Gun day
Wednesday, Jul 11, 2007 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Today is supposed to be “Gun Day” at the Illinois Statehouse. The governor has called a special session (Number 8, if you’re keeping track) on Sen. Dan Kotowski’s SB 1007 “as well as the impact of assault weapon violence on the State’s health care expenditures and general fiscal health.” Download it here.
As I’ve told you before, this is all a bunch of hype. The bill doesn’t have enough votes to pass the House, but Blagojevich wants to use the special session to further paint Speaker Michael Madigan as a “right wing Republican.”
Fortunately, most reporters have seen through this, including the Tribune’s editorial board…
Even when Rod Blagojevich is right, he’s wrong.
Blagojevich held a press conference Monday to push for a state bill that would ban the sale and possession of firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. It’s a good bill. This page supported it back in May.
The governor’s news conference, though, looked to all the world like a stunt. As did his proclamation Tuesday calling a special session of the legislature Wednesday to hear the gun bill.
Go read the whole thing.
* More, from the Post-Dispatch…
Lawmakers on both sides of the gun-control issue immediately dismissed the order as a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from Blagojevich’s failure to forge an agreement on a state budget almost two weeks into the new fiscal year.
“We should be focused on the budget right now. That’s the priority of this state, every member of the House and the Senate,” said state Rep. Harry Osterman, D-Chicago, the sponsor of the measure that prompted Blagojevich’s call for today’s special session. The legislation would ban high-capacity ammunition clips.
The gun bill passed the Senate earlier this year. But Osterman said he knows he doesn’t have enough votes in the House to pass it, and so doesn’t plan to call it for a vote today. Asked why the Legislature should convene in special session to discuss it, he said: “Talk to the governor.”
* And this is a good point that legislators need to keep repeating because I, too, wonder whether the governor will force a government shutdown and blame it on Madigan and his “right wing Republican” allies…
“It makes you wonder if he’s attempting to throw this into a government shutdown so he can attempt to demonize people even more,” said state Rep. Roger Eddy, R-Hutsonville. “If he keeps this up and we have a government shutdown, there will be one person responsible, and it’s the person who didn’t keep the focus.”
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 9:22 am:
For this governor, every day is gun day.
- Pro-Gunner - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 9:27 am:
I have yet to see a semi-automatic rifle fire 30 rounds in less than 5 seconds.
- Captain America - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 9:56 am:
More grandstanding by the Governor. The sponsor of the bill said he hadn’t called for a vote on his gun bill becasue he din’t have enough votes to pass it. I think eveyrone’s got Blago’s number now - they all understand his deversionary tactics designed to distract people from the real problem - the absence of effective gubernatorial leadership on addressing and resolving the budget impasse.You might even say that the Governor has been the primary instigator of the budget impasse and an impedimenat to getting anything done.
- OneManBlog - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 10:24 am:
What if Madigan called a vote and it failed, how does the gov respond to that?
Pingback ISRA and Blago, sittin in a tree « Illinois Reason - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 11:30 am:
[…] UPDATE: Rich Miller has posted today on additional reaction about the “gun violence special session”. Blogroll […]
- Rob_N - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 11:35 am:
OneMan asks, “What if Madigan called a vote and it failed, how does the gov respond to that?”
He’ll call him “poopyhead”…. Or “Karl Rove”.
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 11:48 am:
“I have yet to see a semi-automatic rifle fire 30 rounds in less than 5 seconds.”
Or reload automatically.
BTW, message to Frosty: I’ve called my and other legislators over thirty times on various gun issues over the last two or so months. Don’t you *dare* imply I’m not pulling my weight as a responsible gun owner because I don’t parrot your views.
- Pro-Gunner - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 12:07 pm:
Thanks for pulling your weight as a responsible gun owner by contacting legislators. I mistakenly took you for a “Gino” (Gun-owner In Name Only). Please accept my sincere apology. We gun-owners must hang together or we will hang apart.
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 12:22 pm:
P-G, thanks - you weren’t as bombastic as Frosty yesterday, and that topic is closed to further posts. I’ve even been known to give money anonymously to ISRA - I just wish they carried themselves more professionally. Image is everything in modern politics.
- Pro-Gunner - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 12:32 pm:
Ken
Unfortunately “image” does not win public opinion. Over-the-top propaganda does. The ISRA uses the same tactics that anti-gun groups use. Fight fire with fire. Unfortunate, but true.
- Pro-Gunner - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 12:53 pm:
SB1007 does nothing to reduce gun violence. Criminals and gang bangers do not care about the size of the magazines. Actually, 10 round magazines are easier to carry and conceal. This is only a “feel good law” that does not deal with the real cause of crime which is the moral decay of our communities.
- i d - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 12:54 pm:
The governor sees himself as being on point with his talk of limiting the amount of ammo in a clip because he sees that his budget has been shot full of holes and he is try to limit the amount of damage.
- Squideshi - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 12:57 pm:
No one has yet answered my question as to exactly WHERE the line should be drawn on the constitutional right to bear arms. Again, it seems to me that no one is advocating the right to personal possession of weapons of mass destruction or even something like loaded mobile 50 caliber machine guns or uzi toting teenage mallgoers; but these are “arms” so what’s the real argument here?
