* As subscribers were told several weeks ago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants to use his handgun registration bill in the negotiations over concealed carry legislation. A bill passed a House committee recently which imposed a $20 per handgun registration fee (the originally proposed $65 fee was lowered by an amendment). But it doesn’t sound like southern Illinois Democrats are in any mood to negotiate. From a Senate Democratic press release…
“I’m spitting mad,” [Sen. Gary Forby] said. “These Chicago politicians are trying to take our guns out of our hands. They’re trying to take money from Southern Illinois to pay for their own programs. It is our Constitutional right to own guns. The mayor of Chicago and his cronies may not respect the Constitution of the United States, but we do.”
“Registering guns and charging excessive fees is just another step toward taking all of our guns away,” [Rep. John Bradley] said. “Taking guns away from law-abiding Southern Illinois hunters isn’t going to solve Chicago’s violence problems. They’re not the ones murdering people on the mayor’s streets.”
“I can’t believe these Chicago politicians think we’re just going to roll over and let them push their ridiculous laws on Southern Illinois,” [Rep. Brandon Phelps] said. “It’s time for them to face the facts and realize that guns don’t kill people. People kill people, and criminals are not the ones who are going to register their weapons. Only law-abiding citizens like the people in Southern Illinois will end up paying these Chicago gun taxes.”
All three Southern Illinois Democrats are strong advocates of allowing Illinoisans to carry concealed weapons.
“I think the time has come for conceal carry in Illinois,” Bradley added.
“Maybe the Chicago mayor thinks his bills are a starting point for negotiations,” Forby said. “They’re not. We’re not negotiating. We’re killing these bills.”
“I don’t know what these Chicago politicians are thinking,” Phelps said. “The governor wants to close prisons and cut parole officers, and the mayor wants to take our guns. Do they think that will make anyone safer?” [Emphasis added.]
* On the complete opposite side of the issue is Rep. Kelly Cassidy, a Chicago Democrat…
Originally from Florida, Cassidy said she grew up in a setting where guns were a way of life, and she empathizes with hunters and others who shoot for sport.
“But I’ve spent 15 years in the criminal justice system seeing what guns are doing to my community,” Cassidy said. “I absolutely see no legitimate purpose for handguns. I just don’t.”
It’s rhetoric like that which is driving Downstate Democrats up a wall. As I’ve told you before, Cassidy is in a hot primary fight, but she also needs to remember that life will go on after this primary and she’ll have to work with those Downstaters if she wins. They’re not gonna be too eager to do that.
In May — the most recent time the Illinois House voted on concealed carry — 30 of the 32 lawmakers who voted against concealed carry were from Cook County.
“Concealed carry is a geographic issue in Illinois,” [Rep Kelly Burke, D-Chicago] said. “And since the geography is not going to change, we need to work on our differences and not just jam legislation through the House.”
Former state Rep. Bill Black, R-Danville, said concealed carry is one of a handful of issues that splits the General Assembly by location, not by political party.
“You get a downstate-suburban versus Chicago regionalism,” Black said. “And it’s only getting worse.”
State Rep. Don Moffitt, R-Galesburg, said concealed-carry supporters need to focus on the big picture this year, and not push for legislation that cannot pass the House or the Illinois Senate.
“This is just from a guy who has been around the track a few times. The objective here is to move toward concealed carry, and I support that, “Moffitt said. “Keep in mind, the goal is to pass permit to carry.”
The Rifle Association refused to allow any sort of compromise last year which would’ve allow Chicago to opt out of concealed carry. Until that happens, the proposal may not go anywhere, although Rep. Phelps says he’s very close…
It will take 71 votes — not a simple majority of 60 — for the House to approve concealed carry. Lawmakers decided long ago that a statewide concealed-carry law would pre-empt local laws. […]
Phelps said he has 70 votes. Last May, 65 state representatives voted for concealed carry. A vote on HB5745 is not scheduled in the House and, Phelps said, he may change the legislation before the final deadline in late May.
Actually, Phelps said he was at “almost 70″ votes. Here’s some video of Rep. Phelps’ comments…
80 Comments
- CircularFiringSquad - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 10:26 am:
Great timing
It is gun nut day at your IL State Capitol.
One of our favorites
Their appearence always confirms the view that there are too many guns IL already and there is NO need for concealed carry
I don’t get Emanuel’s registration proposal, even as a bargaining chip. It’s a hostile act, and I would think he would want to be building bridges throughout Illinois to advance his Springfield agenda.
Someone please explain the obsession w/ concealed carry?? I mean rational reason, not emotional, cuz no one has ever said anything that wasn’t wrapped in emotional claptrap.
- grand old partisan - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 11:09 am:
D.P. - is that question directed to the supporters or the opponents?
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 11:13 am:
Under Haynes vs. US (self-incrimination), criminals won’t have to register their guns. So tell me again, since criminals won’t be on the list, exactly how is registering guns going to identify the criminals in Chicago?
The problem is violence in Chicago. The solution more cops on the streets and pro-actice policing in Chicago. It’s really as simple as that.
Just this past Monday, a federal judge in Maryland ruled that the Heller decision applies outside the home, that the right to carry is part of the second amendment, and that Maryland’s requirement to show just cause is unconsitutional– no reason needed to exercise a right.
This is going to have an impact on the litigation here in illinois.
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 11:20 am:
D.P. Gumby @ 10:57 am
Because there isn’t a cop on every corner in Chicago to protect you? Because criminals in Chicago apparently have no fear of being caught?
Because, to quote Robert A Heinlein “An armed society is a polite society”? (OK, that was partly an emotional argument.)
Maybe another Heinlein quote is appropriate to describe Chicago politicians: “Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.”
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 11:25 am:
D.P. Gumby @ 10:57 am
It doesn’t have to be concealed carry; I would be perfectly happy with open carry. Then “the big bad guns” would be out in plain view so everyone who fears guns can see them …
Retired Non-Union Guy, if you are wondering why the pro-gun people scare the heck out of Illinois moderates, look no further than your last post.
