* Some rather vague provisions in Sen. Kwame Raoul’s proposed concealed carry bill came under attack yesterday during a committee hearing…
Sponsoring Sen. Kwame Raoul said he believes the restrictions in HB 183 are needed to protect public safety by keeping guns out of the wrong hands and out of sensitive places.
But many lawmakers expressed concerns over a provision that requires a person to have “good moral character” — the basis on which local law enforcement could object to a person’s application — and “proper cause” to carry a weapon in Illinois.
“What are you looking for? The guy didn’t go to enough of his kids’ softball games …? That someone drank too much, that they didn’t spend enough time at home? … What is it that you’re looking for in that?” asked Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon.
Illinois State Police Lt. Darrin Clark cited as an example a person who has had repeated run-ins with police despite never having been charged with a crime.
“There’s a number of individuals that are ‘on the bubble,’ so to speak, that are not a risk at this point, but there’s just something not quite right,” Clark said. “There would have to be a pattern of behavior that had been documented.”
But Righter argued the bill’s language is too vague and could lead to law enforcement denying permits to basically anyone they wish.
* So Raoul is backing down a little…
By Thursday night, however, Raoul said he was drafting an amendment to be considered Friday that would remove the “good moral character” criterion.
Raoul said he would keep intact the consideration of a “proper reason for carrying a firearm” because it has been tested in Indiana and gives leeway to reject an applicant whose desire to carry a gun is “inconsistent with public safety.”
In addition, Raoul said, he plans to amend phrasing to tighten up the language so that “there would be less fear of an arbitrary objection from a local sheriff.”
As of this writing (9:37 am), no new Raoul amendment had been filed.
* A floor vote is expected today…
After Thursday’s committee vote, Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) said the concealed-carry legislation could surface for a floor vote as early as Friday, but the top Senate Democrat stopped short of predicting its passage.
“It’s pretty close,” Cullerton said.
Keep a close eye on our live session coverage post for all the updates you’ll ever need.
* Speaker Madigan’s public take…
If it’s adopted and moves to the House, it will compete with an NRA-backed plan that fell seven votes short of passage last month but could resurface. That plan got significantly more support than a more restrictive measure, more in line with Raoul’s, that also failed last month.
House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, said he discussed the issue with Raoul and acknowledged large differences among various proposals.
“It won’t be easy,” Madigan told reporters Thursday. “People are going to be asked to compromise, they’re going to be asked to do some things they really don’t want to do.”
* The Sun-Times, of course, prefers Raoul’s bill…
No one is happy with a bill permitting the concealed carrying of weapons that passed out of the Illinois Senate Executive Committee Thursday by a 10-4-1 vote.
But the bill — the result of a months-long effort by state Sen. Kwame Raoul to find a middle ground — is the best option on the table for resolving this issue. It could come to a vote as early as Friday in the Senate, and the vote is expected to be close.
* And the Tribune has a good infographic that breaks down the components of Raoul’s bill. Check it out. From that page…
And…
- wordslinger - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 9:50 am:
–“It won’t be easy,” Madigan told reporters Thursday. “People are going to be asked to compromise, they’re going to be asked to do some things they really don’t want to do.”–
That sounds about right, on both sides of the issue. It’s been said a good negotiation results in both sides being unhappy about something.
- Downstater - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 9:55 am:
Just another thing Illinois comes in last among all the states.
- Cassiopeia - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 9:57 am:
I am not quite sure what they are going to ask for with the “proper reason” clause. Does personal protection suffice?
- Amalia - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 9:58 am:
wait, Alabama is a may issue state and has the reason and character provisions? so is the NRA doing a big song and dance down there?
- Darienite - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 10:13 am:
Good moral character must be like art - you know when you see it.
- Slick Willy - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 10:17 am:
Perhaps the relevant question is, “Does Alabama have a history of wrongly denying its citizens CC permits?”
- Cincinnatus - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 10:18 am:
Wasn’t the “compromise” bill championed by Phelps? This new bill shows little compromise by the anti-gun groups…
- Amalia - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 10:20 am:
“Does Alabama have a history of wrongly denying its’ citizens CC permits?” whatever the history in Alabama, why does that mean the automatic response for Illinois is that we don’t trust law enforcement? I think that attitude stinks.