- Pro-Gunner - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 1:12 pm:
Squid
I do not understand your post. Machine guns and uzi’s are already banned. Where to draw lines on constitutional rights has always been difficult.
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 2:31 pm:
Squideshi, my non-Constitutional-scholar entirely personal touchy-feely view:
2A protects private ownership of weapons that could or would be used by members of a militia or by individuals for personal defense. As technology has evolved, the arms covered have necessarily changed. 18th century musket = 21st century autoloading rifle.
I’m not entirely certain there was a Colonial equivalent to WMDs or squad served weapons; my feeling is that they are beyond the intent of the Founding Fathers.
Fully automatic weapons (the *real* “assault weapons”) are probably within the intent of Constitutional protection, but I personally have no issue with heavy licensing requirements for them. Don’t forget that full auto is allowed in many (most?) states under the purview of Federal statute.
Squid, one for you: why do the Greens support open carry but not CCW?
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 2:49 pm:
Oh, I forgot: “uzi toting teenage mallgoers” - I don’t think anyone is advocating removing the current age limitations, and an Uzi wouldn’t be considered a permitted CCW anywhere in the nation AFAIK.
Reasonable controls, not no controls or oppressive controls - that should be the goal.
- Rob_N - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 3:18 pm:
Squideshi, Ken’s point about “reasonable controls” is the answer I was going to give.
…But my version of “reasonable” is apparently unreasonable (ie, “oppressive”) to someone like Pro-Gunner or the ISRA leadership.
…And so we let elections decide what “reasonable” is.
It’s funny, I asked your same point about weapons of mass destruction to a group of ardent 2A hard-liners and they accused me of hyperbole. But they see no problem with the vituperative hyperbole the ISRA is producing as it wails against Sen. Kotowski.
- Bill - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 3:26 pm:
Ken,
You should challenge Frosty to a duel.
- Sahims2 - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 3:27 pm:
How does this legislation really have any effect on gun violence when statistics show that 85% of gun violence is done with handguns - leaving only 15% for long guns - deducting shotgun and rifles, this leaves only about 1-2% of crimes committed by so-called “assault” rifles. Clip size restrictions will not stop or solve anything - and those shorter, smaller clips are easier to hide and carry, as opposed to the longer “banana” clips of say 30 rounds for something like an AR-15. The only thing the gov is doing by supporting this is pushing Chicago legislation on the rest of the state - which is what Daley wants. Is Daley really running the state or is Blago?
- Pro-Gunner - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 3:42 pm:
Rob N
Kotowski is a sponsor of SB16 (Daley Gun Grab). Read it and then we will talk.
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 4:15 pm:
Bill, Supersoakers at dawn?
- Ken in Aurora - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 4:17 pm:
Rob_N - what do you consider to be “reasonable”? (honest question)
- Pro-Gunner - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 5:22 pm:
Rob_N
If you really wanted to hear some “vituperative hyperbole,” you should have caught Kotowski’s act when he was with ICAHV.
- OAD - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 7:00 pm:
Let’s set aside the whole debate on whether guns/gun parts should be banned; we all know it’s an infinite, unproductive loop.
The real problem with this resolution/proposal is the attempt to curtail freedom based on what a particular activity costs the state. It’s not GSW’s that lead healthcare expenditures - first we need to ban cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Or the behaviors that risk them, which will leave us with nothing fun to do.
- The Federalist - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 7:27 pm:
How many victims are shot more than 10 times? I would guess few if any. After all it only took one shot for Presidents Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley and 3 for Kennedy so you can see unless you go to single shot muzzel loaders it is an exercise in futility.
- Pro-Gunner - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 7:38 pm:
Federalist: Excellent point.
- Kevin Highland - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 8:51 pm:
The only people who are going to obey this law (or any gun laws) are already law abiding citizens. SB16 as written, while grandfathering my 30-round rifle magazines and AR15 and the 15 round pistol magazines requires me to register them and the offending weapons that they feed. Most people consider registration of firearms as a very bad thing.
Also the numbers that the governor cites in his call for the Gun Day Special Session (8 children a day across the nation dying from gun violence) appears to include suicides. Don’t think I’m cold and don’t care about those 8 children a day, I do but I would presume that most suicides with firearms are a single shot kind of thing. An assault weapons ban, magazine capacity limit won’t changes those deaths. Those numbers also seem to include the deaths from gang on gang violence. I would submit that if they aren’t using guns they would be using knifes or baseball bats.
It makes me wonder what other portions of my “Bill of Rights” will be attacked next.
Ultimately we are in overtime without a budget…all of these distraction techniques need to be dropped and the legislature needs to hand the governor a veto proof budget and everyone should then go home!
- Don Gwinn - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 10:59 pm:
I certainly do advocate legal ownership of machine guns. Most states do allow that, after all, and it doesn’t cause them any problems.