A lot of us think that people should have a right to carry, and then we read stuff like that which suggests that a lot of people from Watseka are going to be walking around the Loop opening fire on anybody who looks at them funny.
If you think you NEED a gun to walk around Chicago, you should not have one.
It would be easy to be pro-gun if only the pro-gun people would stop talking.
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 11:37 am:
Skeeter,
I was (I thought obviously) being tongue-in-cheek sarcastic. I worked off and on in Chicago for years and not always in the best neighborhoods; I still like the city and visit regularly, but there are some areas I wouldn’t go in.
Many of our friends north of I-80 do not understand the concern for being able to protect yourself. I would suggest this for a nice Sunday outing and a lesson. Drive down to Champaign. Take I-74 East to the Homer exit. Take that road and keep going until you hit Illinois 136 to Charleston. Here’s the fun part: have your kids count how long it takes from one itty bitty town to another. And, for extra fun, have them count how many houses they see in between those towns. Now, if you really want to go all out, try to find the police station in the itty bitty towns.
Its not personal,Sonny. Its just business.
- Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 11:41 am:
- Because there isn’t a cop on every corner in Chicago to protect you? Because criminals in Chicago apparently have no fear of being caught? -
You know, I honestly am not really against carry laws, but if you hadn’t noticed, they aren’t exactly popular in the rougher parts of Chicago. In the relatively safe parts of Chicago that I spend most of my time, they’re not terribly popular there either. Also, I don’t personally feel the need to carry a gun, and I really don’t feel afraid walking or driving around the city. I think if you’re going to constantly remind everyone that Chicago doesn’t represent downstate, you might want to base your arguments off of other places.
Retired Non-Union Guy, thanks for the clarification. However, over the years I’ve read way too many similar comments by others who seem like they think they need their gun to walk down Michigan Ave. Those people scare me more than the real criminals.
- Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 11:43 am:
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 11:52 am:
Small Town Liberal,
Since the opinion split seems to be Chicago vs downstate, I was using those terms for comparison.
I guess I have a different view of the police from a lot of people. I have lots of friends who are either active duty or retired law enforcement. I also have them for neighbors. So I see them as people.
Getting back to Chicago or other large cities, Community policing, done correctly, can build bridges to the people in the neighborhoods and reduce the violence. But that requires training and manpower, in other words money … I still maintain the solution to Chicago’s problems is more police … along with other things, like jobs.
mayor Rahm looks a lot like white house chief of staff rahm trying to do everything at once and failing spectacularly in a lot of ways. This is unnecessary right now. We don’t need culture wars.
–Given that Illinois is not an armed society, why isn’t it #51 on that list?–
Illinois, of course, is part of the United States, the most armed society in the industrial world. I just don’t buy the silly quote “an armed society is a polite society.” It’s meaningless.
>>>Someone please explain the obsession w/ concealed carry??
It’s not an obsession really. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution enumerates your God given right to keep and bear arms. It does not specifically make the distinction between concealed or non-concealed. Concealed Carry is throwing the hoplophobes a bone so that they will “feel” safer. See no evil. Molon Labe.
–The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution enumerates your God given right to keep and bear arms.–
Neither the Second Amendment, nor any passage in the Constitution, speaks of “God-given rights.”
The first three words are “We the people….”
Here’s what the 2nd Amendment says:
–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.–
I haven’t been to Sunday school in a while, but I do read The Bible, and I don’t recall any mention of conceal/carry in the Ten Commandments or The Gospels.
The whole issue to me is that one part of the state wants to make rules for the entire state. Chicago is not the state capitol and its mayor is not the governor. I can understand why many people in Chicagoland do not want/need/understand the whole carry issue. You have police who handle the bad guys (I know, I know!) But, those of us who live in rural areas of the state do not have the same police protection and are on our own when it comes to protecting our family and property. Shouldn’t we have a legal right to protect ourselves, both on our own property and while we are traveling to or from it?
Rep. Moffit is right. It will take compromise to pass any significant gun legislation.
The problem is that neither side seems willing to agree to something the other side really wants.
What is Rahm got his handgun registration with a much smaller fee, and conservatives got concealed carry? Each side would give, and each would get.
The current stalemate, which has existed for years, means that neither side can pass anything that really matters to them.
Politics is the art of the possible.
- Don't Worry About the Government - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 2:02 pm:
===- but there are some areas I wouldn’t go in. -
So don’t. Wasn’t that easy?===
The absurdity of this comment is ridiculous. I should be able to feel comfortable traveling through any portion of the state regardless of where it is located. If the government is unable to provide that security then the citizen should be able to.
Secutity is one of the main tenants of the social contract that citizens make with their government. If a place is unsafe then it is up to the government to provide for the means to make it a safer place. Banning guns from law abiding citizens is not the approach.
It might be time for a new approach with conceal and carry. It will make some punk more likely to rethink mugging someone or stealing their car if the victim “might” have a gun and can better defend themself.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 2:27 pm:
@wordslinger -
Senator Forby may be “spitting mad,” but Democratic campaign managers across downstate are sending Rahm flowers, for sure.
Anytime you can grandstand for guns and against Chicago instead of talking about the budget, you’ve had a VERY good day.
- Jamie Springfield - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 2:36 pm:
Registering my handguns and paying the State of Chicago (yes, you heard me. I don’t claim it) $20 is not happening. As corrupt as all politicians in Chicago have proved to be, I see it solely as a way to wring more hard-earned dollars out of the middle-class of downstaters. I have no problem with Cook, Will, DuPage and Lake County making their own ordinance to do this. The “kooks” are all up there, anyway. Leave me alone with my squirrel pistol and my self-defense 9mm. You also better hope I’m the same crack shot I’ve been, without your stupid laws, when you and your family need guys like me to defend your lifestyle. With proposals like what I’m hearing out of Chicago, it’s easy to see why we are viewed as a “slipping” superpower.
