Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Another Quinn screw-up
Next Post: Getting into the holiday spirit
Posted in:
* The Illinois State Rifle Association is not at all happy with Republican gubernatorial candidate Jim Ryan.
Ryan told the Associated Press that he would sign a “narrow” ban on the sale and possession of semiautomatic assault-style weapons…
“I would sign it provided it was narrowly drawn and did not violate our 2nd Amendment rights.”
He also said he’d veto an attempt to legalize concealed carry…
“I would veto. I believe reasonable people can differ on this issue but on balance, drawing from my experience as a law enforcement official, I believe we are better off without concealed-carry.”
ISRA’s Rich Pearson reacts via press release…
“I’ve never seen a suburban Republican try so hard to look like a Chicago Machine Democrat,” is how ISRA-PVF spokesman Richard Pearson characterized the behavior of Republican gubernatorial candidate Jim Ryan. […]
“Ryan’s hostility toward law-abiding firearm owners extends way back to his days as DuPage County State’s Attorney. Ryan’s philosophical distaste for the fundamental rights guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution make him particularly unqualified to serve as Illinois governor. As we saw in 2002, Jim Ryan has slammed the door in the faces of Illinois firearm owners. As primary day draws near, Ryan may find that, if you keep doing the same things over and over, you will keep getting the same result.”
Several people have posted responses on Ryan’s Facebook page, including this one from NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde…
Seems like Ryan is up to his old tricks and is not different than Blago was on guns
The candidate responded…
There have been several well-meaning and respectful people here who have expressed concern about my position on the 2nd Amendment. Please allow me to clarify. Unlike the Democrats, I will not be an activist who works to take away the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding Illinois citizens. My priorities are improving …Illinois’ business and jobs climate — and providing ethical, authentic leadership to Springfield. My approach on 2nd Amendment related issues has always been to enforce existing laws rather than creating new ones. My years in law enforcement have influenced me to take a position shared by many law enforcement officials — in opposition to concealed carry and in favor of a narrowly drawn assault weapon ban. While I have a respectful disagreement on this issue with many in Illinois, I think we can all agree this is a big difference from those on the left with an activist agenda of infringing upon your 2nd Amendment rights.
ISRA/NRA has a ton of Illinois members, and if anyone can drive down Ryan’s numbers, it’s them.
* Meanwhile, Zorn asked several candidates why they support rolling back Illinois’ minimum wage to the federal level. Three responded, including Jim Ryan’s spokesman…
JR has always supported a federal minimum wage. Rod Blagojevich’s move to raise Illinois’ MW to a level higher than surrounding states was one of many disastrous decisions he made that has helped make Illinois one of the worst performing economies in America. Those policies have been a disaster for the poorer citizens of our state. Contrary to liberal dogma, unilaterally raising the MW does not help the poor, it hurts them.
* The Daily Herald ran a few outtakes from a recent interview of the GOP gubernatorial candidates. This one is from JRyan…
On former friend Stuart Levine, now a felon: “He ruined his life … I have a clear conscience.”
On not apologizing to Rolando Cruz until running for governor: “I didn’t want to impact the outcome of that case.” (Brian Dugan trial)
On the death penalty: “I do think the state has a right to take a life. The right to life is sacred … but it is conditioned on your behavior.”
On Cruz asking for a meeting with Ryan after the apology: “I haven’t given it much thought. I haven’t excluded the possibility … He knows what I said.”
* Progress Illinois takes gubernatorial candidate Sen. Kirk Dillard to task for saying, again, that the budget can be balanced without a tax hike because he did it under Jim Edgar, who “inherited a mountain of debt” from his predecessor and “left [office with] a billion-and-a-half budget surplus … all without an income tax increase.” From PI…
Dillard’s version of events conveniently omits that Edgar also “inherited” a load of new revenue upon taking office in 1991, thanks to a temporary income tax increase passed in 1989 and made permanent by the new governor. Considering how often Dillard uses this line, it’d be nice to see a reporter respond with the relevant context.
