Whiners gonna whine
Wednesday, Jan 11, 2023 - Posted by Rich Miller
* WTTW…
Groups like the Illinois State Rifle Association plan to immediately file a lawsuit, seeking to strike the law and to prevent it from ever taking effect.
State Rep. Blaine Wilhour, R-Effingham, said they’ve got the U.S. Constitution on their side.
“A lot of you guys over there despise our founders and you casually cast aside the principles that this country was founded on. But our founding fathers, they knew what they were doing. See they had experienced the tyranny of the majority, and they vowed that that was never going to happen in our country,” Wilhour said.
Um, the Bill of Rights was an after-thought. And they were suffering under the tyranny of a monarch’s whims, which is hardly the majority.
* Illinois Freedom Caucus…
The Illinois Freedom Caucus today is issuing the following statement on the passage and upcoming signing of HB 5471, which bans numerous types of firearms, limits the rounds in magazines and requires registry of grandfathered firearms.
“The stated purpose of this bill is to ‘end gun violence’ in Illinois but the proponents of this legislation offer no evidence as to how infringing on the rights of honest citizens will accomplish their goal. The proponents were asked numerous times to provide that evidence, and none was given.
This legislation is an unconstitutional bill on its face. It is lazy and irresponsible at best and a violation of our oath of office at worst. As legislators we take an oath to ‘support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Illinois’ but the legislators who voted for this bill are actively undermining and usurping our Constitution all to make a political statement.
The bill fails to address the problem of violence at its root cause, and it is a clear violation of our Constitutional rights. House Bill 5471 will not stand up to Constitutional scrutiny and the sponsors of the bill know it. The sponsors provided no legal argument for how this bill would hold up in court, begging the question why pass it in the first place? The answer is simple. This is not about any pretense of public safety. It is a direct attack on anyone who dares to have a different point of view than the extreme leftists who make up the majority party. It is in the end nothing more than a political statement. If the goal was to protect innocent people, we would be passing a bill to deal with individuals rather than passing blatantly unconstitutional legislation.”
The Illinois Freedom Caucus is comprised of State Representatives Adam Niemerg (R-Dieterich); Chris Miller (R-Oakland); Brad Halbrook (R-Shelbyville); Blaine Wilhour (R-Beecher City) and Dan Caulkins (R-Decatur). The members of the Illinois Freedom Caucus are members of the Illinois General Assembly who are advocating for limited government, lower taxes and accountability and integrity in government.
Maybe let the courts decide before making such bold predictions. Eight other states have a version of this on their books. Illinois’ new law is partly based on Connecticut’s law, which has been on the books since 2013.
And it’s pretty rich for these folks to be calling others “lazy.” They do almost nothing but whine all day. Not a hard worker in that bunch when it comes to their actual legislative jobs. I mean, Rep. Halbrook didn’t get endorsed by the Illinois Farm Bureau last year. How does that even happen?
* Rep. Niemerg…
The Illinois House has given final approval to the most expansive gun control legislation in the history of the state, but State Representative Adam Niemerg (R-Dietrich) says in the end the law will accomplish nothing because it is a clear violation of the Constitution.
“This bill passed with thunderous applause from far-left legislators but in the end very little has been accomplished today,” Niemerg said. “The bill is a clear violation of the Constitution and will not hold up in court. If the intention is to cost honest citizens time and money in defending their Constitutional rights, then mission accomplished. If the intention is to prevent violence, then what exactly has been accomplished here? We were told there was an emergency, and we could not wait to pass this legislation. Instead of passing a bill that preserved our Constitutional rights and addressed violence in our culture at its root cause, the advocates of this bill chose to enact a bill that will not stand up in court. The backers of this bill have a lot of explaining to do. They have violated their oath of office by passing a bill that is clearly unconstitutional and they have done nothing to prevent future violent attacks. All they have accomplished is wasting time and wasting money.”
House Bill 5471 as amended restricts the purchase and manufacturing of many different types of federally legal firearms, limits magazine capacity to 12 rounds and requires signed affidavits for grandfathered in firearms.
“As I said before, criminals won’t fill out an affidavit for their guns,” Niemerg said. “This legislation is not about protecting people. It is about making a political statement. I am committed to working in bipartisan way to take meaningful action to address the problem of violence in our culture at its root cause, but I will not violate the Constitutional rights of honest citizens. If the advocates behind this legislation really cared about solving the problem, we would be focused on solutions that work instead of passing legislation that will not stand up to Constitutional muster.”
House Bill 5471 now moves to the Governor’s desk where it is expected he will sign it.
Solutions that “work” include getting at the root causes of violence, interrupting violence, expanding mental health care and even doing things like putting more social workers in schools. When was the last time one of these Freedom Caucus members voted for any of that?
* Look, I don’t know for sure that the bill is constitutional or that it’ll have its intended effect. What I do know with absolute certainty, however, is that the people screaming the loudest right now are the same people who are never around when their help is needed to go at this issue from different directions.
