* Gun rights folks are pointing to this development as evidence of a major shift in Illinois…
McLean County could become an island of concealed carry for gun owners in a state that does not allow weapons to be carried in public, according to new guidelines for prosecuting gun crimes announced Tuesday by State’s Attorney Ron Dozier. […]
“We will no longer use the power and authority of our office to criminalize and punish decent otherwise law-abiding citizens who chose to exercise their rights granted under them by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and their families,” said Dozier’s statement. […]
Dozier cited a 2008 case that held citizens — not just the military — have a right to possess guns for personal defense, and a 2010 decision that held states have a right to make their own gun laws.
Dozier said his office will no longer prosecute violations of state laws related to Firearm Owners Identification Cards, unlawful use of weapons and aggravated unlawful use of weapons and other statutes that appear to be in conflict with two other Supreme Court decisions on gun ownership. The use of weapons laws punish people “for merely possessing (not using or threatening to use) a firearm in the wrong place or wrong kind of container,” said Dozier.
* More…
Dozier said his purpose is sending a message to Gov. Pat Quinn and the legislators who, “continue to ignore the U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and who continue to oppose reasonable legislation that would bring Illinois into compliance with the Second Amendment.”
* And Edwards County State’s Attorney Michael Valentine says Dozier’s refusal to try those cases is actually more common in Illinois than most people know…
“I think it does go against the (U.S.) Constitution,” said Valentine of the state’s stance. “I agree and commend Ron for his stance.”
It is a stance, the non prosecution of non-violent firearm violations such as FOID violations, unlawful use of weapons that conflict with federal policy, that Valentine’s office, as well as many in the region, carry out, just not as vocally as Dozier.
“It’s a policy I know several counties in Illinois, including Edwards, now follow,” he said.
Discuss.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 11:14 am:
That’s some red meat there.
Has Illinois’ conceal-carry law been ruled unconstitutional? When was that? Do state’s attorneys take an oath to enforce the laws of the state? I thought they did.
- Guzzlepot - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 11:16 am:
The term for what the State’s Attorney is doing is called exercising his prosecutorial discretion. Not all that uncommon actually. For instance, adultery is against the law still, but noone charges it.
- Thoughtless Penny - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 11:20 am:
–”… decent otherwise law-abiding citizens…”
If these “decent” folks are carrying concealed weapons in Illinois, then they are no-longer “law-abiding”… they are criminals.
- BehindTheScenes - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 11:24 am:
It’s about time. I thought it so ironic the last time concealed carry failed our Democratic-controlled legislature…and within a week one of the Chicago Democrats who helped defeat the measure was on TV stating that concealed carry is not needed in Chicago because they ‘don’t have a problem with crime’; and Gov. Quinn was offering to send NATIONAL GUARD troops to Chicago to help curb the crime and murder rate.
- Todd - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 11:24 am:
the game is a changen’. . .
- Turnabout - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 11:26 am:
For all those pounding the table about SAs not enforcing anti-carry laws as unconstitutional (with some support in case law), where were you when Lisa Madigan and Anita Alvarez tossed aside the state’s civil union law as constitutional (with no direct support in case law)?
- MrJM - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 11:33 am:
It seems that somebody believes stirring the pot before November’s elections is in their political interest.
– MrJM
- Fed up - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 11:35 am:
Well Cook county decided not to enforce federal immigration warrants. This is what happens pretty soon every county will do what ever they want. Funny your commenters did care about that.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 11:37 am:
If Mr. Dozier’s standard is “decent, otherwise law-abiding citizens” can we get the definition of “decent?”
Are all citizens “decent?” Are some “decent” and others not? Can be we get a profile of each group?
How about “law-abiding.” All laws, some laws, a few laws? Are you law-abiding if you have traffic tickets? Are you decent and law-abiding if you’ve had an order of protection filed against you but have not violated it? Do you have to be paid up on your taxes, alimony, child support, etc.?
I’m sure the state’s attorney has thought all of this through carefully and won’t mind detailing the personal standard that he is unilaterally substituting for the law.
- Anon - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 11:38 am:
How does he determine who is considered an “otherwise law abiding citizen?” This is where prosecutorial discretion becomes an issue.