- Todd - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 10:26 am:
Alabama has treated it that if you have pulse you get a permit. While listed as a may issue state, they are for all practical purposes a shall issue state.
And yes Illinois has had a history of abuses, just look at the Chicago ordinance as an example
- Curmudgeon - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 10:39 am:
So the “good moral character” clause has been removed. I guess that means our State legislators and retire legislators will now be able to apply for CCH permits.
- Mason born - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 10:43 am:
Word
No one on either side is completely happy with the Phelps bill. The Phelps bill is a compromise. In point of fact the Phelps bill would be the most restrictive Shall-Issue in the country. Why isn’t that a good compromise?
what Raouls bill does is dress up a May-Issue bill with enough verbage to make it appear to mirror Indiana. the bones of the bill are what Indiana first used however Indiana made changes to the bill (such as defining Proper reason) that Raoul left out. Another example is Raoul’s bill says you can store the weapon in your car in the parking lot if you cannot carry it inside. However he makes an exemption that appears to say unless someone puts a sign in parking lot. More or less making the rest of the language null and void.
- wordslinger - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 10:53 am:
–Why isn’t that a good compromise?–
Mason, I’m not really making a judgement. That might be as far as the pro c-c folks are willing to go.
Personally, I’d like to see the public transportation component taken out. And I’d like a home-rule option, but that doesn’t seem to be too popular in some circles.
It’s a tough one, especially when it’s under-the-gun, so to speak, by the court of appeals ruling.
- Amalia - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 10:54 am:
put the Alabama law up in Illinois and Todd would still object because he does not trust law enforcement in Chicago and Oak Park. incredible.
- Mason born - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 11:05 am:
Amalia
Todd would be right to object to the Alabama law. 40% of the citizens in the state live in chicago. Those citizens for years were deprived the same rights as everyone else in the state. i.e. the handgun ban. It wasn’t until McDonald that this was reversed. Please try to understand Chicago has given ample reason to be distrusted when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. After all we had to go to the U.S. Supreme Court just to be able to keep a functioning firearm in our own bedroom. Now after that we shouldn’t demand oversight of CPD on this?
- Anonymous - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 11:07 am:
Potential proper reasons:
**I want to protect myself and my family
**It’s my constitutional right
- MrMonarch - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 11:08 am:
@Amalia
Do you live in Chicago or Oak Park? If so, you would understand that there truly is a history of abuses regarding civil rights and law enforcement. No need to play naive.
- wordslinger - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 11:09 am:
–40% of the citizens in the state live in chicago–
Illinois population: 12.9 million
Chicago population: 2.7 million
In my head, I make that about 22%
- titan - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 11:10 am:
@ Amalia - think of it this way, if getting an abortion required a discretionary government permit, and the ones determining “may issue” were a choice between the current head of Planned Parenthood and the Pope, would you see a difference?
- MrMonarch - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 11:12 am:
@Word
He may have meant Cook/Chicago Metropolitan Area.
Which would be between 5 and 9 mil.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 11:14 am:
>>>>>> Todd would still object because he does not trust law enforcement in Chicago
Remember, now, bearing arms is a protected civil right.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-01-12/news/chi-chicagos-top-cop-again-calls-for-more-gun-laws-20130112_1_gun-laws-gun-violence-debate-over-gun-control
McCarthy stressed his opposition to allowing the concealed carry of handguns in Illinois, even though Illinois is the only state in the country that doesn’t permit the practice.
“Just because it’s 49 to one doesn’t mean that Illinois is wrong,” McCarthy said.
And more:
“When people say concealed carry, I say Trayvon Martin” McCarthy said
- Mason born - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 11:15 am:
Word
Thanks for the correction. 40% was more for metropolitan but that isn’t a fair number since Raouls bill applies only to chicago. I should have clarified and done the math. That being said almost a quarter of the state is still a very significant number.
- Michelle Flaherty - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 11:22 am:
Perhaps the relevant question is, “Does Alabama have a history of wrongly denying its citizens CC permits?”
Not sure about CC permits but I’m pretty sure Alabama has a pretty strong history of denying some citizens their rights.