Yes and no. Yes, Edgar did inherit the revenues from that income tax hike, but those revenues weren’t new and most of it had already been put into the budget’s spending base. Edgar didn’t get the “Governor No” moniker for nothing. He did hold the line on major spending increases.
More importantly, though, Edgar benefited from an absolutely huge surge in tax receipts from the Wall Street tech boom during the mid-to-late 1990s. It wasn’t the 1989 tax hike so much, but the boom and the cutting which led to the surplus. What followed Edgar’s departure was a George Ryan spending spree. The structural deficit was exacerbated and then we were hit with 9/11 and have never recovered.
* All but one gubernatorial candidate, Andy McKenna, will appear at a Republican debate in Springfield tonight.
* In other news, AFSCME endorsed Judy Baar Topinka for comptroller. Topinka was the only statewide Republican to get the union’s nod.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 1:04 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Another Quinn screw-up
Next Post: Getting into the holiday spirit
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Not supporting a concealed carry law is quite a fringe position. 48 of the 50 states have some type of concealed carry. It would be pretty fringe and extreme not to support the law on the state level.
Comment by Sweet Lou Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 1:23 pm
I don’t think all of those 48 states have easy to get concealed carry. Some of them are quite limited indeed.
I have more problems with the ban on semi-automatic “assault-style” guns. What in heck is that and how does it differ from a multi-clip gun.
I don’t like concealed carry. I don’t trust my fellow citizens to have the judgement or skill to do it. Perhaps, if the licensing required an extensive training course including the types of scenarios that police use in their training where you are penalized for shooting the wrong thing, I could support it.
Comment by cermak_rd Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 1:35 pm
=== ISRA/NRA has a ton of Illinois members, and if anyone can drive down Ryan’s numbers, it’s them. ===
Yeah, look what ISRA’s endorsement for Bill Brady in his race against Topinka did for him in 2006.
=== Not supporting a concealed carry law is quite a fringe position. ===
Not according to this poll:
A 2004 poll conducted by Overbrook Research, a Republican pollster, found that 68% of Illinois voters oppose allowing individuals to carry concealed firearms in public with a permit.
In 2006, Steve Rauschenberger suggested that concealed weapons should be allowed in the classroom.
The recent bill proposed in Illinois would allow handguns to be carried in public parks, at Navy Pier, in zoos, and a host of other places where people are likely to take their kids.
I think if you tested campaign messaging today on the issue, most candidates who support allowing concealed handguns in “parks, zoos, museums, and other public places where children play” would get their rears kicked.
Jim Ryan’s position places him in the mainstream.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 1:39 pm
cermak,
One shouldn’t base one’s opinion regarding what training the police have based upon what one sees in movies and cop tv shows.
The fact is that civilians have much better track record for hitting the ‘right guy’ when in a self-defense situation.
Also, many civilians are more practiced with their firearms than many police.
Comment by Melancton Smith Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 1:42 pm
I’ve never been a huge fan of concealed carry, but I have yet to see anything credible out of Florida or Texas that shows concealed carry has been a horror show.
For instance, as someone who spends lots of time in, um, public refreshment establishments, I was worried that concealed carry would lead to lots of gun fights in taverns. Hasn’t happened yet.
So, I’m starting to rethink my whole position. I’m from a farm community, shot guns growing up, but have never owned a working gun (I inherited an inoperative handgun from somebody years ago and don’t even know where it is now, but my grandmother told me I’m in line for a set of pearl handled revolvers eventually - we’ll see if that happens, I’m doubtful).
