101 Comments - Anon - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:14 am: Good GOD. She’s had what, 6 months to do this? Cut it out, sign the bill, and join the other 49 states in the 21st century. - Logic not emotion - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:16 am: Not totally unexpected; but definitely interesting - like watching a political chess match. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:17 am: ===sign the bill=== She can’t. - RonOglesby - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:18 am: This: — It also keeps her out of the debate, of course. — Is key here. - Loop Lady - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:18 am: Um, like father, like daughter…are we paying attention folks? - wordslinger - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:18 am: Rich, did you put her up to this to boost traffic, lol? Um…. assuming the c-c bill passed will become law, and I think it will, there would be nothing to appeal, correct? The old law will be dead as Dillinger. - Anon - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:21 am: Ah Rich. I need more coffee. I meant she drop this, the gov sign, and we join the rest of the country. It just amazes me. After a generous period of time given by the court, there have been a combined 3 extensions in regards to the law itself going into effect and the opportunity to challenge it in the supreme court. It’s reminiscent of a college student who has had all term to write a paper, and sends a flurry of emails on the last day asking the teacher for just a little more time. In 49 other states, this isn’t exactly controversial. - Logic not emotion - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:24 am: Anon: Only the Governor can sign the bill and she currently isn’t. My impression is that L Madigan and P Quinn would each like to use this issue against the other as a hand grenade during a potential primary battle. This latest move is her attempt to lob it back in Quinn’s court. - c - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:26 am: to bad her time to appeal ends after 183 would automatically becomes law and after the 7ths stay is up. - wordslinger - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:26 am: I’m going to miss the “other 49 states” references. Made by those who think they are informed on 2nd Amendment limits and state laws. - Anon2 - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:28 am: She’s fully expecting it to be “shot down”. She’ll be able to say that “The courts have spoken. The legislature has spoken. I did my job and exhausted all the appeals…it’s up to Gov Quinn.” - Fan - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:36 am: The new Nanny Wannabe trying to boost her credentials? Cut her off at the knees Pat and sign it. Then, you can blame others for the law in the first place. Come on Pat. “Be Bright, to do Right”. - RonOglesby - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:37 am: Gotta love this part: — In addition, counsel’s supervisory responsibilities over the Civil and Criminal Appeals Divisions of the Attorney General’s Office-including editing and revising briefs and preparing attorneys for oral argument-have occupied a substantial amount of time in May and the first two weeks of June, 2013. — It’s the I’ve been REALLY, REALLY busy legal case theory! - Mmmmmmm - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:40 am: Other States have fixed their conceal carry laws. Other States have fixed their pension problems. Other States have passed gaming bills. Other States pay their bills in a timely manner. What a JOKE… - CircularFiringSquad - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:41 am: Meanwhile 2A nut jobs like the fine Tazewell Co. States Atty is telling all his gunners to start packin’ as soon as they find their FOI cards. Pay no attention to the proposed prohibited places, no guns for nuts, etc Just grad your holster and hits the streets to begin your “self defense” - Anon2 - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:41 am: The political calculus is hard here. In the general election, they figure gun voters are going for the GOP anyway…no vote to lose. BUT…in IL, we can crossover and vote in the primary. - Mmmmmmm - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:42 am: I was NEVER for all that term limit crap before….But I am seriously beginning to come around to that idea.. - More Courage - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:51 am: Well, maybe we should review what the court said when they granted the initial extension… “This court’s mandate is stayed until July 9, 2013,” the three-judge panel said in today’s ruling. “No further extensions to stay the court’s mandate will be granted.” I guess for pure politics it doesn’t hurt her to ask, but the court has been pretty clear on where they stand on this. - RonOglesby - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:53 am: @More Courage That was from the 7th granting 30 more days on the stay. This is the SECOND ask to SCOTUS (not the 7th) asking for 30 more days to CONSIDER filling cert. - Just Observing - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:55 am: === I’m going to miss the “other 49 states” references. Made by those who think they are informed on 2nd Amendment limits and state laws. === @Wordslinger - Evidently you maintain a monopoly on knowledge regarding “2nd