- Jeeper - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 11:25 am:
Why do the members of the “party of the little guy” side with those who want to restrict the “little guy’s” ability to effectively defend his/her person?
Instead of all this argument, why don’;t we just makae an Order of Protection into a License to Carry a Concealed Firearm?
The judge could order the local police to train the person requesting such order as required for granting such a license and send in the forms to ISP along with the judge’s “request” to expedite the matter.
After all, this situation will not wait the maximum 180 days (if I added the times correctly) that a Chicago resident can be forced to wait…
Where would YOU make THIS person go defenseless?
- walkinfool - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 11:29 am:
I didn’t initially support it, but must admit the Phelps bill is much more a compromise between the parties at this point.
If we are going to expect parties to swallow a truly tough pill and compromise on pensions (Nekritz/Cross/Madigan), then we should give Phelps similar treatment.
Purity sells in campaigns, but is the enemy of governmental action.
- Amalia - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 11:31 am:
keep it up people. double standard. Alabama gets the law and Illinois doesn’t? double standard.
- Cincinnatus - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 11:33 am:
The Phelps bill reminds me of the Fracking bill where the parties came together and formed a consensus. In both cases, many lauded their efforts here on CapFax. Heck, there was even an iteration to the Fracking bill that got taken care of with little stress. Not in this case, huh…
- Jeeper - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 11:35 am:
–keep it up people. double standard. [Arizona or Florida] gets the law and Illinois doesn’t? double standard. –
I Like mine better…
- 47th Ward - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 11:40 am:
===Remember, now, bearing arms is a protected civil right.===
But no court has ever ruled that it’s an unlimited right. In fact, quite the opposite, as evidenced by the various and varying differences in state CCW laws detailed above. There are a lots of restrictions and requirements impacting your “protected civil right,” just as there will be when Illinois passes a bill.
- Mason born - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 11:40 am:
–keep it up people. double standard. Alabama gets the law and Illinois doesn’t? double standard. –
Where were you before the 7th’s decision wasn’t that a double standard?
- Tequila Mockingbird - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 11:40 am:
The phelps bill is actually a pretty good bill and a lot of compromise went into it. They should just go back to it and accept it as it was presented. Throwing all this Chicago nonsense into it ain’t making it better, it’s just playing games. There are some good people living in some bad neighborhoods in Chicago that deserve this at least as much as some of us living in the more rural areas.
- titan - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 11:45 am:
@ Amalia - are you a suporter of repealing the preclearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act. They treat some states differently than others…double standard?
No. An improper “double standard” is when similarly situated entities are treated differently. Alabama and Florida have no (recent) history of abusing their citizens gun rights, nor any explicitly stated hostility toward them. Illinois is very different in that regard.
- Mason born - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 11:48 am:
47th
And that is why we are having the debate now. To iron out what restrictions are acceptable to all the partied in the state. Something has to pass or else the limits will be local ordinances only.
The problem is IMHO is that the Anti gun legislators waited too long. Had they 3 or 4 yrs ago proposed something like CA may issue bill they most likely would have gotten what they want. Problem is now a majority of the state, or at least their representatives, feels the restrictions in a May-issue bill are too much. This is another example of Timing making all the difference.
- wordslinger - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 11:49 am:
–Remember, now, bearing arms is a protected civil right.–
I guess the Supreme Court forgot. They just let stand the New York law that bars virtually every adult in a city of 8.2 million from bearing arms.
–The Phelps bill reminds me of the Fracking bill where the parties came together and formed a consensus.–
Who’s the Sierra Club in your analogy?
- 47th Ward - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 11:52 am:
Agreed Mason Born. I just wanted to push back on the oft-repeated fantasy that the 2nd Amendment is the Word of God and an absolute right that cannot be restricted whatsoever.
I see evidence of that attitude too much in this debate. There will be reasonable restrictions in whatever bill passes. I expect both sides will be unhappy with the end result.
- Jeeper - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 12:00 pm:
–I just wanted to push back on the oft-repeated fantasy that the 2nd Amendment is the Word of God and an absolute right that cannot be restricted whatsoever.–
I don’t think I’ve ever encountered THAT fantasy.
