49 Comments - PrecinctCaptain - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 2:48 am: Illinois is a lone hold out among the US of A in terms of complete concealed carry prohibition. That doesn’t mean we are doing anything wrong. However, that does not make the states current policy good either. Changing the law for the sake of joining everyone else is not sensible policy. And, a concealed carry policy only works for the average citizen if adequate regulation and enforcement exists. Gangs will always have guns — even if we outlaw guns completely. I don’t believe people need to walk a round with a gun tucked in their back pocket (or stuffed in their pants), but if they feel the need to, they should be able to. - Skeeter - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 5:35 am: Sensitivity training? I agree. I keep telling people that the greatest problem facing this City is that POs are not very sensitive. If only we could train them on how to be more sensitive, then our problems would be solved. For some reason, nobody believes me. Good to see that at least one State Rep is on my side on this issue. Could you imagine how the lesson would go: “Now officers, when you see a drug dealer pointing a gun at you, be sensitive in your response. Don’t say `PUT THE F..ING GUN DOWN YOU M….’ Instead, say `Sir, I do hope your day is going well. It is such a beautiful September day, isn’t it? If you would be so kind (and I do hate to impose) but I would surely appreciate it if there was any way that you could put that weapon down.’” Yes, Ford is right. The sensitive way is the way to go. It will make all the difference. - Jechislo - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 6:58 am: Skeeter - Thanks for the laugh before I head off to work. Putting guns in the hands of properly trained law-abiding citizens does not endanger the public. Research the results of the other 49 states in the area of conceal carry and see for yourself. - Michelle Flaherty - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 7:14 am: My observation would be that the people of this state, the people we’d trust to be responsible with concealed weapons, chose George Ryan, Rod Blagojevich and now Pat Quinn to lead them. My fear is if concealed carry becomes law, the people of this state will shoot themselves, again. Ask yourself this question: Would you feel safer with Pat Quinn carrying a gun? - sad - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 8:25 am: Dear Skeeter, sensitivity training would be more like me not writing you off as a person based on the ignorant comment you made above. Sensitivity training might also include training that stresses just because someone is black or hispanic doesn’t mean they are a criminal. Things along those lines is what sensitivity training is about - wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 8:41 am: The “other 49 states” line is lazy and wrong. Didn’t you all read the post? If conceal carry is settled and accepted in the “other 49 states” then why are folks suing — and getting knocked back — in California, Maryland and New York? It ain’t that simple. I don’t think Todd and the ISRA would consider conceal carry laws like those in Hawaii, Maryland, New York, New Jersey or California a victory here in Illinois. - Realist - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 9:25 am: Federal Judges are not without their political bias, and considering the States in questions, I think it is pretty clear which way they lean. There will be plenty of cases that will, and probably already have, come out in favor of the right’s viewpoint. Ultimately this will have to be decided by the SCOTUS, and my money would be on them stating that open carry is the right of all individuals capable of handling firearms, considering Scalia spoke of limits to conceal carry. - grand old partisan - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 9:26 am: “sad,” You’re right – “sensitivity training” might include messages about the injustice of racial profiling. It might also include a lot of things that are just as lame as skeeter suggests. That’s because it is an overly-broad, meaningless buzzword. Unless/until Rep. Ford specifies exactly what he looking for, I hardly think its “ignorant” to mock the triteness of his proposal. - TwoFeetThick - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 9:35 am: =I don’t think Todd and the ISRA would consider conceal carry laws like those in Hawaii, Maryland, New York, New Jersey or California a victory here in Illinois.= Thank you, Word, for once again pointing out the truth. There are varying degrees of concealed carry in the oft-cited 49 other states that have it. Some of them are so restrictive that, essentially, they don’t have concealed carry because hardly anyone can actually get a permit. Anyone citing that “49 other states” statistic, IMO, is either deliberately trying to mislead, or has no idea what they are talking about. - Ahoy - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 9:38 am: “he (Ford) believes a majority of his constituents want the right to own a gun.” They do have that right; they just don’t have the “right” to carry it around wherever they please. Conceal and carry is not about having the right to own a gun, it’s about the right to carry a loaded weapon around in public. Let’s get it right people. If you want to debate the merits of carrying a loaded weapon around, that’s fine, just debate the right issue. - reformer - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 9:39 am: Good for LaShawn! He’s able to resist the peer pressure and think for himself. - wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 9:44 am: –Federal Judges are not without their political bias, and considering the States in questions, I think it is pretty clear which way they lean.