120 Comments - anon sequitor - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 11:17 am: Why not? I can’t wait to hear how the ISRA would spin that. “Not only did we preserve our right to concealed carry, but we helped take weapons of mass destruction off the streets!” - Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 11:18 am: I voted yes, because if I was a politician and 20 children were massacred within minutes with a military-style weapon, I would feel like I had a responsibility to do all I can to prevent something like that from happening again. I would support concealed carry in such a compromise. - Ahoy! - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 11:19 am: No, because quite frankly, we don’t need people carrying around hidden weapons nor do we need assault weapons. I also don’t think there is a need for compromise on this since the State appealing the concealed carry ruling. Let’s see how this goes first. - South of Sherman - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 11:19 am: Realistically, there’s no reason why the NRA/ISRA crowd should go along with such a grand bargain. The state is under a court order to pass a concealed carry law. Unless that changes on appeal, pro-gun lawmakers can stall a combined bill, and still effectively force Cullerton to give them a “clean” concealed carry bill. That court order really takes away Cullerton’s leverage on this. - dupage dan - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 11:21 am: Why not? I can’t wait to hear how the anti-gun people would spin that. “Not only did we get assault weapons off the streets but we helped make it easier for folks to carry around large caliber handguns in public!”. - Tequila Mockingbird - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 11:22 am: No. The concealed carry bill should be a clean bill and stand on its own. The state is forced by court decision to pass a CCW bill. This is just cullerton’s way of trying to make it a vehicle for moving a so called assault weapon ban and hoping to get pro gunners to compromise. - Anon - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 11:23 am: No need to. The courts have ruled conceal carry is a constitutional right. Pass it or the current laws go out the window. Assault weapons are used extremely rarely by a tiny percent (.001%) of the population to commit crimes. There is zero incentive for a bargain. The pro-gun folks have all the power here. They HAVE to pass conceal carry, period. No bargaining needed. - titan - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 11:25 am: It might be a way to get both through the legislature, but I don’t know if it ought to be the way it is done. - Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 11:25 am: Yes, but I really wish we’d stop with the whole “assault weapon” ban terminology. Let’s identify what makes these weapons more dangerous, if it’s just magazine size address that without including other silly components. Personally I’d much rather see tougher laws for straw purchasing, secure home storage, and beter tracking. I think those go a lot farther in keeping guns out of the wrong hands. - Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 11:26 am: *better, not beter. - mjrothjr - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 11:27 am: What’s the bargain in this for the pro-CCW crowd? Unless the 7th takes up the appeal en banc and stays the 180 time period to come up with a bill, is there any reason for the pro-CCW crowd to agree to any compromise? - Cheryl44 - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 11:30 am: Anti-gun person here. There’s no logical reason to ban conceal carry, but I want the right to tell people they can’t bring their guns into my home or place of business, so yeah, let’s get a law on the books. OTOH, there is a good reason to ban civilians from owning real assault weapons along with other military gear. Wed might as well make one comprehensive law. - Bob - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 11:30 am: Assault weapons are not the problem according to the Chicago and New York city police chiefs. Hand guns obtained illegally are the problem. http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2013/01/chicago-police-chief-assault-rifle-ban.html http://www.berkshireeagle.com/ci_22461857/nyc-police-chief-says-handguns-not-assault-weapons Chicago has the strongest gun laws in the nation. It also has the highest murder rate. New gun laws will only affect law abiding citizens. The criminal (Drug dealers, street gang members,Illegal gun traffickers) don’t obey laws anyway - CircularFiringSquad - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 11:31 am: Should slow down the rush to the OK Corral so this is a great idea - Spliff - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 11:36 am: I have been saying for 6 months. Give them both something they want. - Wensicia - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 11:41 am: Sure, why not? I don’t think it will happen, but it’s worth a try. - shore - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 11:47 am: why do we need a major debate about guns right now?This is another distraction for Springfield that can’t do its regular work already. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 11:50 am: I can’t imagine what a grand bargain would be, unless it was on a regional/home rule basis. I haven’t seen any willingness on ISRA or NRA to go there. Reps. Rose and Mitchell back in the day had a bill for county-by-county authorization of conceal-carry, but that went nowhere. - Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 11:56 am: - It also has the highest murder rate. - This really isn’t true, several cities have higher murder rates than Chicago. St. Louis, Detroit, New Orleans, all top Chicago. I don’t really think one should argue gun laws based on the murder rate of different cities, but if you’re going down that route you should probably get your facts straight. Also, it seems that everyone thinks there’s no reason to negotiate since there is a court order. This all depends on whether Todd V. is right about his grip on the legislature. Sure they have to pass something to accomodate a form of carry, but unless Todd really has the support to kill anything he doesn’t like, there is a big spectrum of what could ultimately pass. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:02 pm: No, I cannot trade my constitutionally protected right to self-protection outside of the home for my right to own protected self-defense arms. Besides, a “ban” without a confiscation is no ban at all, but a punishment on the law-abiding who happen to own the subject of said ban. - PQ's Primary Opponent - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:03 pm: talk about negotiating from a position of weakness?? when did the Seante President morph into Pat Quinn?? Conceal carry is coming why would the gun lobby negotiate that?? - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:07 pm: Re: The Nomenclature: Cullerton’s (and Feinstein’s) “Assault Weapon” is a semi-auto version of Homeland Security’s “Personal Defense Weapon”. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/27/homeland-security-seeking-7000-assault-weapons-per/ “While the Obama administration calls for a ban on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, the Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 “personal defense weapons” — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians.” - WhoKnew - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:09 pm: I said yes! It sounds just like the “Stra-tee-gery” that works in Illinois Politics! - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:09 pm: There’s no question that Chicago is in the midst of a murderous drug war, as has occurred at other times in the past, including during Prohibition. But here are your large American cities with the highest crime rates. City Crime Risk Index 1. St. Louis 530 2. Atlanta 484 3. Birmingham Alabama (tie) 380 3. Orlando (tie) 380 5. Detroit 369 6. Memphis 361 7. Miami 346 8. Baltimore 339 9. Kansas City, Missouri 337 10. Minneapolis (tie) 331 10. Cleveland (tie) 331 http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/02/16/the-11-most-dangerous-cities - olddog - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:10 pm: The court of appeals specifically allowed 180 days for “the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.” That means finding a reasonable compromise that accommodates the legitimate interests of people in different parts of the state. The zealots may not allow that to happen, but it’s what legislative bodies are designed to do. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:14 pm: word: Nice stats, but what does that have to do with CCW and gun bans in Illinois or in Chicago? Or legislation, or Cullerton? - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:16 pm: olddog: How is banning firearms that are rarely used in crimes and are not likely to be carried in public, how is that any part of a compromise on CCW? - Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:17 pm: JJJS - Ask Bob, he’s the one that made this comment: - Chicago has the strongest gun laws in the nation. It also has the highest murder rate. - - reformer - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:19 pm: Compromise in Springfield happens only when it’s required to pass a bill. The gun safety side has no leverage when it comes to concealed carry. If nothing passes, then everyone with a FOID card can carry concealed everywhere. So why should the gun rights side make any concessions when they don’t need to? They won’t do it out of the goodness of their heart any more than any other group will. - howie - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:20 pm: No. The 1994 AWB was a piece of feel-good legislation that did nothing other than make liberals feel good about themselves for “doing something”, and it made things a little tougher for the law abiding citizen. The CCW bill should be a stand alone bill. The legislature should pass it quickly (HB 148) and then move on to more pressing matters, like getting our bond rating out of the toilet. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:22 pm: It doesn’t surprise me that the gun guys would once again refuse to compromise on anything. Anything that takes away their precious right to own an oozie is too much. Give me a break. I have little respect for these people. - Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:23 pm: reformer - The key is the phrase “If nothing passes”. You guys act like the ISRA is going to personally vote on the issue. If Todd doesn’t have the votes to kill anything he doesn’t like, the GA can pass something he doesn’t like. It’s that simple. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:27 pm: JJ, it was in response to: –Chicago has the strongest gun laws in the nation. It also has the highest murder rate. New gun laws will only affect law abiding citizens. The criminal (Drug dealers, street gang members,Illegal gun traffickers) don’t obey laws anyway– - RW - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:33 pm: I amazes me that the anti-gun crowd doesn’t quite understand the 2nd amendment. “A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” We the people are the militia, we are the last defense against our own tyrannical government. - G.I. Joe - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:35 pm: They should not be together. I suspect any ‘Assault Weapons Ban’ would be challenged up to and including the Supreme Court. The ‘Concealed Carry’ may even be challenged if it is too restrictive. I look at the mass shootings and wonder what would have happened if it were not a gun free zone. I didn’t hear much about San Antonio, where an off duty deputy stopped a mass shooting, did you? And it doesn’t have to be an off duty peace officer, just a prepared and equipped individual. I look at Chicago and New York where there is already strong gun control and large numbers of murders that out number Afghanistan casualties and tell myself ‘Gun Control doesn’t work, let’s try Concealed Carry’. We have people that do not know the barrel of a gun from the but of a gun and they are afraid of what they don’t know. To anti-gunners I say go to a range and get acquainted, you may be glad you did - some day. Small Town Liberal, I hope I pass your spelling, grammar and punctuation checks. - Jeeper - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:36 pm: I voted ‘no’ because there is no reason for the winners of the recent 7C action to ‘compromise’ on the CCW issue, pending further appeal; the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has already severed the issues in a way that the legislature cannot mend. - RW - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:37 pm: BTW, If you want to compromise on the 2nd amendment why not any of the others? - City Slicker - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:37 pm: Gun Safety? Ha! Thats like calling prohibition alcohol safety. I will not honor that tag, sorry. Kudos to STL @11:25. - Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:37 pm: GI, as far as I can tell I’ve only policed my own today. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:38 pm: ==we are the last defense against our own tyrannical government. == Do you know how crazy that makes you sound? That argument is beyond ridiculous. Those are the kind of arguments that make people roll their eyes. Also, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t guarantee you the right to own any old gun you wish. There are some restrictions that have been deemed acceptable. It’s you that doesn’t quite understand the 2nd Amendment. - Fan - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:41 pm: Lets first define what an assault weapon is. It could be a stapler hurled at you. The most passionate anti-gunners also seem to know the least about firearms. And, at the National level, a “Grand Bargain” doesn’t seem like a good track to take for Democrats. Their track record on this has been shameful. Kinda like, we will know what is in the bill, after we pass the bill. - CarryNow - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:42 pm: I cannot believe there are so many misinformed individuals. Banning anything because of the way it looks is asinine. Assault is some trumped up phrase from the media. You can commit assault with many things. Bats, rocks, vehicles, and even words…it is nothing more than an action. Do not invoke anymore laws that infringe on law abiding citizens gun ownership. The laws which are already in place, which should prevent murders and crime, do not work. The criminal will always get the gun…and we will be defenseless. Conceal Carry and fewer “Gun Free Zones” will deter much more than removing legal guns from the public. Gun Free Zones are the primary place where all these mass shootings take place. Another prime example of stringent guns laws that do not work are Chicago’s. Please wake up people. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:44 pm: >>>>> Also, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t guarantee you the right to own any old gun you wish. There are some restrictions that have been deemed acceptable. What kind? - Rebel13 - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:48 pm: With regards to above stated crime statistics ranking different cities, Chicago stats are not used by the FBI because of the way they report various crimes which is what that is based on. The only one they use is murders because that one is too hard to “reclassify.” - dave - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:48 pm: **BTW, If you want to compromise on the 2nd amendment why not any of the others?** Many of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights have a variety of restrictions related to them. There are real restrictions on freedom of speech. There are restrictions on freedom of the press. There are restrictions on the freedom to assemble and petition the government. I could go on… - dave - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:49 pm: And more to not being willing to compromise on the 2nd amendment. Do you think that there should be NO restrictions on the right to own a weapon? - Irish - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:53 pm: The article noted above lists the cities with the most crime, not the most homicides. So some of the cities listed could have rampant theft and 10 homicides and be listed above a city that broke records with the most homicides but lower overall crime. It’s apples being quoted as oranges. - Stones - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:53 pm: Interesting concept. I hadn’t linked those two issues in my mind. Kind of like kissing your sister. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:53 pm: –I look at the mass shootings and wonder what would have happened if it were not a gun free zone.– Like that shopping mall parking lot in Tuscon? I didn’t realize Arizona had such strict gun laws. And for those who like to raise the issue, Loughner thought he was the victim of a tyrannical government before he shot Rep. Giffords, gunned down a federal judge, and killed five others and wounded another 11. McVeigh thought the government was out to get him, too. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47329.html - Demoralized - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:54 pm: JJJS: Part of it depends on where you happen to live, but a lot of places recognize the restrictions in federal law. For example, you can’t own a short-barrel rifle or shotgun. You can’t own certain semi-automatic or automatic weapons. Silencers are illegal. Armor piercing ammunition is illegal. I’m sure there are more but those are just off of the top of my head. Aside from actual restrictions on some firearms, there are obviously also restrictions placed on certain people. Some people are simply not allowed to own firearms at all. - CarryNow - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:55 pm: Should there be restrictions on your ability to utilize your 1st. Amendment rights? You seem to be using them freely. - PM31 - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:56 pm: I am confused….. Given the following: ================================================= 2nd amendment: “A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Constitution of the State of Illinois, ARTICLE I, BILL OF RIGHTS SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Constitution of the State of Illinois, ARTICLE XII, MILITIA SECTION 1. MEMBERSHIP The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law. =============================================== How can anyone think of an “assault-rifle” band? - Demoralized - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:57 pm: @CarryNow: There are acceptable restrictions placed on your 1st Amendment rights. Perhaps you should study some court rulings so you understand that pretty much all of the Amendments to the Constitution have some sort of acceptable restrictions relating to them. - Mark - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 12:59 pm: wordslinger, I believe the FBI stats from which those numbers come DO NOT include Chicago. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1550612.html - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 1:03 pm: Irish, here are the American cities with the highest homicide rates: 1. Flint, MI 2. Detroit 3. New Orleans 4. St. Louis 5. Baltimore 6. Birmingham 7. Newark 8. Oakland 9. Baton Rouge 10. Cleveland 11. Memphis http://www.policymic.com/articles/22686/america-s-10-deadliest-cities-2012 - CarryNow - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 1:07 pm: @Demoralized …. Acceptable by Supreme Court. Hmmm. Appointed and confirmed by corrupt politicians. Gives me a warm fuzzy feeling doesn’t you? - Todd - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 1:08 pm: They may introduce a bill and get it out of committee, but it will not pass. And yes i have the votes to kill it. Second this is not pee wee soccer whe everyone gets a trophy. We were wiling to negotiate over 148 we told people that if we went to court we would win and when that happened, since it is a RIGHT the next bill would look different and we would not accept some of the restrictions we agreed to in order to secure the votes for passage. Now they can either pass a bill to our liking, or in 130 some odd days people will be able romcarry on the street with just a FOID