It sounds as if Todd is relying upon federal judges — instead of legislators — to win concealed carry. No need for compromise if you can win without it.
if memory serves Todd has tried the legislative approach and the honorable legislators that have tried are “still” trying, but certain “obsticles prevail” so comprimise becomes lost in the process !!
LOL wordslinger, not only are these rights God given, they are also unalienable.
“We the People” can’t give me any rights, they already belong to me. “You the people” are simply trying to take them away from me. Molon Labe.
As for what the Second Amendment means, this has already been decided by SCOTUS, so you can keep imagining that guns are only for militias if that makes you happy, but you are wrong. It’s been hashed out and settled.
The militia is for the STATE, the right to keep and bear arms is for the PEOPLE. WE THE PEOPLE.
While I agree with you that the right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, it certainly isn’t God-given.
However, in the Constitution we are do have some “God-given rights” and they are Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness….that’s probably what you’re thinking of.
–However, in the Constitution we are do have some “God-given rights” and they are Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…–
That’s not in the Constitution. God is not mentioned in the Constitution. The rights enumerated in the Constitution come from “We the people.”
Benny, pick a lane. On one hand you argue that the Constitution cannot deprive you of God-given rights, on the next you’re parsing the Second Amendment.
Benny, if you think it is a simple issue you don’t understand the issue.
The language is not clear. The wording is odd and open to different interpretations. Even constitutional language that appears clear (for instance the First Amendment) has been found to contain limits.
If you lack the capacity to understand that the matter is complicated, you probably lack the judgment to own a gun.
I don’t remember pistol packin’ Jesus proclaiming any “God given right”. And the current second amendment interpretation was 5-4 from the Supreme Court that said it was not something that could not be regulated.
lincolnlover–the “ruralness” of Illinois does not require concealed carry, just the right to have your reasonable gun (which should not include a saturday nite special or automatic weapon)
Retired Non-Union–I’d consider the prospect of open-carry. Listening to all the pro-concealed carry makes me scared of who would be carrying. That’s not a polite society, it’s a frightened society where everyone has to be armed to defend against the looney sitting next to you on the bus. If it’s open carry, I know who to avoid.
TCB, I believe wordslinger was waiting for me to mention the Declaration of Independence where man was endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
In the Declaration we can read where Men are created by God, to create government, to keep secure their God-given, unalienable rights of the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. This is exactly what was done in the Constitution, and in this case, the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
Skeeter, it may not have been clear to some, and clear to others. For this reason we have very smart people in the Supreme Court to interpret what was meant. They not only looked at the words, but at the reason those words were put on paper in the first place. These smart people have made their determination and the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled. That’s the way it is, like it or not. Your interpretation, if it is different, doesn’t carry the same weight.
>>>Even constitutional language that appears clear (for instance the First Amendment) has been found to contain limits.
So which are you in favor of limiting, so that I can uderstand what your argument is? Do you want to limit open carry, or concealed carry? Pick one because you can’t deny both.
There have been post-Heller rulings by district judges in New York and California that there is no constitutional right to conceal/carry. Clearly, as is not uncommon, there are conflicting judgements, and they are percolating up to the Supremes.
Benny, your last question is not clear. Can you rephrase? I’m not following. You are claiming that there is some choice. I have no idea what you are referencing.
As to your assertion that the Supreme Court’s ruling is clear, again I stand on my comments that if you think it is clear you do not understand the issues and you really seem to lack the sound reasoning to be handle a dangerous item.
Ultimately, a court may decide that conceal carry outside the home is a right. But it hasn’t yet and if you think it has, you are giving the matter serious attention.
>>>There have been post-Heller rulings by district judges in New York and California that there is no constitutional right to conceal/carry.
True indeed, and there have been others that ruled in accordance to what SCOTUS ruled. I expect no less from New York, California, and Illinois. Maybe if this makes it up to SCOTUS again, they can use baby words to make it clearer, eh?
@Gumby -lincolnlover–the “ruralness” of Illinois does not require concealed carry, just the right to have your reasonable gun (which should not include a saturday nite special or automatic weapon)-
I’ve never understood the premise that one gun is inherently more evil than another. Why is it that an automatic weapon & Saturday night specials (which is just a smaller version of another kind of handgun) should be off limits, while long guns, such as shotguns & semi-automatic rifles, and other handguns are ok?
Skeeter, I can explain it to you again, but I can make you understand. SCOTUS rulled that the right to keep and bear arms is and individual right. You can bear arms openly, or bear arms concealed, but you can’t prohibit both because you have the right to keep and BEAR arms.
So again, you want to place limits on bearing arms. Which type of bearing ars do you want to place limits on? Open or Concealed?
Benny,
You have an extreme view of the Court’s decisions. Your views are not widely held.
I am concerned that somebody with your judgment would own a gun.
- Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 4:09 pm:
- The whole issue to me is that one part of the state wants to make rules for the entire state. -
Oh? Last I checked concealed carry was sponsored by folks outside of Chicago. Compromise people, it’s what makes the world go ’round.
Benny, if the supremes had already settled concealed carry, we wouldn’t need legislation.
That’s for the unprovoked attack for being able to understand a court decision. There are many like myself. We are like the stars. The tide is turning and that’s the way it is.
Heller was a 5-4 decision. Over the next four years, there may be a new justice to replace one of the five in the majority. If so, SCOTUS may not be willing to impose concealed carry.
Well, there is no rational reason for a saturday nite special or an automatic weapon to exist. Should bazookas and flame-throwers be concealed-carry, too?
>>>Heller was a 5-4 decision. Over the next four years, there may be a new justice to replace one of the five in the majority. If so, SCOTUS may not be willing to impose concealed carry.
How do you think that will go over in the other 49 States?
No rational reason for them to exist? That is just silly. If there were no rational reason for them to exist, people wouldn’t buy them. It’d be different if you were arguing that the only reason for their existance is for mass killings (which is obviously equally silly) because then we could have a debate. But saying an automatic weapon has no reason for exisiting, is just closed minded.