amendment limits and state laws.” It is indeed true that 49 other states have SOME FORM of cc. - Ken_in_Aurora - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 11:55 am: Word, do you deny the other 49 states have CCW to one extent or another? Or that the trend over the last few decades has been to liberalize existing may issue CCW statutes to shall issue? Yes, a few states are still very restrictive - but I’ll bet you a Gene and Jude’s dog that even that short list will be liberalized over the next few years. - wordslinger - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:03 pm: Some states have very loose c-c laws, some state’s have c-c laws that are virtually “no-issue” or no-issue for millions of residents. Regardless, no interpretation, ever, of the 2nd Amendment by federal courts has mandated a state c-c law of any sort. Again, the 7th struck down Illinois blanket prohibition of carriage. - Chris - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:04 pm: “I meant she drop this, the gov sign, and we join the rest of the country.” So, you want her to commit malpractice, in a likely futile attempt to force Quinn’s hand? That’s just ridiculous. - In the know - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:05 pm: So lets consider the political calculus. Quinn WILL AV the bill a la “rewrite to do right”. The only question is when. IF SCOTUS grants the 30 days, then the GOV has no reason to delay, attempting to force her to act. Then PQ can AV, the GA can override, the Writ is moot and she gets to avoid the heat. - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:17 pm: Appellate court schedules (other than the original notice of appeal) tend to be more “opening offer” than “set in stone.” I can imagine that once in a while a case follows the original deadlines, but I can’t think of one that I’ve handled where nobody has asked for at least one extension, and usually two or three. I’m pretty sure this will be granted. And the pro-gun people — any chance you can let us know when you will stop whining? I get it. You are outraged. You people are always outraged. - Joe shmoe - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:19 pm: She just embarissing the court systems thats all. She has no respect for the rest of the court system !!!! - Quizzical - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:22 pm: I wonder if the extensive rewriting and revising of briefs has anything to do with the low pay and high turnover at the office. - Todd - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:22 pm: here we go again. The tit for tat with PG over what to do. Lisa could have filed for cert at any time. She has an whole office full of lawyers or are they that incompetent? The NRA had a draft of a cert petition within 3 weeks of the oral arguments. Last time Posner say on a panel, they issued a ruling in 7 days. SO there was a possibility that we could have gotten a quick ruling. and it could have gone against us. and we were prepared for that. You mean to tell me, that they have had 6 months, and still can’t find someone to write it? Give me a break. this is PQ saying Lisa appeal. And PQ could say I signed it because Lisa would not appeal. Now Lisa can say I need not appeal as the issue is moot with PQ signing the bill. But she could still appeal as disagreeing with the conclusion that the 2A grants the right to bear arms. Shame how on something so simple, they just want to play politics. It truly shows a lack of leadership in the Office. - BDuty6 - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:25 pm: I have a somewhat related question that no one I’ve talked to has been able to really answer. Let’s say the AG doesn’t get her new appeal and the Governor has until July 9(?) to sign the C-C bill passed by the GA. If he vetoes that bill right at the deadline, and the GA doesn’t address the veto before the July 9 deadline, does constitutional carry become law in Illinois as indicated by the initial ruling by the 7th? And, if so, when the GA addresses the veto, will constitutional carry be rolled back to the provisions in the C-C bill? If so, I can definitely see the next fight brewing in Illinois, as the pro-gun folks are not going to be pleased if they’re asked to give up rights they feel they have under constitutional carry to adopt the provisions in the C-C bill. - Happy Returns - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:27 pm: ” . 2nd, why don’t we who are not in Chicago just push them into being a district much like DC is in Maryland. They can be the district of Chicago, make and do their own laws and for once not screw us down stater’s.” Spoken like a true spoiled brat. - A. Nonymous - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:35 pm: @ anon - “In 49 other states, this isn’t exactly controversial.” LOL. That explains why so many pro-gun folks here have been so accepting of New York’s totally, absolutely, amazingly non-controversial may issue laws. “But Ma!!! The other 49 states are jumping off a bridge! Why can’t we do it too!!?!?!” - Ken_in_Aurora - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:38 pm: A. Nonymous, that’s why NY’s law has been and will continue to be challenged. I beleive cases challenging all the states with effective no-issue are working their way through the system. - wordslinger - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:42 pm: –A. Nonymous, that’s why NY’s law has been and will continue to be challenged.