Look no further than the commenters who rush over from Facebook whenever a gun bill is proposed. They don’t engage with anything else. I mean, say whatever else you want about the commenter known as Lucky Pierre, but at least that person has interests beyond a single topic.
- Annonin' - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:30 am:
Could some read 2A to the IlFC. Ask them if they have joined the IL National Guard this week. They might have “forgot” about maintaining the militia to secure state safety is the only gun owners not being infringed. Shucks. It sucks to be a non reader.
- Big Dipper - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:31 am:
Funny how when people agree with them we should listen to what the people want, but when people disagree with them it’s the tyranny of the majority.
- After thought Bill O. Right - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:34 am:
I have followed this blog for 20 years. Never thought I would see the Bill of Rights described as an after thought….and that statement would be an argument for or against something…get some rest Rich.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:37 am:
=== the Bill of Rights described as an after thought===
Click the link. They were drafted only after an uproar in the states. I mean, I learned that in the 5th or 6th Grade.
- New Day - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:37 am:
They love the founders except for these eleven words that defines their favorite amendment…
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,…”
- Steve Rogers - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:38 am:
“See they had experienced the tyranny of the majority”
Umm, what? Isn’t our style of government entirely based on majority rule? Republicans won the U.S. House, they get to make the rules. I may not like some of those rules, but them’s the rules.
The lack of historical knowledge among this group is genuinely scary.
- Steve - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:38 am:
It’s been a while since my US History course, but I could swear it was the tyranny of a king that they were working against and it was a majority rule that they preferred
- New Day - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:38 am:
“They were drafted only after an uproar in the states.”
Sadly, knowledge of history is not a prerequisite to being a loud advocate.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:39 am:
===Um, the Bill of Rights was an after-thought.===
The constitution was so “perfect” it immediately needed amending. I mean… just stop.
I can go on and on (no one wants that) about Rich’s own commentary to this post, but there are times where the words you read need NO other words by anyone else.
That’s the thing. The context of first understanding where so many “pro” folks fail, but also there’s a reality that should exist… let the courts decide…
… but the smugness to an unknown reality of the ruling, paired with a whining the bill/law exists… that’s a bunch of phony angst unwilling to find solutions and a want of the zealot absolutes.
They ran the bill, they passed it, it’s signed… let’s recognize who landed where, and who was no help in finding a workable chance for safety.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:39 am:
===and it was a majority rule that they preferred===
Yep. Which is why most individual rights didn’t make it into the main document.
- Big Dipper - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:40 am:
Many of the founding fathers were fine with slavery, so they didn’t always have the best moral compass or judgement.
- Curious citizen - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:40 am:
The “Illinois Freedom Caucus” has five members? FIVE? One trembles in the face of such numbers.
Also, Justice Scalia ruled some years back that the “well regulated militia” part of the 2A could be ignored.
- Jerry - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:40 am:
The Founders ran around with single shot muskets. Not AK 47s.
- Publius - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:42 am:
I don’t understand your argument. Are you suggesting the bill of rights are somehow weaker or worthy of less consideration because they were an afterthought? Sort of analogous to a trailer bill in my mind. I know of no judge that will consider a trailer bill to the safety act lesser than the bill that was first passed.
Why is the “afterthought” comment worthy of mention at all?
- Amalia - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:43 am:
don’tcha love how much they say they care about the root causes of violence? do they really want a deep dive on how they voted for social programs?
- Annonin' - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:44 am:
We thought Capt. Fax was spot on. Good job. ‘Splain to the 2Aers that “amendments” means it got added later. This remedial education stuff can be grueling.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:44 am:
===Are you suggesting the bill of rights are somehow weaker===
Not at all and I don’t know how you would get that from what I wrote. The “founding fathers” didn’t include many individual protections from government in the constitution. They had to be pushed to do so. It’s not that difficult to understand.
- Sir Reel - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:46 am:
You nailed it Rich. This group will never support addressing the “root cause” of gun violence. They trot out this argument every time with no intention of doing anything.
I agree that this isn’t the end-all solution to all gun violence. Given the number of guns out there no one solution will work. But it’s a start in reducing the number of people killed and wounded in mass shootings.
- Blue Bayou - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:47 am:
It’s clear a number of people want the Constitution to be just like the Bible, and they’re lousy at reading and following both of them.
- Donnie Elgin - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:49 am:
Afterthought
Hardly, need to do more research perhaps beyond the 5th-grade level. The Bill of Rights was an essential and inevitable step in getting a compromise to pass the Constitution. The Library of Congress and my History professors would agree.
“Amending the federal Constitution to include a bill of rights was the essential political compromise in the creation of the United States government. Even though Federalists believed that individual rights were fully protected by state and common law, they knew that Anti-Federalists would never embrace the new Constitution until amendments protecting specific rights were adopted.
Therefore, in 1789 Congress passed proposed amendments to the Constitution as one of its first orders of business. Viewed as unnecessary by many and a mere diversion by others, the first ten amendments, which are known as the “Bill of Rights,” became the bedrock of individual rights and liberties.