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 1:47 pm
Dillard sounds more like Jim Thompson than his old boss, Jim Edgar. Both in 1982 and 1986 Thompson ran saying the state didn’t need a tax increase and then within months after the election proposed significant new taxes. Edgar ran in 1990 committed to extending the income sur-tax and then spent the next 4 years stiffing state vendors and health care providers by running up unpaid bills. The post 1995 boom economy bailed Edgar out. Today’s budget mess is worse by a factor of 5 or 6 times the early 1990s budget crunch. The sad truth is that we need to raise taxes AND make significant program reductions and budget cuts. Even when the economy turns around, we can’t expect enough revenue growth to bail us out of a 50% budget deficit.
Comment by Louis Howe Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 1:52 pm
If the legislatiure passes a temporary one-year income tax hike in 2010, I wonder if Governor Dillard wouldn’t consider it a tax hike if he made the temporary increase permanent?
Comment by Reformer Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 1:53 pm
I have two points to make.
1) Note :
Zorn asked several candidates why they support rolling back Illinois’ minimum wage to the federal level. Three responded, including Jim Ryan’s spokesman…
Spokesperson? Jim Ryan is like Weekend at Bernies. Dan Curry pushed this guy into the race because he needed a paycheck. But they aren’t putting the candidate out there because he’s he’s a horrible candidate. This paper tiger is about to be shredded.
2) Was the clip on Dillard supposed to be negative? Because everytime I watch it, I am more inclined to vote for Dillard. (note - currently I am undecided.)
Comment by Tennessee W Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 2:03 pm
considering the number of primary candidates trying to run to the right of each other for governor Ryan’s gun stance may work out for him.
Comment by OneMan Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 2:04 pm
One wonders if Ryan is being clumsy here, not finessing the ISRA better, OR if he’s going for the free publicity appeal to moderate bonanza.
Too bad for him the Ds have an interesting primary, no chance of crossover.
I think if you tested campaign messaging today on the issue,
And if you phrased it as “I support the same type of laws as 48 US states have”……
Comment by Pat collins Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 2:05 pm
The only person shoved into this race was Kirk Dillard by Greg Baise and his band of losers. Once again, they are driving a losing vehicle. But they are getting lots of money along the way.
Comment by Will Blume Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 2:15 pm
After years of Rod Blagojevich, most voters have seen that anti-gun talk from a governor can only go so far in the real world. They aren’t afraid of any boogeyman taking away their guns more than they are afraid of the boogeyman taking away their jobs, crappy state credit and sinking state economics.
It’s a matter of priorities here.
Will it hurt Ryan? Nah. Whatever he loses, he gains by not looking like a “typical” conservative GOPer.
And way to go Judy! Congrats! Anything that forces voters to think outside the stereotypes that partisans affix to candidates is a good thing, regardless of political party.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 2:28 pm
First AFSCME succumbs to Quinn’s threat that he will be Gov for another year no matter what happens and now they endorse Judy? Those wussies deserve whatever happens to them!
Comment by Bill Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 2:34 pm
–I believe reasonable people can differ on this issue but on balance, drawing from my experience as a law enforcement official, I believe we are better off without concealed-carry.”==
I’ve been pretty tough on Ryan about the Cruz affair, but I think on this issue he is spot on.
Even Justice Scalia demanded places where guns can be banned — like courtrooms. LOL.
Hunting is a given. Having a gun in the home for protection is cool. But I don’t think there’s a right to roll the streets with firearms.
Can you go strapped to your (and my) kid’s school? My church? No, I don’t agree at all.
They didn’t allow it in the Old West.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 2:53 pm
No tax increase, even though Illinois is slow to go into recessions and slow to come out?
The Edgar practice of freezing or reducing all state spending outside of state government operations and education led to the ongoing abuse of community based health and human services providers. And because Illinois is still economically hurting, we have more persons in need of job training and placement services, more need of domestic violence and child abuse / neglect intervention, more infants up for adoption. We need short term responsible government action — pay the overdue bills and meet the client waiting lists.
That’s the short term, my friend Kirk, appropriate for a temporary tax increase.
But after that, we have to get the rates for community based providers back to functional levels, and we have to acknowledge the growing caseload at the Department on Aging as the Baby Boomers increasingly become eligible for and in need of services. That’s also more Medicaid LTC, in some cases.