– Supremes passed earlier this year. - A. Nonymous - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:44 pm: @ Todd - “But she could still appeal as disagreeing with the conclusion that the 2A grants the right to bear arms.” You and every other legal gun owner in Illinois ALREADY HAVE the right to bear arms in this state. My hunch is you already own a weapon or two (or 10 or 20) AND you bear your arms while on your personal property and you probably even bear your arms at publicly recognized, legal shooting ranges. You may even bear your arms while you go hunting. What you want is for the courts to redefine your right to bear arms into a right to carry loaded handguns with you wherever the heck you want. There’s a difference between the right to keep and bear arms (ie, owning guns) which is already legal and your wish to carry loaded guns around in public. - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:45 pm: So she’s too busy and her job is too much for her guess it’s time for her to find a new line of work - tubby 1220 - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:48 pm: Illinois is the only state that has Chicago. - In the know - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:50 pm: @Gothis6 because the amount of income tax revenue generated by the “District of Cook” funds a substantial portion of the state programs we downstaters rely upon. Don’t buy into the myth that Cook is a “tax eater”, WE are the tax eaters. - RonOglesby - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:51 pm: @ A. Nonymous — What you want is for the courts to redefine your right to bear arms into a right to carry loaded handguns with you wherever the heck you want. — You paint with a pretty broad brush. Actually what we want is for the court to define BEAR and apply it. Heller started (and that knocked out requirements make all arms in the home non-functional). This decision gave meaning to Bear. It did not say, carry anywhere, in any manner. But it did say you could not have a broad ban. Sorry you dont like that and create a huge strawman that you try to toss around. But there it is. Bearing is not practicing at a range. Read the decision, plenty of discussion is given to this. - Wensicia - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:53 pm: It’s not that she doesn’t have enough time to do her job, it’s avoiding the job altogether, if possible. - wordslinger - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:54 pm: –But it did say you could not have a broad ban.– I’m not sure Heller said that. The circuits are split. The New York law has a pretty broad ban and the Supremes denied cert on that. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:56 pm: Posner said that parading around your apartment is not bearing arms, it’s carrying them on your person out where you might actually need them. Such as out in public, or in your car. - RonOglesby - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:58 pm: @ Word I didnt say heller said that, I said this decision (Madigan v moore) I noted heller was the first step in defining the 2A, McDonald, Ezell, now Moore and some other cases are further finding boundaries. That guy just put up a “you want to carry anywhere, anytime, etc, etc” type strawman. Which shows lack of knowledge about the cases and this case specifically. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:58 pm: >>>>There’s a difference between the right to keep and bear arms (ie, owning guns) which is already legal and your wish to carry loaded guns around in public. Geeez. right to keep arms == owning guns right to bear arms == carry loaded guns around in public - RonOglesby - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 12:59 pm: @Word I used “this decision” and should have probably said Moore, instead of “this” - urmomma - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 1:03 pm: This lady needs to wake up and get a real job! All other states have it and having it would add revenue to this broke state, with an application fee.. Lets just raise gas rates and business taxes to try and get the state out the red?? I wish Chicago was not even in IL, I guess that is where corrupt politicians are born and breed! - urmomma - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 1:05 pm: She needs to be making license plates in prison with our past corrupt and above the law governors for denying our rights!! - Keep Calm and Carry On - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 1:11 pm: Does Quinn now hit the Attorney General’s office for not appealing more quickly or having an appeal ready to go? “I always wanted the Attorney General to appeal the case. Unfortunately, their office either wouldn’t or couldn’t until now. You’ll have to ask them why they weren’t ready.” - Todd - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 1:11 pm: @ A.Non — you’re wrong. We don’t want the Court to re-define anything. We just want them to recognise the right. and as Justice Posner said: “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.” So if you don’t like the interpretation of the right, then I suggest you get the AG to appeal the case. If not, get use to the fact that pretty soon, people will be carrying handguns with them in public. - Just Observing - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 1:15 pm: === having it would add revenue