- Slick Willy - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 12:13 pm:
***Not sure about CC permits but I’m pretty sure Alabama has a pretty strong history of denying some citizens their rights.***
And your point is….???
- Shore - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 12:15 pm:
Great graphic. I’m stunned by alabama. What the heck happened there?
- titan - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 12:19 pm:
@ Jeeper - it is, however, a God given right that can not be entirely restricted
- Ken_in_Aurora - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 12:20 pm:
“put the Alabama law up in Illinois and Todd would still object because he does not trust law enforcement in Chicago and Oak Park. incredible.”
This is satire, right?
- Ken_in_Aurora - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 12:21 pm:
“guess the Supreme Court forgot. They just let stand the New York law that bars virtually every adult in a city of 8.2 million from bearing arms.”
Denying cert ain’t the same as letting something stand. They simply chose not to hear this case.
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 12:21 pm:
===a God given right===
What would Jesus shoot?
- Ken_in_Aurora - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 12:22 pm:
“What would Jesus shoot?”
Probably a 1911.
- Jeeper - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 12:24 pm:
–What would Jesus shoot?–
WWJS - probably dinner.
I think he did tell his disciples to travel in pairs and take a sword, though. As I could never be mistaken for a “Bible Scholar,” I could be wrong…
- KingWalleye - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 12:28 pm:
Indiana ccw process.
Go to your county Sheriffs office.
Show your state I.d.
Fill out a form.
The Sheriff runs a background check on the spot.
If approved you pay $125.00 and you now have a lifetime permit to carry concealed or openly.
And yet their are no “Wild West” shootouts or “blood running in the streets” of Indianapolis.
And don’t forget the four states shown in the charts that don’t require any permits.
But we all know that the Chicago/Illinois way is superior to everybody else’s way of governing.
- Jeeper - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 12:36 pm:
–“What would Jesus shoot?”
Probably a 1911. –
Yuh.. He would perform a miracle to make it 100% reliable…
- Mason born - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 12:59 pm:
Jeeper
U must of had a bad 1911. Mine are all like sewing machines.
- Wensicia - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 1:13 pm:
“What would Jesus shoot?”
Everybody knows the good guy with a gun can stop the bad guy with a gun.
- Anyone Remember? - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 1:17 pm:
Don’t think Phelps’ bill is a compromise. He was on the radio in Springfield yesterday saying no CCW on public transit was a compromise, and they’d be back after it in the future. His unstated goal, based on that interview, seems to be non-felon non-mentally ill universal carry everywhere.
Anyone notice than other than CA and AL all the “may” states are contiguous Mid Atlantic / Northeastern states with population densities similar to Chicago?
- Jeeper - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 1:17 pm:
Mason-
I am, in fact, a fan of the 1911a1 & its progeny. I was just having a bit of fun…
Still, have you NEVER had a misfeed? a stovepipe? a misfire? Huh??
Wensicia - BUT would Jesus NEED a gun? I doubt it…
- Demoralized - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 1:18 pm:
==God given right ==
Really? That’s just silly. It’s a right in the Constitution. God has nothing to do with it. Besides, I missed that little tidbit in the Bible. Thou shalt have guns.
- Jeeper - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 1:25 pm:
Demoralized-
The “God given right” is self defense… of which we in Illinois are currently denied effective means.
- Demoralized - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 1:28 pm:
@Jeeper:
I call bull on both of those comments. God has nothing to do with it. Maybe in your personal life but it’s completely irrelevant to our laws. The minute somebody says “God given right” is the minute I tune them out.
- Mason born - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 1:29 pm:
Demoralized
I think the God-given language is a hold over for what should probably be better worded as preexisting right. Such as the 1st was recognizing the right of free exercise of religion, press, etc. As the 2nd recognized the preexisting right of armed self defense. You could also call it Natural right. It is an expression that always leads things of track.
- Mason born - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 1:31 pm:
Anyone
Phelps bill is a compromise it is the most restrictive Shall-Issue proposed anywhere. As for Phelps wanting to come back and revisit later do you really think that the Anti-gun crowd isn’t going to try and come back and make changes. What is interesting to me is that in most states the trend is to revise the legislation towards more leniency.