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/creating-the-bill-of-rights.html
- Honeybear - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:49 am:
I’m so thankful for this bill. Getting these dangerous weapons out of the hands of some of these folks is such a good idea.
I’ve never understood the psychological need to have a firearm. Being a non combatant in the Navy (Chaplain) reinforced my belief that they aren’t needed. I can understand hunters and sportsman but the need to have an assault weapon as a civilian is just beyond me. Maybe it’s because as a Navy officer I’ve seen what these weapons can do. Strike that. As a hospital chaplain is where I saw what guns can do. I was on duty at Northwestern Memorial downtown and did a “late viewing” ( the viewing of a body by a family member) with a young man who had half his face blown off. I had to turn his head to the side and cradle the damaged side in sheets to obscure…so his mom could see him for the last time.
When you witness the intensity of grief from a mother who has lost their son to gun violence
It changes your perception of guns.
This kid was just standing at a corner
Waiting to cross
But was right next to the intended target.
He was an innocent bystander.
I say the more guns we can reduce the better.
- Not a fan - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:53 am:
It is likely to end up being a waste of time and money and that the law won’t change much if anything. CT has had the same laws over the last decade and the results speak for themselves. This bill was modeled over CT’s bill from 2013. Demographics are statistically not in favor of Illinois either. https://everystat.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Gun-Violence-in-Connecticut.pdf
- Bruce( no not him) - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:53 am:
I believe it’s been said here repeatedly, “Elections have consequences.”
The Governor and the legislature have spoken.
Now it’s up to the courts to hassle this out and make the final decisions.
There is not a thing I can do to affect that outcome. So I will just wait for the various courts decisions. (Whether I agree with the decisions or not)
- TheInvisibleMan - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:54 am:
–And it’s pretty rich for these folks to be calling others “lazy.”–
Just another cab on the Freedom Caucus projection train.
I’m mostly surprised he didn’t complain about how many pages long it was in the very next sentence. Or that is was rushed through in the dark of night. But confidently stating something is unconstitutional, before any case has been filed much less adjudicated is probably going to be their go-to pablum phrase in this instance.
– rush over from Facebook –
Is that where they are coming from? I would have guessed a lower tier social media site.
- Brevity - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:57 am:
Somebody needs to get the freedom caucus an editor. It’s truly amazing how they can use so many words, yet say so little of value.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:58 am:
===Demographics are statistically not in favor of Illinois either===
What does that even mean, lol
What is true is now Dems have voted on the record where every returning GOP member voted against an assault weapon ban, Durkin leaves his chamber voting his conscience.
Republicans are dangerous to women’s health, and the safety and welfare of Illinoisans as well.
Roll calls are the measure
- Teacher Lady - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:59 am:
==The bill fails to address the problem of violence at its root cause==
So, let’s see your bill that does address the problem of violence at its root cause. So far, we’ve seen nothing from the so-called Freedom Caucus that even hints that they are the least bit concerned about the problem of gun violence, other than to use the issue to bash the other side. Personal opinion? they don’t really want to solve this problem because then it’s not a cudgel for them to use in campaigns.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:02 am:
Going to just re-post this comment from yesterday. Maybe slightly edited.
Everybody needs to take a deep breath, sit back, and see how this goes.
Whether or not this is constitutional is going to be a couple of years or more playing out. From a practical matter, no firearms owner will be in violation of this law until a year from now. Even then, you won’t officially be in violation until you are cited / charged for said violation. Then, and only then, will someone have actual standing to file suit.
And, given how previous challenges have gone, a case may not be brought even then if the person cited is not a poster child example with a completely clean criminal record. I expect whatever case is initially brought forward will have a combination of both venue / judge shopping and victim shopping to try to get the desired initial decision(s).
So plan to bring out the popcorn for the main show about a year from now …
Adding … the main things that take effect immediately is the sales ban. That’s about the only issue I can see where someone might be able to establish standing for a suit. Anything else is likely going to be dismissed as premature.
- Langhorne - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:02 am:
Five members constitute the Illinois freedom Caucus?
“they had experienced the tyranny of the majority“
I would really like any interview with a Maga supporter, to start with the question whether they support majority rule, or not.
You don’t build or achieve a majority through subtraction.
Purity and subtraction are fraternal twins. Oh wait, twinship is based on addition.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:08 am:
===Hardly===
And then you just proved my point with your excerpt.
lol
- Rudy’s teeth - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:10 am:
If only the efforts to preserve life with medical interventions extended to preserve life with measures to eliminate weapons designed to inflict carnage on victims.
Whenever there is another school shooting, I revisit that day in 1999 when the Columbine shooting occurred. Have we learned nothing in the 23 years that followed that horrific event?
We were states away from that event yet the message came through the intercom at school that there was a shooting in Columbine, Colorado. My students stared at me and I looked back at them. Didn’t know what to say.
As there have been multiple school shootings since then, these events trigger memories from that day in 1999 when I had no answers or explanations for my students.
