Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Behind the workers’ comp fracas
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* It’s probably not the best idea in the world to distribute goofy poll results in the run-up to an important floor vote, but that’s what happened last week. My syndicated newspaper column takes a look…
It appears that the Illinois State Rifle Association released some highly questionable poll results last week because top officials learned that a gun control group was doing its own polling.
The Rifle Association decided it wanted to get ahead of the curve, I’m told.
The association claimed its poll results showed broad support in a handful of legislative districts for the right to carry a concealed weapon in Illinois, even in two African-American Chicago Senate districts.
But there are serious problems about the way the questions were asked, including the fact that the phrase “concealed carry” was never even mentioned in the poll, despite a Rifle Association press release claiming it was.
Concealed carry is one of the hottest issues of the spring legislative session.
The poll asked three very leading, loaded questions before getting to the carry issue. Respondents were asked if they felt safe walking around their neighborhood, if they believed local police can protect them from being “robbed or assaulted” and whether they believed they have a “right to defend yourself and your family from murderers, robbers and rapists.”
Questions like that obviously will set a certain tone and then skew answers to the poll’s last question, which was millions of miles away from being neutral: “Would you support a law that would allow trained, law-abiding citizens like yourself to carry a firearm to protect yourself and your family from harm?”
The word “concealed” is not mentioned — odd, considering that this is a fight over “concealed” carry. Yet, the association claimed in a press release that the answers to the question showed support for concealed carry. Also, how did the association know that the poll’s respondents were law-abiders?
All that being said, 48 percent of the 989 respondents in Sen. Mattie Hunter’s Chicago district said they’d support such a law, while just 35 percent were against. In Sen. Emil Jones’ Chicago district, 52 percent supported it, while 33 percent were against.
In Sen. A.J. Wilhelmi’s Joliet-area district, 56 percent backed the plan and just 28 percent were against. And in Sen. Mike Noland’s Elgin-area district, 49 percent said they’d support such a law, while 35 percent were against.
The poll was taken by We Ask America on March 27th.
The day after the Rifle Association released its numbers, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence released its own poll, which was taken by the same polling firm used by the Rifle Association. The new poll showed far different results than ISRA’s survey.
In the gun control group’s poll, taken five days before the Rifle Association’s, just 38 percent of respondents in Wilhelmi’s district said they agreed with the statement: “In general, Illinois citizens should be allowed to carry concealed handguns in most public places,” while a clear majority, 57 percent, were opposed.
The concealed carry question was the first question posed to respondents, unlike the Rifle Association poll, which laid the groundwork for its carry question.
The Rifle Association claimed its poll showed a clear majority of voters in Wilhelmi’s district backed concealed carry. The difference? The gun control poll was far more direct and used accepted polling standards. The Rifle Association poll didn’t do any of that.
Back to the gun control group’s poll. A slim majority, 51 percent, of voters in Wilhelmi’s district agreed with the statement: “handguns should be registered in a similar manner as automobiles,” while just 33 percent disagreed.
And a whopping 69 percent agreed with the statement, “I think someone who wants to own a handgun should have to pass a skills test before being licensed to own one,” while just 21 percent disagreed. Neither answer appears to jibe at all with the claims by the Rifle Association that strong support exists in Wilhelmi’s district for loosening gun control laws.
The gun control group also surveyed one African-American House district.
More than 70 percent of voters polled in Rep. André Thapedi’s district said people should not be allowed to carry concealed handguns in most public places. Just 23 percent said they should. A bit over 61 percent said handguns should be registered in a similar manner as automobiles, while 26 percent disagreed. And close to 77 percent said handgun owners should be made to pass a skills test before acquiring an owner’s license.
In Republican state Rep. Sid Mathias’ northwest suburban House district, 69 percent opposed allowing concealed carry in most public places, 54 percent wanted similar registrations for handguns and automobiles and 77 percent said they thought handgun owners should pass a skills test.
