inside the home.

- Posted by Rich Miller        


26 Comments
  1. - Fight for the Voyeurs - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 11:02 am:

    “Well of course—the interest in having sex inside one’s home is much greater than the interest in having sex on the sidewalk in front of one’s home. But the interest in self-protection is as great outside as inside the home.”

    Justice Posner, sex in public is the mustard and mayo on the sandwich of life. Stop being a killjoy.


  2. - reformer - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 11:08 am:

    From Scalia’s opinion in Heller: “The Second Amendment right is not unlimited…It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.”


  3. - reformer - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 11:12 am:

    I’m waiting to hear our conservative friends criticize unelected federal judges overruling the elected officials in Illinois, instead of providing due deference that conservatives such as Robert Bork preach. Ed Meese argues for judicial restraint and “a deeply rooted commitment to the idea of democracy.”

    When judges overrule the elected branches, they can be accused of judicial activism — at least when conservatives dislike the result.


  4. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 11:22 am:

    Justice Posner is nothing if not a prolific writer.

    But if you’re going to get into history, you shouldn’t probably try to be complete.

    A few points:

    –Many states required that male citizens (those that could vote) to own a firearm for compulsory service in the militia. There were no police forces or large standing U.S. Army.

    The need for militia was brought home in Shay’s Rebellion, a catalyst for the Constitutional Convention.

    The greatest need for militia was the fear of slave revolts.

    –You certainly needed a gun to make your way down to the trading post or town, but once there, you were often required to check your gun with the local constable or sheriff. In areas where there was established law enforcement operating, the banning of carrying weapons was common practice.


  5. - Plutocrat03 - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 11:34 am:

    When the courts see legislators pass laws that do not meet constitutional muster, it is their job to step in. It is not judicial activism.

    Judicial activism is the process where judges create new rights, which had not existed before.


  6. - Plutocrat03 - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 11:43 am:

    “The greatest need for militia was the fear of slave revolts”

    What a bunch of claptrap. There were large parts of the country that did not partake in slavery. Have we forgotten the (recent) experience to tyranny the founders went through? Think it was far from their mind?


  7. - 60657 - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 11:46 am:

    Judge Posner, not Justice Posner — thankfully.


  8. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 11:50 am:

    –Judicial activism is the process where judges create new rights, which had not existed before.–

    Since local jurisdictions have had the power to ban the carrying of weapons since 1789, what, exactly, are you talking about?

    I came across an interesting article by a prominent jurist last night regarding recent gun control cases and the Supreme Court. The opening paragraph:

    –At the end of June, the Supreme Court, in a case called District of Columbia v. Heller, invalidated the District’s ban on the private ownership of pistols. It did so in the name of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The decision was the most noteworthy of the Court’s recent term. It is questionable in both method and result, and it is evidence that the Supreme Court, in deciding constitutional cases, exercises a freewheeling discretion strongly flavored with ideology. —

    The author is Richard A. Posner.

    http://www.tnr.com/article/books/defense-looseness


  9. - titan - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 12:12 pm:

    @reformer - Most of the conservatives who use the term “judicial activism” as a negative term refer to it as judges creating rights that weren’t there, not enforcing ones that are written into the law (or constitution).
    A court finding a law to be unconstitutional where it required a newspaper to get prior governmental approval to publish a story would not be viewed as judicial activism. It would be upholding the right provided under the 1st Amendmennt.
    Many conservatives will view the CA7 decision as a similar action - upholding a right provided by the 2nd Amendment.

    And the CA7 decision did not mandate CCW for Illinois. Open carry would likely pass muster. The court found it improper to totally prohibit both.


  10. - Lobo Y Olla - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 12:16 pm:

    Wordslinger-
    You are my favorite poster for the rest of this week. Fantastic find.

    At the end of June, the Supreme Court, in a case called District of Columbia v. Heller, invalidated the District’s ban on the private ownership of pistols. It did so in the name of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The decision was the most noteworthy of the Court’s recent term. It is questionable in both method and result, and it is evidence that the Supreme Court, in deciding constitutional cases, exercises a freewheeling discretion strongly flavored with ideology. —

    The author is Richard A. Posner.


  11. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 12:35 pm:

    –What a bunch of claptrap. There were large parts of the country that did not partake in slavery. Have we forgotten the (recent) experience to tyranny the founders went through? Think it was far from their mind?–

    Pluto you don’t have to rely on my claptrap at all. And I don’t have to “think” about what “was on their minds.” There are depositories of books called libraries where you can find out for sure.

    In the original 13 states, slavery was allowed in New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, NC, SC and Georgia.

    Much of the drafting of the Constitution dealt with the protection of slavery. Slave revolts were a primal fear in the United States until the Civil War, and state militias were the instruments of protection from them.