As a society, we must do better and devise a solution to end the carnage of gun violence.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:19 am:
A few observations …
It is a majority of our elected Representatives and Senators that make the laws. In Illinois, as a practical matter, that is a majority of those who took the trouble to vote in the General Election. Since typically only 40% to 60% of eligible voters actually vote, we don’t know what the missing voters think. We can ASSUME their sentiment is the same ratio as voters, but we don’t KNOW it. It would be nice if everyone voted, but they don’t.
When it comes to National opinion, while the House is more or less representative of population, the Senate is much less so.
RE CT and other state’s similar laws, no one (that I’m aware of) has recently challenged those laws. SCOTUS the past decade has been expansive of 2A rights. We don’t know where the court will land. I think this law will survive SCOTUS review, but that is just my opinion.
- CJA - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:32 am:
I would like to remind anyone who argues for the constitutionality of new AWB and LCM ban by saying other states have it (like CT since 2013) that those decisions were pre-NYSRPA v. Bruen. The Bruen case reset the level of scrutiny. Cases in other states dealing with AWB and mags have already been remanded back to the circuit courts with the instructions to re-do the case under the new legal test of strict scrutiny as outline in Bruen. To say that because the Highland Park ban or the CT ban has withstood the test of time is a little faulty on its face because they were decided under a different set of guidelines. We will see this new IL ban and those others face strict scrutiny as outlined by Bruen. It is entirely possible that even those longstanding AWBs will be found unconstitutional
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:36 am:
===To say that because the Highland Park ban or the CT ban has withstood the test of time is a little faulty on its face because they were decided under a different set of guidelines.===
That’s adorable.
You glossed over the turnover found in SCOTUS since… say 2013.
The politics of even SCOTUS (see the overturning of Roe) will continue to tank Republican hopes to be seen as thoughtful and helpful, not only to women’s health but to the feeling that the need/want to ban assault weapons is a political decision by the Clarence Thomas Court (like abortion)
Wonks that refuse to see the political angles are the same wonks that won’t recognize that polling has them on the wrong side, no matter the court ruling.
- fs - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:39 am:
To cja’s point, the Maryland ban was upheld by the 4th Circuit in 2017. It was challenged again in 2021, upheld again by the 4th Curcuit, and the Supreme Court vacated that ruling and sent it back down to the 4th Circuit under the new standard of review. Oral arguments were in December, and I would expect a decision there shortly. The new standard is also not “strict scrutiny”, it’s arguably an even higher standard than that. I would not be surprised in the least if the 4th Circuit throws out a ban they upheld a little over 5 years ago.
- Henry Francis - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:40 am:
“ A lot of you guys over there despise our founders”
I stopped reading after that intro.
Just silly, unserious missives, from people in serious positions.
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:45 am:
That’s what courts are there for, sue it out.
But this thing about not following laws and rules one doesn’t agree with, but demanding law and order of others, namely minorities, and throwing cops and jails at them—that does not work politically in Illinois.
- CJA - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:50 am:
OW —
Thank you for making my point even better. SCOTUS *has* turned around since, say, 2013. That is the court that will decide these matters here and now. We are already seeing CA have its ban remanded, Deleware as was mentioned, and now even NJ’s carry ban was stayed in part based on Bruen. Justice Sotomayor has asked NY to supply its reason for why the NY CCIA case should be allowed to proceed without SCOTUS interference in spite of the GOA’s request for emergency relief. She could have let that go, but probably knew that that request would make its way to the rest of SCOTUS eventually.
My point is that the legal landscape is not the same, regardless of how you want to frame it. Whether the decisions are popular or not, or politically advantageous to one group or not, it is the average person that has the obligation to try to understand, follow, and live by them.
And, I still haven’t figured out why you feel the need to throw “adorable” zingers at people as a form of belittlement.
- Yiddishcowboy - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:52 am:
Wow…beautifully put, Rich. (No sarcasm)
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:54 am:
===Thank you for making my point even better. SCOTUS *has* turned around since, say, 2013.===
So the politics will drive the decision more?
That’s my point.
I thought you were about the constitution, LOL
===My point is that the legal landscape is not the same, regardless of how you want to frame it===
No.
The political landscape of the courts changed.
It’s not an accident, the reference of the Clarence Thomas Court isn’t about legal thoughts but the politics to the courts.
It could very well bring more problems for ILGOP folks than if the ban is upheld
- TheInvisibleMan - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 11:59 am:
Amusingly, the US Supreme Court could also decide itself out of being able to give judicial review at all.
They’ve increased the level of scrutiny needed to such an absurd height, there is now a valid question on if the court actually has any of this judicial review power to begin with - constitutionally.
Things change over time - indeed.
- Mr. Middle Ground - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 12:00 pm:
==The bill of rights was an after thought==
No, it wasn’t. Take a history lesson rather than link to an encyclopedia that describes what the Bill of Rights is and pretend it is a citation. Most historians would explain that it was a specific attempt to demonstrate the importance of these rights outside the framework of government described by the Articles within.