– Interesting theory. I’m not sure how presiding in a particular state influences a federal judge appointed by a president, but interesting. Let’s put it to the test. In the California case: –”The Second Amendment does not create a fundamental right to carry a concealed weapon in public,” U.S. District Judge Morrison England ruled in May.– Judge England was appointed by Pres. George W. Bush. In the New York case: –As such, Judge Seibel ruled, that granting licenses to carry concealed firearms is a matter of discretion to be decided by state authorities and is not a right.– Judge Seibel was appointed by Pres. George W. Bush. Of course, given the hot flashes on display in last night’s debate, W would probably be labeled a socialist nowadays. - Cincinnatus - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 10:21 am: - Michelle Flaherty - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 7:14 am: “Ask yourself this question: Would you feel safer with Pat Quinn carrying a gun?” Sure! Of the water variety. - G Whiz - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 10:30 am: I can legally carry a loaded weapon to protect myself and my family in at least 34 states (with my non-res permits). I have had training (civilian and military), passed background checks. Can anybody give me a good reason why I shouldn’t be allowed to carry legally in Illinois where I live, work, own property, and pay taxes??? - wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 10:36 am: –Can anybody give me a good reason why I shouldn’t be allowed to carry legally in Illinois where I live, work, own property, and pay taxes???– It’s against the law. - amalia - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 10:46 am: the bigger question is what is going on in much of the city where shooting is the norm. maybe La Shawn would like a conceal carry district. the police could pull back and defend the rest of town. cause otherwise, adding guns to the mix will result in crazy behavior and end up with the police doing what they have a perfect right to do…..shoot the person who refuses to put down the gun and put their hands up when the police tell them to. La Shawn, please tell the parents of the gang bangers to do something about their children. - Todd - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 10:47 am: Word is correct that there are “degrees” of the types of carry laws. 49 states have something as a general public policy. Illinois is the only state where there is nothing either open carry of concealed. Of the 49, I believe 8 are may issue. But that includes Alabama where if you walk into the sheriff’s office and have a pulse, you get the permit. The overall issue is that 49 states have made the policy decision to allow it. A California law would be interesting as “may” issue as the permits are good statewide and issued by the sheriff, which a 101 supported the bill. As for New York, outside of the City of, it is much like Illinois outside of Chicago and getting a permit is no big deal. Yes the debate is about carrying a loaded handgun on your person for issues of self defense. I don’t think anyone is trying to hide that – pun intended. As for the sensitivity training, the issue for members of the black caucus is similar to the driving while black issue. And they are concerned about “black man with a gun” being the new DWB syndrome. It is a valid concern for them and Rep. Ford asked to open talks about the issue and how to deal with it. We will take a look at it, see what he wants or is interested in and see how we might be able to accommodate him. So while on it’s surface, Skeeter’s comments seem cute, Rep Ford and others don’t want to see their constituents proned out on the sidewalk, at gun point because they have a license to carry a gun. The first issue is does the Second Amendment extend outside the home? The anti-gunners seem to read Heller as only in the home and forget the “such as” part of the holding. If it does extend outside the home, does that apply to carrying a gun for self defense in most public places? - amalia - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 10:58 am: todd, cut the anti-gunner nonsense. just because some of us are in favor of regulations you don’t like does not mean we are anti gun. unless you don’t want to share in the meat from my house when the husband hunts. - Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 11:00 am: - that includes Alabama where if you walk into the sheriff’s office and have a pulse, you get the permit. - Not exactly helping your case. lol - Skeeter - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 11:02 am: Todd, Thanks for fleshing that out a bit. What I laughed at was labeling the training “sensitivity” training. As I tried to point out, and as Grand Old Partisan stated more bluntly, the term is meaningless. To the merits: The Chicago Police need training on how to do their job, as do all police departments. I don’t see why the NRA should be asked to pick up a tab for the training. The NRA has not caused police to act inappropriately. That being said, if conceal carry is passed, we likely will see many more gun owners. Many of those new owners will be low income and it is likely that many will be inexperienced in gun safety. Rather than ask the NRA for sensitivity training for the police, a better request of the NRA might be for discounted gun safety training. That seems in line with the NRA’s mission and also seems like a reasonable request generally. - reformer - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 11:11 am: Illinois cops could learn from police in Indiana and other neighboring states about how to deal with concealed carry. I’ll bet black Hoosiers aren’t routinely abused when they carry concealed with a permit. - grand old partisan - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 11:20 am: == adding guns to the mix will result in crazy behavior and end up with the police doing what they have a perfect right to do…..shoot the person who refuses to put down the gun and put their hands up when the police tell them to Really?? On what basis are you assuming that the law-abiding, trained and qualified permit holders who would be eligible to take advantage of concealed carry will be prone to “crazy behavior” such as (a) un-holstering their weapons when police are already on the seen and (b) refusing to re-holster it when ordered?? Others have pointed out that all 49 other states have some form of conceal carry. And – yes – there is merit to the point that ‘just because everyone else is doing it….’ But can we at least acknowledge the fact these 49 other states have not seen the sort of dramatic increase in gun-inspired “crazy behavior” and violence that gun control advocates are always claiming will result from concealed carry here?? What makes these folks think that Illinois/Chicago will be the lone exception?? What does that say about their opinion of the people of our state/city?? I wonder how Rep. Ford’s constituents feel about the “sensitivity” involved in assuming that they, as an individuals, can not be trusted with a gun in public because others around them (who just happen to be of the same skin color) have used guns in dangerous and violent ways? Talk about profiling, indeed!! Concealed carry is about personal freedom. And the government needs a compelling reason to take away such a freedom. The overwhelming evidence shows that law-abiding, trained and qualified permit holders can be trusted with conceal carry privileges without endangering those around them. The fact that untrained, unqualified criminals have used guns in violent ways in the past, present and – one can assume – the future does not contradict or detract from this truth. The government has no compelling reasons to curtail the freedoms of the law-abiding because of the actions of criminals. - Just Observing - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 11:22 am: I like Rep. Ford and am glad he is open-minded on this issue, but to blackmail the NRA into paying for sensitivity classes is wrong and bad policy — if sensititivity classes are warranted, then all taxpayers should pay. As for the debate over how many states have true concealed carry… even if you account for states with very restrictive concealed carry, the VAST majority of states have NRA-style concealed carry. And many opponents of concealed carry in those states, have had a change of heart realizing their area did not become the wild wild west. - ZC - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 11:27 am: I really have no idea whether “the research” shows that concealed carry on net saves lives or not. I could see that argument. However, I’m not sure anyone knows. I think appeals to “the research” on gun control tends to be more of a Rorschach test than in other fields that provoke fewer passions. I was struck for instance by this January 2011 NYT article, on the guns-crime link: “The reality is that even these and other basic questions cannot be fully answered, because not enough research has been done. And there is a reason for that. Scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off money for such work…. The amount of money available today for studying the impact of firearms is a fraction of what it was in the mid-1990s, and the number of scientists toiling in the field has dwindled to just a handful as a result, researchers say.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?pagewanted=all - Joeverdeal - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 11:36 am: The old saying still holds true….that an armed society is a polite society. I fail to see what anyone would find objectionable about polite behavior. Doubt as to whether or not an individual was armed would cause people to be more careful and more considerate to others….for good reason. - Todd - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 11:42 am: Skeeter – Glad I could help and I agree with your points. All take note, Yes I actually said I agree with something Skeeter said. I think NRA can help in a number of ways about the law enforcement “training” issue. I know that something is in the works on this already. Any carry bill is going to have training. If there is an issue of affordability in Rep Ford’s district or others like it, I will set up instructors and get them donated, as many as I can. I know a couple of instructors who would donate their time. I’ll work them through the Rep’s office if need be. ZC – yes the NRA fought against CDC funding of biased anti-gun propaganda. But there is still plenty of money out there. Joyce Foundation spends a S%^t load of money on it. I think that taking all of the data and anecdotal evidence together Rich’s position is the reasonable one, adding right to carry does NOT make the crime rate or shooting go up. - NIref - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 12:22 pm: It seems to me that the federal appeals judges are falling in line with precedent. In DC v. Heller, Scalia was very clear about where the right to keep a gun begins and ends. In writing for the majority, Scalia (arguably one of the most conservative members of SCOTUS)limited the scope of the ruling to protect the right to own firearms only within the home for self-defense and for sport. The latter reason aside, within the home is a very clear distinction. In following iwth the natural right to be secure in your property, Scalia rules that the right to bear arms is inherent in the defense of said property. With regard to vehicles and persons, the line is much more foggy, and it is not clear whether a license to concealed carry will pass the muster of a Constitutional test such as rational basis, let alone strict scrutiny. - Todd - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 1:10 pm: Amalia – it goes beyond regulation. Those who hate guns or want them regulated to the point of removing the right want to keep harping on the “in the home” aspect of Heller. They don’t like the fact they lost and so they try to revise the ruling to their