to this broke state, with an application fee === The state will not be making money hand-over-fist with application fees. Furthermore, by law, fees are to be commensurate with the cost of a service — in this case processing the application — not as a revenue generator. === She needs to be making license plates in prison with our past corrupt and above the law governors for denying our rights!! === Stop with the hyperbole. - Just Observing - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 1:17 pm: === That explains why so many pro-gun folks here have been so accepting of New York’s totally, absolutely, amazingly non-controversial may issue laws. === @A. Nonymous — So, do you support a NYC system where the rich and connected get cc permits while the rest of the population does not? - Small Town Liberal - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 1:25 pm: - could not rationally have been limited to the home - One doesn’t have to be a historian to realize that outside the home doesn’t mean anywhere in public either. C’mon, as a lobbyist you’re going to cry politics? If you’re confident in your chances with the court, perhaps you should welcome an appeal. Either way, things seem to be going your way, stop whining. You’ll all likely get to play cowboy soon enough. - Anonermouse - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 1:29 pm: This is ridiculous. Madigan and Quinn are so busy trying to protect their political careers. The saddest part, I don’t know a single person who will vote for either one of them, come next election. They need to quit dragging their feet and get it done! Sign it! Make it law! Let the next cadidates, who will likely be more qualified anyway, deal with all, if at any, fallout. Thank you. - Anon2 - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 1:31 pm: The GOV is stalling so that home rule communities can enact whatever bans they can before the clock runs out. In the end, he signs before the 9th assuming he doesn’t get a stay from 7th or SCOTUS. I think that SCOTUS will not grant certiorari and she knows this. That’s why she hasn’t filed for it. - Demoralized - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 1:34 pm: I didn’t think this issue had anything to do with the extension from June 9 to July 9. This was a separate issue I thought, independent of that decision. Isn’t this just asking for an extension to file an appeal on the original ruling? - Ken_in_Aurora - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 1:45 pm: “Supremes passed earlier this year.” Denying cert isn’t the same as a decision. - RonOglesby - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 1:45 pm: @Demo, right. this extension is her asking for her 2nd 30 day extension for file with SCOTUS. Right now the deadline is the 24th of June. That date is based on her failure in the enbanc review. Remember she asked for 30 days to file the review before the whole 7th. It was granted. Then filed for 30 more days with SCOTUS to decide if she was going to appeal there. Noted that the gov needed more time to review Then she filed for a 30 day extension of the 7th’s stay (with the 7th) striking the UUW/AUUW laws. That was granted but with a warning. In each of these she has noted how busy they are… Its kinda sad as they are not filing this because they are busy. Its being filed for political reasons. - RonOglesby - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 1:49 pm: @Small Town There is a large group in the Gun rights community that DOES want her to appeal and go to SCOTUS. There is also a large group of anti-gun folks that don’t. Blanket prohibitions tend to do poorly there. And Illinois’ law would have less chance than even something like Hawaii. Believe me. Lots of us do and its the other side that doesn’t want this infront of SCOTUS… If they did Bloomberg and everyone else would be begging lisa to take it there. But funny enough you hear none of those calls from the anti side. - charles in charge - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 1:57 pm: Rich, your links don’t work. - wordslinger - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 2:02 pm: –Denying cert isn’t the same as a decision.– It let’s the law stand. What’s the difference? - Ken_in_Aurora - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 2:07 pm: “It let’s the law stand. What’s the difference? ” Only a decision sets precedent. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 2:08 pm: ===Rich, your links don’t work. === Try again. - Demoralized - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 2:09 pm: @Ken: It doesn’t set precedent but it still let the law stand. - Ken_in_Aurora - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 2:15 pm: @ Demoralized - right, but it can still be contested in another case. The challenge wasn’t knocked down creating precedent. - Demoralized - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 2:20 pm: @Ken: Yes, I know that. But there are some who seem to believe the law is somehow illegitimate because it hasn’t been decided by the Supreme Court yet. I think that’s the point others are making. The law is the law until the court says otherwise. - Ken_in_Aurora - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 2:27 pm: @ Demoralized: I agree but I feel the trend as being towards liberalization. I don’t feel the current law is illegitimate, just wrong. We won’t know until the