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 6:58 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Behind the workers’ comp fracas
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
It’s easy, it obvious, you can poll for what you want.
Sure, the Bradys have been polling for years, with their own slanted questions. Does no one question that?
Does anyone really think that African-Americans in crime-ridden districts would really want to become better victims or better prepared?
Is it really such a controversy? Look at 48 other states.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 7:31 am
===Does no one question that?===
I can only speak for myself. If they had an Illinois poll this horribly misleading, I’m sure I would’ve written about it.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 7:32 am
I think that it’s time to pass conceal carry in IL. The often stated ‘wild west’ mentailty hasn’t surfaced in the other 48 states that have CC. And clearly, the model that Illinois has embraced has done little to curb gun violence.
The only thing it has done is dis-arm those that obey the law.
Comment by How Ironic Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 8:09 am
Why can’t the ISRA and NRA just be straight-forward with their questions? Are you for concealed carry with no requirements - y / n. If no, would you be for concealed carry if required to take yearly skills tests y / n. Are they afraid of what the responses might be? The Brady group’s question was much more straight forward and honest then the ISRA.
Comment by Robert B. Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 8:12 am
the LOADED question in it self is loaded. What good is a concealed handgun if its not loaded? It may have some intimidation factor otherwise it is a paper weight. Seems a person of average intelligence knows that. Maybe they need a better names list from which to draw data. Ones that realize a gun is not much good without bullets
Comment by the Cardinal Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 8:18 am
What good is a concealed handgun if its not loaded?
As a bluff, I guess.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 8:37 am
In this context, what’s the difference between “serious problems” and “lies”?
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 8:37 am
Not sure why anyone in Cook or suburban county’s would vote for this. Think about the primary fight, than how the other party would use it against you. Heck, it’s not even that popular Downstate.
Why would a lawmaker vote for something most people are against, could cost them their job and is simply unsafe? I can see that question if this were a in the lines of a civil rights issue, but it’s not.
Comment by Ahoy Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 8:59 am
It goes without saying that polls are one of the easiest ways to manipulate the expected outcome. Phrasing the question properly can almost always illicit the desired results. What is interesting though is the lack of exposure that gun control groups on this subject. Recently, the Mayor’s Against Handgun Violence (Mayor Bloomberg’s pet and privately financed project) paid for a series of polls showing great support for more gun control measures. They even went so far as to tout “Republican leaning polling companies” as part of their effort to legitimize the polling results as if a Republican business would put ethics above profit. Arguing about poll results seems like a waste of time.
Comment by Jim Gallagher Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 9:05 am
–Is it really such a controversy? Look at 48 other states.—
That’s a good idea. There’s a wide range within those 48, including practical no conceal-carry in Hawaii and New Jersey to strong local control provisions that practically ban conceal carry in large parts of many states, including California and New York.
But proponents of the Phelps bill trot out the “48 states” argument to imply that it will conform Illinois to the rest of the country. That is simply not true and they know it.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 9:05 am
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m not seeing a big difference between do you support conceal carry, and do you support the right of law abiding individuals to defend themselves in public.
I kinda wish we had it because my family ownes/operates a small trucking company and there are times when we have to haul late at night in some not so nice areas (think E. St. Louis).
Comment by Ryan from Carrollton Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 9:07 am
What is interesting is that the contrast between the two polls seems to show that the gun lobby has done a pretty poor job of reaching beyond the base, although it had the potential to do so.
The main point of these polls seems to be to show that the leadership and lobbyists have actualy done a remarkably poor job with voters. We keep hearing about the all powereful NRA, but this shows how it has failed in areas where it had potential.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 9:08 am
=== Maybe it’s just me, but I’m not seeing a big difference between do you support conceal carry, and do you support the right of law abiding individuals to defend themselves in public. ===
It is not just you. That was my reaction too. Must be a slow day for news.