If I have a FOID card and the police arrest me for walking down the street with my gun, am I an otherwise law-abiding citizen that he won’t prosecute? If I have a FOID and the police arrest me while walking down the street with my gun and find a joint, will I only be charged with a drug crime, or both because now I’m not necessarily an otherwise law-abiding citizen? What if I’m jaywalking while carrying a gun with a FOID card?
- Guzzlepot - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 11:38 am:
If you don’t like his exercise of prosecutorial discretion the remedy is to vote him out of office.
- MahNa - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 11:42 am:
Turnabout, the AG didnt say she wouldn’t enforce something - she intervened in a lawsuit claiming the law is unconstitutional. She took it to the courts and let others, who believe The law to be constitutional, argue the case. That’s the right course of action. This guy and other SAs who blatently refuse to enforce the law are violating their oath and duty to the people.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 11:46 am:
–Well Cook county decided not to enforce federal immigration warrants.–
That’s simply not true. No warrants. The feds were asking the county to “detain” some arrestees for 48 hours after they had bonded out so they could figure out if they wanted to pick them up.
Some of these guys had already been in the can for months before they bonded out. The federales could have picked them up whenever they wanted — if they had warrants.
- Crime Fighter - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 11:50 am:
Everything the AG does is discretionary. For example, AG does not enforce ethics acts violations and other lawbreaking that is perpetrated by a number of state agency directors and their deputies. In fact they routinely defend it.
- Jechislo - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 11:50 am:
Illinois is the only state that has a “FOID” card law. My talks with law enforcement finds that most of them think FOID is a joke as it does not stop anyone who truly wants to get a gun from getting one.
Conceal and carry will eventually be the law in Illinois - via the courts, not via our Chicago-dictated legislature.
- McLean Farmboy - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 11:51 am:
MrJM: Not really. Dozier was in the State’s Attorney’s office in the 70’s before becoming a judge for 20+ years. When he retired he became a reserve deputy. When the elected SA became a judge, Dozier was appointed to fill the term, but is not running. In fact, the Republican that is running is unopposed. I think it really just a matter that he will never run for anything anymore and wants to stick his thumb in the GA’s and Gov’s eye before he goes.
- Montrose - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 11:55 am:
*Everything the AG does is discretionary. For example, AG does not enforce ethics acts violations and other lawbreaking that is perpetrated by a number of state agency directors and their deputies. In fact they routinely defend it.*
Specific examples, please.
- Cook County Commoner - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 12:02 pm:
Concealed carry is not the problem. Willing to use a firearm indiscriminately like in Chicago’s Englewood area is the real issue.
- cermak_rd - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 12:04 pm:
I don’t see a problem here. Prosecutors use discretion all the time to decide whether or which charges to pursue.
- GreatPlainser - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 12:05 pm:
I will note that Dozier is not an elected States Attorney. He was appointed to the position after Bill Yoder recieved a judgeship. I doubt the new office holder (GOP primary winner with no Dem on the Nov. ballot) a Mr. Jason Chambers will probably not follow this train of thought. Dozier was state’s attorney a number of years ago and since been a judge before retiring. The appointment to his current stinit as state’s attorney started in early March 2012.
- Anyone Remember? - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 12:10 pm:
Any ARDC implications for Mr. Dozier’s law license? (Bringing the practice of law into disrepute.)
- Norseman - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 12:14 pm:
The S.A. is wrong, but so is L. Madigan and Anita Alvarez.
It is their obligation to enforce and defend the law, whether they agree with it or not. If they feel they can’t effectively do that, then they should appoint a special prosecutor or counsel to do that. These are executive branch officials who are not responsible for deciding what should or should not be the law.
It is up to the courts to determine whether a law is constitutional or not.
Now, I will sit back and be amused by all the hypocritical attempts to justify the actions of the official whose position coincides with their own beliefs.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 12:18 pm:
===It is their obligation to enforce and defend the law, whether they agree with it or not.===
Meh. Prosecutors use discretion all the time. Every day. They live in the real world. You apparently do not.