Between that comment and the headlines…all around great journalism.
- thisjustinagain - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 12:15 pm:
Anti-gun whiners are gonna whine even louder after their latest attempts at civilian disarmament are resoundingly overturned by the Federal courts.
- Not a fan - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 12:19 pm:
==and throwing cops and jails at them—that does not work politically in Illinois.==
That is the chicken/egg issue here. War on drugs sat well, now we have a whole generation of kids without fathers (jailed for minor offenses) engaged in a free for all in the city (and in many cities for that matter). The new “politically correct” is compounding the problem.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 12:20 pm:
===Anti-gun whiners are gonna whine even louder after their latest attempts at civilian disarmament are resoundingly overturned by the Federal courts.===
Possibly. Probably.
Then comes election time and the Dems will remind voters that Republicans believe assault weapons shouldn’t be banned and abortions should be banned…
You’d think wanting to find a place where the 60% polled see a party as wanting a solution is a political desire… but, it’s against brand of the old, angry, white, rural base.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 12:21 pm:
=== a whole generation of kids without fathers===
* The Jeanne Ives racial dog whistle enters the chat
- Moved East - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 12:23 pm:
OW, CJA is completely correct on the legal landscape of all 2nd Amendment cases since Bruen, and this IL Assault Weapon ban faces a tough road under that new legal framework.
OW you are completely correct that politics has shaped the USSC and that new legal framework, but it does not change what the law is. You are also completely correct that should (most likely when) this assault ban is found unconstitutional by the USSC, that it will be worse for the GOP politically than had it been upheld.
So please both put down your adorable internet dukes, and be kind to each other as both have contributed to this conversation.
- Big Dipper - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 12:29 pm:
Boy a lot of mopes are triggered by the assault weapon ban.
- Mr. Middle Ground - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 12:30 pm:
==Possibly. Probably.==
==Then comes election time==
We get that you are the hyper partisan of the left on the blog. But nobody cares about that election that cares about this issue. This is about the limits of individual rights vs the collective security of the public.
Classic OW…always focused on the ballot box. A politician’s politician. Record super majorities in the chambers and every constitutional officer. Partisan maps from the courts to the state house. But enough isn’t enough. Republicans are the problem in Illinois and it is your job to tell everyone that…on every single post. Do you think gun rights advocates even care…they can’t be represented any less in Illinois. What have they got to lose?
- Norseman - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 12:32 pm:
=== and it was a majority rule that they preferred ===
Explain the Senate and electoral college? Explain why the last two GOP presidents were initially elected by the minority of voters. Be sure and know your facts before proclaiming the intention of the founders. Especially, when the founders disagreed among themselves on a whole bunch of issues.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 12:39 pm:
===always focused on the ballot box.===
I’ve said since jump street I’m always more political hack then policy wonk. To a fault too.
If you’re new to this admitted fault/thought… “welcome”, lol
===But enough isn’t enough. Republicans are the problem in Illinois and it is your job to tell everyone that…===
The GOP aren’t victims to the honesty that they fail, they are victim to voters having enough of GOPers being dangerous to women’s health and now the safety and well being of families and children too, refusing to ban assault weapons.
How that’s on me, that’s funny.
===Do you think gun rights advocates even care…they can’t be represented any less in Illinois. What have they got to lose?===
Yeah. That’s the whole point.
You don’t mind being losers to the overall as long as you have guns at any price, but winners make polices…
… and whiners gonna whine
Appreciate your example to that.
- A Jack - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 12:55 pm:
OW…. Old, white, and rural we may be, but instead of shooting each other like they do in Chicago, we watch out for one another. And the only thing we are angry about are legislation passed by a gerrymandered GA.
- Papa2008 - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 12:57 pm:
Rich outlined perfectly the solutions to reduce gun violence in his initial post. Someone please explain to me how this law addresses any of those solutions.
- ZC - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 12:59 pm:
The Bill of Rights is great, but my own particular spin on this has always been: we don’t lose particular sleep that the Third Amendment (quartering soldiers) does not get much legislative or judicial attention these days. It was important to the Framers’ generation, but it was a fairly historically-contingent concern and the Third Amendment no longer “matters” very much.
The question has always been, with its references to well-regulated state militias and the implied prohibition on a federal government to disarm them, has the Second Amendment largely gone the way of the Third - historically relevant then, but now covering a set of concerns not much relevant today - until a very well organized conservative movement managed to pull off a remarkable rereading of US history, anyways.
In other words we don’t really need to debate is the Bill of Rights cool … there’s stuff in the BoR that just didn’t escape its 18th century context well.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 1:00 pm:
===but instead of shooting each other like they do in Chicago, we watch out for one another. And the only thing we are angry about are legislation passed by a gerrymandered GA.===
The idea that any area outside She-Caw-Go is some sort of Utopia to crime or any problems seems a bit far fetched, or that a ban will threaten that is a bit more of a stretch too
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 1:03 pm:
===gerrymandered GA.===
Republicans are 0-8 in statewide races, that means gerrymandering played no role in that
- Mr. Middle Ground - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 1:06 pm:
== You don’t mind being losers to the overall as long as you have guns at any price==
I’m for this law. I have kids and want them kept safe particularly as they approach middle school. But you can keep making your assumptions as you always. I truly think a ban on magazine size (over a reasonable limit) and preventing access to certain weapons will proved far greater security.