    If you see it some other way after your close reading of the history, well, I don’t know what to say.


  12. - Plutocrat03 - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 12:36 pm:

    “ban the carrying of weapons since 1789″

    A great slogan… violating the Constitution since 1789


  13. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 12:52 pm:

    Pluto, it would appear that from 1789 until recent years, citizens and the judiciary accepted the banning of the carrying of weapons as Constitution.

    Did you think they didn’t have access to the courts to decide Constitutional issues?

    We’ll try this one more time, just for you. From Scalia’s opinion in Heller:

    “The Second Amendment right is not unlimited…It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.”


  14. - Todd - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 12:58 pm:

    Word — Posner did take issue with Heller and even did so in McDonald at the hearings. But his honor is living in a post Heller world and said as much during orals on Shepard. He also took a swipe at the 2nd District in their carry case.


  15. - titan - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 1:20 pm:

    @wordslinger - until Brown v Board of Education, we accpted racially segregated schools as constitutional. Until the Texas case, we accepted criminalizing homosexuality as constitutional.
    Periodically, we figure out we were wrong about something.


  16. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 1:29 pm:

    –@wordslinger - until Brown v Board of Education, we accpted racially segregated schools as constitutional. Until the Texas case, we accepted criminalizing homosexuality as constitutional.
    Periodically, we figure out we were wrong about something.–

    Very true. My original point was in response to one that stated the recent Supreme Court gun rulings were not examples of “judicial activism.”

    It’s a silly argument, anyway. Since Marbury vs. Madison, the judiciary has always been “active” and “discovered” new powers and rights.

    In some quarters, it’s “judicial activism” when it doesn’t go your way, and “original intent” when it does.

    The Supremes have always been political animals. There’s no reason to pretend that they were ever anything else.


  17. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 1:35 pm:

    Todd, the feud between Posner and Scalia has been pretty fierce over the years. I can’t help but wonder if there’s some sort of trick bag in Posner’s opinion that somehow undermines Scalia’s original opinion, or force him to address something within it.

    I imagine we might want find out. I don’t know that Scalia would like to have Posner’s interpretations of “Heller” stand as precedent.


  18. - reformer - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 1:44 pm:

    titan

    Leading conservatives such as Bork and Meese preach judicial deferrence to the elected branches. The Appellate Court didn’t show deference in this case. The use of the term “judicial activism” generally indicates disagreement with the result, not with the process.


  19. - walkinfool - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 1:53 pm:

    Word is right, as usual.

    I have been a close reader and fan of the Supreme Court for about 50 years. In my opinion, this court has been the most “activist” of any in my lifetime. Scalia himself has been an off-the-charts political activist, at the level of Wm. O. Douglas.

    I think it is a natural and worthwhile evolution for the Court. I just wish they wouldn’t fool themselves and others by calling themselves Conservative.


  20. - Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 1:56 pm:

    I posted this link late last night, but it seems appropriate for this thread in case you missed it: http://backstoryradio.org/straight-shot-guns-in-america-2/

    The hour-long program is well worth a listen and points out some very interesting aspects of the history of guns and gun ownership in the US. For example, the Black Panthers and Malcolm X were strong proponents of the idea that the 2nd Amendment gave blacks the right to bear arms to defend themselves against a hostile white majority. Also, well into the 1800’s the average citizen did not have a gun that would be useful in a military sense; the high quality fire arms were maintained in a local armory. It is also pointed out that in the late 1800’s “wild west” many towns had laws that banned carrying a gun in town and required guns to be kept in the sheriff’s office.

    The bearing of arms has evolved throughout the country’s history and will continue to do so; this is just one more stage.


  21. - titan - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 2:49 pm:

    @reformer - deference is one thing, but even a very conservative ‘non-activist’ court should be expected to overturn a statute that does something contrary to the consititution. No one would call overturning a statute requiring prior government approval of newspaper stories the act of an activist court. Overturning a statute that totally tramples the 2nd Amendment shouldn’t be viewed as any more activist as one overturning a statute that totally tramples the 1st Amendment. And here, the court didn’t impose it’s will by judicial fiat, it outlined the current law’s defects and gave the legislature time to craft something compliant.


  22. - Judgment Day - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 4:36 pm:

    “Judge Posner, not Justice Posner — thankfully.”

    In your opinion. Personally, I’d be absolutely fine with his decision making, especially if he was on SCOTUS. Not because I’m all about guns, but I loved his recent position and decision on patents/copyrights. Which long term, is going to be a far more important issue - not just for Illinois, but to the entire country.


  23. - Esquire - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 4:45 pm:

    @Reformer:

    Judge Posner previously issued judicial opinions which upheld the handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park. His reversal is perfectly correct in light of US Supreme Court decisions being binding authority which he is obligated to follow.