Comment by Slick Willy Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 9:16 am
Ahoy, you need to buy some new charts. I live downstate and the issue is very popular in my area.
Secondly, the ownership and use of firearms is a civil rights issue. A disarmed populace is easy to control. That is why some of the most genocidal regimes in the 20th Century prohibited certain groups from owning firearms (not suggesting that genocide would occur here by the way).
Comment by Ryan from Carrollton Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 9:25 am
Boils down to… Two opposing groups engaged the same organization to conduct a poll with both using wording stilted to achieve their desired results. Everything has to do with context. I think respondents to the NRA one probably considered it from context of them being allowed to carry to defend themselves. I think respondents to the ICAHV one probably considered it from context of gang members being allowed to carry. Each organization is clearly trying to use the poll to support its position and askign questions designed to do just that. Everything is context…
Comment by Logic not emotion Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 9:25 am
–Maybe it’s just me, but I’m not seeing a big difference between do you support conceal carry, and do you support the right of law abiding individuals to defend themselves in public.–
Really?
You probably wouldn’t have an issue with this question then, either.
“Do you support a law that would allow most people to secretly carry loaded handguns at many public places, including shopping malls, stores, universities, and many restaurants that serve alcohol?”
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 9:28 am
===with both using wording stilted===
Not true at all.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 9:28 am
==Each organization is clearly trying to use the poll to support its position and askign questions designed to do just that==
Of course, but the gun-control side’s question seems fair to me at first glance - from Rich’s column, the gun control group’s line was: “In general, Illinois citizens should be allowed to carry concealed handguns in most public places,”
Comment by Robert Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 9:30 am
well, I would have one problem in that the question is not completely accurate. They are not allowing for concealed carry on campus. There may be a stipulation about if someone is just passing through though
Comment by Ryan from Carrollton Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 9:30 am
===the question is not completely accurate. They are not allowing for concealed carry on campus.===
The poll says “most public places.” That’s accurate.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 9:36 am
But does it say universities? That’s where I was drawing the stipulation
Comment by Ryan from Carrollton Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 9:37 am
It doesn’t have to.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 9:42 am
It looks like the NRA may have shot itself in the foot with this one.
They have a real chance of getting conceal carry passed in IL, but sending out such a blatant misreprsenation like this has the potential to back fire and push those straddling the fence to fall off on the side opposed. After all, if you have to support your position with such grossly misleading infomration, it begs the question about whther all the points raised in support may be premssed on similiarly misleading information.
Comment by ghost Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 9:47 am
I was responding to wordslingers hypothetical in which he/she specified universities. The bill I don’t believe allows for conceal carry on college campuses.
I haven’t seen the actual question from the poll, but if they simply said “most public places” and did not make any specifications, then the contention over universities in wordslinger’s hypothetical ought to be valid.
Comment by Ryan from Carrollton Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 9:54 am
Rich –
We are going to continue to disagree about the polling.
The other side tries to paint a picture of just anyone carrying a handgun anywhere no questions asked. What the difference in questions show is that when placed in context, people view the subject differently.
Anti-gunners never ask about “trained” people. They never mention people being vetted by an FBI finger print check. They never mention having to pass a range qualification.
So when given in the context of the question, “would you support a law that would allow trained, law-abiding citizens, like yourself, to carry a firearm to protect yourself and family from harm?”
So it sets the premise, that individuals have gone through training, for the purpose of carrying a firearm for self defense. You yourself have said that you would want to carry, but not let anyone else around you carry cause you don’t trust them. Oh you trust you would do the right thing, but not everyone else.
When I talk to people about this, it’s simple, do you trust your doctor? Your dentist, your kid’s school principal? They all say yes. We’ll do you think they change because they choose to get a license to carry a handgun? Do you trust them any less? Would you think any less of the advice or care you get from your doctor because you knew he had a carry license? They all answer no.