And it’s quite a difference between being logical for concealled carry & having a legitimate reason for existing….again, if you made that claim we could debate it…but you didn’t.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 4:27 pm:
@Benny -
Sorry for getting late to the party.
How does the Supreme Court interpret “arms”?
Or is that settled?
Or are you arguing that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to publicly bare “arms” of any type?
Because if “arms” means what I think it means, or atleast what I think it meant to our Framers at the time, then the second ammendment protects the right to bare either muskets or modern combat automatic rifles.
For the record, I favor the former.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 4:28 pm:
@Benny -
If SCOTUS rules that states have the right to regulate or prohibit conceal-carry, I don’t imagine the other 49 states will give a rat.
I mean as a pleasure shooter, if can own a semi-automatic rifle which shoots about 100 rounds per minute (which I do), what’s it matter if I have an automatic rifle that can shoot 500 rounds a minute?
Also, you are aware that I can legally purchase accessories which turn my 100 round per minute gun into a 500 round per minute gun, right? Yes, this is all legal & legit, yet I can’t own something specifically designed to do so?
would be way more interesting if the vote on Concealed Carry were in the Senate and we had to see how Senators with really new districts would vote on the bill. Kelly should stop with the handgun banning talk.
“Under Haynes vs. US (self-incrimination), criminals won’t have to register their guns.”
Do people with suspended driver’s licenses not have to register their cars? Just becomes something else to hassle and arrest street punks for. I’m sure the force hates the thought of that, in general.
Should we not require paying taxes on illegal earnings because those with illegal earnings won’t pay them?
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 5:27 pm:
Amalia,
Yes, that will be the more interesting vote. I’ve talked to my State Senator extensively on the subject (along with lots of other issues), most recently about a month ago. He will vote for CC.
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 5:30 pm:
Chris @ 5:25 pm:
I think it’s stupid also … but that’s what SCOTUS said years ago; felons have a 5th amendment right to not incriminate themselves.
“Maybe if this makes it up to SCOTUS again, they can use baby words to make it clearer, eh? ”
Maybe if they here a case on carrying weapons outside the home, they will actually rule on the matter. The ONLY issues before the court were (1) is 2d A an individual right and (2) can the Fed Gov’t ban guns. McDonald v Chicago extended that to states and their subdivisions. BOTH recognized the following (from McDonald):
“It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our hold-ing did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatorymeasures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and gov-ernment buildings, or laws imposing conditions and quali-fications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here.Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.”
So, despite your assertions to the contrary, the Supreme Court *definitely* did NOT rule that restrictions on the carry of guns is protected by the 2d A, nor registration requirements banned by the 2d A. If the Supreme Court needs to use “baby words” to make anything clearer, it’s that your interpretation goes WAY beyond the actual content of the rulings.
@ Retired Non Union Guy, what is the position of Sen. Kotowski?
- Ain't No Justice - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 6:04 pm:
So much madness! Being a single individual, living alone in rural Illinois and traveling the interstates a lot I would love to have a gun for protection. Why can’t some of you understand?? It is for protection, further more, I would like my representative to push legislation for a TEXAS like law stating we can shoot intruders on our land BEFORE they come into our homes to do harm. I’d be happy with both of the above. Paying for registration is not going to happen in this home, a FOID card registration is already doing that. In Chicago “culture” the criminals have weapons, in Illinois “culture” the responsible citizens do!
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 9:15 pm:
Amalia,
Not my Senator so I have no idea. Since he lobbies them on a regular basis, Todd might know …
@ D.P. Gumby at 10:57: Don’t know if you will see this at late as it is, but here’s my comment. Rational reason for the obsession? Gun owners want to CARRY guns to kill people, not leave them at home. Gun haters want to BAN all guns. Those are the polar extremes, at least as far as the extremists on the other side see it.
Personally, I feel that concealed carry laws grant law-abiding citizens permission to do something that the 2nd Amendment already says is okay to do-carry a gun.
Obviously, a majority of people, including the Supreme Court, have disagreed with me, hence laws that prohibit carrying a gun. Concealed carry is just a way to get that “right” back.
Sure, some of the “gun nuts” are obsessed, but most of us (and I identify myself as one) aren’t. When the subject comes up, we support it, and will argue for it. Some of the reasons that support it may seem off the wall, but many of the reasons that anti-gunners use seem off the wall to me. Depends on your viewpoint.
Personally, as a general rule, I see little reason to carry a weapon on my person most of the time, but on those occasions when I drive through bad areas with my family in some of the near-by small cities, or inspect my rural roads at night,I would feel more secure if a loaded weapon was there if needed. I actually believe that most persons advocating concealed carry feel the same way. We’re not obsessed, we just want reasonable access.
Heller, 554 U.S. at 594
This reasoning is consistent with the Supreme Court’s historical
understanding of the right to keep and bear arms as “an individual right protecting against both
public and private violence.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 594. In addition to self-defense, the right was
also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. See id. at 598. To secure these
rights, the Second Amendment’s protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor
militia training is a household activity, and “self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person
happens to be.” http://marylandshallissue.org/share/opinions/Woollard_Opinion.pdf
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - A Colorado doctor with a concealed-weapon permit said he grabbed his gun and guarded an exit at a medical building as dozens of people fled from a gunman who had taken two hostages.
A doctor at the practice, Jeff Ferguson, told KKTV he retrieved his gun from its storage place and protected an exit as an estimated 50 people fled down a stairway.
“If this guy opens this door, I’m going to have to shoot him,” Ferguson said. “I was absolutely prepared to shoot him, yes.”
“There was screaming and yelling and everyone was yelling to call 911,” Kelberer told The Gazette. “One woman was really upset and kept carrying on and saying, `Somebody hug me. Somebody hug me.’”
- CircularFiringSquad - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 10:26 am:
Great timing
It is gun nut day at your IL State Capitol.
One of our favorites
Their appearence always confirms the view that there are too many guns IL already and there is NO need for concealed carry
- mark walker - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 10:35 am:
King’s knight to D6.