    As for unelected judges legislating from the bench, I believe the Bill of Rights was enacted by the Congress and ratified by the States. Presumably, elected officials served in the Congress and the state legislatures.


  24. - western illinois - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 6:31 pm:

    I should have posted on this one. Posner is trying to create chaos and eventually see the overturn of Heller. It was 5-4 and in 1972 the SC ended the death penalty and that lasted until 1977


  25. - reformer - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 6:48 pm:

    If Posner was merely following Heller, why didn’t he follow this part of Scalia’s opinion?

    “The Second Amendment right is not unlimited…It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.”


  26. - RonOglesby - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 8:19 pm:

    -reformer

    He is following heller. Heller pointed out prohibitions on CONCEALED CARRY. Not ALL CARRY. listen to the orals and READ the opinion. They are saying you have to give definition to “bear” arms.

    He even says in the opinion you can allow concealed carry or you can allow open carry, but you cant have a blanket ban. If a blanket ban on all carry would be fine Heller wouldnt have bothered to point out laws banning arms in sensitive place were probably valid. Heller did not say banning any carry is probably valid.


Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.


* Convention delegates are "not normal" party members
* I'll believe it when I see it, Lisa
* SIU's two crucial mistakes
* Sandack says no "compromising information" was accessed
* Chris Kennedy speaks to Dems, flees without talking to reporters
* G: Blagojevich doesn't deserve leniency
* *** LIVE COVERAGE *** Democratic National Convention
* Yesterday's blog posts

Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............
<


Search This Blog...

Search the 98th General Assembly By Bill Number
(example: HB0001)

Search the 98th General Assembly By Keyword

  
* Adobe Lightroom Launches on Apple TV
* Future Apple Pencil Could Include Motion Sensors and Magic Trackpad Compatibility
* New images show off BlackBerry’s upcoming Android phone
* Moto X Pure Edition 32GB is marked down to $250 at B&H, including $30 freebies
* T-Mobile’s Binge On finally hits 100 available services
* Gionee M6 and M6 Plus stand out with top-drawer hardware encryption, huge batteries
* T-Mobile Binge On provider count exceeds 100 with addition of ABC, Apple Music, and more

* Chris Sale apologizes to teammates and fans, doubles down against m...
* Saladino extends White Sox magic vs. Cubs
* Third straight walk-off fuels White Sox mojo
* Saladino extends White Sox magic vs. Cubs
* Melky robs Bryant of HR with riveting catch
* Shields faces Cubs as Chapman joins rivalry
* Saladino extends White Sox walk-off magic vs. Cubs

...............


Main Menu
Home
Illinois
YouTube
Pundit rankings
Obama
Subscriber Content
Durbin
Burris
Blagojevich Trial
Advertising
Updated Posts
Polls

Archives
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

Syndication

RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0
WordPress

Loading


* Rauner pushes lawmakers to vote on term limits .....
* New Poll Suggests Voters Trust Unions over Gov......
* Legislature unlikely to take up Rauner's call f.....
* Illinois Governor Vetoes Minimum Wage Bills - B.....
* Editorial: Change penalties on pot possession..
* Morning Spin: Ousted CPS principal won’t commit.....
* State’s job agency rebrands itself Intersect Il.....
* Who Will Take On Bruce Rauner? Democrats' Searc.....
* Who Will Take On Bruce Rauner? Democrats' Searc.....


* Illinois won't release details of 'Chicago Fire' tax credits
* Chicago commuter trains expanding service for Lollapalooza
* Trial delayed for 6 suspects in Williston heroin overdoses
* EXCHANGE: Business leaders work to spur entrepreneurship
* Illinois announces proposed waterfowl season, bag limits
* Illinois announces proposed waterfowl season, bag limits
* The Latest: Illinois lawmaker resigns over 'cyber' issues
* GOP Illinois lawmaker abruptly resigns over 'cyber' issues
* Former Chicago high school basketball standout gunned down
* Former high school basketball standout gunned down

* High-profile Republican state lawmaker abruptly resigns
* High-profile GOP Illinois lawmaker Sandack suddenly resigns
* 2 efforts in Illinois attempt to change sex offender laws
* Rauner renews call for term limits
* Rauner-created business development group gets new name
* State costs for amendment notices likely to top $2 million
* Rauner OKs regulating police use of cell-site simulators
* Illinois Supreme Court to consider remap ballot measure
* Rauner vetoes construction-wage, homecare-worker pay increases
* Rauner apologizes, Chicago teachers protest over 2011 email questioning their competency