So for the sake of argument, toss out the carry question. What is clear is that a majority of people in Chicago and other places don’t think the cops can protect them. They don’t think they are all that safe in their neighborhoods and they think they have a right to defend themselves against harm, both in their home and outside of it.
None of the other side’s data disproves any of that. For years we have seen Chicago with annual murders in excess of 500 per year. We have seen Chicago be the murder capitol of the world. People are tired of it and tired of being defenseless. Look at the number of FOID cards to the number of Chicago gun permits. FOIDs run 10 to 1 ahead of CFPs. A lot of Chicago residents are simply ignoring the new ordinance and say catch me.
Lets look at one of the antis questions you posted: “handguns should be registered in a similar manner as automobiles,”
Seems simple on its face, but it ignores the facts that, if you take Chicago as an example, you have to pay a fee or tax to do so, have to do it only on their prescribed forms, and have to do so in person.
So where is the outrage that their question fails to talk about taxing your right to keep a firearm in your home? The ant-gunners often try to equate guns with cars despite no right protected to specifically own one. They continually try to ignore that it is a right, on par and equal to the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution. It is one of those inconvenient truths.
So why didn’t they ask the question: “Despite a constitutional right to own a firearm, should people be required to pay a tax for each firearm they own, and maintain a list of those firearms with the state, similar to registering an automobile?”
As for the question of the “skills” test, why didn’t they ask the question: Do you think the State of Illinois should enact a law, similar to Chicago’s ordinance that requires you to take at least 5 hours of training at an average cost of $125 in order to be able to exercise your right to own a firearm?
I would bet that people would reject Chicago style ordinances across the state. Matter of fact only two places have them, Chicago and Oak Park. And once you dive into the details of the ordinance, people like less. They try to take complex ideas, boil them down to sound bites to get an answer they want to project. That’s what most polling does in one way or another.
But the other side continually omits the big stuff that is contained in their legislation. Like the taxes and the burden on average people. Let’s see them poll that and see who it goes for them.
In the end, I think the ISRA poll does two things. 1. It shows the general feelings about people out there that cops can’t protect them all the time and there is a subconscious notion that they must take responsibility for their own safety.
2. That when framed about what is in the legislation, people’s attitudes change.
Comment by Todd Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 9:59 am
Todd, the ISRA press release explicitly said that the poll showed support for “concealed carry.” The poll never mentions concealed carry. If you want to claim something in a press release, try to have it match up to reality.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 10:02 am
same polling firm….classic.
however, which side backs up the numbers with numbers willing to make noise in Springfield?
the saying about elections is signs don’t vote. the saying about legislation could be polls don’t vote, that is, for the ICHV side.
I would prefer that this legislation not pass. But I think it will.
Comment by amalia Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 10:06 am
Ryan, universities are not listed in the prohibited areas for conceal carry in Rep. Phelps bill as currently written.
If I recall correctly, that was a point of discussion here a few weeks ago, and Todd from the ISRA gave his group’s position as to why universities were not included.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 10:23 am
Ryan, the polls are not showing there is above 50% support in downstate (that is a larger area than where you live).
Also, concealed carry is not a civil rights issue; to imply that it is, is complete nonsense. Also, a ban on concealed carry is not disarming the populace; just keep your guns at home.
Comment by Ahoy Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 10:27 am
yea rich they should have used the words right to carry.
Word — the bill filed left colleges open. the current draft, takes out their buildings, stadiums and sporting events were already out.
There becomes a big probelm with making somehting illegal just from driving through or being a pedestrain walking across somewhere. Thats more about a practical working issue than anything else. You drive down MArket street in Carbondale and your “on campus” walk down the sidewalk in parts of chicago and your “on campus”
Comment by Todd Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 10:29 am
While these polls all seem well and good. It appears they were taken in the Chicago and Metro Areas. What does the rest of the State think? What does the State as a whole think? I would be very curious to see theses numbers.
