137 Comments - Todd - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 10:54 am: HB-148 is now Off the table. Statewide carry, with preemption. We won. - Ken_in_Aurora - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 10:59 am: Todd, can I buy you dinner? - Anon-amiss - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:00 am: No doubt this decision will go to the U.S. Surpreme Court. - Oh Yeah - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:01 am: We now know what the #1 debated and contested social issue of 2013 will be. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:01 am: Big win for the NRA. Next stop, Supremes. - dupage dan - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:10 am: Let the posturing begin. Who will be the first to decry this? Emanuel? Quinn? Alverez? Madigan? Wow. Just. Wow. - John A Logan - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:10 am: Christmas has come early. Sanity prevails. - OneMan - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:11 am: Interesting…. Wonder if they will develop a law and work an appeal or just work an appeal - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:11 am: Will Lisa appeal? Does The Pope carry a Beretta .25? - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:12 am: >>>>> Wonder if they will develop a law and work an appeal The scuttlebutt is that they’ve *been* developing a law. - Wensicia - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:13 am: It’s almost over. Waiting for reaction. - Todd - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:13 am: I doubt it will go to the supremes. They tried that with Heller and look what it got them, then they tried that with McDonald and look what it got them. Do they want to risk losing New york, Maryland, Hawaii all of words favorite examples? - Sgtstu - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:17 am: dupage dan -Who will be the first to decry this? Emanuel? Quinn? Alverez? Madigan? All of them. They do not play well with others. - Pat Collins - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:18 am: one key problem for states like IL has been the debate that Prof. John Lott sparked. It is quite true that his hypothesis “more guns = less crime” is hotly contested. However, to quote a peer reviewed journal that summarized the arguments ” “the reverse theory, that more guns mean more crime is no longer tenable, and no one even tries to deny that.” - wordslinger - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:19 am: – Do they want to risk losing New york, Maryland, Hawaii all of words favorite examples?– C’mon man. You know I’d add California, New Jersey, Delaware, Massachusetts and Connecticut. Is it the NRAs position that those states’ laws pass Constitutional muster? - Oh Yeah - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:20 am: Has the court’s website crashed? I can’t link to the opinion. - Pat Collins - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:20 am: In other words, people like Durbin need to “follow the science” on this issue. - Ken_in_Aurora - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:23 am: “Has the court’s website crashed? I can’t link to the opinion.” I think so - same here. - ZC - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:25 am: Oh God, spare us the guns-crime-John-Lott “science” flame thread. Can we all declare a moratorium on the self serving stats and talk about something else here? - Way Northsider - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:25 am: Sad. - Agricola - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:26 am: Todd - it reads just like you predicted. - Ken_in_Aurora - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:26 am: Here, try this direct link - it just worked for me: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&shofile=12-1269_002.pdf - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:27 am: >>>>> Sad. Which part is sad? - walkinfool - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:29 am: @ Pat: “follow the science”? The “science”, as the court has reiterated, is “inconclusive”. Their own finding is that there is no uncontested “science” to follow in these cases. So they just went with the Supremes’ general interpretation. - Team Sleep - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:29 am: To make a relevant and contextual (and snarky), that loud boom I just heard was Anita Alvarez’s head exploding… - NorhsideIUOE - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:30 am: Thank you ISRA. - Just Observing - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:31 am: === I doubt it will go to the supremes. They tried that with Heller and look what it got them, then they tried that with McDonald and look what it got them. Do they want to risk losing New york, Maryland, Hawaii all of words favorite examples? === Yea, but at this point, what do the anti-conceal folks have to lose? - walkinfool - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:33 am: I generally like “interventionist” courts like these, who obviously change constitutional interpretations with the changing times and circumstances. I just wish they wouldn’t pretend to be “conservative”. - CircularFiringSquad - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:33 am: Goody still time to get everyone body armor for Christmas…bet all the 2A wing nuts like the courts now - it ain't over - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:35 am: next stop is actually 7th Circuit en banc. This was 2-1. When the full 7th Circuit hears it, it could change. - it ain't over - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:37 am: Also, quote of the day from Judge Posner: “Well of course—the interest in having sex inside one’s home is much greater than the interest in having sex on the sidewalk in front of one’s home.” Speak for yourself, your honor! - ns - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:38 am: This won’t go to the Supreme Court. The legislature has 180 days to craft a new law. C&C will be allowed in IL but with plenty of restrictions, as is probably best. - Just Observing - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:40 am: === next stop is actually 7th Circuit en banc. This was 2-1. When the full 7th Circuit hears it, it could change. === What does that mean? Isn’t this court one-step below SCOTUS? - ns - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:42 am: plus- I think the link to the opinion is broken: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx - wizard - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:43 am: at last - Pat Collins - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:47 am: No, as the court discusses 13-15 the idea that guns cause crime is not shown. That concealed carry reduces crime is indeed inconclusive. But to restrict a right (and the court mentions often that il is the most restrictive) means you need a serious reason. require a permit? Sure flat ban? No. - Anon-amiss - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:47 am: === next stop is actually 7th Circuit en banc. This was 2-1. When the full 7th Circuit hears it, it could change. === === What does that mean? Isn’t this court one-step below SCOTUS? === Yes, this court is one step below the SCOTUS. Occasionally, however, in a big case, there can be a request that the circuit court hear the case en banc. This means that every circuit judge in the 7th Circuit will be a part of the decision rather than just the three judge panel that made this decision. This case could be reheard en banc, but even if it is, I would expect the SCOTUS to hear it eventually. - Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:50 am: @Team Sleep - You heard it too? All the way out in your neck of the woods? That was louder than I thought! - Ken_in_Aurora - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:51 am: Whoever penned the opinion has a sense of humor. “Santa with Elves”? Har! - ArchPundit - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:51 am: The process will probably be en banc and then to the Supreme Court which I’d say has a high likelihood of taking this case since it will have split decisions by appellate courts on the issue. Even under Posner’s opinion, there is 180 days to craft a bill with reasonable restrictions, but with the likely stays for the en banc and then the Supreme Court there won’t be any pressure on the legislature to act. The Lege will likely have 180 days if Illinois loses the case at the point of the Supreme Court decision. Then any bill will have to be challenged along with other states’ laws about how restrictive the laws can be. - Ken_in_Aurora - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:58 am: My prediction - IL will roll over and create CCW legislation. Such legislation will be unreasonable in the eyes of 2A advocates, and we then enter a whole new cycle of suits. - PrairieFire - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 11:58 am: English common law is referred to quite often in cases heard on the East Coast and the Midwest. Does anyone know what Spanish law or French law from the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries had to say on the subject? Since Louisiana uses Napoleonic code and Spanish law is cited in cases in CA, AZ, NM and TX, I would be interested in learning about historical references justifying or refuting a ban on citizens’ right to bear arms. - State Worker - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 12:00 pm: YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Chitownhv - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 12:01 pm: How sad that the only way that some of you feel safe is if you’re carrying. - ICU - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 12:05 pm: Hundreds of pages and nine briefs. Certainly a lot of money was spent on this venue to step on the public’s right to bear arms…wouldn’t it have been much better to have paid some of the states back bills instead? - PrairieFire - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 12:07 pm: @ICU - considering this was a federal court and most of the pages and briefs were filed by outside interests, no. Most of the money spent wouldn’t have gone to Illinois’ unpaid bills even if it hadn’t gone to this case. It would have stayed in the AG’s office. - Oh Yeah - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 12:09 pm: This was a split decision and I think it was 2-1 Republican vs. Democrat appellate judges. From my quick read, it appears that the majority used a pretty serious stretch from the USSC’s Heller decision. For that reason, the importance and implications of the opinion, and for many more reasons, I’d be surprised if the Seventh Circuit does not end up having it reviewed en banc (i.e., by all the circuit