- Demoralized - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 1:31 pm:
@Mason:
I don’t believe in “natural rights” either. What I believe in is our Constitution. I don’t need to go any further than that when it comes to laws.
- Wensicia - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 1:33 pm:
I doubt Jesus would ever use a gun, even in self-defense.
- Mason born - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 1:37 pm:
Demo
I agree that for all practical purposes the Constitution is the Final arbitrator in our nation as to what is and isn’t a right.
However i will say that Natural rights, to me, are basically your Civil Rights. Rights you have or should have by nature of being a human being.
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 1:40 pm:
===The “God given right” is self defense===
“But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
- Mason born - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 1:43 pm:
Rich
Aren’t we getting a bit far afield?
That being said if these were my options i wouldn’t need to carry either.
“53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?” (NIV)
- Jeeper - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 1:47 pm:
I am still NOT a Bible Scholar but adding the verse BEFORE the one you quoted adds context indicating Jesus was enjoining against revenge rather than saying one should never “resist evil” in a larger sense:
5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Again, the “God given” or “natural” right is self defense.
- Anonymous - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 1:48 pm:
@ Rich “What would Jesus shoot”
Duh…a Colt Peacemaker
- wordslinger - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 1:48 pm:
JB, you think that Jim Crow spin is a winner? Based on what?
I don’t see any groups of clergymen holding press conferences or community marches for a conceal-carry law.
I’m guessing the Black Caucus is more representative of their constituents’ views than you are.
The “God’s favorite gun” dialogue is revealing.
- How Ironic - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 1:48 pm:
Anon @ 1:48. That was me.
- G. Willickers - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 1:51 pm:
@ John -
Those bearing arms, according to the Constitution, are supposed to be in a well-regulated militia.
Why are you scoffing at the proposed “well-regulated” part of Sen. Raoul’s bill?
Maybe if the NRA supported the entire Second Amendment, not just the part that helps drive up gun-makers’ profits, our country wouldn’t have an exponentially higher rate of gun deaths than every other civilized country.
–
@ Rich -
Amen.
- Jeeper - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 1:53 pm:
–I don’t believe in “natural rights” either. What I believe in is our Constitution. –
If you read the writings of the founders, you will see both phrases “God given” and “natural” referring to rights.
Mason-Born is correct: the founders asserted that our rights predated the Constitution and are independent of it. The Constitution RECOGNIZES rights, it does NOT CONFER rights.
- RetiredArmyMP - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 1:53 pm:
=“But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”=
“But I saith unto you, he that hath no sword, let him sell his cloak to buy one.”
- G. Willickers - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:01 pm:
@ KingWalleye - “And don’t forget the four states shown in the charts that don’t require any permits.”
Wyoming, Vermont and Alaska are smaller, population wise, than some Illinois counties. Their biggest cities are dwarfed by some of Chicago’s suburbs.
And Arizona…
Arizona is where it’s so easy to get a gun and bring it into a grocery store that it’s where the Giffords assassination attempt happened.
If the gun laws there weren’t so lax would Lochner have been able to arm himself to the teeth and kill several generations of innocents?
Keep in mind the people at that grocery store who were also packing heat almost shot the wrong people in the mayhem. And it wasn’t til he had to reload that Lochner was brought down.
- 47th Ward - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:03 pm:
===it does NOT CONFER rights===
Trial by jury is a God-given right?
- Mason born - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:04 pm:
G.
You do realize that the definition of militia is all able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45.
As for the well regulated part it best describes Well Trained militia. which is precisely what the NRA does.
As for the Gun Maker profits if the NRA encourages people to exercise their right then they by extension do encourage purchases of ammo and firearms. However my Sons played in Little League were they playing to increase Louisville Sluggers profits?? After all i sure bought a lot of gloves, cleats, and bats.
- titan - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:11 pm:
@ G. Willickers - the “well-regulated militia” of the Constitution meant a competent fighting force comprised of all the able bodied men in the community - not a morass of legislation to prevent all the able bodied men from ever touching a gun
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:13 pm:
“Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
- Mason born - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:15 pm:
Rich
So a personal question if you don’t mind. I know you are Lutheran as am I. Does that mean you will not Carry?