- OldSmoky2 - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 12:22 pm:
== The S.A. is wrong, but so is L. Madigan and Anita Alvarez. ==
While I’m inclined to applaud the stand of Alvarez and Madigan on gay and lesbian marriage equality, I agree that technically there is no difference in Dozier taking this position. That said, I think the fallout will be a little greater when someone dies because more people are walking around toting guns than when two guys decide to get hitched to each other. Consequences should always be a consideration in our decisions.
- Judgment Day - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 12:29 pm:
Ron Dozier is just being practical and using his prosecutorial discretion to take into account what his office has to deal with.
First off, McLean County (land mass) is the largest county in Illinois, and is bisected by I-39; I-74; and I-55. So they see a large amount of out-of-state traffic where individuals transporting firearms are in compliance with their home state’s laws, but not here in Illinois.
Dozier is just dealing with the everyday realities of the job as State’s Attorney, and instead of being doctrinaire about it, he’s trying to be practical. After being on the bench as a judge for 20+ years where he probably had plenty of opportunities to look at cases going to trial where he probably wondered what the States Attorney’s were possibly thinking of, he had an opportunity to act and fix things to actually make the system work better.
Would it be that our current governor would be that smart…
- Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 12:29 pm:
Since SA Dozier fancies himself a one-man expert on the Constitution, perhaps we could present him with a bigger issue of interpretation, something along the lines of whether he’s OK with reducing Judicial pensions for those already retired.
- Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 12:30 pm:
I’m pretty comfortable with this. Personally I would support county choice on this issue, and I agree that prosecutors should have discretion.
- Shaun Kranish - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 12:34 pm:
The Illinois legislature has passed statutes that clearly violate the US Constitution and Illinois Constitution. There are at least 3 statutes that create a complete, sweeping, blanket ban on the right to bear arms.
They take an oath to uphold the US and Illinois Constitution. They are lawyers and ought to know that the Constitution trumps statutes. Statutes are presumed to be constitutional. However, in cases where there is no question that an explicitly enumerated constitutionally-protected right has been completely obliterated, then it is their DUTY to not prosecute under that unconstitutional statute.
If we apply Illinois logic to the 1st Amendment, for example, then we could pass some laws that make it a felony to practice religion outside of your private property. After all, people terrorize and kill one another over religion. How many wars and how much violence has religion caused???
Let’s ban religion out in public. Oh wait, that would violate the 1st Amendment wouldn’t it? Would not the state’s attorney be able to refuse to prosecute, even before the courts rule it unconstitutional?
Would any of you even be having a “debate” over it. I find it funny that so many create such a distinction between the first and second amendment. Perhaps not too many will call you out on it, because of the politics of gun ownership. I am calling you out though.
If you think people should be prosecuted under an obviously unconstitutional law, you’re very ignorant.
- East Sider - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 12:35 pm:
I would also like to see SA’s refuse to prosecute on failure to have a valid FOID.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 12:39 pm:
Its kinda hard for the NRA to argue “gun control laws don’t work” when NRA-friendly elected officials aren’t enforcing the laws on the books.
- GreatPlainser - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 12:47 pm:
I think it is intersting to note that in a news article I read about this move by Dozier that the county sheriff was going to still arrest people for firearms violations. So, that is not to say that someone using the hypotheical of carrying a weapon, FOID card, and was found with cannibas would not be prosecuted. It is saying someone who has a firearm for personal protection and is not voilating other state law should be allowed the freedom to protect themselves. But still under the enforcement of laws in the county that person would be arrested but not prosecuted. To me that still provides any deterant from this becoming the “wild west” as many anti gunner fear will happen with concealed carry. Either way Dozier I believe is within his rights to prosecute as he sees fit. It is a good defense against the many who say that State’s Attorneys should be a non-partisan office. Indeed this signals the choice between candidates and parties in such local offices.
If Dozier did nothing else he sparked a legal and ethical conversation about the matter. In practice I doubt we will see the results of his actions play out. Ultimately I don’t think this issues plays out to anything more than debate over the topic of concealed carry and gun laws. A topic Illinois is going to have to address either to follow national trends or to solve issues in this state. One final thought: clearly the current gun laws aren’t working as evidenced by the decline of many of our state’s cities not just Chicago.
- Dan Bureaucrat - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 12:48 pm:
This explains why the conceal-carry forces in the legislature won’t settle for a compromise in which the counties get to decide. They already have that.