My only objection is that the likelihood of this being overturn is a probability if not a likelihood. So then are we worse off? I’d argue yes and I’d argue that is entirely because of political “hacks”.
Anyway, I’m glad you recognize the fault of partisan blinders. We need honesty more than ever…almost as much as we need bridge builders. Which is why I called out your comment. Particularly, since 4/10 voter chose the other guy. They are our neighbors too even if they need convinced on this issue.
- A Jack - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 1:09 pm:
OW….Not really. We have had three shootings in 20 years. Very few crimes except some related to opioid addiction. I live not far from Petersburg where Abe used to live. A great majority of residents do have weapons of various types, probably some of the banned ones. I bet Bailey’s area is even safer.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 1:14 pm:
===Anyway, I’m glad you recognize the fault of partisan blinders===
I said no such thing.
I said I am more political hack than policy wonk.
Maybe if you understood the differences to those distinctions as opposed to thinking they are “partisan” your alleged “calling me out” might make some sort of sense as opposed to you patting yourself on the back to something that isn’t the case at all, lol
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 1:16 pm:
- A Jack -
20 years ago, what was the population?
What’s the population today?
- Cmon - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 1:17 pm:
Rich regardless of how you feel about Wilhour and the 2nd amendment, labeling the Bill of Rights an afterthought is completely disingenuous and intentionally diminishing and you know it. Very disappointing to see you falsely use that narrative. A simple google search will tell you it wasn’t that.
- Big Dipper - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 1:19 pm:
==we watch out for one another==
Except for all the meth labs I guess.
- Cmon - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 1:19 pm:
Here’s perhaps a better link for you than Britannica:
https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-the-bill-of-rights-2
- Club J - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 1:20 pm:
Never fear Lucky DeVore is starting to take clients over the gun law. He’s had so much luck before according to him. He has already did the kick back Facebook Live and has the revised Frivolous Lawsuit template ready to go. Just change the title and he’s off to the races.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 1:23 pm:
===is completely disingenuous and intentionally diminishing ===
LOL
From the link you posted…
Toward the end of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, George Mason, a delegate from Virginia, proposed adding a bill of rights, which would, he argued, give great quiet to the people” and “might be prepared in a few hours.”
The state delegations unanimously rejected Mason’s proposal.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 1:24 pm:
The gaslighting is really strong today.
- Mr. Middle Ground - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 1:27 pm:
==I said no such thing==
My bad. I thought that is what you trying to say. I should have learned from you to not make assumptions. I’m wrong…we’re you? lol
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 1:29 pm:
===My bad. I thought that is what you trying to say. I should have learned from you to not make assumptions. I’m wrong…we’re you? lol===
Good luck to you.
- duck duck goose - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 1:34 pm:
It’s easy to see how a legislative caucus composed of five whole members would be sensitive about the “tyranny of the majority.”
- Jerry - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 1:40 pm:
Thoughts and prayers out to gun owners.
- Todd - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 1:50 pm:
Rich is right the BOR was added after the Constitution was drafted as a way to appease the anti-federalists as there were two separate camps on how the government should operate.
But Jesus, some of you just pole vault right past stupid to full on potato. Whether you like it or not, we did not forget about the first ½ of the Second Amendment, but that seems to be the only part many of you can remember and as I have posted numerous times for those of you google challenged:
Held:
“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
Yall can wish it away all you like but that is the pronouncement of the Court and backed up by 3 more decisions. And while Oswego Willy can argue the Court changed the fact remains that the thinking on this was 2008 and then in 2010. And for 13 years the lower courts decided they mostly didn’t like that and tried their best to wish it away as Easterbrook did in Friedman with “feelings” It took 50 years for the court to flip Roe, if it takes another 25 to flip Heller, I probably won’t be here and it will be a fight for another generation to take up.
While some of you relish in the snark and drool of trying to find a double standard in back the blue to from my cold dead hands and will not comply, it is really easy to understand if you want to.
Our representative republic is built on the idea that the law matters and the rights of the minority are to be protected from the whims of the majority. And the democratic principal is built upon 4 boxes. When we didn’t agree with the DC gun ban we took it to court. And we won. We disagreed with the
Chicago gun ban and tried preemption at the legislature and failed, then went to court and we won. We have petitioned our government for things like the right to carry and when that failed we went to court, and we won. We didn’t like the Highland Park ban took it to court and lost. And all this time have worked within the system to petition both government and the courts to right the wrongs we see. And each time we have won or prevailed portions of our government have stamped their feet in a tantrum. And tried open defiance and us gun owners have continued to work through the system as we could.