- Demoralized - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:19 pm:
==The Constitution RECOGNIZES rights, it does NOT CONFER rights. ==
The terminology doesn’t matter. Whether they are recognized or conferred rights (though I belive the Constitution most certainly does confer rights) the end result is the same. When you make an argument about a right or a law the Constitution is the basis of those arguments.
==the “God given” or “natural” right is self defense. ==
That may be true but I don’t recall reading the parable about the guy with the gun. I’m not denying that you have a right to have guns but that right doesn’t come from God (at least as far as our legal system is concerned). Stick with the Constitution and leave God out of it. As @Mason said it takes away from the point.
- Mason born - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:23 pm:
Rich
Can you give us a few details of the Raoul press conference? Streaming media isn’t real practical for me right now.
- wordslinger - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:24 pm:
–If you read the writings of the founders, you will see both phrases “God given” and “natural” referring to rights.–
Which writings are those?
–The Constitution RECOGNIZES rights, it does NOT CONFER rights.–
Nonsense. The Constitution can and has been amended.
You did catch those first three words, didn’t you? “We the people.” They’re the ones who “ordained and established” the Constitution. God and natural rights are not mentioned.
- Jeeper - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:24 pm:
Demoralized: If, indeed, –terminology doesn’t matter–, just WHAT is the problem?
I think that words have meaning and, therefor, think discussion has value. If you feel that words don’t matter, why are you wasting everyone’s time reading yours?
- Cincinnatus - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:29 pm:
The Constitution LIMITS Government.
- Demoralized - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:30 pm:
@Jeeper:
Then don’t read my comments if you think they are wasting your precious time. I’m debating a point with you. If I didn’t think the discussion had value I wouldn’t give you the time of day and wouldn’t waste my time. You insist that your right to a gun is “God given” or a “natural right.” I disagree with your characterization. I didn’t say terminology didn’t matter in general. I said that the terminology in the case of your take on the Constitution didn’t matter for the sake of this argument. Whether you believe that the Constitution recognizes rights or confers rights the rights are still the same and they still come from the Constitution. I’ll bow down to your thoughts next time and not “waste” your time with an opposing viewpoint.
- Mason born - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:30 pm:
Jeeper
This is the problem with the phrase God-given. Had you said that a right to Armed Self Defense existed in the Colonies prior to the Constitution instead of saying God-given to mean the same thing we wouldn’t be arguing about two words. With the way things are today those two words even when used “correctly” give the appearance of some sort of Zealot.
Demo and Word
I don’t think Jeeper was saying God told Madison to write the 2nd amendment.
- Demoralized - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:31 pm:
==The Constitution LIMITS Government. ==
Yes, by GIVING you rights.
- Demoralized - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:33 pm:
==I don’t think Jeeper was saying God told Madison to write the 2nd amendment. ==
I didn’t think he did, but even if he did it still doesn’t matter in terms of my point about the Constitution. It’s the Constitution that matters.
- Quinn T. Sential - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:34 pm:
Wow; a little quick on the trigger with the delete button today? I am not sure what was inappropriate, rabid, or gratuitous in that one. I think its a legitimate question, although perhaps there’s a better way it could have been asked.
Either way; CCW appears to be a mis-fire for today. Hopefully no Senators will have to bond out in order to be able to come back and vote on it next week.
- RetiredArmyMP - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:35 pm:
The argument that only a “well regulated militia” may possess firearms for militia service is specious and irrelevant. In the Heller decision, the Supreme Court recognized the right to possess arms irrespective of membership in a militia. At the time the Bill of Rights was written, “well regulated” meant well trained and disciplined, not controlled. Also, the militia was defined to be all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and they were expected and required to provide their own arms and accouterments when reporting for militia service. Arms were not kept in a central repository to be issued when needed.
- Just The Way It Is One - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:39 pm:
Good move–would have been probably just too hard to prove someone HAS it, or, worse yet, defend a determination that someone DOESn’t (plus latter findings would have invited a ton of UNNEEDED lawsuits against the State).In short, that provision was just too ARBITRARY…!