They need something to raise hell about to get re-elected since there isn’t much else in the way of policy to run on.
- Crime Fighter - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 12:53 pm:
*Everything the AG does is discretionary. For example, AG does not enforce ethics acts violations and other lawbreaking that is perpetrated by a number of state agency directors and their deputies. In fact they routinely defend it.*
“Specific examples, please. ” -
Here are a few examples:
Court of Claims 10-CC-3323.
7th Circuit Sangamon County 11-L-00251
Court of Claims 11-CC-3530
Appellate 4-09-036.
Other publicized examples for which I don’t have case numbers include the 2004 IDOT wrongful termination case. The AG publicly complained about not being able to defend the Director’s wrongdoing against the employees. Add now Director Ann Schneider’s state malfeasance with federal funds, which the AG ignored, and you start to have a pattern.
- ChicagoR - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 12:54 pm:
I would be interested to know if there is any difference in the oath of office taken by these SAs and that taken by the Attorney General. I’ve heard it on here that Lisa is sworn to uphold the constitution, and that her refusal to enforce certain laws is based on her view that they are constitutional. Do SAs swear the same oath, or are they also bound to uphold laws more generally?
- Sunshine - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 12:59 pm:
Seems to be a lot of whining about conceal carry.
I like the idea and will make every effort to help it pass through the legislature.
Good for those who chose not to prosecute, regardless of definitions of “good citizens.”
I’m not an NRA member, don’t hunt, but do strongly believe in my right to own and carry a gun. I think conceal carry is a good idea for Illinois.
- JoeVerdeal - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 1:06 pm:
Refreshing to see this statement by Mr. Dozier. I have friends in Bloomington-Normal who have made comments about certain areas of their area not being safe to walk around in anymore.
It will be interesting to see if Mr. Dozier’s policy will make a difference in local crime stats.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 1:07 pm:
–The Illinois legislature has passed statutes that clearly violate the US Constitution and Illinois Constitution.==
Says who? You? Did somebody declare you King or a Judge? Right or wrong a law is Constitutional until determined otherwise by a Court. You are dripping with arrogance.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 1:11 pm:
And for those of you claiming this is exactly like the AG’s and Ms. Alvarez’s stance on gay marriage, you couldn’t be more incorrect. Are the AG or Ms. Alvarez issuing marriage licenses? Is either of them flaunting the law by allowing marriage licenses to be issued? The answer to those questions, by the way, is no. Choosing not to defend a law in Court and actually not ENFORCING the law are two completely different things.
- D.P. Gumby - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 1:13 pm:
The issue w/ Mr. Dozier during his reign as SA in the past was not prosecutorial discretion, but selective prosecution–the opposite side of that fine line…particularly regarding students at ISU.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 1:14 pm:
===certain areas of their area not being safe to walk around in anymore.===
Yep, you’d be crazy to walk down Willow Street in Mormal after dark past the fraternity houses, especially during rush week.
Does anyone even walk in McLean County?
- Crime Fighter - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 1:14 pm:
“I have friends in Bloomington-Normal who have made comments about certain areas of their area not being safe to walk around in anymore.”
Are gunfights in metro walkways really safe?(Besides on TV and Movies.)
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 1:15 pm:
>>>>>That said, I think the fallout will be a little greater when someone dies because more people are walking around toting guns than when two guys decide to get hitched to each other.
People are dying all the time in Illinois due to illegal violent acts perpetrated against people who can’t legally defend themselves.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 1:17 pm:
@JJJS:
Care to back up that hyperbole with actual facts?
- Ahoy! - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 1:23 pm:
I didn’t realize that State’s Attorneys decided constitutionality; I thought that was up to the courts.
- CircularFiringSquad - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 1:24 pm:
Crime Fighter - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 1:14 pm:
“I have friends in Bloomington-Normal who have made comments about certain areas of their area not being safe to walk around in anymore.”
Where are those? Near NoTaxBill & Gags neighborhoods?
So here we have a sheriff who will do a law but a lameduck SA who does not. Beautiful.
BTW no was ever gunned by a concealed civil union.
- hisgirlfriday - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 1:35 pm:
Does Dozier have some sort of political ambitions after his appointment to state’s attorney is up?