(Checkmate on the budget, in three more moves.)
- John A Logan - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 10:44 am:
and the song remains the same.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 10:51 am:
I don’t get Emanuel’s registration proposal, even as a bargaining chip. It’s a hostile act, and I would think he would want to be building bridges throughout Illinois to advance his Springfield agenda.
- Louie - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 10:52 am:
Poeple always seem to forget, guns only kill people, when some person pulls the trigger.
- D.P. Gumby - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 10:57 am:
Someone please explain the obsession w/ concealed carry?? I mean rational reason, not emotional, cuz no one has ever said anything that wasn’t wrapped in emotional claptrap.
- grand old partisan - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 11:09 am:
D.P. - is that question directed to the supporters or the opponents?
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 11:13 am:
Under Haynes vs. US (self-incrimination), criminals won’t have to register their guns. So tell me again, since criminals won’t be on the list, exactly how is registering guns going to identify the criminals in Chicago?
The problem is violence in Chicago. The solution more cops on the streets and pro-actice policing in Chicago. It’s really as simple as that.
- Todd - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 11:13 am:
Just this past Monday, a federal judge in Maryland ruled that the Heller decision applies outside the home, that the right to carry is part of the second amendment, and that Maryland’s requirement to show just cause is unconsitutional– no reason needed to exercise a right.
This is going to have an impact on the litigation here in illinois.
Here is a link to a story about the decisio:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-gun-law-appeal-20120306,0,6673248.story
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 11:20 am:
D.P. Gumby @ 10:57 am
Because there isn’t a cop on every corner in Chicago to protect you? Because criminals in Chicago apparently have no fear of being caught?
Because, to quote Robert A Heinlein “An armed society is a polite society”? (OK, that was partly an emotional argument.)
Maybe another Heinlein quote is appropriate to describe Chicago politicians: “Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.”
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 11:25 am:
D.P. Gumby @ 10:57 am
It doesn’t have to be concealed carry; I would be perfectly happy with open carry. Then “the big bad guns” would be out in plain view so everyone who fears guns can see them …
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 11:33 am:
Retired Non-Union Guy, if you are wondering why the pro-gun people scare the heck out of Illinois moderates, look no further than your last post.
A lot of us think that people should have a right to carry, and then we read stuff like that which suggests that a lot of people from Watseka are going to be walking around the Loop opening fire on anybody who looks at them funny.
If you think you NEED a gun to walk around Chicago, you should not have one.
It would be easy to be pro-gun if only the pro-gun people would stop talking.
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 11:37 am:
Skeeter,
I was (I thought obviously) being tongue-in-cheek sarcastic. I worked off and on in Chicago for years and not always in the best neighborhoods; I still like the city and visit regularly, but there are some areas I wouldn’t go in.
- lincolnlover - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 11:38 am:
Many of our friends north of I-80 do not understand the concern for being able to protect yourself. I would suggest this for a nice Sunday outing and a lesson. Drive down to Champaign. Take I-74 East to the Homer exit. Take that road and keep going until you hit Illinois 136 to Charleston. Here’s the fun part: have your kids count how long it takes from one itty bitty town to another. And, for extra fun, have them count how many houses they see in between those towns. Now, if you really want to go all out, try to find the police station in the itty bitty towns.
Its not personal,Sonny. Its just business.
- Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 11:41 am:
- Because there isn’t a cop on every corner in Chicago to protect you? Because criminals in Chicago apparently have no fear of being caught? -
You know, I honestly am not really against carry laws, but if you hadn’t noticed, they aren’t exactly popular in the rougher parts of Chicago. In the relatively safe parts of Chicago that I spend most of my time, they’re not terribly popular there either. Also, I don’t personally feel the need to carry a gun, and I really don’t feel afraid walking or driving around the city. I think if you’re going to constantly remind everyone that Chicago doesn’t represent downstate, you might want to base your arguments off of other places.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 11:42 am:
Retired Non-Union Guy, thanks for the clarification. However, over the years I’ve read way too many similar comments by others who seem like they think they need their gun to walk down Michigan Ave. Those people scare me more than the real criminals.
- Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 11:43 am:
- but there are some areas I wouldn’t go in. -
So don’t. Wasn’t that easy?
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 11:48 am:
–Because, to quote Robert A Heinlein “An armed society is a polite society”–
Not so that you’d notice.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 11:52 am:
Small Town Liberal,
Since the opinion split seems to be Chicago vs downstate, I was using those terms for comparison.
I guess I have a different view of the police from a lot of people. I have lots of friends who are either active duty or retired law enforcement. I also have them for neighbors. So I see them as people.
Getting back to Chicago or other large cities, Community policing, done correctly, can build bridges to the people in the neighborhoods and reduce the violence. But that requires training and manpower, in other words money … I still maintain the solution to Chicago’s problems is more police … along with other things, like jobs.
- Plutocrat03 - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 11:55 am:
When seconds count, help will be there in 10-15 minutes.
- lincolnlover - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 12:07 pm:
“When seconds count, help will be there in 10-15 minutes.”
Not where I grew up. More like 1 to 2 hours and its still that way.
- Dan Shields, Springfield, IL - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 12:16 pm:
Where is that cow and lantern when you really need it?
- Shore - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 12:24 pm:
mayor Rahm looks a lot like white house chief of staff rahm trying to do everything at once and failing spectacularly in a lot of ways. This is unnecessary right now. We don’t need culture wars.
- Benny - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 12:25 pm:
>>>Not so that you’d notice.
>>>http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
Given that Illinois is not an armed society, why isn’t it #51 on that list?
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 12:33 pm:
–Given that Illinois is not an armed society, why isn’t it #51 on that list?–
Illinois, of course, is part of the United States, the most armed society in the industrial world. I just don’t buy the silly quote “an armed society is a polite society.” It’s meaningless.
- Benny - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 12:37 pm:
>>>Someone please explain the obsession w/ concealed carry??
