Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Will Amazon run out of places to flee?
Next Post: *** UPDATED x2 - More problems with IPI story *** SUBSCRIBERS ONLY: Officials: Story about Rep. Rita is flat-out wrong
Posted in:
* Yes, we’re going to do another one. We’ve been getting tons of comments and votes on our polls about this subject, so let’s keep it going.
The concealed carry bill includes this section…
…nothing in this paragraph shall preclude a member of the [General Assembly or local governmental body] or registered lobbyist holding a concealed firearms permit from carrying a concealed firearm at a meeting of the body.
* The Question: Should legislators and registered lobbyists be allowed to carry concealed guns at the Statehouse during session? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments…
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 10:49 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Will Amazon run out of places to flee?
Next Post: *** UPDATED x2 - More problems with IPI story *** SUBSCRIBERS ONLY: Officials: Story about Rep. Rita is flat-out wrong
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
is this the vandermyde provision?
Comment by Yep yep Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 10:56 am
How is a registered lobbyist different than a staffer?
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 10:57 am
Is the logic that since lobbyist and legislators get to bypass the metal detectors, they might as well be packing heat?
This exemption is a ridiculous clause. I am not going to jump to some over-the-top scenario about a heated Agriculture Committee meeting getting out of hand, but why on earth does a lobbyist or a legislator need a gun on them in the Capitol?
Comment by Montrose Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 10:58 am
The legislators have security to protect them in the House and Senate chambers. If they want to avoid the public, they easily can. Legislators have been known to get overheated sometimes - they shouldn’t be packing heat.
Lobbyists are clearly the most vilified (unjustly so) class of policy-maker. Not to mention, they outnumber the legislators so an armed lobbying profession would provide “protection” for nearly everyone in the capitol.
Comment by siriusly Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 11:00 am
This bill is getting goofier and goofier as more information comes out. I simply cannot understand some men’s fascination with and passion for guns (and it is always men). Have psychologists determined that there is some latent sexual hang-up or inadequacy fueling this obsession? Just asking.
Comment by formerpolitico Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 11:00 am
Also, for the record, removing the provision down the road is not “compromise.” It should have never been there in the first place the ISRA should not get credit for getting rid of this piece of the bill.
Comment by Montrose Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 11:01 am
Just what we need in the middle of heated floor debates, testy committee votes, and back rooms: guns. Imagine if Second Amendment Sharron was the floor in a place that allowed this kind of nonsense. What if someone like Joe Wilson got fed up with a liar? Capitols can have plenty of protection without the need for legislators and lobbyists to be walking around packing heat. It’s an unnecessary display of “testicular fortitude.”
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 11:02 am
As long as security during the session is tight enough, which I think it is, I think it’s completely unnecessary to allow this. With pretty much no benefit at all, the microscopic risk of an accidental discharge outweighs the positives.
Comment by Matt Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 11:05 am
Both are probably emotionally unqualified to handle anything that might be lethal to another. It would be tantamount to allowing two people who are getting divorced or who are involved in a custody battle to bring loaded weapons into the courtroom.
No one should be allowed a weapon in the House or Senate down in Springfield.Besides, we still have guys like Rod walking around the streets of our state. Too scary to think about!
Comment by Wilson Pickett Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 11:10 am
No, I think it’s a gag. The cynic in me suggests that this is one of the future “compromises” the ISRA will point to down the road to show they’re being “reasonable.”
Why in the world would the ISRA be in favor of withholding from 99% of citizens the obvious, clear-cut, Scalia-approved, Constitutional and natural right of self-protection in public with concealed firearms, while conferring it on a small controlling elite (most of it unelected, ie lobsters)?
My tinfoil hat is buzzing, I’m seeing black helicopters with UN logos everywhere…..
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 11:13 am
siriusly said ==Legislators have been known to get overheated sometimes - they shouldn’t be packing heat.==
Search “Legislators” and replace with “drivers”, “shoppers”, “sports fans”, the list goes on . . .
Comment by BCross Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 11:18 am
IMO either both groups should be allowed or neither. In addition, there should be a requirement for secure storage capability at prohibited governmental places such as the Statehouse just like what is provided for law enforcement elsewhere. Storing a weapon in your car when you have business at a prohibited place is not optimal for security.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 11:19 am
My bet is that MJM would pass a bill that prevents anyone having a bigger gun than his.