Because it sounds like GOP state’s attorney nominee Jason Chambers plans to discontinue Dozier’s prosecutorial move as soon as he gets in after November.
http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/chambers-dozier-s-refusal-to-enforce-gun-laws-is-reckless/article_05db7d80-ebf2-11e1-a624-0019bb2963f4.html?comment_form=true
- Judgment Day - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 1:50 pm:
“Does Dozier have some sort of political ambitions after his appointment to state’s attorney is up?”
Doubt it.
Ron Dozier is well qualified as a “Been There Done That” type.
He’s been a prosecutor, then rose up in McLean County to be First Deputy SA, then elected as State’s Attorney, then appointed to the bench (for over 20 years) until he decided not to run again, and now he’s interim State’s Attorney.
He’s put in his time.
- JoeVerdeal - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 1:53 pm:
“I have friends in Bloomington-Normal who have made comments about certain areas of their area not being safe to walk around in anymore.”
Where are those? Near NoTaxBill & Gags neighborhoods?
Well…..actually, the area that was being discussed was the historic district located south of the Illinois Wesleyan campus. A nice area but now said to be much less safe than in earlier years.
- Norseman - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 1:57 pm:
=== Meh. Prosecutors use discretion all the time. Every day. They live in the real world. You apparently do not. ===
Rich, I expected some attacks, but I expected better from you. I understand prosecutorial discretion and believe it has to be used based on the facts of a situation.
With respect to the concealed carry law, for example I would hope the S.A. would use discretion not to prosecute a traveler from another concealed carry state. I can see it’s use as an additional charge for a robber. (I don’t plan on getting into all the hypothetical on when it should or should not be applied.)
I guess I should be lucky that you didn’t insult me for not mentioning that there are practical reasons for not enforcing laws either. We already have enough problems funding our law enforcement agencies without forcing them to track down people who violate every minor infraction on the books.
But, I wanted to address the overall concept of a states attorney unilaterally declaring a law unconstitutional and refusing to enforce it. I think it’s wrong and something that we need to call out.
If the S.A. has a problem with the law, he/she can use their bully pulpit to urge the General Assembly to change the law.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 1:58 pm:
–It will be interesting to see if Mr. Dozier’s policy will make a difference in local crime stats.–
Here are the state’s with the highest crime rates. How does conceal/carry factor into that?
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/04/05/most-dangerous-states-crime-rankings-for-2010/
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 1:59 pm:
This is analogous to the gay marriage position taken by the Cook County states attorney (and reinforced by AG Madigan) from a couple of weeks.
My answer remains the same, there should not be two standards in Illinois.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 2:17 pm:
@Cinci:
See my comment @1:11. This is not at all the same. There are no marriage licenses being issued to gay people. The law is still being enforced. Not defending a law in court is wholly different than not enforcing the law. In this case the SA has stated he simply won’t enforce the law. Night and day my friend.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 2:21 pm:
@Cinci:
Let me further clarify by saying that neither the AG or the Cook Co. SA stated that they would be ignoring the law against issuing marriage licenses to gay people and that such licenses would now start to be issued.
- bored now - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 2:39 pm:
*i* don’t see how illinois is out of “compliance with the Second Amendment” (that’s for the supreme court to decide), but selective enforcement of laws is the norm in this country…
- Crime Fighter - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 3:56 pm:
Cicular Firing Squad - You wrongly attributed Joe Verdeals 1:06 pm lore to me - That’s why it was in quotes with a response afterword. -sheesh!
- thatguy - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 4:02 pm:
OK - it’s always about the constitution when it comes to guns, but what about speech, right to protest, right to peacefully gather, right to petition the government … why do these same people charge it’s un-american to want to access THOSE rights? and yeah, what about a person’s right to weed … OH YEAH, I WENT THERE.
- Steve Bartin - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 4:07 pm:
I guess Barack Obama style waivers from the law inspire the most amazing things!
- Todd - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 4:12 pm:
you have the right to free speech. And i’ll defend it. I just don’t have to listen to it or pay for it.
As to the Weed issue, I was involved in the war on drugs, with the military. I am slowly coming to the conclusion of a failed effort. and reconciling how to keep stupid people from getting behind the wheel while consuming.