Thompson and Edgar bith did post-election conversions on the issue of the need for additional revenue. Do it now, Kirk, or do it later if you get the opportunity. But responsible state government requires it.
Call it modernization and restructuring of the revenue system, if you wish — we still tax as if Illinois was just a sales and manufacturing society and economy, as we were from 1920 - 1950.
Comment by Capitol View Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 3:20 pm
Maybe Ryan should have decided to run as a Democrat. I know the state is financial ruin. But Ryan wants to make cuts to the retirees who work most of their lives expecting to make it on their pensions. He wants more gun control. Maybe what Chicago needs is concealed carry to have a level playing field. If you know they can’t protect themselves, there is no risk involved in crime. Chicago and New York City have the highest murder rates in the US. They both ban Handguns and have the harshest gun laws in the nation. This should tell you something. GUN RESTRICTIONS HELPS THE CRIMINAL!
Comment by Bob Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 3:36 pm
There seems to be mass confusion about conceal carry and the law. In the states that allow Conceal Carry, there are many courses that a gun owner must take PRIOR to getting their permit.
Proper training is key. Secondly, a conceal carry permit gives you the ability to protect YOURSELF. A conceal carry permit is NOT a carte blanche card to wave your firearm around at the slightest provocation.
Passing conceal carry WILL NOT result in ‘old west’ shoot-outs. And anyone will have a hard time arguing that Chicago’s ban on handguns has done anything other than arm the criminals.
Criminals don’t by definition care about the law anyways. Allowing citizens (properly trained) to defend themselves by default LOWERS crime in the states that have passed conceal carry. If criminals are unsure of who is/isn’t carrying it can give them pause.
Those that have gotten conceal carry are not irresponsible gun owners.
Comment by How Ironic Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 3:46 pm
How Ironic,
There’s a happy medium between having Chicago’s inane handgun restriction and allowing concealed carry by everyone. Maybe it’s open carry, where you can take your gun but it has to visible and private property owners can choose whether to allow you entry or not. That seems more reasonable to me than not giving the owner of Andreas restaurant the right to not admit poeople with guns.
Comment by cermak_rd Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 3:52 pm
Ironic,
To be fair, I have a PA and a NH permit, which are good in over a dozen states, and I did not have to take any training. That said, I have somehow managed not to hurt myself or anyone else!
Also, your generalizations regarding self-defense laws are not consistent across states. For instance, in IL you are permitted to employ deadly force in quite a few scenarios, including defending a total stranger from being raped or murdered.
Comment by Melancton Smith Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 3:55 pm
Wake up Ryan and read it again “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed” I will not vote for this guy as he just doesn’t get it. Look at the states that have RTC/LTC crime has not gone up, there are not shoot outs on the streets. I can tell what there is, there are men and women alive today that wouldn’t be without this right. Run as a Dem Ryan, you fit their mold better.
Comment by 2A Rights Apply In Illinois Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 3:59 pm
Self-defense is a bipartisan concept. There is no need for us versus them, Democrat versus Republican, etc. I don’t fancy my fate in the hands of statist Republicans any more than in the hands of statist Democrats.
Comment by Melancton Smith Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 4:01 pm
===Chicago and New York City have the highest murder rates in the US. ===
According to the FBI, the following cities have higher murder rates than both New York and Chicago (based on 2007 data):
Atlanta
Baltimore
Buffalo
Detroit
Memphis
Miami
Milwaukee
Newark
Oakland
Philly
St. Louis
Those pesky facts are always getting in the way of making ridiculous partisan-fueled declarations. NYC, by the way, has a relatively low murder rate, like, lower than Anchorage low.
Comment by Obamarama Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 4:04 pm
===read it again “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed”===
Then, when you’re finished reading that again, read the rest of it.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 4:05 pm
Murder rate is more influenced by having more police officers than anything else.
But when faced with a murderer, are you better off not having a gun than having one? That’s the real question.