Excuse me Mr. Speaker, but where do you want us to mount your twin fifty cal. machine guns? Right here on the lecturn? Ok. And then this cloak goes over them to meet the concealed part of the law?
Comment by Irish Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 11:21 am
I voted yes, but I don’t think this should be limited to legislators and lobbyists, everyone has the right to defend themselves. It amazes me that people think that a “heated” argument would lead to a shootout, this is ridiculous. People do not suddenly lose their moral compass and become murders. I’m sure you can cite examples of people claiming that their emotions got the best of them and that’s why they committed a murder, I do not buy that excuse. Also, legislators do not have personal security. If anything were to happen, the guards would likely not be there in time to stop it, legislators need to have the means to protect themselves. Personal safety is just that, personal. We cannot rely on someone else to protect our lives.
Comment by tak1885 Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 11:22 am
Yes, because who has better judgment than the members of the Illinois legislature and the lobbyists who feed them.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 11:23 am
I see a lot of heated discussions at the Capitol. I don’t think anyone involved is unstable enough to pull out a gun in those circumstances, but I really don’t want to find out definitively either.
Comment by Thoughts... Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 11:25 am
I have seen some pretty heated debates in the halls and near the rails during the times I have lobbied in the Capitol. I am not sure I want folks packing during those emotional shout outs.
The only people now who go through the detectors are those of us without state ID badges.
Comment by Nearly Normal Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 11:26 am
Might be a way to cull the herd. It almost worked for Dick Cheney.
Hey, I don’t visit there let em have at it.
Comment by Irish Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 11:26 am
Aren’t guns prohibited in State buildings anyway (with a few exceptions)? Is there a reason why legislators/lobbyists might need a gun?
Comment by Timmeh Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 11:27 am
I’m guessing the legislator from Arizone who has been in the hospital for months would have no objection
Comment by Former Merit Comp Slave Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 11:31 am
OK, a question.
Let’s say a lobbyist is a former convicted felon who cannot legally own a gun. Does the “nothing shall preclude” provision restore gun rights along with ability to carry it around the Capitol?
And it’s interesting how 15-or so years ago the NRA would show up at committees and oppose limited concealed carry for former judges and the like, claiming they should have no special privileges over the rest of the population.
I suppose everyone’s thinking can evolve.
Comment by piling on Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 11:34 am
–My bet is that MJM would pass a bill that prevents anyone having a bigger gun than his.–
LOL, and Tom Cross gets a Super-Soaker.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 11:35 am
===Does the “nothing shall preclude” provision restore gun rights along with ability to carry it around the Capitol?===
No. You need a valid permit first.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 11:35 am
So when does this bill start including the specific design for approved dueling chambers? What good would concealed weapons be in chambers when the state police are checking everyone at the door for security reasons after that shooting several years ago.
Comment by zatoichi Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 11:37 am
We shouldn’t allow drug and booze addled hormone soaked frat boys having arguments in the halls pulling out heaters and shooting up the place. And, no, I’m not talking about college campuses. (snark)
Really, the legislature does have security - we saw that security in action in 2004 when that unarmed security guard was murdered while protecting the capitol. That is where the security should occur, with metal detectors and ARMED guards, not on the floors of the GA.
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 11:37 am
Nobody. Guns + SEIU Lobby day with the building packed with sweaty, angry, grouchy people + school field trip day = potential disaster.
Comment by SAP Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 11:41 am
Discussing concealed carry legislation reminds me of the old political adage: “Sometimes when you are arguing with a fool, they’re doing the same thing.” This proposal is nothing but a smoke screen to hide all the failed fiscal mismanagement of the legislature. Rep. Phelps is wasting his time and the privilege of serving his constituents with this effort.
Comment by Louis Howe Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 11:48 am
I remember a number of years ago (late 70s?) when there was a fist fight on the floor of the Illinois House or Senate. The rumor I heard was the guys were drunk and the debate got overheated. Throw a few guns in the mix and see what happens.
Additionally, (while very unlikely) there is nothing to keep State reps/senators or lobbyists from purposely bringing a gun into the capital to shoot someone. The key example is the assassination of Harvey Milk and Mayor Moscone by a Council member. Political assassinations do take place.