Comment by Siyotanka Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 10:31 am
“Would you support a law that would allow trained, law-abiding citizens, like yourself, to carry a firearm to protect yourself and family from harm?”
No, myself and my family are not threatened by our neighbors, or even by those people we encounter on the street in cities like Chicago, Moline, Peoria, Champaign or Belleville. There is no reason for me to believe that I need to carry a gun in order to protect myself. Is the better question, “What are you so afraid of?”
Comment by Deep South Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 10:33 am
I have to admit reluctantly that I have been a fence sitter about what is clearly a constitutional guarantee.
In trying to reach a decision, I have to consider the pro-gun crowd’s posiution that restrictive gun laws, which criminals don’t pay any attention too, actually make victims of all of us that do obey the laws.
The extremely restrictive gun laws of Chicago certainly don’t appear to have been very effective.
After reading all of the pro and cons, and paying absolutely no attention to polls of any type (I can make up my own mind, thank you very much)I have decided that concealed carry is probably the right way to go.
Comment by Xbios Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 10:38 am
–I have to admit reluctantly that I have been a fence sitter about what is clearly a constitutional guarantee.–
How so? There have been local firearms restrictions since the founding.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 10:41 am
==I can only speak for myself. If they had an Illinois poll this horribly misleading, I’m sure I would’ve written about it.==
does the brady campaign publish their questions? im trying to find the raw data for a poll on open carry they did last may but they dont seem to have printed what questions they actually asked…i wonder why…
Comment by defaultdotxbe Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 10:42 am
Most of the grass roots activists as well as the organizations are pushing for ‘right to carry’ not ‘concealed carry’. I agree that the ISRA mis-titled their press release regarding the poll.
I think the poll shows support for ‘right to carry’ even if it was mis-titled in the press release.
We are still working on changing some of the ‘old guard’ within out own movement.
Again, the push in IL is for ‘right to carry’ not ‘right to carry concealed’.
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 10:48 am
Xbios, your IP address indicates that you’re posting from Americus, Georgia. Thanks for the input on Illinois.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 10:50 am
===Again, the push in IL is for ‘right to carry’ not ‘right to carry concealed’. ===
You’re pushing for a bill that allows concealed carry of firearms. The semantics argument won’t work in this forum.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 10:51 am
Rich,
You don’t get to ‘name’ the debate. Why would ISRA intentionally handicap themselves? Why not call it right-to-carry?
Love your double standard when the VPC and ICHV can publish push polling and not get called out on it, yet neutral questions from ISRA demand some sort of jihad against them?
It was a good poll.
Lots of folks, yourself included, are upset over the results that show more and more Illinoisans want right to carry.
Comment by Templar Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 10:58 am
===Love your double standard when the VPC and ICHV can publish push polling and not get called out on it, yet neutral questions from ISRA demand some sort of jihad against them?===
What a crock that entire comment was. I have no position on this bill one way or another.
Bite me.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 10:59 am
===You don’t get to ‘name’ the debate.===
On here I do. Deal with it.
===It was a good poll.===
Only in the minds of the already convinced.
===Lots of folks, yourself included, are upset over the results that show more and more Illinoisans want right to carry. ===
Actually, I’m not upset at all with that. But y’all really love to overreact and assign intent when you don’t get your little way. Deal with that, too.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 11:02 am
Mr. Miller
I am located in Lasalle County, IL just north of I-80. It is a medicacom account which may indicate another location. I am not well versed in the Internet so I can offer no other explanation.
Comment by Xbios Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 11:03 am
Todd’s responses here are fascinating. He says that the issues are simple and that when put in context, conceal carry carries the day.
But yet when “conceal carry” alone is in a poll, it loses.
If I kept losing battles that I should win (as Todd pretty much admits that the ILNRA has done), I wouldn’t get hired.
At what point is the ILNRA going to take that same look? Their own mouthpiece says this is an easy winner, but then he loses. Perhaps Todd can explain to us why he managed to pull defeat from the jaws of victory.