For most people who’ve put in serious thought, “arms” means individual weapons such as one soldier might operate. At most, crew-served infantry weapons.
That definition leaves out nuclear ICBM’s, FA-18 fighter/attack planes, and missile frigates. Even that isn’t so certain, though. The Constitution contains references to privately owned, fully-armed warships!
(If no one had private warships, then giving Congress the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal would be a pretty empty gesture.)
On a practical level, Illinois doesn’t allow machine guns and that’s probably not going to change in the next ten years if ever. Illinois has no right to keep and bear arms provision in its constitution, so there’s not much to argue about there (there’s a shell, but only for appearance’s sake.)
- Rob_N - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 11:54 pm:
Ken, I support Sen. Kotowski’s bills because I think those are reasonable. In fact, given that there are quite a few loopholes with regards to the grandfathering provisions I’d say they are more than reasonable considering the intent is to advance gun safety issues in the state.
To folks like Pro-Gunner and others (esp. those who comment at the blog I write for), that makes me some sort of radical.
Whatever floats their boat.
–
Pro-Gunner, I see no issues with SB16 though I do have a problem with your epithet for it.
As far as Sen. Kotowski’s past work at ICHV at no point did he come anywhere near the level of acidic invective the ISRA has been spewing forth over the past several months. In fact, several Republicans quietly commented before his election that he was reasonable and fair to work with. His actions in the State Senate have borne that out as his bills (and gun safety is only one of his focuses) have bipartisan cosponsors.
Even gun owners who had formerly respected the ISRA to a degree are getting turned off by their vitriol which and is clearly polarizing the two sides and that does not lend itself to even so much as future legislative discussions between the sides, let alone compromise on any bill-writing process.
- Squideshi - Thursday, Jul 12, 07 @ 4:49 am:
“I do not understand your post. Machine guns and uzi’s are already banned. Where to draw lines on constitutional rights has always been difficult.”
My point is that constitutional rights are not absolute. Even the right of free speech is not absolute–there is a whole body of case law which has developed up and around this issue which puts the so-called right of free speech into context, making distinctions between different types of forums (public, designated, limited, non) and different types of speech (commercial, political, religious) all with the ability to be regulated.
It occurs to me that if machine guns and uzi’s were not “already banned” you might be making the argument that they should remain legal; so my question is very simply this, where should the line be drawn? What type of arms do you think that people SHOULD have the right to possess?
“Squid, one for you: why do the Greens support open carry but not CCW?”
First, let me clarify that it is Rich Whitney who supports open carry–not Greens in general. While there certainly are Greens, like Whitney, who support open carry, this position is not specifically in the Green Party platform. This is one of those things that is left to the individual interpretation of each and every member.
Now, that having been said, I do know that Rich’s support for open carry is based upon completely pragmatic reasoning. Rich supports open carry because there is good research showing that a deterrent effect does exist when people can SEE the deterrent in another person’s possession. The evidence that concealed carry has the same effect does not appear to be quite as strong.
Also, open carry is somewhat of a compromise between two very divergent points of view on this issue. Amongst many other things, Green politics is all about respect for diversity and working together to find a consensus.
- Pro-Gunner - Thursday, Jul 12, 07 @ 6:10 am:
Rob_N
We are hopelessly polarized. Gun owners did not start this gun control fight. However, it is a fight that we intend to win. Our numbers are increasing everyday. Everytime a person becomes a victim of violent crime, this person also becomes a potential member of a pro-gun group. What is the definition of a “conservative?” Answer: A conservative is a liberal who was mugged the night before. Keep up the good fight. You are a worthy opponent.
- c-rock - Thursday, Jul 12, 07 @ 8:24 am:
Lets not forget whats going on here in IL. Many of the sponsors of these gun ban bills, also sponsor bills that give benefits to Illegals.
They want to give the benefit of Drivers Licences, and state backed student loans to Illegals.
While asking for more laws, and more regulations on law abding citizens. These attacks, esp after 9-11, chap alot of folks hides.
We have major issues in this state. Deficits are a main issue.
CTA falling apart is another. I took the blue line over the 4th, its slow. The traffic on 94 was moving faster.
Cook has a major defict. Property taxes are going up 17%-43% next yr. Who got a 17% raise at their job?
Real Estate is down. Peopel aint buying.
Kids are getting killed in Chicago. A town with
40 years of gun control. All the gun control you want. Registration, storage laws, licensing of gunowners, gun bans too.
YOu got it all in Chicago, and you have all the crime that comes with it.
I have one of the first guns registered in the city. Below is the link to it.
The first link is the promise Mayor Daley made to the city on gun control. Did his promise come true? http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/8428/testing8gk.jpg
http://www.illinoislovestogoshooting.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=361
to those gun owners who will compermise with Dan the ban, I ask you to reconsider. It wont matter with them, they will keep on asking for more.
with 40 yrs of gun control examples in IL, we need to get rid of some of the bad laws.
Getting rid of the FOID is one of them
Getting rid of the waiting periods is another.
Also allowing silceners is another. We have a right to hearing protection.
We need Range protection, and we need more ranges closer to Chicago