Comment by Objective Dem Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 11:50 am
In all states with conceal and carry there are rules and or laws that spell out when and where you are allowed to do this. the state house is not one of those places that should allow them. there is security in place.
Comment by Just Because Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 12:02 pm
If the regular citizens have to worry that their neighbor, or the hothead down the street, or their crazy co-worker is packing, then so should the legislators.
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 12:03 pm
I think that taking into consideration current security measures, we don’t need more guns in the Capitol
Comment by LakeviewJ Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 12:04 pm
Legislators are already allowed to carry concealed weapons at statehouses in several other states, and I’m not aware of any problems arising as a result. I don’t see why they’d need to carry guns, but it shouldn’t be a big deal if some choose to . . . unless you think Illinois legislators are dumber and more violent than legislators in other states. People can draw their own conclusions there.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 12:07 pm
Is this bill a joke or are they serious?
Comment by Ahoy Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 12:09 pm
I’m in agreement with a previous poster that either both have the ability or neither should have the ability.
Personally, I think both legislators and lobbyists should only be allowed to carry a firearm in the Capitol — but only if the state also makes dueling legal again.
Comment by unclesam Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 12:15 pm
Some people are being awfully dismissive of this very important piece of legislation. The continued mischaracterization of gun owners and CCW proponents by certain commenters is getting more than a little old and is very childish. Can’t we have a reasonable discussion without all the nonsense?
Comment by Ken in Aurora Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 12:18 pm
==How is a registered lobbyist different than a staffer? ==
They make a lot more money.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 12:18 pm
Looks like Bran-done and Toddie waited too long
Now they will need to exempt libraries too….colleges will be next….how about IL allows Concealed Carry whereever a pervert can be?
Or should we have said sex offenders.
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 12:19 pm
not unless they do it in other states!
Comment by amalia Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 12:24 pm
Is this a cartoon story?
Comment by Geneseo Gent Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 12:25 pm
Let them have guns! Todd will keep the Statehouse safe.
Comment by Dave Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 12:27 pm
I voted “No” because it should be everyone or no one. If it’s OK for lobbyists, it should be OK for me. Budget note: we could save money by letting the guards and metal detectors do.
The constant refrain of Todd et al is that this is all about safety. SO why not let everyone who has a permit for CCW carry in the Capitol? It would surely make us all safer. Right?
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 12:28 pm
There are a lot of scary things about living in Chicago not the least of which is the fact that those Bozos on the City Council are all allowed to pack heat.
I wouldn’t trust most legislators or lobbyists to carry a pen knife safely let alone a deadly weapon. For more information check out The Globe at about 1am when there’s session.
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 12:36 pm
An armed society is a polite society.
Why would it be a bad thing for legislators and lobbyists to learn to be polite?
Comment by Joe Verdeal Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 12:39 pm
Should legislators and registered lobbyists be allowed to carry concealed guns at the Statehouse during session?
Yes.
But only if legislative disputes are allowed to be settled by duel. Legislation will move faster and we’ll have fewer politicians and lobbyists. It’s a win-win.
Comment by just sayin' Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 12:46 pm
No. They have already demonstrated that we cannot rely on our legislators to demonstrate mature judgment.
Comment by Aldyth Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 12:52 pm
“The safest place for my carry piece is on my hip.”
I agree, leaving my defensive firearm in my vehicle leaves it open to theft. It is more safely kept concealed where I am in total control of it.
Comment by Kevin Highland Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 12:58 pm
No. Let the Security handle security issues.
This would probably increase the time it takes to get in to the Capital with the increased amount of security having to check the licences and registrations for each legislature who come in armed.
Plus the criminal element now know there are more people carrying weapons, therefore more targets to take guns from. And are these legislators trained in defending themselves? When we here of trained law enforcement personel getting their weapons taken from them, trained individuals, what will happen in the non trained legislators?
Comment by 3rd Generation Chicago Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 12:58 pm
You ask this question after I watched “Big Love” this Sunday, which included a scene where avowed polygamist State Senator Hendrickson guns down rival polygamist sect prophet Alby Grant in the State Capitol building?
At first I thought things couldn’t get that goofy in Springfield. Then I thought about it some more and voted “no.” Let them fire paperclips at each other using rubber bands!