judges). Regardless of that decision, the loser will try to have it reviewed by the Supremes. The Supremes just denying to review the case would be a significant statement in and of itself. In the meantime, expect the Seventh Circuit en banc to issue an order delaying the 180 day deadline until the foregoing gets straightened out. - Jake From Elwood - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 12:09 pm: Of course, why didn’t I consider the Statute of Northhampton and Sir John Knight’s Case. Now it all makes sense! - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 12:10 pm: - Todd -, How about we owe each other a beer? Funny. Hard work and knowing your rights works. A Happy Day for you. - OneMan - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 12:11 pm: Chitownhv– To be honest I have no plans to carry, but I have failed to understand why we were the only state that didn’t allow it. Also I think anytime the state says you can’t do something it makes people want to do it. I guess I never understood what made Illinois different on this, were our citizens less trustworthy or rational that those of other states? - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 12:13 pm: - OneMan - Well said. - lincolnlover - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 12:18 pm: Actually, Chitown, I DO feel safe in areas where there is a police presence. However, downstate there are vast areas where there is no police presence and this common-sense decision is music to my ears! - Allen Skillicorn - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 12:21 pm: I hope a little snark is allowed: “CC, not just for state senators anymore.” “Shoulda adopted HB148, when we had a choice.” “Shall issue…” - Lester Holt's Mustache - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 12:24 pm: Soooooo….. will the Legislature actually pass a bill within 180 days? Will Gov. actually sign one? I simply cannot believe both Madigans, Cullerton, and Quinn will fold and won’t come up with some reason/excuse not to comply. - dupage dan - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 12:25 pm: Chitownhv - your attempt @ provoking an intemperate response failed - OneMan had the perfect response to your post. - Tommydanger - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 12:30 pm: As a former prosecutor my initial feeling on this issue years ago was that it was a bad idea; more guns in more places the more liklihood of more violence. That position eventually morphed to a neutral stance and for the last few years I looked into it and decided if the world didn’t end in those states where it was allowed, then my presumptions about more violence had to be incorrect. I agree that I would not choose to carry a weapon in public, but now it seems time for the state to craft a law with appropriate exceptions and move forward. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 12:31 pm: –I guess I never understood what made Illinois different on this, were our citizens less trustworthy or rational that those of other states?– As always, it’s not that simple. There are “shall issue” and “may issue” states. Among some of the “may issue” states, it’s virtually impossible to get a CCW permit. And the range of restrictions as to where you can carry varies widely among all the states, too. DD, shouldn’t you be whipping into line those “pampered” union state employees you supervise? - Lester Holt's Mustache - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 12:33 pm: Chitownhv - your attempt @ provoking an intemperate response failed - OneMan had the perfect response to your post. yeah,chitown - what do you think this is? The comments section of the state journal register website? Hell, I have lived half my life in “chitown” and that *is* the only time I feel safe. Not that I am admitting to anything, of course. - ILPoliticalJunkie - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 12:35 pm: This is great news! I wonder if Sen. Trotter will fight against this ruling? - Todd - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 12:39 pm: may issue is NOT o0n the table. understand this, We have a majority in both chambers. we have more than that on this issue in general and a super majoirty in the senate. IF the legislature fails to act, in 181 days UUW/AGUUW is VOID. you will be able to walk down the street with an AR-15 loaded and slung across your back with nothing more than a FOID card. No training, no limitations as to the type of firearm and very few limitations on where. Its the “fiscal cliff” for guns. Brandon warned people what would happen if they didn’t like HB148 — well that day is here. you may not like it RTC, you may not like guns. 2FB. Game over player 1 - E town - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 12:41 pm: Expect the legislature to pass a California or New Jersey type law and if gun control groups are smart they should ask for something that they want in bill such as criminal background checks on every handgun sold in the state - D.P. Gumby - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 12:42 pm: Typical Posner. I demand open carry and not concealed…I want to be able to see every loonie w/ a gun so I can avoid them. If this is going to be the Wild West, let’s go full bore. - Fight for the JRTC - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 12:47 pm: Concealed carry was already on the menu for