liking and spinning. Much like how the collective rights theory of the Second Amendment came about. Heller is much broader than just being able to possess a handgun in your own home. I will agree that Heller allows for regulation — regulation that does not diminish or destroy the right. Chicago’s new ordinance does not meet that standard. And I and others don’t believe that the complete ban on carrying a handgun for self defense does either. We can debate if a regulation is constitutional or is worth having. But trying to recast what Heller said is what the anti-gunners have been trying to do for the last 3 years. NIref – your wrong. Nothing in Heller or McDonald limits the ruling to the home. Let me spell it out again: 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. Pp. 2–53. Like I said before, the anti-gunner have a hard time reading the words SUCH AS. Self defense within the home was but one of the protected activities that fall under the Second Amendment. The ruling did not limit the scope to just the home. In Ezell the 7th Circuit found that the right extended outside the home. The court said: “This inquiry led the Court to conclude that the Second Amendment secures a pre‐existing natural right to keep and bear arms; that the right is personal and not limited to militia service; and that the “central component of the right” is the right of armed self‐defense, most notably in the home.” ‘Most notably’ not only, not just in the home. A claim of self defense and the right to possess a firearm in one’s own home will draw the most critical look. The court went on to say: “Both Heller and McDonald suggest that broadly prohibitory laws restricting the core Second Amendment right—like the handgun bans at issue in those cases, which prohibited handgun possession even in the home—are categorically unconstitutional.” Continuing…. “Here, in contrast, the plaintiffs are the “law‐abiding, responsible citizens” whose Second Amendment rights are entitled to full solicitude under Heller, and their claim comes much closer to implicating the core of the Second Amendment right. The City’s firing‐range ban is not merely regulatory; it prohibits the “law‐abiding, responsible citizens” of Chicago from engaging in target practice in the controlled environment of a firing range. This is a serious encroachment on the right to maintain proficiency in firearm use, an important corollary to the meaningful exercise of the core right to possess firearms for self‐defense.” Nothing in the home there. The core right is self defense. And nothing Scaila or Alito wrote limits either ruling to that. As much as some wish it to be the fact is in the home was an example, not the end of where the right begins. - amalia - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 1:32 pm: ugh, Todd, stop lumping all of us in with your ideas in your head about people who want regulations. the City of Chicago is giving up a great deal….which they should have done before. it should be a signal to you that many are taking Scalia’s map seriously, that regulation is ok, the question is what. you might take your own advice and start looking at all the times your side freaks about the ATF and records on purchases and such. you should take Scalia’s map seriously too. unless you want people to keep calling you a gun nut. - wishbone - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 3:52 pm: “…secures a pre‐existing natural right to keep and bear arms.” Bear means carry. Illinois’ current ban is sure to fall eventually with or without new legislation. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 4:00 pm: ===Bear means carry=== I’m not so sure you can translate it that easily. - East Sider - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 4:01 pm: If there was a pattern of increased gun crime as a result of concealed carry permits anywhere in the US, then I could see where the concern might come in. However, there isn’t. These are the most law-abiding folks in the land. They have to register with the government…why would they then go and commit crimes? The scare tactics from the anti-gun crowd have no basis in reality, and they seem unwilling to have an honest debate on the issue. 1.Criminals will not be issued concealed carry permits. 2.Kids will not be issued concealed carry permits 3.Concealed carry laws have never resulted in increased gun crime in any of the other 49 states 4.despite what Pat Quinn has claimed, there aren’t examples of any instances where someone bumps into someone (who has a c/c permit) in a grocery story, causing that person to “lose it” and open fire. 5. no one will force anyone to get a c/c permit who doesn’t want to obtain one. - Cincinnatus - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 4:18 pm: Rich, This? - Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 4:23 pm: East Sider - Can you point to one comment on this thread that uses any of those “scare tactics”? Get a grip and try to make some relevant arguments. - railrat - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 4:25 pm: as usual well done Todd, trying to explain the facts,I’m sure your tired of the anti-spin like many are, just let the courts rule !! then man the lifeboats the river of tears will be overwhelming. Oh for you antis its almost Oct 1! MMMMM Venison on the grill!! (archery not gun) - wishbone - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 7:12 pm: Rich wrote: “===Bear means carry=== I’m not so sure you can translate it that easily.” Rich: This is from Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in D.C. v Heller: ” In the phrase “to keep and bear Arms”, the word “Arms” “extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” (8) The phrase “keep … Arms” means “have weapons.” (Slip op. at 8-9). The phrase “bear Arms” means to “carry weapons” and was understood as part of “the natural right of defense ‘of one’s person or house”.” Jeez, I am a Democrat and I am quoting Scalia. - Todd - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 9:01 pm: ==I’m not so sure you can translate it that easily. == Ah Rich, yes it can. It starts on the top of page 10 and runs to page 19. From Heller: “At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796).When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose — confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) 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. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. … Without the preposition, “bear arms” normally meant (as it continues to mean today) what JUSTICE GINSBURG’s opinion in Muscarello said. In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia…. 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. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .” - wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 9:29 pm: –Bear means carry. Illinois’ current ban is sure to fall eventually with or without new legislation.– There’s a difference between Constitutional rights and law. Laws restricting and permitting guns have been in place throughout the country since 1789. There has never been a recognized “right” for conceal-carry. If, as some argue, Justice Scalia in his rambling, 5-4 Heller decision has discovered a Constitutional right to conceal-carry, than it is judicial activism, legislating-from-the-bench, writ large. That’s why there have been howls against the Heller decision from Federalist Society types, including Judge Posner, and unambiguous, post-Heller rejections of a right to conceal carry issued by judges appointed by Pres. Bush. - Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 10:29 pm: I would like to know why there isn’t a push for open carry. If the threat of concealed carry might keep you safe, isn’t open carry better? It’s also easier to access the weapon. I can think of other reasons why this would be a good idea as well. (I’m not being facetious here, I would like to know why this isn’t where the push is.) - Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 11:20 pm: Open carry was part of Green gubernatorial candidate Rich Whitney’s platform. He got, what, 20% of the vote in Rockford in his first run? - Retired Non-Union Guy - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 11:36 pm: Pot, I believe the push for concealed carry is because open carry is perceived as too scary by some people. It seems to me some people don’t want to know that the next guy is carrying one of those scary guns. My best friend is a retired city / county officer so I’m semi-regularly in the company of both retired and active duty law enforcement; being around both open and concealed carry firearms doesn’t bother me one bit. My personal opinion is if Illinois does not allow some form of concealed carry then the courts will eventually rule that open carry is a right in Illinois. I’m OK with either position … in fact, if concealed carry were to pass I’d have to buy compact semi-auto suitable for concealed carry because my pistols are a bit too big to easily conceal. - Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 9, 11 @ 12:26 am: ===He got, what, 20% of the vote in Rockford in his first run? === LOL - Todd - Friday, Sep 9, 11 @ 8:09 am: Word – it’s not an arguement about concealed. It’s an arguement that there has to be some form of a way to carry. it is up to the legislature to decide which it is. going back to the pre-covol war and even after, open carry was in the rural areas, concealed was in urban areas. It appears unciviliazed to “urban” folk to openly carry a gun. Just like the open carry law of California sets people off, but you rarely hear of a hystarical case about someone with a concealed handgun. both law suits make it clear that it not “concealed” but the complete ban that we are after. - wordslinger - Friday, Sep 9, 11 @ 8:19 am: –it is up to the legislature to decide which it is. going back to the pre-covol war and even after, open carry was in the rural areas, concealed was in urban areas.– There’s a long history of local governments banning the carrying of weapons in any manner. That’s what got those Clanton boys in trouble wiht Wyatt Earp at the OK Corral. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Friday, Sep 9, 11 @ 11:51 am: >>>>There’s a long history of local governments banning the carrying of weapons in any manner. A historical wrong is still a wrong. Examples abound. - wishbone - Friday, Sep 9, 11 @ 2:35 pm: “There’s a long history of local governments banning the carrying of weapons in any manner.” The fact that towns violated peoples’ civil rights in bygone days is no excuse for them to do it today. Many of those same towns told black people not to let the sunset on them. Care to defend that? - Skeeter - Friday, Sep 9, 11 @ 2:38 pm: Wishbone are you claiming that the Constitution is a living, breathing document that should change with time? It seems clear that the founders though that guns should be regulated and that people could be barred from carrying them. Should we ignore the views of our founders and adopt a more modern and enlightened view? - wordslinger - Friday, Sep 9, 11 @ 2:42 pm: –”There’s a long history of local governments banning the carrying of weapons in any manner.” The fact that towns violated peoples’ civil rights in bygone days is no excuse for them to do it today. Many of those same towns told black people not to let the sunset on them. Care to defend that?– I think that strawman can fall down on its own. There’s never been an established Constitutional right to carry a firearm in public. That’s why you have so many states passing laws allowing it. Civil rights violations were just that. Violations of established rights. - hollyortiz1 - Tuesday, Sep 13, 11 @ 5:23 am: It was introduced in the House by Representatives by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) and Heath Shuler (D-NC). http://bit.ly/r60Toq Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.