right case makes it to the Supremes and is decided. - A. Nonymous - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 2:36 pm: @ ken - ” that’s why NY’s law has been and will continue to be challenged” The gentleman said the other 49 states’ laws were non-controversial. I was disproving his claim. Thank you for your help in pointing out the very controversial nature of the wholesale redefinition efforts from the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby. – @ Ron Oglesby - is your name Todd? That said - is the goal of the gun lobby not to redefine “keep and bear arms” more to their liking? Why yes. You said in your own post that you guys are trying to get the courts to define these things. It was defined, for centuries. The NRA itself helped write many of the previous common sense gun regulations that all 50 states had on the books. It has only been in the past half-century or so that the gun lobby, working through the NRA and similar, have started trying to repeal those previously non-controversial common sense regulations… Mostly using salacious, barely supported claims about “personal safety” etc. They have been very successful and, simultaneously, very profitable (what was the price of ammo lately? All while Pres. Obama has so far EXPANDED gun rights to date — common sense, watered-down legislation about Background Checks notwithstanding). And thanks for the advice but I have read the Heller decision as well as Posner and others. Several (many? most?) gun enthusiasts need to realize that Posner is not on the Supreme Court. Finally, you need to look in a mirror to find your broad brush and your straw man. - RonOglesby - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 2:48 pm: @A. Non uh… you posted on a public forum for all to read and painted with the brush… So for centuries bearing arms was defined legally? where? can you show me the supreme court ruling precedent? Miller? never touched on Bear. But then again you know that and are arguing a failing position. - Upand Adam - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 2:49 pm: @ Ron - I am in the camp of let go back to the court. It is a risk but us ‘gun rights’ folks have two things going for us: 1) CCW laws (or some version of) in 49 other states and, 2) as you stated, broad bans don’t do well and chances are the ban will be struck down (again) and it will set a precedent and make the decision final. It will put an end to all the useless excuses by Quinn, Madigan, Emanuel, etc to not have a CC law in IL. I would say it would stop all the whining too but I don’t think we will ever see that from those people and their ilk. Btw, when I say “useless excuses” I am including the oft used “wild west” and “playing cowboy”. They love to use those terms yet it just doesn’t happen. VERY, VERY rare (if ever) is it that legal, CC permit holders are involved in shootings that are not self-defense related. We aren’t out there shooting at each other, flashing our guns to the first jerk who cuts us off on the highway or drawing down on someone for looking at us cross. The anti-gun folks like to think it happens all day, every day. It just doesn’t. - ButchB - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 2:50 pm: As far as carrying on the street, there are cases where that would save lives. Look at Texas…a lot of the Texans carry all the time, and you don’t see guys walking up to a Texan and demanding their wallet or their car. Check the statistics, guys! - wordslinger - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 2:59 pm: –Look at Texas…a lot of the Texans carry all the time, and you don’t see guys walking up to a Texan and demanding their wallet or their car.– What are you talking about? They just had armed prosecutors gunned down — in their homes and on the street — by a disgruntled judge. What stats are you talking about, anyway? - Demoralized - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 3:02 pm: ==Texans carry all the time, and you don’t see guys walking up to a Texan and demanding their wallet or their car.== You ever been to Houston? CC isn’t going to stop most idiot criminals. It might make them wish they hadn’t been an idiot criminal though. - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 3:05 pm: A fine display of her inability to actually manage her office and more - a display of her inability to run the entire state. - A. Nonymous - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 3:21 pm: @ Ron - yes. It was defined. Also upheld by pre-Scalia Supreme Courts. Try reading history that is not filtered through the modern NRA’s political lens. For example, here’s a brief primer including valuable quotes from then-Gov. Ronald Reagan who once said “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” (1967) http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/ By definition, legalizing a ban on carrying loaded weapons in public defined “bearing arms” by significantly limiting it through those common sense regulations for which the NRA once helped write and pass model legislation. To wit, look at the 1939 SCOTUS unanimous decision approving FDR’s gun legislation (which the NRA also helped write). No offense - but learn a bit more about the other side of your argument before you start whining so loudly again about things which you clearly have not bothered to educate yourself. And, no, echoing NRA talking points while ignoring