It’s not an obsession really. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution enumerates your God given right to keep and bear arms. It does not specifically make the distinction between concealed or non-concealed. Concealed Carry is throwing the hoplophobes a bone so that they will “feel” safer. See no evil. Molon Labe.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 12:46 pm:
–The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution enumerates your God given right to keep and bear arms.–
Neither the Second Amendment, nor any passage in the Constitution, speaks of “God-given rights.”
The first three words are “We the people….”
Here’s what the 2nd Amendment says:
–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.–
I haven’t been to Sunday school in a while, but I do read The Bible, and I don’t recall any mention of conceal/carry in the Ten Commandments or The Gospels.
- lincolnlover - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 12:56 pm:
The whole issue to me is that one part of the state wants to make rules for the entire state. Chicago is not the state capitol and its mayor is not the governor. I can understand why many people in Chicagoland do not want/need/understand the whole carry issue. You have police who handle the bad guys (I know, I know!) But, those of us who live in rural areas of the state do not have the same police protection and are on our own when it comes to protecting our family and property. Shouldn’t we have a legal right to protect ourselves, both on our own property and while we are traveling to or from it?
- reformer - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 1:26 pm:
Rep. Moffit is right. It will take compromise to pass any significant gun legislation.
The problem is that neither side seems willing to agree to something the other side really wants.
What is Rahm got his handgun registration with a much smaller fee, and conservatives got concealed carry? Each side would give, and each would get.
The current stalemate, which has existed for years, means that neither side can pass anything that really matters to them.
Politics is the art of the possible.
- Don't Worry About the Government - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 2:02 pm:
===- but there are some areas I wouldn’t go in. -
So don’t. Wasn’t that easy?===
The absurdity of this comment is ridiculous. I should be able to feel comfortable traveling through any portion of the state regardless of where it is located. If the government is unable to provide that security then the citizen should be able to.
Secutity is one of the main tenants of the social contract that citizens make with their government. If a place is unsafe then it is up to the government to provide for the means to make it a safer place. Banning guns from law abiding citizens is not the approach.
It might be time for a new approach with conceal and carry. It will make some punk more likely to rethink mugging someone or stealing their car if the victim “might” have a gun and can better defend themself.
- Todd - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 2:25 pm:
Looks like a second federal judge says that that Heller and the Second Amendmentinclude right to carry
http://volokh.com/2012/03/07/district-court-concludes-second-amendment-secures-right-to-carry-but-not-while-being-employed-for-a-felon/
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 2:27 pm:
@wordslinger -
Senator Forby may be “spitting mad,” but Democratic campaign managers across downstate are sending Rahm flowers, for sure.
Anytime you can grandstand for guns and against Chicago instead of talking about the budget, you’ve had a VERY good day.
- Jamie Springfield - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 2:36 pm:
Registering my handguns and paying the State of Chicago (yes, you heard me. I don’t claim it) $20 is not happening. As corrupt as all politicians in Chicago have proved to be, I see it solely as a way to wring more hard-earned dollars out of the middle-class of downstaters. I have no problem with Cook, Will, DuPage and Lake County making their own ordinance to do this. The “kooks” are all up there, anyway. Leave me alone with my squirrel pistol and my self-defense 9mm. You also better hope I’m the same crack shot I’ve been, without your stupid laws, when you and your family need guys like me to defend your lifestyle. With proposals like what I’m hearing out of Chicago, it’s easy to see why we are viewed as a “slipping” superpower.
- reformer - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 2:41 pm:
It sounds as if Todd is relying upon federal judges — instead of legislators — to win concealed carry. No need for compromise if you can win without it.
- railrat - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 3:04 pm:
if memory serves Todd has tried the legislative approach and the honorable legislators that have tried are “still” trying, but certain “obsticles prevail” so comprimise becomes lost in the process !!
- Benny - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 3:04 pm:
LOL wordslinger, not only are these rights God given, they are also unalienable.
“We the People” can’t give me any rights, they already belong to me. “You the people” are simply trying to take them away from me. Molon Labe.
As for what the Second Amendment means, this has already been decided by SCOTUS, so you can keep imagining that guns are only for militias if that makes you happy, but you are wrong. It’s been hashed out and settled.
The militia is for the STATE, the right to keep and bear arms is for the PEOPLE. WE THE PEOPLE.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 3:19 pm:
–“We the People” can’t give me any rights, they already belong to me.–
By that logic, any interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, or the Bill of Rights for that matter, is irrelevant.
Just fill the rest of us in on where you discovered the God-given right for conceal/carry.
- Benny - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 3:24 pm:
What does bear mean to you in “keep and bear arms”.
- TCB - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 3:30 pm:
@ Benny
While I agree with you that the right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, it certainly isn’t God-given.
However, in the Constitution we are do have some “God-given rights” and they are Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness….that’s probably what you’re thinking of.
- Todd - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 3:33 pm:
Not just relaying the courts, but using them as the hammer to move it along.
Ifnthey don’t want to pass a reasonable bill like 148, then whe. The courts toss the UUW laws, we will demad a florida type law.
Their choice
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 3:35 pm:
–However, in the Constitution we are do have some “God-given rights” and they are Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…–
That’s not in the Constitution. God is not mentioned in the Constitution. The rights enumerated in the Constitution come from “We the people.”
Benny, pick a lane. On one hand you argue that the Constitution cannot deprive you of God-given rights, on the next you’re parsing the Second Amendment.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 3:35 pm:
Benny, if you think it is a simple issue you don’t understand the issue.
The language is not clear. The wording is odd and open to different interpretations. Even constitutional language that appears clear (for instance the First Amendment) has been found to contain limits.
If you lack the capacity to understand that the matter is complicated, you probably lack the judgment to own a gun.