So now we come to a point where we have 4 Supreme court rulings that to US appear crystal clear, while many of you on the other side continue to cling to the first part of the 2A and ignore the rest. You won one at the capitol yesterday, yea. We will do our best to go to Court and have this over turned and no amount of logic is going to move you from your emotional point of view. We get that. That why we are not arguing about it. I’m 99% confident we will win in court. And then yall can stamp your feet once again. But if the State, our elected leaders can just openly decide to flip the middle finger to 4 court rulings and flaunt the law, then many of us as gun owners feel there is no reason for us to follow it either. Its just that simple. When Roe was overturned, Illinois decided to take actions to protect a “right” many though was in danger. Today those same people look like George Wallace standing in front of a school after Brown was decided as they don’t like what the Court has done on guns. So no many of us won’t comply. And there is very little you can do about it.
- A Jack - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 1:58 pm:
OW… A link to the crime stats in Menard County. You have to scroll down a bit to see the murder rate over several years. And a listing of houses in case you want to join us old, white, exceedingly safe, but well armed folks. https://www.city-data.com/city/Petersburg-Illinois.html
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 2:06 pm:
===Yall can wish it away all you like but that is the pronouncement of the Court and backed up by 3 more decisions.===
I remember when Roe v Wade was settled law Todd. Right up until it wasn’t. Scalia’s decision was horribly constructed and will someday be overturned. May take 40 years for that, like Roe, but courts change and stare decisis is not the bedrock legal protection you think it is.
When a self-proclaimed textualist like Scalia can toss aside the text, anything is possible.
- Honey Roasted - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 2:10 pm:
“… say whatever else you want about the commenter known as Lucky Pierre, but at least that person has interests beyond a single topic.”
Based on the rather crass definition of Lucky Pierre in the Urban Dictionary, I’d say you are correct.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 2:12 pm:
- Todd -
My friend. No snark as you know. My friend.
=== And while Oswego Willy can argue the Court changed the fact remains that the thinking on this was 2008 and then in 2010. And for 13 years the lower courts decided they mostly didn’t like that and tried their best to wish it away as Easterbrook did in Friedman with “feelings”===
My position and thoughts, from a political hack end is as it’s been through this legislation..,
Maximize the ability to have a ban that works, and is constitutional to that end.
I support the 2A. I am also to an admitted fault one that looks at things more often through the lens of “political hack” and looking at the reality of the current SCOTUS court and their decision(s), and how that plays to a political angle, that’s really the only play going forward for both Dems and the GOP as this bill/law goes through the legal channels of the courts (inevitably)
In the meantime, if the GOP is fine losing on the politics to this, then there’s no real issue, but where there’s some concerning thought is this idea to “we have the law and the constitution so cares”
Enter the whining.
This issue isn’t a wholly winnable issue, politics included, so whining about losing seats or elections or not being “understood” as some then feel this need, needlessly, to talk about the American Revolution, the simplicity here is that a want to be in full compliance with the constitution and find a way that showing legislatively there’s a want to a solution is a win to more than exist now, and it could include the actual politics too.
At any given point in this process, to this bill, to where things stand now, the fear of the 2A should’ve been more generated towards empathy in a legislative tenor.
The social experiment (real or otherwise) that was Rich having a post of Morgan on the floor and his speech, the reality is to find equity in all we need to find understanding in all too, not the wonky blindness that excludes.
Now we wait, in practicality.
It’s passed, signed, now we wait.
The politics to it baked in. Can’t whine about missed opportunities and boast about (likely) wins here.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 2:20 pm:
=== And a listing of houses in case you want to join us old, white, exceedingly safe, but well armed folks.===
I dunno if comparing yourself to maybe 1960’s Alabama or Georgia, touting your homogenous race aspect as a reason for things is a winning argument, even if you don’t realize exactly what you think you are saying… but….
Also, if Menard County has 12,000+ residents, as a county, I believe that’s 40… 4-0… per square mile.
That’s not reflective of not only She-Caw-Go, but it’s not reflective of any collar county either.
Since 1980, you’ve added ~500 folks.
That’s interesting too
- Todd - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 2:38 pm:
47 — you’re right and thats part of my point if it takes 40 years thats for the next generation to fight. In the meantime we’ll take all the wins we can rack up, just like the Roe folks did during their run.
OW– Yea I don’t see the point about whining about whatever it was. the biggest problem was an ineffective republican apparatus. Durkin should have been canned years ago. His greatest achievement was the destruction of the house republicans I see that as his legacy.
For all the whining and made up boogey man about NRA and their money look at how much they actually spent in Illinois. with bloomberg and others on one side it has been a lopsided game where one side had the money to rebrand gun control to gun safety. They out marketed the other side, no ifs and or buts about it to the point that over 20 years its sunk in and yes it is baked into the politics. rather than complain about it, republicans should work harder to explain the crime angle. but they have always been to lazy to do so and then use to just complain when the madigan mail would drop about scary guns.