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 1:21 pm
Legislators, lobbyists and citizens should all be treated the same. This law attempts to provide a special protected class of people, the legislators and lobbyists.
Concealed carry in Illinois should be passed. FOID information should be held to the same privacy standard as drivers licenses. And a set of secured lockers should be set up at the door to allow anyone with a concealed carry permit to secure his weapon so as not to be forced to leave the weapon in the car.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 1:27 pm
If it’s going to be legal, then make it legal…everyone should “bear” the same risk as well as responsibility.
Comment by nothing's easy... Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 1:31 pm
I think it is especially problematic to let lobbyist bring guns into the Statehouse. I don’t think there are any limits on who can register as a lobbyist. So all sorts of representatives of hate groups and complete wackos would have the ability to bring guns into the capitol. Do we want anti-abortion people packing when abortion laws are debated?
I definitely admit it is very unlikely that someone will pull their gun and shoot someone. But simply making legislators and people with opposing views aware that you have a gun, creates a very intimidating situation.
Comment by Objective Dem Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 1:35 pm
A quick clarification, I did not want to imply that anti-abortion lobbyists represent hate groups or are wackos.
Comment by Objective Dem Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 1:36 pm
If the requirements in this bill pertained to owning or possessing a gun, in addition to concealed carry, I would be for it.
Comment by jake Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 1:38 pm
I hope Rich will understand a post that maybe will not be 100% family friendly, but I think it needs to be said.
This obsession by some men especially to carry semi-automatic handguns in places where there is zero history of crime and when as men they face something close to zero probability of being targeted for a street crime, is just crazy.
I think we’re dealing with over compensation issues. Wouldn’t it be cheaper and less hassle to just wear a shirt that says “I have a very small [you know what]”?
I think that’s what a lot of women assume. Just sayin’.
Comment by just sayin' Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 1:39 pm
I vote yes. You never know. We might just be able to get rid of some of these political hacks through “attrition” (snark).
Comment by Springfield Skeptic Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 1:40 pm
Historical abominations such as the 1804 Hamilton v. Burr duel led to my no vote.
Comment by Jake From Elwood Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 1:40 pm
just saying,
Incredible post, and you are incredibly naive if you believe that a rational decision to protect oneself has anything to do with sex. I would contend that the people who would best benefit from concealed carry and weapons training are women.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 1:44 pm
No, legislators and lobbyists should not be allowed to carry concealed weapons at the Capitol. Neither should anyone else.
More than just for a safety issue, it is more symbolic that legislators should be able to “lay down their arms” and come together to get things done. Bringing guns to a legislative discussion just seems to put an atmosphere of civilized debate in jeopardy.
Comment by Wrigleytown Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 1:45 pm
“This obsession by some men especially to carry semi-automatic handguns in places where there is zero history of crime and when as men they face something close to zero probability of being targeted for a street crime, is just crazy.”
I don’t know, I would say that there is definitely some history of crime at the Illinois Statehouse.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 1:49 pm
Cincinnatus, you are basically agreeing with me. Yes, I can understand why a woman working late shift or in a bad neighborhood would absolutely maybe want to carry a gun. I would be very sympathetic to the nurse working 3rd shift who wants “the great equalizer” in her purse as she walks to her car alone in a dark parking lot.
But that’s my point. The people I see really rabid on this issue aren’t female nurses working night shift. Seems to be mostly be big guys who are never going to be preyed upon in the street.
Comment by just sayin' Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 1:52 pm
“I would contend that the people who would best benefit from concealed carry and weapons training are women.”
As a woman, I feel no need to own nor to carry a semi-automatic weapon. Nor do I own a huge SUV, which IMO is another sign of what Just Saying says.
Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 2:01 pm
no. I believe there is already a provision prohibiting firearms in the state house.
There is already an inclusive list of prohibitied places for firearms so even with a CCW, there is still governing statute that prohibits a person with a valid CCW permit from bringing a firearm to that location.
Comment by what the? Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 2:09 pm
I know this is all about personal safety, but isn’t that what the security guards are for? The chances of a legislator/lobbyist loosing it and pulling the gun are slim to none, but why even take the chance? I agree with just sayin’ that a woman working the third shift in a bad neighborhood might wish to be armed, but what would we gain from allowing guns in the Capitol where there are already several armed guards? A little bit of common sense can go a long way.