* McDonald's misses estimates on same-store sales
* Consulting firm picks up health care IT boutique
* AB InBev sweetens offer for SABMiller to $103 billion
* Day 1 at DNC: Michelle and Bernie come out firing for Hillary
* Michelle Obama lights up Day 1 at the DNC


* Hawks, David Rundblad agree to mutual termination of contract
* Police: Man fatally stabbed in Zion
* Gary police seek person of interest in shooting case
* Police: 2 dead, 10 wounded in Chicago shootings Monday
* Man shot in leg in West Pullman
* Man shot in Englewood
* Two shot in Gresham
* Rizzo on Chapman deal: ‘We’re making a statement’
* Man, 18, shot in Little Village
* Who’s irrelevant now? Sox top Cubs on Saladino walkoff in 9th


* Did Bill Clinton just tell Toni Preckwinkle that Chicago is hers?
* Man stabbed to death at gas station in Zion
* Blagojevich's prosecutors say he isn't remorseful enough as new sentence looms
* 6-year-old boy dies after crash on I-88 near Farnsworth, officials say
* Some Chicagoans furious Cubs/Sox game delayed 'Bachelorette' airing
* Tom Ricketts says Aroldis Chapman 'has respected the process'
* Former Bears, NU defensive lineman Corey Wootton retires at 29
* Analysis: Bill Clinton's speech tonight will be unlike anything we've ever seen
* Michelle Obama taught me how to mother
* LINDA C. BLACK HOROSCOPES for 7/26/16


* Kathleen Parker: The fury of Herr Trumpf
* High-profile Republican state lawmaker abruptly resigns
* High-profile GOP Illinois lawmaker Sandack suddenly resigns
* 2 efforts in Illinois attempt to change sex offender laws
* Rauner renews call for term limits
* Rauner-created business development group gets new name
* Pam Molitoris: Hunger doesn't take a summer vacation
* State costs for amendment notices likely to top $2 million
* Statehouse Insider: Rauner, AFSCME conduct PR war while labor talks at standstill
* Bernard Schoenburg: Buscher moves from independent to GOP, Trump


* LIVE! Big Ten Media Days
* Ryan Drive closed for sewer repairs
* Lovie Smith at Big Ten Media Days
* Favorable growing conditions continue across the Midwest
* Deputies, suspect exchange gunfire
* Podcast: State Senator Scott Bennett 7-26-16
* Whistle blows for P.E. class
* Spotlight on Service, July 26, 2016
* Area history, July 26, 2016
* Selection of dean for Carle-UI med school moves closer


* Palatine roller rink asking for help after storm warps floor
* Nichols Library closing for work on stairs, stacks
* 6-year-old boy dies after I-88 crash near Aurora
* Preckwinkle gets prime seat next to Bill Clinton Monday
* Transwestern brokers sale of Addison industrial building

* House lawmakers overcome hurdle on key tra...
* Rodney Davis talks funding with Bloomingto...
* The agency that fought Illiana gets a new ...
* Rep. Dold takes educational cruise down Ch...
* Lawmakers decry high turnover rate of VA h...
* CBD Oil, and politics
* Simon considering state Senate bid
* Killer Congressman Tom MacArthur trying to...
* Shutdown? State may not notice
* Rep. Bob Dold

* Democrats Urging Senator Dick Durbin to Ru......
* Home Foreclosures Kirk, Durbin and IHDA An......
* Senator Durbin Being Suggested as Rauner C......

* Home Foreclosures Kirk, Durbin and IHDA An......
* Letter: Kirk must break from GOP on climat......

* Lemonade Stand Economics
* Texas prosecutors drop felony charges on Center for Medical Progress investigative journalists
* Illinois GOP Lawmaker Steps Down After Facing 'Cyber Security Issues'
* Analysis: Chicago Had $1.36 Billion In Unspent TIF Funds At Start Of 2016
* IR Readers Favorites for Third Week of July 2016
* Strick calls for candidates to reject Madigan for House Speaker
* Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz Resigns (UPDATED)
* Chicago Police Union To Officers: Turn Down Overtime During Labor Day Weekend
* Clinton Picks Kaine As Running Mate
* Trump returns to old ways: denials and finger-pointing about Cruz


* Serve Illinois Commission Announces $15.6 Million for AmeriCorps Programs - 32 grantees will place almost 1,600 AmeriCorps volunteers in communities
* Rauner Calls on General Assembly to Vote on Constitutional Amendment for Term Limits in Fall Veto Session
* IDNR Announces 2016–17 Waterfowl Season Dates
* Discount Admission Tickets Available For Purchase At Area Retailers - Fair to extend purchasing hours at Emmerson Building
* Governor Announces Appointments




Hosted by MCS -- CapitolFax.com Privacy Policy -- SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax -- Advertise Here -- Mobile Version -- Contact Rich Miller