- Bob - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 2:54 pm:
I would have more respect for those who voted on the slide safety bill if they put their cards on the table and demanded confiscation.Look it up the Illinois House voted on an amendment to a playground bill gutted to add the assault gun ban.Whoever thinks up these devious ploys is very clever.The term “Endorsement Affidavit”instead of gun registry excepted.
- Pundent - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 3:00 pm:
I think the larger point that OW makes is that the ILGOP seems to have no problem in taking very unpopular positions that are at odds with how the majority of folks feel in Illinois and then not realizing why the can’t win elections. Yell and scream about tyranny all you want. But when you don’t win elections you don’t set policy. It is as simple as that.
- ZC - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 3:03 pm:
>> So now we come to a point where we have 4 Supreme court rulings that to US appear crystal clear … then many of us as gun owners feel there is no reason for us to follow it either. Its just that simple.
That is simple. And it’s worth underlying, how radical this position is.
The “right of the minority” apparently includes to decide for themselves what’s law - to ignore the actual law, in other words, and just to endlessly, blindly project confidence; whatever seems “crystal clear” to themselves, they get to live with, even before the Supreme Court has ruled. Boil that down… that’s basically anarchy: “-We- are the law, not the popularly-elected state government of Springfield, and our choices, cannot be regulated.”
It might sound fun at times to live in a world where we all get to be our own constitutional experts and to declare what laws and rules do or do not apply to ourselves, based on what we are willing to endlessly shout is “crystal clear.” But what a recipe for democratic disaster.
- A Jack - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 3:03 pm:
OW …. Old, white, rural, and angry are your words, not mine. If you are implying we are crime free because of that, well that seems over the top. And if we grew by 500 while the Chicago area is shrinking, I think that says more about Chicago than us. I think more Chicagoans of all races should move here since there is less stress and violence. Plus the cost of living is much lower.
But the Chicago and the collar counties shouldn’t legislate away our rights because of their failures.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 3:06 pm:
=== If you are implying we are crime free because of that, well that seems over the top.===
My friend, that’s what you embraced.
=== And if we grew by 500 while the Chicago area is shrinking===
Downstate is shrinking at a greater rate, even as the phony idea that people are leaving us still milling about
- Not a fan - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 3:07 pm:
In all fairness if Bailey is the best Republicans have to offer that doesn’t bode well for the future of the party in the state. Which ties with the lazy comment made by Todd. You won’t win much in Illinois with a pro gun/anti abortion agenda. But that also enables the other side to ram questionable bills down everyone’s throat.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 3:09 pm:
=== But that also enables the other side to ram questionable bills down everyone’s throat.===
Winners make policy.
You choose to losing type policy ideas that ruin opportunities to govern, well, there’s more to governing than abortion and 2A
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 3:10 pm:
- Prudent - wins.
That’s the point of origin for the discussion for me.
Everything else kinda spirals from that.
Thanks, bud.
- Kayak - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 3:38 pm:
How likely is it the Thomas court use the 14ths “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” to strike down all nine states ?
- low level - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 5:07 pm:
==the commenters who rush over from Facebook whenever a gun bill is proposed. They don’t engage with anything else.==
I was just thinking the same thing, Rich. Its amazing how Todd, for example, says nothing on any other topic but gets triggered whenever guns are mentioned.
The other funny part is the number of constitutional “experts” who are completely clueless about how the Bill of Rights came into existence.
- A Jack - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 6:20 pm:
What I find interesting is how many counties are publicly saying that they won’t enforce this law. This could turn into a major embarrassment for Pritzker. Probably even more of an embarrassment than the graduated tax failure.
- Pundent - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 8:12 pm:
=This could turn into a major embarrassment for Pritzker.=
Solid majorities in the House and Senate, a clean sweep, (by double digits no less of) every statewide office, and a bill passing on a topic that 60% of the people are behind, yeah that’s embarrassing. Maybe an embarrassment of riches.
But as the headline says, whiners gonna whine.
- Mason born - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 8:30 pm:
As for coming from Facebook to comment only on Guns. I check this site daily but if I don’t think I have anything worthwhile to add I don’t speak. I’ve got no experience in the sausage making of bills, budgets, or political campaigns so nothing to add. I do know a lot about Guns, Engineering, Veterans issues, and a little bit about prisons and being an AFSCME member a long time ago. Those thing I might pipe in on.
- Mason born - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 8:34 pm:
Kayak
The 14th was incorporated for 2nd Ammendment issues in McDonald. Yes any ruling against this bill would have nation repercussions. Likewise if the other 8 states bills are struck down.
CT’s ban was recently sent back from the Supremes to be reevaluated using the Bruen test. Possible the Supremes take that before this could get to them.
- Motambe - Wednesday, Jan 11, 23 @ 10:02 pm:
No matter the lawsuits, conflict, or eventual judicial decision, passage of the bill and the governor affixing his signature checks another criteria box for Pritzker’s presidential campaign. Video clips from the signing ceremony will make nice campaign tv commercial snippets.