the lame duck session, I imagine this lets a few people off the hook for passing some form of it and live to fight another day. You’ll probably see the “if you want carry, you need a $1M insurance policy” nugget make a come back tour. - nothin's easy - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 12:57 pm: Why wouldn’t an “open and notorious” carry law be out of the question? Instead of concealing a weapon, require the weapon be carried “open and notorious”. Then we would capture the true purpose and reflect on our “cowboy” history. It would be a great new fashion scene. Can you imagine the creative holsters people would sport? - Lester Holt's Mustache - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 12:57 pm: Response from House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie - “I don’t want people out of control wandering the streets with guns that are out of control.” Good news! As long as we (and our weapons) all stay in control, the BFC is cool with it. - Cheryl44 - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 12:58 pm: You know DP, there haven’t been the Wild West gunfights erupting anywhere else there’s a limited right to conceal carry. I can’t imagine the gun nuts here are any loonier that the guy nuts in Texas, for instance. I don’t like guns, I don’t own one, I won’t be carrying. But I have no good, logical argument against limited conceal carry. - mokenavince - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 1:02 pm: At last we can rejoin the rest of the United States. We will see what kind of lame brain idea Quinn and the boys will come up with. They my call RM Daley to get a legal opinion, after all he’s one of the great legal minds who foisted it on Chicago. Bravo - titan - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 1:07 pm: I suspect that (assuming the ruling stands), Illinois will end up with something much like New York - with county by county permitting (or bans) and some sort of “show cause” required to get the permit in a county where they’re available. Some downstate counties will hand them out like Halloween candy and it will be impossible to get one in Cook. - Just Observing - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 1:07 pm: === Typical Posner. I demand open carry and not concealed…I want to be able to see every loonie w/ a gun so I can avoid them. If this is going to be the Wild West, let’s go full bore. === I’m somewhat neutral on conceal vs. open, but your analogy to the wild west is just silly. Concealed carry will not legalize duels in the town square or organized posses to catch the bank robber. - D.P. Gumby - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 1:09 pm: Cheryl—my hyperbole was meant to enforce the craziness of the notion that anyone really needs to carry a gun. But, the point is that the law should require “open carry” as “nothin’s easy” says. If the notion is that carrying prevents crime, then “open carry” should prevent crime even more so since potential crooks will see your weapon in advance. Further, this should give further support for assault weapons ban since everyone will be packing their handguns. - Barbie - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 1:13 pm: Make the bullets illegal. - Sunshine - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 1:20 pm: About time! - Ken_in_Aurora - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 1:21 pm: === Make the bullets illegal. === Let us know how that approach to the issue works out for you. - Econ Prof - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 1:21 pm: *Make the bullets illegal.* Great idea Barbie. That way we can run the largest employer in the Metro East (Winchester) out of the state. - D.P. Gumby - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 1:23 pm: Is it ironic that the two old white men think they need the concealed handgun for protection, but the black woman judge doesn’t? - Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 1:25 pm: The only people other than law enforcement carrying guns in Chicago right now are criminals and politicians. Meanwhile, anyone shooting a home intruder may (and some have) face weapons charges. Chicagoans deserve the same access to firearms for self defense as aldermen or legislators. - RonOglesby - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 1:25 pm: Titan- You said: “Some downstate counties will hand them out like Halloween candy and it will be impossible to get one in Cook. ” Not going to happen. That is MAY issue not SHALL issue. HB 148 that Todd and the folks had worked on was only 2 or 3 votes away from a super majority in the house… Now they HAVE to pass something and we (the pro-right to carry side) had already compromised on HB148. If anything they are going to give back some of the stuff we wanted or we take it over the “fiscal cliff” of firearms and allow carry with just a simple FOID card. - Lester Holt's Mustache - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 1:30 pm: *Is it ironic that the two old white men think they need the concealed handgun for protection, but the black woman judge doesn’t?