Comment by Melancton Smith Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 4:11 pm
I would backtrack a bit on the training. I was under the impression that all carry states required training. Apparently not the case. However, I would take a training course regardless of the individual states requirements.
@Melancton Smith
“Also, your generalizations regarding self-defense laws are not consistent across states. For instance, in IL you are permitted to employ deadly force in quite a few scenarios, including defending a total stranger from being raped or murdered.”
Not sure what you were referring to in my earlier statements. However, I will clarify my comment. A conceal carry permit does not make the conceal carry permit a ‘defacto cop’.
Conceal Carry is designed to give those that choose to conceal carry to DEFEND themselves. I believe it is outside the scope of design for conceal carry holders to interject themselves (and their weapon) into any ‘crime’ to stop them.
It is designed to allow an armed citizen to defend themselves. That is the intent of my original comment.
Comment by How Ironic Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 4:23 pm
Agreed that training is a good idea. I don’t see a CCW here in IL that did not have a training requirement.
True that CCW licensees are not cops. They don’t make arrests. However, given IL self-defense laws as they stand today, you are allowed to use deadly force to defend any life or to prevent a forcible felony. Employment of deadly force (i.e. shooting someone with a firearm) is not limited to self-defense in the State of IL.
Comment by Melancton Smith Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 4:27 pm
==read the rest of it.==
Buzz kill
Comment by Bill Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 4:42 pm
Ryan knows that in order to win the general he cannot be both right wing on guns and abortion. The more moderate gun position can be supported by law enforcement, and neutralizes some of the advantage the two most likely Dems have on that issue. Ryan is not going pro choice so he has to step away
from full on right wing somewhere. this is how he does that.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 7:40 pm
On the conceal carry issue, 48 states can’t be wrong and only two states right.
One responder quoted a poll indicating that 68% opposed concealed carry. They didn’t poll me or anyone else I know. Was that a skewed poll from the burbs from people who have never seen a gun? or 68% of Daley’s family?
The Illinois Sheriff’s Assc. even endorsed concealed carry. I have yet to talk with a law enforcement officer (State,Co,City) who is opposed.
I guess in comes down to what part of the two (non-conceal carry) states (ILL,Wisc) you live in.
I for one, resent the fact that Chicago politics and Mayor Richie (who has armed body guards) dictate what the rest of the State does.
I haven’t found a candidate yet that I can fully support. While there are more important issues at stake in the next election, a candidate’s stance on gun control will bear weight on my decision.
I can not support the Chicago (anti-gun) way in any shape or form.
Comment by De-Chicago Me Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 8:20 pm
Rich: “Go read the rest of it”
It’s largely irrelevant other that the part that says” The right of the people”….But here it is:
“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”.
The Court dealt with this last year in Heller where it held:
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.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
The prefatory clause for this debate in of no significance. You can argue all you want about militias, but the Court said it does not detract or add to the individual right to keep and bear arms.
The two questions at issue here are the semi-auto ban and Right To Carry (RTC). While the Court said it was not an unlimited right, the right to a firearm, and they said that you could restrict the right to carry guns in “sensitive places”, there are a couple other things to look at in the Court’s opinion.
First was the term “to keep and bear”. The Court said:
• “At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.”
• “We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.
From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century.”
• “c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”
Heller was not limited to possession of a firearm in one’s own home. While the above passages are ‘dicta’ once incorporated against the states they define the term “keep and bear” and define it in a way friendly to gun owners and against Ryan.
Not to say it is an unlimited right, but if you look at the carry laws across the country, the specific prohibitions would largely seem to pass muster. But Illinois is the only state that has neither an open carry or concealed carry law. I predict the UUW statute as written will fail.
Next is the ban on semi-autos.
“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
The court went on to talk about common firearms. With over 5 million AR-15 in civilian hands, semi-autos and ARs in particular are common modern firearms, and thus protected.