Todd, why do you lose when phrased as “conceal carry”? Why shouldn’t the ILNRA find somebody who can win that one?
Comment by Jasper Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 11:03 am
I think second amendment rights have been forgotten for too long in Illinois. It’s time for our state to join the rest of the nation and allow CCW for it’s citizens. If it doesn’t happen in the legislature, I believe it will happen through the courts and I’d rather have the citizens of the state having some say in the matter.
Comment by rob Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 11:04 am
Yeah, I remember you. I thought I banned you. Nice try.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 11:04 am
05, if you already have a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, what’s the point of passing a state law? That doesn’t make any sense.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 11:05 am
To follow-up on my previous questions and statement. I would really like to know (but, this won’t happen) how many IL citizen’s today have CC permits from other states in the Union. This might be a good poll as to the sentiments of our citizenry.
Comment by Siyotanka Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 11:06 am
Also, if y’all get that freaking upset at a legit criticism of your illegitimate poll, you might want to reconsider your desire to carry a gun around in public.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 11:12 am
Perhaps the ISRA using “concealed carry” in their press release could have been changed to “right to carry”, though that shouldn’t make an iota of difference on the issue. Would a citizen carrying openly make you somehow feel more comfortable about the right to carry? I have my doubts that you would.
Comment by The Good Lieutenant Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 11:12 am
Also, not to tell Rich how to run his site, but perhaps a reminder is in order that the real question here is about the polling.
I for one would prefer not to read yet again everybody’s views on conceal carry. That’s been debated at great length here.
This story was about polling and was a very interesting story on that issue. If people could try to stick to that point and not argue the constitutional merits of gun control it would make reading the comments far moe interesting.
Comment by Jasper Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 11:14 am
Ahoy, I was talking firearms in a larger sense.
As far as polls not showing a larger than 50%, we all know that poll questions can be asked to get the result that you want; a point that we all have been arguing here for a period of time (that is not to say though that all polls are invalid).
Keep in mind also that a lot polls showed that Bill Brady was going to become Governor, even up to the end.
Pollsters have had increasing difficulties in obtaining truely accurate samples. The advent of caller id and later the widespread use of cell phones has proven to be a large problem for the polling community. These factors add up to create biases resulting in sometimes serious problems of internal validity (which we have been discussing on the blog for several days and most of this morning). Problems with internal validity can then influence the degree of external validity (generalizability) that can be applied to the poll, study, etc.
Comment by Ryan from Carrollton Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 11:16 am
Jasper is absolutely right. We’ve heard all your arguments pro and con on cc many, many times now. Stick to the topic. Deletions will follow.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 11:28 am
===You drive down MArket street in Carbondale and your “on campus” walk down the sidewalk in parts of chicago and your “on campus”===
Todd, please. If you are in your car on Market Street in Carbondale, or walking on the sidewalk on Sheffield Avenue near DePaul, you are on the public way. Don’t pretend people aren’t smart enough to know when they are on campus and when they are on the public way. Keep the universities out of this bill and you’ll take a lot of the steam out of the opposition.
But please stop saying CC permit holders won’t know if they are on campus or not. It’s a dumb argument.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 11:33 am
>>>Stick to the topic.
Excellent idea.
How should the poll have been worded?
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 11:33 am
The wording is simple. Just explain and then ask if they support the bill. And, above all, use the word “concealed” if you say you did.
The other poll did a pretty good job of framing the issue in a non-biased manner.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 11:37 am
Polls are an interesting cultural phenomenon and most all of them are skewed by the poller to obtain the desired result, namely supporting ‘their’ agenda.
Anti-gun RIGHTS and pro-gun RIGHTS groups often use their First Amendment RIGHT to skew the interpretation of their Second Amendment RIGHT.
All rational gun owners oppose the criminally insane, the homicidal sociopaths and all the other ne’re-do-wells having unfettered gun ownership. Yet they continually illegally do.