card. It will be statewide permit, shall issue, no locall regulations, milimal fee, commercailly available training. Cheryl, you will be able to prohibit people carrying in your house or building. And we are not tying any other gun issue to this. The carry bill is a stand alone prospect. The anti-gunners don’t have a simple majority for their issues, so they can’t pass anything they want. Game over - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 1:13 pm: Demoralized: A lot of the federal restrictions in place since the 1930’s could be tossed out with the right court case referencing US v Miller (1939), in which the tax law restricting short-barreled shotguns was upheld because there was no one to provide evidence of their usefulness in a well-regulated militia. Those short shotguns were very useful in trench warfare in WWI. And can anyone prove that machine guns and short rifles are useful tools of a militia? Not a stretch, right? - Cheswick - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 1:13 pm: I answered No for the simple reason that the legislature shouldn’t run the risk that two such sensitive bills might get hung up on each other. Keep ‘em separate. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 1:14 pm: @CarryNow: The Supreme Court is really all that matters when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. They ultimately have the last word in determing what and what is not acceptable. You don’t have to like it, but it is what it is. Even the strictist of the current Supreme Court Justices - Justice Scalia - recognizes limitations. - Cheryl44 - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 1:15 pm: I’d like to see better ways to make life miserable for straw buyers and for people who ‘lose’ guns and don’t report their loss. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 1:18 pm: @JJJS: So get them thrown out. Until then it’s the law of the land. We don’t get to decide what laws we will follow and what laws we won’t. Also, your war reference is really irrelevant if I understand it correctly. Are you saying that because some weapon might be useful in war then your average, everyday citizen should be allowed to own it? - Jeeper - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 1:19 pm: == the 2nd Amendment doesn’t guarantee you the right to own any old gun you wish == True. According to the US v Miller (1939) decision upholding the 1934 NFA, you can own (and transport across state lines) weapons suitable to militia use. Miller’s sawed off side-by-side double shotgun was the weapon at issue in the case. Had Miller’s attorney appeared for oral argument, the resulting decision might have been more clear. Sadly, he did not and the government essentially had it’s way. What the law and the decision upholding it purported to regulate were considered “gangster” weapons. The military had rejected the Thompson sub machinegun for its own use in the 1920s. Similarly, “silencers” and sawed off shotguns and rifles were not accepted for military use. Unfortunately for the gun control crowd, most of the regulated “gangster weapons” have been accepted as “standard” military weapons in the intervening time. All branches of the US military establishment purchased and issued fully automatic personal weapons during WWII (including several versions of the Thompson), switching from separate semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons to selective fire weapons during the 1950s. So, if the 1934 NFA does NOT prohibit private ownership of weapons appropriate to militia use - those appropriate for military use - the gun control people have a problem: the military does NOT issue AR-15 rifles but it DOES issue M-16A1 and M-16A2 rifles as well as M-4 Carbines. All of them are “selective fire” weapons firing the same ammunition as the hated Bushmaster AR-15. Ban my AR-15, if you must, but where can buy my M-16A2 and/or M4 Carbine to be ready for militia call up? - titan - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 1:33 pm: @Todd - I have to differ with you as to the ability of Cheryl to prohibit people from carrying in places she owns. She will certainly be able to tell people who are carrying that they aren’t welcome in her home. She will likely be able to do the same in other places she owns (except, perhaps, in the case of places deemed “public accomodations”). - homunculus - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 1:35 pm: Yes, if the gun lobby is sensible enough to negotiate before an en banc panel of the 7th Circuit reverses Posner, losing key leverage and the 180-day mandate, whatever its worth. - D.P. Gumby - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 1:36 pm: Why not? They both deal with a single subject. And, yes, I understand the 2nd Amendment, but I don’t think some NRAers do. It is no more “absolute” than the 1st Amendment is. Just as one cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theatre and claim it’s the first amendment, I argue you cannot fire an assault weapon in a crowded theatre and claim the 2nd amendment. Heller clearly said that reasonable regulation was allowed. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 1:41 pm: @Todd: Why does it automatically make somebody anti-gun if they favor some restrictions? I personally have no problem with guns. I don’t own any out of person choice and frankly all of you are safer because I don’t. I would do just as well throwing a gun at somebody as shooting them. I don’t hunt and I don’t shoot for sport. I’m not a collector either. But that doesn’t mean I want to take away anybody’s guns. I simply fail to understand the need to own certain types of weapons. Why does anybody need to own a functioning automatic weapon? Unless there is some war going on in our state that I’m not aware of or unless there is some plan to invade a neighboring state that I don’t know about, I simply fail to see the need to own such guns. Carry a weapon. I don’t care. Own as many handguns, shotguns, and rifles as you want. Heck, even get rid of the FOID card. I would prefer people be required to have some training on gun use given what I know about myself and my skill level with guns, but shoot away (but preferably not at me). - Cheryl44 - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 1:43 pm: Hey titan, I rent. Do I have to have my landlord’s permission to not allow people in who are carrying? - USMCJanitor - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 1:45 pm: I voted no, but then again I believe any bill at any level of Gov should deal with one issue at a time. Here, while guns are the issue, these are both very different sub-sets of the “gun issue”. Like saying that we are going to pass a new law on road building and where traffic lights are installed, oh and we are going to ban certain cars. My mixing these two up you get people hung up on things