* How about the old black man state senator? DP, now you are just whining. As I keep telling the Mitt Romney supporters - You lost, get over it. - Templar223 - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 1:30 pm: Bravo NRA, SAF and the Seventh Circuit. Todd’s right, just like usual. Illinois antiquated, anti-self-defense prohibitions on carry have been thrown in the dustbin of history. Yes, we’ll have a bill within the next few months that may have a training requirement, and some limited prohibited or restricted locations, but that’s okay. If it works for Kentucky, it’ll work for us in Illinois. It’s too bad those rabidly opposed to allowing Illinois residents the benefits of right to carry couldn’t be more reasonable two years ago. Now their negotiating position just got gutted… and now they can pass what WE, as gun rights people wanted all along, or we can have the FOID card become the de facto carry permit in IL. I’d say we’re okay with either. – John Boch - Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 1:32 pm: Quinnie is worried that somebody will shoot Squeezy. - dupage dan - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 1:34 pm: wordslinger, =DD, shouldn’t you be whipping into line those “pampered” union state employees you supervise?= I am not DuPage Dave, I am dupage dan. I chose my moniker way before Mr Dave did. I have no control over Mr Dave. I am not a supervisor of pampered state employees. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 1:43 pm: ===Quinnie is worried that somebody will shoot Squeezy.=== I just burned my nostrils on the coffee that went out my nose! Yikes, that was funny! - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 1:43 pm: Todd worked hard for this for a long time, so today I’ll tip my hat to him and say congratulations. You did your job and you did it well. This might make it a little harder to raise money though. No more crisis, no more urgent appeals, no more “49 states have it, why not IL” message. Still, with four more years of Obama/UN conspiracies, I doubt you’ll have too much trouble raising money from some of your more gullible members. But for today, well done Todd. A victory is a victory. Enjoy it. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 1:44 pm: >>>>>>However, downstate there are vast areas where there is no police presence and this common-sense decision is music to my ears! There are vast areas in Chicago, too, where police presence is either non-existent or ineffective. - Ex-Illinoisan - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 1:48 pm: Since I moved, I got a conceal anyway, but it’s nice to see that law abiding citizens may soon have the option of defending theirselves. Congratulations, Illinois. You’re that much closer to being loosed from Chicagos over-legislative and corrupt culture. - Tequila Mockingbird - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 1:49 pm: The gun-fearing left-leaning complainers are going to have to get over it or huddle in their basements shuddering in irrational fear of legally armed citizens walking the streets responsibly, like they do in other states. Today I am a “gun nut” and I am dancing happy. Tonight I will safely fire a few rounds from my pistol while legally on my own property, and then I will enjoy an adult beverage and tip my glass to Mary Sheppard, Todd V. And the others that made this possible. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 1:51 pm: – Instead of concealing a weapon, require the weapon be carried “open and notorious”. Then we would capture the true purpose and reflect on our “cowboy” history.– The “Wild West” always gets a bad rap. Some of the greatest Westerns of all times had key plot points regarding local ordinances forbidding the carrying of firearms in town: “Unforgiven,” “Winchester ‘73,” any of the OK Corral movies. “Tombstone” was great, but personally, I think Ford’s “My Darling Clementine” was best. - Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 1:55 pm: I have to say I was hoping this could be used as a bargaining piece for something I actually care about, but oh well. Congrats to the supporters. Going to have to be more careful when playing practical jokes on my brother in law from now on, he’s very skittish and will no doubt be taking advantage of this. I probably gave him too hard a time anyway… - 2dAmend - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 1:55 pm: Funny how the guys and gals who run around Illinois with armed bodyguards: Quinn, L. Madigan, Rahm and many city councilmen and alderman who are allowed to carry guns are the ones who most promote that good, law abiding citizens cannot protect themselves or their families from the predators out there who don’t have bodyguards. Thank god for Article III judges. - CircularFiringSquad - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 1:56 pm: can the reasonable limitations include: $1 million liability policy Make the first three rounds rubber tip No concealed …let see 2Aers with their bandleros Think about how many will chance their wardrobes - JoeVerdeal - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 2:02 pm: In view of this ruling, how difficult would it be for NRA to attack and kill the FOID card law??? - it ain't over - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 2:05 pm: As the opinion notes, the 2nd Circuit upheld New York’s “may issue.” So why is that “off the table” now? This opinion implies that “may issue” or anything other than a flat out “no” would probably pass muster. The court even says they would expect Illinois to require more than “minimal” permit requirements. - notenrt - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 2:06 