Comment by Rollin' Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 2:19 pm
If this gets approved, I don’t need to carry a gun in the State House. I just need to pick out a legislator or lobbyist, and take their gun.
Why on earth do we need guns there in the first place. Expecting a covey of quail to jump up just before lunch?
Comment by Justice Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 2:21 pm
In case of emergency break glass: (inside a very large heavy handbag as used by the London granny and the city hall granny for those not carrying large handbags.)
Comment by Bonsaso Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 2:22 pm
Only Lobbyists should be allowed to conceal carry, perhaps then a legislator would stop and listen to our pitch on a bill! (tongue embedded in cheek)
Comment by Matt Jones Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 2:24 pm
When San Francisco reopened its city hall after the 1989 earthquake, they added a security line. One of the members of the board of supervisors said that elected officials, especially supervisors, should be exempt.
And then someone pointed out that there had been two murders in San Francisco city hall, by the same gunman, a member of the board of supervisors. And that stopped that discussion.
Comment by lakeview Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 2:30 pm
@ - just sayin’ - Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 1:39 pm:
Thank you for proving my point.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 2:38 pm
Ken, I’m not the bad guy. Just trying to help.
Comment by just sayin' Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 3:02 pm
This just shows how absurd this whole proposal is!!
Everything that was said in response to the idea of guns on campus (testosterone, alcohol, risk-taking, emotions) is just as applicable to the state house! My God, we’ve already had one guard killed by a guy w/ a gun in the building–more weapons would only mean more bodies.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 3:09 pm
If the legislators believe conceal carry makes us safer, why isn’t everyone allowed to pack heat at the capitol?
It seems like a Fourteenth Amendment issue. Either everybody has the right to a firearm or nobody does.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 3:14 pm
Didn’t vote. No- box for “none of the above”. Will not debate the necessity or non-necessity of legislators or lobbyists being allowed to carry a gun in the statehouse. Either the legally armed public is included (or excluded), or nobody is included. No special treatment, period.
Consider it ridiculous that I am not allowed to carry an ordinary pocket knife or leatherman tool into a courthouse or other state building.
Comment by Downstate Commissioner Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 3:19 pm
As I wrote yesterday, having a gun strapped you your waist might make you FEEL safer, but there is no clear evidence that it actually makes you safer. If there were a clear statistical relationship between CCW and lower crime rates, we would not be debating this.
I find it fascinating that some people don’t even feel safe in a building guarded by armed officers. This seems to be about a group of people who should feel safe without a weapon at their side, but don’t.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 3:20 pm
Anyone who is this passionate about carrying a gun around is probably not playing with a full deck, IMHO, and anyone without a full deck should not own a gun.
Comment by Nice Kid Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 3:21 pm
Nothing says civility like the need for both sides to pack heat! I vote no, but if this was allowed, can you imagine the campaign ads from candidates running for state office?
I can see it now, a picture of a cowboy packing a pair of six-shooters, saying:
“There’s a new sheriff comin’ to clean up this town!”
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 3:57 pm
I would take the opposite route. As a researcher every year I am annoyed by yet another courthouse decides I cannot have a camera, cell phone, laptop or ipod in a courthouse and/or legislative library. I propose the same restrictions apply to legislators and lobbyists. They don’t seem to be doing anything constructive with access to information/music anyway.
Comment by Dirt Digger Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 4:19 pm
Raging hormones, alcohol, heated political rivalries and loaded weapons. Sounds like a plan to me.
Comment by LouisXIV Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 4:30 pm
Years ago, then State Rep Krska frequently wore a concealed gun on his leg, including on the floor of the House. I believe he was a process server for the Sheriff’s Department at the time and claimed he had a legal right to do so. Even the toughest legislators back then would be careful around Krska, not wanting to get him angry.
Comment by anon sequitor Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 4:34 pm
My response is no. We don’t need to add to the mess in Springfield with weapon toting legislators and lobbyists. And further more, let’s spend more time on solving our budget issues vice arguing about whether or not someone is allowed to have a concealed weapon or not. That seems more imperative at this point in time.