they CANNOT agree on. Thus nothing gets done. we are back to the “throw everything in” strategy and get stuck, vs picking battles and focusing on what CAN be done… Concealed carry is coming Wouldnt the gun control crowd be better served by fighting for the training requirements they want in the bill? or the sensitive places definitions? Vs getting caught up in assault weapon BS… - GoldCoastConservative - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 1:46 pm: @Demoralized Silencers are illegal? Nope. While they are regulated, suppressors for firearms are legal in 39 of the 50 states. - frustrated GOP - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 1:46 pm: Yes, so we need a conceal law, no reason why we can’t make sure it requires serious training and we limit sales of magazines over 15 rounds for rifles, and all sales require background checks. How about conceal carry has similar requirements to an FFL? That would work. I also think a written test would be good and a fee of $600. and annual training requirements. - USMCJanitor - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 1:47 pm: Demoralized… you said ===Why does anybody need to own a functioning automatic weapon? === What bill or where has todd said we need to own functioning automatic weapons? Already banned in Federal law AND Illinois law. - CarryNow - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 1:47 pm: @Demoralized Fully automatic weapons are illegal for most everyone to own. Better work on studying weapons laws. - Jeeper - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 1:48 pm: @Demoralized: Perhaps I missed something. If so, I hope you can inform me. When did anyone argue for NO restrictions on guns? Please be specific… - Slick Willy - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 1:48 pm: Titan - I think you misread Todd’s post. He stated “Cheryl, you will be able to prohibit people carrying in your house or building.” Pretty sure you are both on the same page. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 1:49 pm: @GoldCoast: I caught myself after I said that. You are right, they are legal but restricted. You have to register them and get a permit. I have no idea how many of those permits are granted but apparently they are. But, what do you need a silencer for anyway? I consider that cheating if the deer don’t know you’ve shot at one of their friends. Same with humans. You’ve cheated them out of their warning. - Slick Willy - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 1:52 pm: *** How about conceal carry has similar requirements to an FFL? That would work. I also think a written test would be good and a fee of $600. and annual training requirements. *** I have no trouble with a written exam and a small fee, but annual training requirements? Really? More people die from cars annually than guns, but there is no annual training requirement for a driver’s license. Curious why you think such a requirement is appropriate for CC. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 1:54 pm: @Jeeper: I would refer you to @RW’s posts. I really have no idea what is or isn’t acceptable to anybody because people mostly talk past each other. But, if I were you, I would seriously consider adding a restriction against me personally owning a gun. - USMCJanitor - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 1:55 pm: Demoralized, Why do I need a suppressor (first off it is VERY HARD and expensive to get. your chief LEO has to sign off on your permit). But why would you want one? to make it quieter. When you shoot a ton it takes its toll on your hearing. When I was in Germany it was fairly common for even hunters to use suppressors. It kept noise down not bother the neighbors. Here we have passed suppressor laws because people that dont know think its like TV, people sneaking around with this heavy thing screwed on a pistol killing silently. Its not a little “phhht”. Like you see on TV. BTW, you cant get them in Illinois even if you get the ATF license. - Skirmisher - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 2:04 pm: I voted “No”. The courts have already ruled, for better or worse, that “conceal/carry” under some terms is going to be the law in Illinois. So there is not much of a basis for a bargain. In any case, so-called “assault-weapons” (A political/popular media terminology that does not conform to the military definition) are not much of a problem in Illinois. Small pistols, however, are very much a problem and are likely to be an even bigger problem if persons unskilled in their use start carrying them. If there is a basis for a bargain, I would say the deal should be that “assault weapons” isssue would not be touched in exchange for the pro-gun folks getting behind and supporting conceal-carry licensing requirements that include proficiency testing (In other words, make people at least meet miltiary handgun “qualification” requirements). - Kevin Highland - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 2:05 pm: Carry, open or concealed & any gun control measures are two separate issues. - Down South - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 2:14 pm: They are two different issues involved here. It’s like when earlier in January the Anti-gun folks tried to tried to tie the AWB and Gay marriage on the same Bill. 500+ homicides in Chicago in 2012 only 1 with a rifle of any kind (Chicago PD 2012 Crime Report), and less than 3% of all murders in the US are involved with RIFLES. The AWB doesn’t work. CCW? The other 49 states have some sort carry law allowing the citizens to carry a firearm legally. They cannot and should not be on the same bill. - Jeeper - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 2:16 pm: @Demoralized: I found only 2 posts from “RW” at 12:33 and 12:37 today. He says no such thing. - titan - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 2:21 pm: @Slick Willy - opps, yes, indeed. I misread it (I saw a “not” in there where none actually existed). - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 2:36 pm: –or the sensitive places definitions– What’s the theory behind “sensitive places?” What makes one place more sensitive than another if we’re talking about law-abiding citizens? People get angry and emotional in their cars or walking down the street. They get angry or emotional in courts and city council chambers. What’s the difference? - USMCJanitor - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 2:40 pm: Word, I agree. to me sensitive places are places like Jails… where there is a large number of known criminals and a high probability of felons coming into contact with a weapon. Potentially some courts fall into this. I could also say “if the area is secured by metal detectors” then it counts as a sensitive place. But you are right. If we are talking about law abiding people I dont think it matters