- Mason born - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:41 pm:
Demo
I have acknowledged that. In 2013 whether or not the founding fathers were enshrining pre-existing rights or granting rights is basically moot. It is an interesting discussion to have, preferably over a few Wee Heavies, but what ever your view the Constitution is the source and what both sides have to deal with.
It is actually a pet peeve of mine when the WWJD stuff comes up in this regard. Which is why i stopped using that phrase. There are many things that are lawful in our society that the good Lord would not do however that doesn’t make them illegal.
- Demoralized - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:47 pm:
==It is actually a pet peeve of mine when the WWJD stuff comes up in this regard.==
I guess I just don’t understand the necessity of it. What’s written down is written down. I always thought that the 2nd Amendment was a pretty sound argument on this topic. And I agree with you - it’s an extreme pet peeve of mine when God is brought into a discussion about laws.
- Demoralized - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:52 pm:
@Jeeper:
Let me say this. We both believe that owning a gun and defending yourself are rights. We only disagree on what the basis for those rights are.
- Ken_in_Aurora - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:52 pm:
“Yes, by GIVING you rights.”
No, by RECOGNIZING your rights.
- Demoralized - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:54 pm:
==No, by RECOGNIZING your rights. ==
This feels like a Monty Python sketch to me.
- Mason born - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:56 pm:
–This feels like a Monty Python sketch to me. –
No disagreement here.
- Cincinnatus - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:57 pm:
Show me one thing in the Constitution that GRANTS a right. Everything in it is a limitation of State power. The rights are already there, the Constitution protects them.
- G. Willickers - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:57 pm:
@Mason - “You do realize that the definition of militia is all able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45.
As for the well regulated part it best describes Well Trained militia. which is precisely what the NRA does.”
@titan - “the “well-regulated militia” of the Constitution meant a competent fighting force comprised of all the able bodied men in the community - not a morass of legislation to prevent all the able bodied men from ever touching a gun”
A. Are you saying only men between 18 and 45 should be allowed to bear arms? After all, that’s the definition you provided for what’s in the Constitution.
B. Or are you saying people who bear arms should serve in the militia? The National Guard will do, or perhaps you prefer the Reserves.
No matter how much you may wish it to be so, the NRA doesn’t pass the sniff test as a “well-regulated militia”.
–
@RetiredArmyMP - Arms were not kept in an Armory because most of the 13 states disliked the concept of a standing Army and a strong central government as much as they disliked the Crown.
…So I guess you’re saying the conservative Roberts Court legislated from the bench by picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution they wanted to redefine and/or ignore.
–
I love how “strict constructionists” suddenly drop their “strict constructionist” leanings when it suits them.
- the wonderboy - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:58 pm:
The incredibly absurd opinions regarding the Founding Fathers, the origins of our Constitution, and the rights we enjoy in this country make me want to scream. Seriously…some here need to read a little background info. Start with John Locke or the Federalist Papers.
The biggest challenge I find in this debate is that too many think they are entitled to their own facts. It’s fine to have ideology and beliefs on what our laws SHOULD be, but you don’t get to rewrite history to support your beliefs.
I am truly amazed by the lack of compromise on this issue. I only wish that those screaming for shall issue and no compromise would treat rights like voting in the same way.
- Demoralized - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 2:59 pm:
A little light refreshment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gwXJsWHupg
- G. Willickers - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 3:01 pm:
PS @titan — Even pre-McDonald, Chicago residents were able to legally possess guns in their homes to defend themselves and their property.
No local ordinance or state legislation in Illinois, past or present, has prevented “all the able bodied men from ever touching a gun.”
- Demoralized - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 3:02 pm:
==The rights are already there, the Constitution protects them.==
And the sketch continues . . . and without the Constitution the rights aren’t protected. This is like one of those stupid circular reference errors you get in Excel.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 3:06 pm:
I try to stay out of the way during the CC issue and the Pension specifics, but Rich Miller quoting Scripture is well done!
I learn a great deal just watching and reading, and today was no different.
Great stuff.
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 3:08 pm:
===This is like one of those stupid circular reference errors you get in Excel. ===
LOL
Yes, it’s time to move along, please. You constitutional scholars can take a rest now.