- D.P. Gumby - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 3:42 pm:
I don’t remember pistol packin’ Jesus proclaiming any “God given right”. And the current second amendment interpretation was 5-4 from the Supreme Court that said it was not something that could not be regulated.
lincolnlover–the “ruralness” of Illinois does not require concealed carry, just the right to have your reasonable gun (which should not include a saturday nite special or automatic weapon)
Retired Non-Union–I’d consider the prospect of open-carry. Listening to all the pro-concealed carry makes me scared of who would be carrying. That’s not a polite society, it’s a frightened society where everyone has to be armed to defend against the looney sitting next to you on the bus. If it’s open carry, I know who to avoid.
- Benny - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 3:42 pm:
TCB, I believe wordslinger was waiting for me to mention the Declaration of Independence where man was endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
In the Declaration we can read where Men are created by God, to create government, to keep secure their God-given, unalienable rights of the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. This is exactly what was done in the Constitution, and in this case, the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
- Benny - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 3:48 pm:
Skeeter, it may not have been clear to some, and clear to others. For this reason we have very smart people in the Supreme Court to interpret what was meant. They not only looked at the words, but at the reason those words were put on paper in the first place. These smart people have made their determination and the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled. That’s the way it is, like it or not. Your interpretation, if it is different, doesn’t carry the same weight.
- Benny - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 3:50 pm:
>>>Even constitutional language that appears clear (for instance the First Amendment) has been found to contain limits.
So which are you in favor of limiting, so that I can uderstand what your argument is? Do you want to limit open carry, or concealed carry? Pick one because you can’t deny both.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 3:52 pm:
There have been post-Heller rulings by district judges in New York and California that there is no constitutional right to conceal/carry. Clearly, as is not uncommon, there are conflicting judgements, and they are percolating up to the Supremes.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 3:57 pm:
Benny, your last question is not clear. Can you rephrase? I’m not following. You are claiming that there is some choice. I have no idea what you are referencing.
As to your assertion that the Supreme Court’s ruling is clear, again I stand on my comments that if you think it is clear you do not understand the issues and you really seem to lack the sound reasoning to be handle a dangerous item.
Ultimately, a court may decide that conceal carry outside the home is a right. But it hasn’t yet and if you think it has, you are giving the matter serious attention.
- Benny - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 3:59 pm:
>>>There have been post-Heller rulings by district judges in New York and California that there is no constitutional right to conceal/carry.
True indeed, and there have been others that ruled in accordance to what SCOTUS ruled. I expect no less from New York, California, and Illinois. Maybe if this makes it up to SCOTUS again, they can use baby words to make it clearer, eh?
- TCB - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 4:02 pm:
@Gumby -lincolnlover–the “ruralness” of Illinois does not require concealed carry, just the right to have your reasonable gun (which should not include a saturday nite special or automatic weapon)-
I’ve never understood the premise that one gun is inherently more evil than another. Why is it that an automatic weapon & Saturday night specials (which is just a smaller version of another kind of handgun) should be off limits, while long guns, such as shotguns & semi-automatic rifles, and other handguns are ok?
- Benny - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 4:03 pm:
Skeeter, I can explain it to you again, but I can make you understand. SCOTUS rulled that the right to keep and bear arms is and individual right. You can bear arms openly, or bear arms concealed, but you can’t prohibit both because you have the right to keep and BEAR arms.
So again, you want to place limits on bearing arms. Which type of bearing ars do you want to place limits on? Open or Concealed?
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 4:06 pm:
Benny,
You have an extreme view of the Court’s decisions. Your views are not widely held.
I am concerned that somebody with your judgment would own a gun.
- Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 4:09 pm:
- The whole issue to me is that one part of the state wants to make rules for the entire state. -
Oh? Last I checked concealed carry was sponsored by folks outside of Chicago. Compromise people, it’s what makes the world go ’round.
Benny, if the supremes had already settled concealed carry, we wouldn’t need legislation.
- Benny - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 4:10 pm:
That’s for the unprovoked attack for being able to understand a court decision. There are many like myself. We are like the stars. The tide is turning and that’s the way it is.
- reformer - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 4:14 pm:
Heller was a 5-4 decision. Over the next four years, there may be a new justice to replace one of the five in the majority. If so, SCOTUS may not be willing to impose concealed carry.
- Benny - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 4:16 pm:
Oops, meant Thanks
- D.P. Gumby - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 4:17 pm:
Well, there is no rational reason for a saturday nite special or an automatic weapon to exist. Should bazookas and flame-throwers be concealed-carry, too?
- Benny - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 4:20 pm:
>>>Heller was a 5-4 decision. Over the next four years, there may be a new justice to replace one of the five in the majority. If so, SCOTUS may not be willing to impose concealed carry.
How do you think that will go over in the other 49 States?
- TCB - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 4:27 pm:
Gumby,
No rational reason for them to exist? That is just silly. If there were no rational reason for them to exist, people wouldn’t buy them. It’d be different if you were arguing that the only reason for their existance is for mass killings (which is obviously equally silly) because then we could have a debate. But saying an automatic weapon has no reason for exisiting, is just closed minded.
And it’s quite a difference between being logical for concealled carry & having a legitimate reason for existing….again, if you made that claim we could debate it…but you didn’t.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 4:27 pm:
@Benny -
Sorry for getting late to the party.
How does the Supreme Court interpret “arms”?
Or is that settled?
Or are you arguing that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to publicly bare “arms” of any type?
Because if “arms” means what I think it means, or atleast what I think it meant to our Framers at the time, then the second ammendment protects the right to bare either muskets or modern combat automatic rifles.
For the record, I favor the former.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 4:28 pm:
@Benny -
If SCOTUS rules that states have the right to regulate or prohibit conceal-carry, I don’t imagine the other 49 states will give a rat.
- TCB - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 4:33 pm:
I mean as a pleasure shooter, if can own a semi-automatic rifle which shoots about 100 rounds per minute (which I do), what’s it matter if I have an automatic rifle that can shoot 500 rounds a minute?
Also, you are aware that I can legally purchase accessories which turn my 100 round per minute gun into a 500 round per minute gun, right? Yes, this is all legal & legit, yet I can’t own something specifically designed to do so?