that much. Though on the gun control side they would like to expand or define the sensitive areas and I would rather used “controlled/secured” areas. - dupage dan - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 2:41 pm: Restricting access to what folks are calling “assault weapons” will not have the desired effect. Plain and simple. So why keep hammering away at it? Because the guns, as TV said, are dangerous looking. It makes for quite a press conference to hold up one of these serious looking weapons. Folks passions are enflamed and the race is on to ban the things. Better to address how the guns are getting into the hands of the bad guys in the first place. Straw man purchases should be addressed. This is the preferred way for the gangs, etc to get their hands on the guns. Addressing the issue of the mentally unfit having access is the other side of the issue. Even Obama concedes this - let’s hope he means it. Banning/restricting certain firearms will not have the desired effect in much the same way that banning/restricting certain mind altering substances hasn’t worked. I know this may blow a hole in my personal stance on legalizing drugs but the logic appears clear. Address the behavior, not the substance/hardware. - TooManyJens - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 2:45 pm: I answered no because I don’t think an AWB is as important as many other measures, especially when “assault weapons” are poorly defined. I’d go for bundling concealed carry with safe storage requirements, registration of firearms, requirement to report stolen firearms, no transfers without background checks, that kind of thing. - Anon19 - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 2:46 pm: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.” –Pres. George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress (8 January 1790) To the people lambasting RW, does Washington’s quote sound crazy? The 2nd amendment was never about hunters or handguns in the home. It was about arming the people so the government would remain frightened of the power of the people. I think the people like Demoralized are the crazy ones putting all of their power and freedom in the hands of a bunch of government employees. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 2:48 pm: @Jeeper: Then you don’t get it. He refers to not compromising on the 2nd Amendment. It’s pretty clear to me, but if you want to play games so be it. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 2:50 pm: @Anon19: You better read my posts again. Nowhere did I say I wanted to take away your guns. And I continue to say that people who refer to the tyranny of the government have an issue. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 2:52 pm: @Anon19: To follow up on my point . . . this isn’t 1776. As I said, I have no interest in taking away anybody’s guns. But this notion that the reason you need a gun is to protect you from the government is downright silly to me. The government could blow us all away if they really wanted to. Nothing we possess could stop them. Stopping tyranny isn’t a good argument. - TooManyJens - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 2:53 pm: “It was about arming the people so the government would remain frightened of the power of the people.” That is not even slightly what Washington was talking about in that quote. He was talking about the common defense. The next two sentences are: “The proper establishment of the troops which may be deemed indispensable will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the officers and soldiers with a due regard to economy.” - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 2:57 pm: Anon19 and others, get back to the question, please, or move along. - Cook County Commoner - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 3:00 pm: I believe they should be handled separately. Ultimately, Mr. Pearson, et al of the ISRA and Mr. LaPierre, et al of the NRA control the decision because they control the $$$$ going to the solons of rectitude ensconced in our state legislature. But in the event the masses stay interested enough, the two issues should proceed separately. CCW seems to go to the heart of the self defense and Second Amendment issue while the so-called “assault weapons” prohibition appears to deal with replica weapons which do not approximate the performance of a true military grade weapon in ballistic terms and make a minor or even less of a contribution to crime statistics in Illinois. Concealable handguns are the issue in Illinois. Let’s deal with it first and then turn to military look-alike, non-concealable firearms if the concern remains. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 3:02 pm: –Ultimately, Mr. Pearson, et al of the ISRA and Mr. LaPierre, et al of the NRA control the decision because they control the $$$$ going to the solons of rectitude ensconced in our state legislature.– They’re the ones responsible for those big Dem majorities? Who knew? - Demoralized - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 3:27 pm: @USMCJanitor: Fair enough. I’ve shot a handgun (don’t ask me what kind - maybe a .45???) that nearly burst my eardrums. Being a gun idiot, I thought nothing of my father-in-law failing to tell me that earplugs might be a good idea. I couldn’t hear for 2 hours. But I still say if you use it for hunting (I’m not sure if you can do that) is cheating. LOL - Donnie Don't - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 3:29 pm: Nope. Two reasons: 1. It’s the wrong thing to do. Banning guns (even black ones that frighten people who don’t know how they work) isn’t useful or helpful. Pairing it with right-to-carry doesn’t somehow make it OK. 2. It’s not just the leaders mentioned here who won’t accept that bargain. Gun owners are voting with their dollars, buying up guns and ammo at crazy speeds (and prices) and literally joining waiting lists to buy more. They’re also joining organizations like the NRA, ISRA and Illinois Carry. The NRA has reportedly grown by 500,000 to 1,000,000 members in the last month or so. And we have no reason to accept that compromise. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals gave the legislature until mid-June to get a right-to-carry bill passed, NOT an RTC bill paired with a gun ban that’s likely unconstitutional on its own. (Yes, Scalia wrote in Heller that it might be permissible to ban unusual or unusually dangerous weapons. It’s hard to argue that the most popular rifle on the civilian market is “unusual” enough to be banned even under that problematic standard.) - Bemused - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 3:32 pm: I had to go with no on this one. IMHO this type of Bill seldom does justice to anything. I am not crazy about the term “Assault Weapon Ban”. They are in fact rifles that fire a certain type ammo that would probabley not be the first choice of a serious hunter. I would think a large number of them are used to “Plink”. Yes it might be handy to have one if “Society” breaks down but otherwise a whole lot of them will collect dust. A little regulation like 10-15 shot clips is not unreasonable. Okay I have already heard how some shooters can shoot those clips at almost the same rate as a 30 shot clip. There are folks at the State Fair who can dive into a body of water the size of your home swimming pool from a hundred feet up but I think a small number in the crowd could pull off the same feat so let’s not go there. As far as concealed carry, looks like it,s headed our way. Once again let’s try for some reasonable regs. How about before you get a permit you show that you can produce it from your place of concealment and place three rounds of ammo into a three foot by three foot target from twenty foot away in forty five seconds. If I wanted to be unreasonable I would add, while being shot at by paintball gunners. I do think law enforcement has to test fairly often to show they can hit the bad guy before the good folks. Not everyone will be happy but we can do better. - Huh? - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 3:37 pm: I said no. Combining the two into a single bill is a guarantee way that both will die an ignoble death on the fires of overwrought. The bills ought to be stand-alone laws which require roll call votes. - Springfieldish - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 3:41 pm: I voted no because both issues are too important to be horse-traded against each other. Even if the odds are a million to one that a folding-stock, high-muzzle velocity, large mag-capacity weapon will be used to commit a crime, since that one can be a roomful of children, patrons at a mall or at a movie, that ‘one’ is enough for me. Concealed carry will have to be coupled with a willingness to be bonded and upon a show of need, rather than just desire. We don’t live in the 1700’s anymore. Since you and I cannot readily distinguish between the infringed and the unhinged, the state has an overriding interest in reducing the number of guns on the street. Which by the way, is another issue. Multiple purchases need to be tracked for the same reason. The state can’t just look to the yellowbrick road to identify the straw-men out there. This whole, “it’s-my-right-and-I’ll-do-what-I-want-to” is juvenile. The Constitution doesn’t protect your right to feel cool, have a hobby, or do or possess anything merely because you can. All those founding Fathers were good citizens. The intense lobbying on behalf of preventing a ban on assault style weapons and arming every man and woman on the street, isn’t on behalf of the citizens. It is on behalf of those that have taken a franchise on your Second Amendment rights and will do everything in their power to sell more guns to anyone, be they frightened citizens, street gangs or our last line of liberty, anywhere, and in any quantity possible. In terms of weapons marketing in the US, the unhinged AND the infringed are very deliciously similar markets. - Todd - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 3:50 pm: Demon it does’t if you favor some restrictions, but those like ICHV want to gut the right and turn it into a privledge The question of why would anyone need to own a full auto machinegun, ah zombies I guess. 30 some states allow it and think its just fine. Illinois has said no and i don’t see it changing in the forseeable future. Not to mention i have other pressing issues to work on. Full autos are highly,regulated and since they are outlawed here in illinois, its a non issue to me. Now those are very different from the semi-autos that the governor, ICHV and acevedo want to ban BTW there are 186,000 full autos in circulation for private citzens. Everything from a Sten to a M2 50 cal to a GE 134 minigun like jesse used in preditor Cheryl, even if you rent, you can prevent someone one from carrying in your apartment without having to consult your landlord. - Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 4:07 pm: - Full autos are highly,regulated - Has this reduced the number of crimes committed with them? Just curious. - dupage dan - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 4:21 pm: STL, The only notorius case where full auto weapons were used that I can remember in recent years is the North Hollywood shootout that occured in 1997. You may recall 2 heavily armed men clad in homemade body armor attempted to rob a bank. There were spotted while entering the bank and a wild shootout ensued. I can not secure any info as to whether they were able to purchase fully auto weapons or if they altered some semi-auto weapons. The heist failed. The perps were disabled during the shootout. One killed himself at the scene, the other died while the scene was being secured. Several LEOs were wounded but no one died (cept the bad guys). - Sgt USMC - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 4:22 pm: @Small town Actually there were never a huge amount of crimes committed but they were popularized by the Booze Runners and Gangsters. Therefore they got a lot of press. Remember at the time if you were a School kid i.e. 15 if you earned the money to buy a Thompson Submachine gun if you sent the money in the mail they would send via the U.S. Post Office a Thompson with 2 30 rnd stick magazines. no Background Check, No age limit, and No parental sign off. Number of school shootings with Thompson Sub machine guns ZERO. - SO IL M - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 4:26 pm: No. Both should be debated and voted upor down on their own merit. Together would just give the spinelss among our Legislators, on both sides, cover to hide behind. I would also like to see Bills inrtoduced to actually combat the criminals who are committing the crimes. Increase Possesion of a Firearm by a Felon to Class-X. Any convicted felon found in possesion of a firearm or ammunition to recieve a minimum 10yrs at 85%, mandatory to be served consecutive to any other sentence. Increase for every subsequent conviction. Include any person who knowingly sells, gives, loans or transfers in any way a firearm to a convicted felon, when that firearm is used in commision of a felony. This would also make them an accessory to that crime as well. Require reporting of any felon found in possesion of a firearm by Local Police to ISP for tracking and follow up. Require ISP to forward a report to US Attorney for possible Federal Charges. Strengthen the new RICO Law to where any person, business, organization, or agency that does business, recieves money from, or gives money to any known gang or gang member, is subject to prosecution, assett forfeiture, prison, and / or fines. As much of a financial block as possible, considering the fact that they