What will be funny, is to watch Ryan IF he wins, wiggles and spin and dismiss the Chicago case after the Supreme Court strikes down the Chicago gun ban and hold that an individual right to keep and bear arms applies against states and local governments.
But I’m betting he doesn’t win. After all after trying to put an innocent man behind bars three times for a crime he did not commit, now he wants to use the Second Amendment as a door mat.
Comment by Todd Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 9:07 pm
Well said, Todd. For some reason people keep wanting to re-argue Heller, when that door is closed. Heller is settle law now, just like Roe v Wade and Brown v Board of Education. Viva Liberty!
Comment by Melancton Smith Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 9:13 pm
Rich,
Did you report your firearm as lost or stolen? How about your FOID card… Up to date?
Comment by Isp2605 Monday, Dec 14, 09 @ 9:40 pm
=== On the conceal carry issue, 48 states can’t be wrong and only two states right.
One responder quoted a poll indicating that 68% opposed concealed carry. ===
I say, “too each his own.”
The good news is, you have three choices:
1) 48 other states you could move to;
2) Convince 4 Illinois Supreme Court Justices or 5 U.S. Supreme Court justices that the right to carry a concealed weapon into a church, a park, a movie theatre or any other public place is an inalienable right;
3) or door number three…
I grew up in downstate Illinois and I’m a liberal, so I get it from both sides.
My pro-choice friends blame Democrats for electing anti-choice candidates downstate.
My hunting friends blame Republicans for electing anti-gun rights candidates in the Chicago suburbs.
I tell them to stop blaming both parties and go convince those candidates’ voters that they’re wrong on those issues.
Leaders lead, but with a very short rope or not for very long. If you want to change public policy, you need to stop being so lazy and start changing voters minds.
BTW, I lament that you were not personally polled as part of that 68% who oppose conceal-carry. I invite you to find a more recent poll, or one you like better, or conduct your own poll.
Personally, I think if there was a poll showing that the majority of Illinoisans support conceal-carry, Todd would have shared it with us now.
P.S. At one time, Illinois was the only state in the nation to ban the deadly over-the-counter drug ephedra, the only state to require videotaping of homicide interrogations, and the only state that bans for-profit adoptions, a.k.a. “baby sales.” Sometimes, everybody else IS wrong.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 1:12 am
YDD
Haven’t polled on RTC. I spend money on other things. But a state rep recently did his mailed out question with a simple RTC question. It came back 50/50. It’s only of use becuase it is one example of when explained, training, background checks etc. it usualy is a 50/50 split or so.
But in 2008 we had RTC referendums on the ballot in what 14 counties? We didn’t spend a dime and won most of them. As a cold test I would say not bad. Considering noneof the one we lost were blow outs. Rich often makes the point that issues don’t become elelction turners until they break at 70% mark.
I’ll go at #2 except that some of the places you list can be excluded. But it appears that we are on the track to see RTC litigated as a right to self defense and the means to it in public places.
And right now I like our odds of that. I read Heller as including RTC. Some of the passages I posted before. The definition of keep and carry can’t be ignored or just swept under a rug. And if you read State v. Reid as cited in Heller is gives some insight as to what the court may allow.
If the other side is certain that the courts will not allow this, then hey they have nothing to worry about. If not, they have a window to sit down and hash out a bill. Otherwise if we prevail in the courts, there are no negotiations.
Rich is coming to his own conclusion on RTC. I suspect his his idea od gun control is much like Clint Eastwoods — “if their is a gun inthe room I want to control it”
Question is, not what we do, but what is the other side left with after we win Chicago?
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Dec 15, 09 @ 1:41 am
“Not violate 2nd Amendment rights”?
Any ban on semi-auto firearms of course violates the Right to Keep and Ban Arms.
By saying such a stupid thing he either proves himself an idiot or proves himself a gun control advocate.
So turn up the heat and keep him out of the kitchen.
Comment by HerbM Thursday, Dec 17, 09 @ 6:31 pm