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 3:11 pm:
===I know you are Lutheran as am I. Does that mean you will not Carry? ===
LOL
I’m carrying if I can get a permit. I’m just not crazy enough to claim that Jesus and his Father actually want me to own a gun.
- wordslinger - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 3:20 pm:
–At the time the Bill of Rights was written, “well regulated” meant well trained and disciplined, not controlled.–
How is something disciplined but not controlled?
Yeah, the Scalia decision removed the well-regulated militia from the 2nd Amendment, where it had been for over 200 years. What an originalist.
- RetiredArmyMP - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 3:28 pm:
==No, by RECOGNIZING your rights. ==
=This feels like a Monty Python sketch to me.=
Maybe so, but the important distinction is that he who grants you rights can take them away. He who is required to receognize your preexisting natural rights cannot take them away.
- wordslinger - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 3:28 pm:
–Show me one thing in the Constitution that GRANTS a right. –
Are you kidding?
The right to due process and against self-incrimination.
The right to a trial by jury, a fair and speedy trial, to face your accuser and obtain counsel.
Abolition of slavery I(the right to keep slaves had been well-protected).
Citizenship rights for people of color (Justice Taney said they had none, even freemen).
The right to vote for people of color, women and those 18 years old.
All of these rights are subject to amendment via procedures established within the Constitution.
- RetiredArmyMP - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 3:39 pm:
=Yeah, the Scalia decision removed the well-regulated militia from the 2nd Amendment, where it had been for over 200 years. What an originalist=
The court did not remove “well-regulated militia’ from the 2nd Amendment. It is still there. The court merely defined what it means - an interpretation with which you obviously do not agree. Too bad. Also, if memory serves me correctly, during the 200 years “popular opinion” decided arms were only to be possesed by a militia, there were only 2 Supreme court cases which dealt with the issue. Popular opinon, at one time, also decreed that the earth was the center of the universe which the sun revolved around, and anyone who disagreed was burned at the stake as a heretic.
- Mason born - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 3:44 pm:
Word
As i read Blackstones comments on English common Law at the time (1765) outlined a very personal right to all englishmen. Since Madison and his contemporaries where very familiar with this we can assume some bearing. Add that to the second part of the Amendment which grants the right to keep and bear not to the states or the “militia” but to the people.
However i am sure we will continue to disagree.
- wordslinger - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 3:46 pm:
LOL, RAMP, I’m not quite following the connection between the Heller decision and heliocentrism, but I’m sure I’ll find it if I keep looking. Maybe later.
- Small Town Liberal - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 3:46 pm:
- Show me one thing in the Constitution that GRANTS a right. –
You ever hear of the 16th amendment? It grants a pretty big right to Congress, and I don’t think it can be considered limiting government.
- RetiredArmyMP - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 3:47 pm:
=How is something disciplined but not controlled?=
Discipline comes from within, control is externally imposed.
- Mason born - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 3:53 pm:
Okay just heard the first part of Raoul’s press conference. If he is really trying to reach a compromise it might help if he didn’t call everyone who objected to his initial proposal an Extremist. Of Course Vandermyde and Phelps need to remember that too.
- Mason born - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 3:54 pm:
Also before someone sees the need to digress. ISRA really really needs to learn the above lesson.
- Amalia - Friday, May 17, 13 @ 3:55 pm:
we have no better source than the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions to keep us off the edge of “they are trying to take away my constitutional rights.” we cannot take that argument seriously anymore since we all have the right to a gun. always have. always will. but the Supremes also said that regulation can exist about how we can have that gun, guns. so every time you ride that high horse about your rights, remember, regulation is not an enemy according to those conservative justices who decided.
- RetiredArmyMP - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:31 am:
=LOL, RAMP, I’m not quite following the connection between the Heller decision and heliocentrism, but I’m sure I’ll find it if I keep looking. Maybe later.=
The connection in that just because some people claim that, for more than 200 years the constitution and majority (popular)opinion limited possession of arms to a militia, does not men it was correct. The trouble with claiming that majority or popular opinion makes right is that a majority (50.0009%) can severly curtail or ingnor the rights of the rest.