Comment by Just a Citizen Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 4:52 pm
==Some people are being awfully dismissive of this very important piece of legislation. The continued mischaracterization of gun owners and CCW proponents by certain commenters is getting more than a little old and is very childish. Can’t we have a reasonable discussion without all the nonsense?–
Certainly. Let’s have a reasonable discussion on whether only legislators and lobbyists should have the “right” to carry concealed firearms in the state Capitol.
Where does that reasonable discussion begin? Because on its face, as drafted in bill form, it seems like a joke.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 5:33 pm
–At first I thought things couldn’t get that goofy in Springfield. Then I thought about it some more and voted “no.” Let them fire paperclips at each other using rubber bands! –
You might not always agree with Louis, but you can’t argue with the man from Lake County’s logic or style. Oopbah!
Todd, unlike recent days, you’re awfully quiet today. IPAD messing you up?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 5:44 pm
@- wordslinger - Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 5:33 pm:
Your comments in particular and others like them were what I had in mind. I highly doubt you are willing to consider CCW in any reasonable form - with reasonable being defined as being similar to what has become law in the majority of the country (shall issue). Your posts clearly telegraph the low regard you apparently hold for CCW proponents and gun owners in general.
Maybe try being a wordsmith instead of a wordslinger? Mockery will only get you so far in life.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 5:46 pm
I have no problem with thw provsion allowing mebwrs of the general assembly to carrynat work nor members of the press like Rich that would qualify as well.
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 6:02 pm
Ken in Aurora,
One problem I have with the concealed carry advocates is I never hear any evidence that supports the cause. Other than broad statements that there haven’t been any killings by people with Concealed weapons. You have to admit for many of us, the idea that increasing the number of guns is going to decrease gun violence is a bit difficult to comprehend.
I don’t think this is a phallus substitute as some have indicated. I think a lot of women view guns as an “equalizer.” But what is the reality? If a women has a gun in her purse, will she really be able to successfully pull it out and scare away/shoot the bad guy? or will she end up having the bad guy take it away and shoot her?
And you may be a great responsible guy. But what about the other people who aren’t, who have serious psychological issues? We don’t do a good job keeping guns from them now and I don’t see that changing.
I also don’t buy the argument that people will be more reluctant to start an act of violence if they know people may be concealing. I think the opposite. If you see someone menacing, you may signal that you are packing; but unfortunately they may then be threatened and escalate the situation. At some point, the logic becomes the first to draw lives.
Also what are the limits on the type of weapon you get to carry? How about a machine gun? An automatic? How many rounds will you be able to carry with you? A gym bag full, just in case there is a number of bad guys?
I’m not worrying about the sky falling. Look at the horrible disasters that have occurred with guns at Columbine, Virgina Tech, Northern Illinois to name a few.
The only story I can think of in the past year where a menacing bad guy was shot by an innocent person was the case in Chicago where the old lady shot the little kid who was harassing her. I can’t think of a single story of someone who was in a shootout, like Tucson, where someone with a concealed weapon reduced the damage. My sense is it is always someone tackling the bad guy when they have an opportunity.
And the other issue is even if you can show that having guns can deter violence in public, you also have to consider the number of people who commit suicide because a gun is handy when they are depressed or accidentally shoot someone.
So if you are arguing in favor of having a reasonable debate, please provide some supporting stats or examples.
Comment by Objective Dem Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 6:38 pm
http://detnews.com/article/20110221/METRO01/102210369/Police–Detroit-pizza-delivery-man-fatally-shoots-man-in-robbery-attempt
Last Updated: February 21. 2011 2:07PM
Police: Detroit pizza delivery man fatally shoots man in robbery attempt
http://www.wrcbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13905698
Man pulls own gun on armed robbery suspects
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 6:49 pm
Todd,
I went to both links and checked out the stories. Both are examples of people using guns to protect themselves. But then I noticed the other stories on the same pages.
One had a story about a man killing his cousin because they were having a fight.
Another story was about shooting outside a strip club.
Another story was about a guy who stopped a robber from breaking into his house. He chased him down and shot and killed the robber, even though he had surrendered and put his hands up in the air.
I’m not arguing that there aren’t cases where a guy may protect people. I’m just saying in the big picture, loosening up gun laws will increase unnecessary death and violence.