Some on the left would be amazed at how much support they might pick up if they tried treating the RKBA as a real right, some on this side would be more likely to agree with the intelecual arguements for some of these types of things.
- Bemused - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 4:14 pm:
All laws are only as good as the will and ability to enforce them. If I am in the GA and don’t like a law but can’t stop it’s passage next best thing is underfund it’s enforcement. Give the enforcement to an agency who won’t or can’t do the job. I am already hearing that some State Agencies are trying to avoid court type issues due to budget constraints.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 4:41 pm:
@Todd -
I think that the difficulty with bringing together libertarians is that while most supporters of legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana recognize pragmatic restrictions (not driving under the influence, not selling to minors, not possessing 20 kilos), advocates for gun rights seem to take an absolutist position. And sound whacked out. Atleast many of them.
So, for example, when Dozier refers to Illinois FOID law as “draconian,” or others surface the argument that if people are required to register their weapons just as we require people to register their cars, the UN is one day going to show up in black helicopters to round them up and disarm them…well, I hope you can understand why that’s a bit off-putting.
That said, it may just be that the NRA, like the ACLU, criminal defense attorneys, and others who place themselves in the position of advocating for the Bill of Rights will always be off-putting to some, perhaps even many people.
I wish there was group somewhere in the middle of the gun issue for pragmatists like me.
- Bigtwich - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 5:15 pm:
There are a lot of laws and few resources. State’s Attorneys get to decide what they want to prosecute. The AG gets to decide what positions she wants to take in cases. The President gets to decide who he is going to deport. Life goes on.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 5:21 pm:
@Todd:
And some of us might be more willing to listen to your side if you didn’t treat the RKBA as a license to own and walk around with any sort of weapon you see fit. As long as you have people who want to ban guns entirely and people who believe in complete and unfettered access to any gun in the world, you aren’t going to get anywhere.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 5:25 pm:
@Todd:
Also, I was unaware that you didn’t have a RKBA. Hmmm. I guess there are 200 million guns out there that are illegal then.
- Jack - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 6:26 pm:
Chicago Tribune, today’s edition: “Two shot near South Side Elementary school.” Sun Times also has that story. Apparently one car was being chased by another group of people who were shooting at them in an attempt to steal the car. And this happened in the Chicago area where the canceal carry gun laws make it the safest city in the world? I bet those guys in the BMW will move to McLean county where a thief might think twice before shooting at a car, since the driver might shoot back.
- wishbone - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 10:25 pm:
“This explains why the conceal-carry forces in the legislature won’t settle for a compromise in which the counties get to decide.”
Do you want counties to decide on a woman’s right to choose? Constitutional rights cannot be made into county by county decisions. The right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution. Individual counties cannot abridge it.
- Todd - Wednesday, Aug 22, 12 @ 10:42 pm:
YDD –
A lot of gun owners don’t agree with having to register with the state and pay a fee to exercise their right to own, posses.
I find the requirement to pay to exercise the right to petition government – as a lobbyist just as taxing and wrong. Add to it the list of store checks the State Police keep, and started doing so in secret and there is very little trust of gun owners to the government. Gun owners are very private in a lot of ways about their guns and don’t think it is any business of the government to know what we own. If we choose to share that with people, that is our business.
There ain’t enough space here to tackle the UN arms treaty.
Demoralized –
No one I know and certainly NOT the NRA advocate owning or walking around with ANY weapon. The Carry bills introduced are limited to handguns, not ANY weapon. And it is usually the anti-gunners that go foaming at the mouth about rocket launchers, bazookas, tanks and so on.
I don’t know who is talking about unfettered access to firearms. Because I don’t know anyone who is talking about repealing the background checks from the DOJ or State Police.
Currently we have the right to “Keep” for the most part, but not “bear” and we are working to rectify that both in the courts and legislature.
- Wolfgang - Thursday, Aug 23, 12 @ 12:10 am:
I’m originally from Southern Illinois and while we flexed the state laws regarding firearms we were never willing to outright break them like this. This move just makes a mess of the situation and can lead to people thinking they are lawfully carrying getting killed by an officer since it’s still going to be approached as an armed criminal. This will also encourage Chicago to seek stricter gun laws and raise the penalty for carrying a weapon illegally.