And I’ll wager I can come up with poll results to prove my point. lol
Comment by ChicagoRandy Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 11:40 am
Polling as a PR stunt, while a fine source of profit for pollsters, is also incredibly silly.
Arguing about competing PR polls doesn’t even have the benefit of profiting small businesspeople.
Comment by Dirt Digger Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 11:49 am
First things first: this is, overall, an excellent discussion about a timely issue–really, about the best discussion I’ve seen between the two sides in an open forum.
Now, to the point of my even posting. IL is about at the same spot MN was in 1999 or so. However, the metro political machine is much stronger in IL than in MN and, I suspect, much less idealistic.
By 2003, the shall-carry people had the legislative votes, polls be damned. Wailing about blood in the streets racheted up; school admins fluttered their hands. Finally, on vote day, the urban Democrats wore flak jackets as they staged a symbolic block to the vote.
Of course, blood in the streets didn’t happen. The press found one or two notorious shootings by carry permittees, and never report the incident where a good guy does not have to shoot.
And, BTW, the MN shall-issue carry law allows open or concealed, allows carry basically anywhere except on properly-posted private property with exceptions for parking lots, and allows drinking–I believe .04 BAC is specified.
Again, blood-in-the-streets didn’t happen. The push polling done by our bad guys–here, the Democrat Party and related anti-gunners–simply didn’t matter. Well-organized legislative effort is what matters.
Good luck with it.
Jim H.
Maple Plain, MN
Comment by jfh Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 11:58 am
===about the best discussion I’ve seen between the two sides in an open forum===
Only because I’ve deleted like 20 comments. lol
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 12:02 pm
Make that 21.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 12:05 pm
I’d like to hear some comments about Jom H.’s comment. Does anyone have any statistics on places where open and/or concealed carry was instituted, and the effects on crime statistics. Open or concealed carry laws either:
In jurisdictions where the laws are instituted, if rates go up when instituted ir go down?
If laws are instituted prohibiting open or concealed carry where it existed in the past, if rates go up or down.
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 12:28 pm
I have two books for suggested reading on the topic of the Second Amendment. What it’s origins were and what it was intended to mean and neither book was written by a pro-gun advocate, nor were they written specifically for the topic of the Second Amendment, they were written on the Bill of Rights by legal scholars.
Origins of the Bill of Rights (Yale Contemporary Law Series) by Leonard W. Levy
The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding by Eugene W. Hickok Jr
Both books bring light to the debate that are rarely if ever touched on by the mainstream discussion as I have heard it. Both seem to come to a broadly pro-gun proponent conclusion, though one of the authors inserts his own opinion at the conclusion of the chapter, stating that he believes it shouldn’t be the way it really is - lol
Comment by Josh in Champaign Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 12:37 pm
I haven’t seen the opposing poll that Rich argues is more fair than the ISRA poll.
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 12:43 pm
Did you not read the column?
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 12:44 pm
To Siyotanka:
I think I can answer question about how the rest of the state feels about right to carry being restored in IL. If it weren’t for Chicago we would have had carry a long time ago. Overwhelming support in the rest of the state.
My question back to Rich and others is why is everyone so worried about the word concealed? That’s the way it’s done in 48 other states.
Or are you just focused on that word simply because it was not used in this poll?
Heck let’s do another poll
Comment by Drylok Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 12:46 pm
===If it weren’t for Chicago we would have had carry a long time ago.===
You’d also have to include a whole lot of suburbs in that blanket statement, pal.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 12:48 pm
Sorry, I relied solely on your excerpt.
I have to disagree with your assessment of the relevant value of both polls. Anecdotally, I have spoken with people who would respond according to the gun control group’s poll results but when you actually discuss things like background checks and training they ultimately respond more like what ISRA’s poll results.