pm: OPEN,CARRY?Thats way it;s suppose to be! - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 2:06 pm: - wordslinger -, A movie Post is needed sometime, and then I can just get a legal pad out and learn about some good ones I haven’t seen. “Winchester, 73″ (Jimmy Stewart, Shelley Winters and a young Tony Curtis!) and “My Darling Clementine” (John Ford and Henry Fonda, I mean, c’mon!) are really good! To the Post, Why is it that “Wild Wild West” gets thrown out during the conceal carry discussion? Is there other states that have gone back to the 1840s to 1870’s that I have missed? Enlighten me on this “Wild Wild West” Phenomenom that I am missing… - Farker - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 2:11 pm: Congrats to Todd for the hard work on this issue. I’m liberal in every sense of the word but I love guns, I have loved shooting guns since a child growing up in central IL. To my liberal friends on the blog this day was coming and just like gay marriage it was only a matter of time. As Todd said there is no longer a need to negotiate, the time for that was last year. And frankly Phelps warned every legislator on the floor during debate that this day would come and your leverage would be gone. That day is today. There won’t be any consideration of may issue or county by county destinations. The sky is not falling folks. And frankly republicans on this blog can follow that same advice in regards of gay marriage. It will pass soon and I imagine their will be some sour grapes from the right when that day comes, just as the sour grapes being displayed by some commenters today on this issue. - Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 2:14 pm: - I’ve been told over and over that Obama is gonna suspend the Second Amendment and confiscate all guns right after the inauguration. - I sincerely hope you’re joking about believing that, but sadly I have no doubt that you’ve heard it. - Frank - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 2:20 pm: > The court cited Kachalsky in CA2 to note it’s disapproval of the reasoning and outcome, not to agree with it. This court opinion says the the 2nd Amendment is just as important outside the home as it is inside the home. You can’t restrict constitutional rights to only those who show “good cause.” - Farker - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 2:23 pm: @ it ain’t over Because Todd and company won’t allow a bill with may issue. That’s the whole point, he has the leverage now. Because if they do nothing in 181 days we get unrestricted open carry of anything with nothing other than owning a foid card, no training , no extra revenue for the state for licensing. - Todd - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 2:25 pm: “As the opinion notes, the 2nd Circuit upheld New York’s “may issue.” So why is that “off the table” now? This opinion implies that “may issue” or anything other than a flat out “no” would probably pass muster. The court even says they would expect Illinois to require more than “minimal” permit requirements.” its off the table cause the other side doesn’t have the votes we do. and we will NOT take a watered down bill. shall issue state wide. - Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 2:26 pm: Willy, don’t sue me bro! Movie post-great idea. - RonOglesby - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 2:28 pm: Todd says ” the other side doesn’t have the votes we do. and we will NOT take a watered down bill. shall issue state wide. ” HELL YEAH! Good Job Todd!!!! - Plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 2:30 pm: Matching bandoleros for everyone! - Logic not emotion - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 2:32 pm: This is a great and long overdue ruling that may well save innocent lives. Kudos to the two justices with the fortitude to make the correct ruling on this issue. - Farker - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 2:33 pm: @ Todd So does this mean we don’t have to accept a “half a loaf” lol. It appears we have a bakers dozen. Sorry word couldn’t resist. - Endangered Moderate Species - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 2:36 pm: Most of us living in rural Illinois have been raised in families that had a couple of guns in the home. My grandfathers and great grandfathers all had beautiful gun cabinets with several pieces. Those guns were tools for protection, hunting and sport. The cabinets were beautifully crafted furniture pieces. It is a known fact that snooping around a rural residence is dangerous to ones health, thus supporting the science of gun ownership serving as a crime deterrent. - Farker - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 2:36 pm: Sorry for the double post earlier. It wasn’t showing up at first - Ken_in_Aurora - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 2:37 pm: I just celebrated the ruling with a big platter of sushi for lunch. Of course, eating all that maguro means I can start a new career as a thermometer. *Burp* - Recidivist - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 2:38 pm: Some on here have previously questioned the wisdom of the pro-carry crowd not being happy with “half a loaf”. I think this explains it quite well. Well done, Todd et al. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 2:38 pm: - AA -, Not a chance, Bro. - Todd - Heck of a week. But, a week like this never happenens unless weeks and weeks and months of months of hard work lay the groundwork. Very. Well. Done. Hope the hunting went just as well for you too! - it ain't over - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 2:41 pm: We’ll see. I appreciate your excitement, but it won’t happen. You will still have to win before the full circuit. And then get through the legislative process. People here may want to be responsible/take credit for any person in Illinois carrying an AR-15. But I bet a majority of Illinois legislators don’t want to be. - it ain't over - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 2:43 pm: by the way, is this when we start whining about activist judges overturning duly enacted laws? Or is this when we threaten to move to Canada, with its much stricter gun laws and much lower murder rate? I don’t remember being on the losing side like this, so someone let me know please. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 2:44 pm: ===Concealed carry was already on the menu for the lame duck session=== No, it wasn’t. But it may be now. - Farker - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 2:45 pm: @ it ain’t over Which is why they’ll pass Todd’s version of the bill. The only alternative is waiting the 181 days and the current laws will be null and void. I’m sorry that wasn’t clear in my previous posts. Your leverage is gone. It’s just sour grapes at this point. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 2:52 pm: Willie, AA, “Winchester ‘73″ was the movie that started the movement that eventually broke the back of the old studio systems. Stewart wasn’t under contract, and his agent, Lew Wasserman, formerly of Chicago, negotiated a deal with Universal to make “Winchester” and “Harvey” with no fees, but guaranteed gross points. The movies were hits, Stewart made a fortune and no big star ever signed a studio contract again. Wasserman was a fascinating guy. He was Reagan’s agent, too, and carried him through the lean years of his career, eventually getting him “Death Valley Days,” which led to his getting the GE spokesman gig and the famous speeches that started his political career. The grateful Reagan, as SAG president, gave Wasserman waivers that allowed him to represent talent and produce movies at the same time, an enormously profitable arrangement that lasted for years until the Justice Department busted it up for anti-trust. Wasserman also bankrolled The Stern Gang, Yitzsak Shamir’s terrorist/freedom fighter group (depending on your point of view) that drove the Brits out of post-war Palestine and led to the founding of Israel. He was also Bill Clinton’s first big-money guy and brought many more with him. His best friend was Sid Korshak, Marshal’s brother, the Outfit’s Hollywood fixer with the Teamsters and movie unions, and a great source of his power. Check out “The Last Mogul: Lew Wasserman, MCA, and the Hidden History of Hollywood” by Dennis McDougal. Great yarn. - Secret Square - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 3:00 pm: “Going to have to be more careful when playing practical jokes on my brother in law from now on, he’s very skittish and will no doubt be taking advantage of this. I probably gave him too hard a time anyway…” I guess the deterrent effect is already working… - Carl from Chicago - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 3:05 pm: Someone mentioned Posner’s “stretched” interpretation of Heller/McDonald vis-a-vis whether the right to bear arms extends outside the home. It’s beyond me how anyone familiar with those decisions can argue with a straight face that the text and history of the second amendment points to a right that doesn’t exist outside the home. That notion is, in fact, absurd. Will be interesting to see whether Madigan’s office chooses to proceed with appeal, or chooses to cut their losses and just accept this reaffirmed reality. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 3:05 pm: –So does this mean we don’t have to accept a “half a loaf” lol. It appears we have a bakers dozen. Sorry word couldn’t resist.– No worries, mate. It’s a big win for pro-CCW. But the game ain’t over. - South - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 3:08 pm: About time (sorry chicago) - :( - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 3:09 pm: Guns are bad, mmmkay? - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 3:10 pm: ===Check out “The Last Mogul: Lew Wasserman, MCA, and the Hidden History of Hollywood” by Dennis McDougal. Great yarn.=== Thanks Much, - wordslinger -, and thanks for dropping some knowledge. The back stories are sometimes even better than what we “see going on” The Reagen/GE years fascinate me. There was alot of evolving and changing, and in that professional context of “Reagan the Actor” to “Ronald Reagan” is a really fascinating study, especially in terms of his agent and his story and history. Life is funny that way, one thing leading to another, than leading to another. We need to remember we don’t live in 30 minute “sit-coms”. Everything we do, leads us to something else. One movie changed an industry. Good Stuff! - Farker - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 3:11 pm: @ word Agreed. And it was just a friendly nudge. Really the boasting is probably over the top for now until the legislation is passed and signed by the gov. But the prospects are a heck of a lot better. The bottom line I guess is the 181 day count down. Reasonable people on both sides should encourage training, licensing (revenue) etc etc. But to say the ball isn’t in our court so to speak would be foolish. Should be interesting to see what we finally end up with. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 3:18 pm: ===Really the boasting is probably over the top for now until the legislation is passed and signed by the gov. But the prospects are a heck of a lot better.=== True and true. Nothing is done, especially Legislatively, until its… done. Wonder if they can get things thru during the Veto in Jan.? Lots of Lame ducks to eat votes others may balk at taking(?) Never a dull moment. - Farker - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 3:28 pm: @ Willy Never a dull moment is an understatement. Could we really see Right To Carry, Gay Marriage, and Medical Marijuanna all in one session. I support all three by the way. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 3:51 pm: ===Could we really see Right To Carry, Gay Marriage, and Medical Marijuanna all in one session. I support all three by the way.=== Depends on the Lame Duck Mushrooms and if they are going to work with the Leaders, the Sponsors, the Leaders then approve of all this, then … As an aside, “Lame Duck Mushroom” is quite tasty, but the secret is the Gravy, the tendeerness of the Mushroom, and …how well the Duck is prepared. This post is sponsored by Betty Crocker, for all you “Lame Duck Mushroom” recipies, look no further… then Betty Crocker. - D.P. Gumby - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 3:53 pm: The reason for the extreme reaction is the extreme positions taken by NRA et al. If NRA didn’t propound an absolutist position that anyone is allowed to own any firearm from saturday nite special to bazooka and supported reasonable regulation such as prohibiting assault weapons and saturday nite specials and allowing gun power marking then others might not consider them to be the equivalent of a 2nd Amendment Taliban. - wizard - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 4:19 pm: dp whenever we give its never enough the left always wants more so we no longer wish to give anything. - Ken_in_Aurora - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 4:20 pm: @ - D.P. Gumby - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 3:53 pm: Did you get a new hyperbole generator for the holidays or something? - titan - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 4:33 pm: @D.P.Gumby - a lot of people take absolutist positions on the 1st Amendment too. It is a respectable intellectual position to take. - D.P. Gumby - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 5:16 pm: Talk of guns just makes me shoot of my mouth - dupage dan - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 5:25 pm: Hey DP, I don’t think I have heard the NRA support the idea of someone being able to own a bazooka. Second amendment Taliban? Dude, did you forget to take your pills this morning? - Sunshine - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 5:26 pm: DPG The saying I have been known to use is “I was cleaning my mouth and it went off.” - Slippery Sam - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 6:27 pm: Here in Indiana we have had concealed carry since 1935! Most people here don’t think it a big deal. It’s a personal thing, if you think your safety is at stake, you carry, if you don’t, you won’t. Common sense says you should have the option. - Bud - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 6:35 pm: I doubet seriously if the AG will appeal to SCOTUS. If she did, and lost there, all of the States that have “may issue” would be affected also. She may ask for an en banc determination but maybe not. The concealed carry cliff still aproaches (June 9, 2013). I think Todd Vandermyde, who warned the legislators (as did Rep Phelps) of what would happen if they didn’t pass HB 148 is the man of the hour/day/week/ next six months. He predicted all of this. And what if we fall off the concealed carry cliff? With the UUW law ruled unconstitutional, does that mean the thousands convictedc of UUW during the last fifty years get to sue for a civil rights violation? I suspect that may be costly - reformer - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 7:01 pm: Let me be the first to nominate Todd for lobbyist of the year. Let’s do it by acclamation! - markthefixer - Tuesday, Dec 11, 12 @ 10:19 pm: - E town - ” if gun control groups are smart they should ask for something that they want in bill such as criminal background checks on every handgun sold in the state” FACT: Illinois: EVERY FOID card is ONLY issued AFTER a criminal background check is passed, THEN a SECOND criminal background check has to be passed before a firearm sale is completed and the firearm released to the purchaser. Add to that the statutory waiting periods for long guns and hand guns… - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 6:57 am: I see Rich took down a post. Sorry if i offended, Rich. - Sangamon County Politics - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 1:25 pm: A pro concealed carry US Marine and candidate for State’s Attorney in Sangamon County had it right in his campaign not to prosecute concealed carry knowing it was unconstitutional. Too bad this decision didn’t come before the election. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.