- LINK - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 4:37 pm:
Has anyone read the Forbes article on how Canada’s experiment with a firearm registry went and is now coming to a close? Here is a link:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2012/02/29/meet-the-man-responsible-for-the-death-of-canadas-gun-registry/
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 4:46 pm:
I still don’t see an answer to my question posted at 11:13 …
- Benny - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 4:59 pm:
pindrop
- amalia - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 5:16 pm:
would be way more interesting if the vote on Concealed Carry were in the Senate and we had to see how Senators with really new districts would vote on the bill. Kelly should stop with the handgun banning talk.
- Chris - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 5:25 pm:
“Under Haynes vs. US (self-incrimination), criminals won’t have to register their guns.”
Do people with suspended driver’s licenses not have to register their cars? Just becomes something else to hassle and arrest street punks for. I’m sure the force hates the thought of that, in general.
Should we not require paying taxes on illegal earnings because those with illegal earnings won’t pay them?
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 5:27 pm:
Amalia,
Yes, that will be the more interesting vote. I’ve talked to my State Senator extensively on the subject (along with lots of other issues), most recently about a month ago. He will vote for CC.
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 5:30 pm:
Chris @ 5:25 pm:
I think it’s stupid also … but that’s what SCOTUS said years ago; felons have a 5th amendment right to not incriminate themselves.
- Chris - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 5:36 pm:
“Maybe if this makes it up to SCOTUS again, they can use baby words to make it clearer, eh? ”
Maybe if they here a case on carrying weapons outside the home, they will actually rule on the matter. The ONLY issues before the court were (1) is 2d A an individual right and (2) can the Fed Gov’t ban guns. McDonald v Chicago extended that to states and their subdivisions. BOTH recognized the following (from McDonald):
“It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our hold-ing did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatorymeasures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and gov-ernment buildings, or laws imposing conditions and quali-fications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here.Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.”
So, despite your assertions to the contrary, the Supreme Court *definitely* did NOT rule that restrictions on the carry of guns is protected by the 2d A, nor registration requirements banned by the 2d A. If the Supreme Court needs to use “baby words” to make anything clearer, it’s that your interpretation goes WAY beyond the actual content of the rulings.
- amalia - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 5:53 pm:
@ Retired Non Union Guy, what is the position of Sen. Kotowski?
- Ain't No Justice - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 6:04 pm:
So much madness! Being a single individual, living alone in rural Illinois and traveling the interstates a lot I would love to have a gun for protection. Why can’t some of you understand?? It is for protection, further more, I would like my representative to push legislation for a TEXAS like law stating we can shoot intruders on our land BEFORE they come into our homes to do harm. I’d be happy with both of the above. Paying for registration is not going to happen in this home, a FOID card registration is already doing that. In Chicago “culture” the criminals have weapons, in Illinois “culture” the responsible citizens do!
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 9:15 pm:
Amalia,
Not my Senator so I have no idea. Since he lobbies them on a regular basis, Todd might know …
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 9:36 pm:
@ D.P. Gumby at 10:57: Don’t know if you will see this at late as it is, but here’s my comment. Rational reason for the obsession? Gun owners want to CARRY guns to kill people, not leave them at home. Gun haters want to BAN all guns. Those are the polar extremes, at least as far as the extremists on the other side see it.
Personally, I feel that concealed carry laws grant law-abiding citizens permission to do something that the 2nd Amendment already says is okay to do-carry a gun.
Obviously, a majority of people, including the Supreme Court, have disagreed with me, hence laws that prohibit carrying a gun. Concealed carry is just a way to get that “right” back.
Sure, some of the “gun nuts” are obsessed, but most of us (and I identify myself as one) aren’t. When the subject comes up, we support it, and will argue for it. Some of the reasons that support it may seem off the wall, but many of the reasons that anti-gunners use seem off the wall to me. Depends on your viewpoint.
Personally, as a general rule, I see little reason to carry a weapon on my person most of the time, but on those occasions when I drive through bad areas with my family in some of the near-by small cities, or inspect my rural roads at night,I would feel more secure if a loaded weapon was there if needed. I actually believe that most persons advocating concealed carry feel the same way. We’re not obsessed, we just want reasonable access.
- Downstate Commissionet - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 9:38 pm:
Oops, that last long overly long comment was from me.
- Benny - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 10:46 pm:
Heller, 554 U.S. at 594
This reasoning is consistent with the Supreme Court’s historical
understanding of the right to keep and bear arms as “an individual right protecting against both
public and private violence.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 594. In addition to self-defense, the right was
also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. See id. at 598. To secure these
rights, the Second Amendment’s protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor
militia training is a household activity, and “self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person
happens to be.”
http://marylandshallissue.org/share/opinions/Woollard_Opinion.pdf
- Benny - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 10:56 pm:
http://tinyurl.com/7gym8w6
- wishbone - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 11:09 pm:
“But, those of us who live in rural areas of the state do not have the same police protection”
Of course, Rahm and his family (like Daley before him) has full time police protection unlike us peons. What a hypocrite.
- wishbone - Wednesday, Mar 7, 12 @ 11:17 pm:
“I have no problem with Cook, Will, DuPage and Lake County making their own ordinance to do this”
Sure and southern towns should be able to decide who can sit at a lunch counter. That’s what the Bill of Rights is all about.
- Benny - Thursday, Mar 8, 12 @ 9:22 am:
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - A Colorado doctor with a concealed-weapon permit said he grabbed his gun and guarded an exit at a medical building as dozens of people fled from a gunman who had taken two hostages.
A doctor at the practice, Jeff Ferguson, told KKTV he retrieved his gun from its storage place and protected an exit as an estimated 50 people fled down a stairway.
“If this guy opens this door, I’m going to have to shoot him,” Ferguson said. “I was absolutely prepared to shoot him, yes.”
“There was screaming and yelling and everyone was yelling to call 911,” Kelberer told The Gazette. “One woman was really upset and kept carrying on and saying, `Somebody hug me. Somebody hug me.’”
http://www.startribune.com/nation/140886963.html