centuries of American history doesn’t count as learning. - RonOglesby - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 3:34 pm: @A.Non condescend much? You still dont show courts deciding on what bear means. And because Reagan said it you expect people to lie down on their backs? I dont think so. Sorry. you still fail to back up your centuries of courts defining BEAR. - Demoralized - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 3:44 pm: Bear: A large furry animal with 4 feet, sharp claws, and big teeth. Also likes honey and fish. - Also Nonymous - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 3:46 pm: Last paragraph from her last appear for a 30 day stay, from June 5th: “State defendants recognize that even the temporary denial of a constitutional right imposes a burden on the plaintiffs, but the public’s interest in allowing the challenged laws to remain in effect pending enactment of the new legislation outweighs such harms here.” One wonders how she can appeal to the Supreme Court if she has officially recognized it as a Constitutional right. - Demoralized - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 3:52 pm: ==One wonders how she can appeal to the Supreme Court if she has officially recognized it as a Constitutional right. == Because after the comma in that statement she goes on to say that the challenge outweighs any potential harm that would result. Everything the Court does is a balancing act. I’m not sure this will work but she is within her rights to try. - Panny - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 3:56 pm: Meh. I’ll still vote for her. - Arthur Andersen - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 3:56 pm: I haven’t followed this closely, but maybe the designated brief writer keeps “getting himself lost” like the dude who was supposed to draft the gaming bill. Just a theory. - A. Nonymous - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 3:59 pm: @ Ron - like I said, get a mirror. Pointing out facts is not condescension. It’s honesty. And the facts are that the Second Amendment was very well defined and accepted by Americans who recognized a need for well-regulated militias throughout our nation’s history. Carrying around a loaded gun was not part of the nation’s common lexicon until the NRA coup in the late 70s when radical elements of the right-wing began their concerted efforts to rewrite history and redefine the Second Amendment whether through laws or courts. Not surprising that you took my recitation of facts as “condescension,” however, given your know-it-all, your-way-or-the-highway attitude. I’ve yet to see a fact in your posts, other than a few out of context, cherry-picked references to very recent court cases redefining the Second Amendment. Bottom line: courts don’t write laws to define things. Legislators do. But perhaps you prefer your legislation to come from the bench, unlike most self-professed conservatives who claim to dislike legislators in robes. - crunch - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 4:04 pm: Why do the people of the Great State of Illinois constanly vote these people into office we have seen elected officials enject there own ideas even though they know gun control does not work. It serves for the low informational voter to see them as doing something even if it is the wrong way. - Ken_in_Aurora - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 4:25 pm: “One wonders how she can appeal to the Supreme Court if she has officially recognized it as a Constitutional right.” I suspect she’s hoping to set the level of scrutiny. - Bill K - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 4:28 pm: This delay stuff is all they have left in this battle for our right as law abiding citizens. Public unrest is coming and it will most certainly be soon. If Zimmerman gets off and its still warm outside The blacks will riot again, Rodney King is the perfect example. I for one do not want to be hit in the head with bricks. - wordslinger - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 4:30 pm: –I for one do not want to be hit in the head with bricks.– Bill K, judging from your post, that train has left the station. - A. Nonymous - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 4:37 pm: @ Ron - A quick history, from but a few significant decisions. Again - courts shouldn’t be legislating from the bench. But, clearly, the majority of American history to date shows that 2A was about allowing the states to regulate militias, not about individual citizens to be an army unto themselves. It says “keep and bear arms” because militiamen (ie, “well-regulated militia”) would need to store their own weapons and be able to carry those arms with them to perform militia duty. It does not say “own, possess and freely carry arms.” In other words, other than for hunting or militia duty, there was no recognized right to carry loaded guns in public — up until the right-wing started revising history, attempting to redefine the Bill of Rights and otherwise making things up starting in the late 60s, ramping up in the 70s and on thru to today. Here’s a brief history for you. Have fun – Federalist Paper 46, Madison A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States, John Adams (1787) Aymette vs. State, Tennessee (1840) English vs. State, Texas (1872) State vs. Workman, W. Virginia (1891) And yes, United States vs. Miller (1939) and even the 