Comment by Objective Dem Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 7:03 pm
Before addressing the weapons issue, we need to reevaluate how much cash registered lobbyists should carry or if negotiable IOUs are more appropriate.
Comment by Kasich Walker, Jr.'s Hemp Circle Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 8:20 pm
I stated this on the last post. If the provision makes it more likely for the bill to pass then include it. There is no way this bill passes unless conservatives agree to every over the top restriction possible. So therefore, the answer is no, legislators don’t need to be able to carry on capitol grounds.
Comment by John A Logan Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 8:39 pm
Objective? Dem: I can address your reference to suicides. I participated in a group that studied links between gun possession and suicide rates. The hypothesis was that a coorelation existed. That hypothesis appears to be wrong. Some books also reference this situation… I think one by Kopel does; but don’t remember for certain. Anyway, the bottom line is that firearms were a very effective way to successfully commit suicide; but the rates seem unimpacted. Many countries with very strict control have much higher suicide rates. If people wish to commit suicide they find a way whether that is jumping off a bridge or drinking poison or something else.
Comment by Logic not emotion Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 8:40 pm
–Your comments in particular and others like them were what I had in mind. I highly doubt you are willing to consider CCW in any reasonable form - with reasonable being defined as being similar to what has become law in the majority of the country (shall issue). Your posts clearly telegraph the low regard you apparently hold for CCW proponents and gun owners in general.–
No, that’s not true.
Not that I have to defend myself for being a citizen who voices his opinions, but I have no problems with firearms when it comes to hunting or having them in the home. None.
The issue to me is conceal and carry in the public square.
I am, in general, against it, simply because I don’t want guns around me or my children. Or any children. It’s a reasonable, widespread position. So is yours, that’s cool, let’s work it out.
Justice Scalia, whose curious 5-4 opinion is running the show right now, intimated in his ober dictum that conceal carry was possibly acceptable outside of “sensitive” areas such as schools and government buildings.
If schools and public building are the “sensitive” areas where conceal carry can be banned, than pack a lunch, because I have a list of more “sensitive” areas as long as your arm.
But let’s be reasonable.
If a private property owner — tavern, store, club, golf course, whatever — wishes to welcome patrons who are packing, that’s fine. Put up a sign at the entrance that says “We welcome conceal carry customers.”
If a private property owner would rather not have people with guns on their premises, they could put up a sign to that effect.
No added liability to anyone. Get insured for what you can.
Public entities — municipalities, park districts, — can buy in or opt out as their governing bodies wish. Just like Tombstone — check your guns with Wyatt Earp when you come into town.
How’s that for reasonable?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 9:19 pm
I was opposed to CCW. then I went to neutral. then I went to slightly in favor. but every time Todd posts some story about someone defending themself, it somehow feels like it’s just a way of scaring us and it makes me less likely to support CCW.
Todd, give comparisons to other states, show that CCW does not increase crime, stop giving anecdotes and be a little more policy driven. the main thing that bugs me about the ISRA/NRA is that they don’t seem to want to be in the rational work about solving problems. it makes me less supportive of their legislation.
Comment by amalia Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 9:24 pm
“How’s that for reasonable?”
Thanks for the post - it’s given me a much better feel for your position, which incidentally really isn’t that far off from mine. I personally can’t abide by municipalities being able to opt out, though - as a matter of fact I hope one of the current preemption bills makes it through.
Like you said, let the two sides out some kind of compromise.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 9:40 pm
I once had a House member threaten loudly, at the rail, to cut my b___s off (Stuffle will remember, we had played a pretty dirty trick in a conference committee report) but I’ve never had one threaten to shoot me.
Comment by steve schnorf Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 9:58 pm
“…I personally can’t abide by municipalities being able to opt out..”
+++++
I want to opt out.
About the only place I might feel safer packing a piece is if I was a local in one of the nations currently occupied by our armed forces.
Comment by Kasich Walker, Jr.'s Hemp Circle Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 10:00 pm
==Todd, give comparisons to other states, show that CCW does not increase crime==
The proponents do have a study or two the show CCW folks are not involved in crimes more than non CCW folks. What they really need are stats that show a relationship between CCW and a drop in crime. Their primary assertion is that CCW makes people safer. My assertion is that it makes the people with the guns FEEL safer, and that’s about it.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Mar 16, 11 @ 11:19 pm