deal mainly in cash. - TooManyJens - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 4:29 pm: “Together would just give the spinelss among our Legislators, on both sides, cover to hide behind.” If giving them cover means they will vote for measures that should pass, I would consider this a feature, not a bug. - Todd - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 4:42 pm: The LA bank robbers had illegally converted guns. To my knowaldge only one legal full auto has been used in a crime and it was by a florida law enforcement officer. I think the limit on the number that exist is one of the largest reasons why you don’t see them in crime, they are rare. There are more AR-15s in illinois than full autos in the nation. But i dont think the rules and regulation for full autos would pass muster for a consitutional right, 4 months plus on background checks and approval, $200 tax on each gun. Don’t think that will fly - Sgt USMC - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 4:44 pm: @SO That is a proposal that would actually help .So you know they would never do it. Besides Quinns voting base would be affected. @Toomany Actually the problem is it allows the legislators to pretend that hey are voting for the least offensive instead of actually standing up for each and every individual vote. If these things “need” to be passed as you say they should have the Guts to do it and not hide about it. If you think your legislature isn’t doing what you think he needs to do Then you need to Retire him and maybe run against him. - Commonsense in Illinois - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 4:47 pm: Just trying to think how to best pair the two makes my head hurt. - Just The Way It Is One - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 5:11 pm: Yes. The former must, of course, be addressed by Court mandate, and some form of the latter already, because as the Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords’ incident/shooting, Colorado and Connecticut shootings/massacres, alone, let alone all of the others before them, signify, something reasonable needs to be enacted regarding the latter. Painful subjects for all Americans, no matter where you stand, so why not put it all on the table and deal with them at the same time. - Muffin Man - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 5:18 pm: Keep it simple. Keep everything transparent. Don’t obscure what it is really taking place by becoming a mixologist Senator Cullerton. The voters in Illinois have already lost enough confidence with those in Springfield. No more “shell games”. - What is to be done? - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 5:20 pm: CHICAGO—Having tallied a “very promising” 41 murders so far in 2013, police officials confirmed Tuesday that the annual Chicago Homicide Drive was off to its fastest start in more than a decade and was already well on its way to reaching this year’s goal for violent slayings. “It’s still January, but we’ve already seen an astounding number of contributions to this year’s murder drive,” Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy told reporters as he raised the red progress line on the Homicide Drive’s Murdometer, a 15-foot plywood silhouette of a gunned-down body that stands outside City Hall. - wishbone - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 6:48 pm: “Concealed carry will have to be coupled with a willingness to be bonded and upon a show of need, rather than just desire.” Our civil rights cannot be not subject to a needs test. A women does not (and should not) have to prove she has a need for an abortion, and someone exercising their Second Amendment right to bear arms (per the appellate court) doesn’t either. A shall issue requirement for any qualified citizen is a necessary prerequisite for any CCW law. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 6:50 pm: –A women does not (and should not) have to prove she has a need for an abortion,– Is there some thought that some women seeking abortions are not pregnant? - Carl from Chicago - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 7:16 pm: I voted “no” on Rich’s topical question. I did so for two reasons. The first is because such a bill would not pass (proponents of gun prohibition don’t have the votes for a stand alone bill, and they also don’t have the votes to stop the carry bill that will inevitably be passed). It will be passed … that very strong ruling by Judge Posner was in itself enough to secure supermajorities in both the house and senate. The second is because we are talking about civil liberties (rights) affirmed by the SCOTUS to be fundamental, and proponents of such rights simply don’t go about bartering them away, much like they might on trades involving used automobiles. No … eventually we know that the second amendment advocates are going to get what they want, and the gun prohibitionists are not going to get what they want. Everyone knows that at this point, so I am certain we won’t see acquiescence on a gun ban in exchange for the right to carry guns. - reformer - Tuesday, Jan 29, 13 @ 8:01 pm: == I think the limit on the number (of fully automatic guns) that exist is one of the largest reasons why you don’t see them in crime, they are rare. == I agree. The more guns in circulation, the greater the access by people who use them for crimes or suicide. - Springfieldish - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 8:09 am: So, Wishbone, you agree with a bonding requirement? Or, should we all just take your ‘law-abiding-responsible citizen’ status on faith. We bond house painters, for cryin’ out loud. And, while the General Assembly may be guilty of repeated drive-by whitewashing, no one’s been killed by it yet. - Sgt USMC - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 9:13 am: @Springfieldish So what is the amount of Bond you want to see? Just curious since the people who need the right to carry are usually people on the lower end of the Socio-economic scale. If i am poor - Mark - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 10:17 am: reformer ==I agree. The more guns in circulation, the greater the access by people who use them for crimes or suicide.== What was left unsaid, though, is that the total number of crimes or suicides isn’t changed at all. They were simply carried out with other tools. There have been some very damning studies that show denying access to firearms doesn’t reduce the number of suicides, it simply results in them being committed in other ways. Given the option of a firearm, however, people choose it because of its effectiveness. While not as cut-and-dry, other studies have also shown that overall violent crime rates don’t increase as the number of firearms in society increases. i.e. no correlation (and certainly no causation) Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.