9th’s Silveira vs. Lockyer from way back in 2002. PS - “The word ‘arms’ in the connection we find it in the Constitution of the United States refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense.” From English vs. State of Texas. Just sayin’. - Arthur Andersen - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 4:39 pm: Hey Bill K., stay inside, all right? And take all your meds, too, k? - Demoralized - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 4:44 pm: @Bill K: You are evidence of the unintended consequences of closing our state mental health facilities. - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 5:12 pm: Unbelievably outrageous,arrogant, conspiratorial, and political. What else should we expect from a Madigan? I am a lifelong independent voter who has voted for more Democrats in recent years than Republicans. NO MORE! I will join the NRA, the ISRA, and help raise whatever funds I can to help defeat this cancer on our Constitutional rights. And as member of a family who has suffered as victims of gun violence, this is a civil right for us, to be able to defend ourselves. The Madigans’ reign needs to end before they do more damage to the state of Illinois! - TomHorn1876 - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 5:39 pm: THIS is Illinois, where our Official State Participant Sport is “Kicking The Can Down The Road”, at least with the Royal Court currently occupying springfield. - David W Lawson - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 5:48 pm: Lots of gratuitous insults slipping past the hall monitor today. I have to take exception with the person that defined “bear” as having 4 feet. What would a 3-legged bear be? Kudos to the guy trying to re-argue Heller. At least he is trying, which is more than our Atty General is doing. - AntiCitizenOne - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 5:49 pm: If a militiaman’s duty (as a volunteer unattached to the state) is to defend his home and his country (comprised of other citizens like himself), how can he/she do so if they cannot carry firearms? Given that the threat of crime is always present, a militiaman’s literally on duty 24/7 in this context. - William K - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 6:00 pm: I must be nuts! I haven’t left Illinois. Any rational thinker would leave this one party failed liberal mess of a state. Oh yea, I forgot. I am leaving I just can’t find my meds. - BR - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 6:01 pm: Really hard to twist what the Illinois Constitution says: SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Source: Illinois Constitution.) - wordslinger - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 6:22 pm: BR, “Subject only to the police power” is referring to the power to make law subject to specific limits set forth within the state constitution. That’s part of the dustup about pension legislation. You didn’t think you were the first to spot that one, did you? Why do you think the NRA sued in the federal courts? - ArchPundit - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 7:48 pm: === If Zimmerman gets off and its still warm outside The blacks will riot again Sigh. Better dog whistlers please. You know there are plenty of nice folks around here who support conceal carry without needing you to chime in with this kind of garbage. IOW, you aren’t helping. - ArchPundit - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 7:50 pm: ===You didn’t think you were the first to spot that one, did you? Wow, sorry I missed this entire post being busy today. Well, not really, but hey. - RonOglesby - Monday, Jun 17, 13 @ 8:35 pm: @A Non… still re-arguing heller? - bandeng juwana - Tuesday, Jun 18, 13 @ 7:36 am: Really when someone doesn’t understand afterward its up to other viewers that they will assist, so here it happens. - A. Nonymous - Tuesday, Jun 18, 13 @ 11:09 am: @ Ron - “still re-arguing heller?” A. You questioned American history. I responded. B. The well-researched dissent from Heller will, in all likelihood, form the basis of a majority opinion overturning or significantly restricting Heller at some future date. The majority opinion in Heller was weak and a stretch, to put it politely. The current plague of gun violence and even accidental gun-related deaths in our nation is unsustainable and flooding the streets with more guns is not the answer. - Ron Yanke - Tuesday, Jun 18, 13 @ 3:35 pm: You can see what type of Governor she will be for Illinois.This is why Illinois is the way it is nothing get done. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 2:03 am: “A. Non.” (first year law student?) does a great job of citing court cases (most of which simply support the contention that liberals believe that your rights are limited to what they, in their ultimate benevolence, give you), yet seems to have difficulty with the simple phrase “the rights of the people shall not be infringed.” (S)he is also sticking to the tried and true liberal argument strategy of ignoring all facts that do not support their arguments, and then when all else fails moving promptly to name calling. The next argument will be the usual dribble that we are racists and/or uneducated as well. “A.Non’ can’t you at least muster a good old “won’t somebody think of the children” before you return to fellatiating “Dear Leader?” Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.