Culturally we have been programmed to view concealing a gun negatively as opposed to the iconic image of gun-toting openly. We naturally assume that someone concealing a gun is up to no good. When you explain things and acutally discuss the issue rationally people tend to agree with the ISRA’s results.
Also, people don’t implicitly get the tactical advantage of good guys carrying concealed versus openly. I point them to the shooting in the MO courthouse a year or so ago where the shooter targeted the cops first, because he knew they had guns.
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 1:11 pm
Addressing your analysis:
===Yet, the association claimed in a press release that the answers to the question showed support for concealed carry.===
Carrying concealed is a subset of carrying generally. If they had asked “do you support people carrying guns openly” and then characterized it as support for carrying concealed I’d agree you have a point.
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 1:23 pm
Hey wait a minute Rich. I finally found the poll and it’s right there question 4.
“Would you support a law that would allow trained, law abiding citizens like yourself to carry a firearm to protect yourself and your family from harm?”
So how can you say that the question wasn’t asked?
Comment by Drylok Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 1:29 pm
===So how can you say that the question wasn’t asked? ===
Do you see the word concealed anywhere?
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 1:33 pm
So Rich, do you presume those who answered yes envisioned people toting guns opening instead of concealed?
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 1:37 pm
I don’t have to presume anything. The question was biased on many fronts, and that’s explained in the column.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 1:44 pm
I don’t see how the question itself is biased. You argue that the first questions bias it and you argue that the press release mischaracterized the poll results.
I think the second argument is distinctly separate from the first. The press release doesn’t affect the poll results. Therefore your angst about the use of ‘concealed carry’ in the press release is not evidence against the poll. However, I do think your complaints against the press release bias the interpretation of the poll fairness. Therefore, you are biasing people’s ability to fairly evaluate your critique of the poll results themselves.
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 1:53 pm
===I don’t see how the question itself is biased.===
I don’t know how much more I can explain it to you. Look at the wording, for crying out loud.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 1:56 pm
The bottom line hasn’t changed since the first few comments. “Concealed carry” is a derivative of legal term of art from some of the first few states to pass shall-issue bills. It’s not some kind of standard term that it’s dishonest not to use.
Let me run a few more loaded terms by you:
Saturday Night Special
Assault Rifle
Assault Weapon
Assault Pistol
switchblade
pocket rocket
cop-killer bullets
plastic guns
bullet hoses
pistol grips “to allow spray firing from the hip”
. . . . to say nothing of “framing” techniques such as trying to make every gun-rights question come down to whether a particular weapon or legal right is necessary for hunting either deer or ducks.
I don’t expect advocates of gun control to stop using those loaded words (their latest, and in the running for the most ridiculous, is the new “extended assault clips” they now want to ban after the Arizona shooting.) I simply don’t lose any sleep over criticism that the pro-rights side (ha, see what I did there?) failed to use the loaded term that a reporter or an advocate from the other side would prefer to use.
It’s nothing new; in 1999, the national press was excoriating Dick Cheney for having voted against a ban on “plastic guns that pass through metal detectors”–such a blatant use of “loaded words” that they actually tried to ban objects that don’t exist!
About the same time, Rod Blagojevich was constantly proposing legislation to deal with the threat of “Pocket Rockets” and .50-caliber rifles with “cartridges the size of ketchup bottles.”
I honestly don’t recall what Capitol Fax’s position on those terms was, if there was one, but I know what most media did: they treated those quotes as givens, reprinting and repeating them without question or criticism.
Comment by Don Gwinn Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 1:57 pm
Rich, your objection to the 4th question is that ‘concealed’ is not mentioned. How does that make the question biased? What it does is make the press release misleading.
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 2:07 pm
David, c’mon, man, when have you ever seen a legit poll ask a question like this: ““Would you support a law that would allow trained, law-abiding citizens like yourself to carry a firearm to protect yourself and your family from harm?””
Please.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 2:09 pm
Rich,
Any poll that uses pro-choice instead of pro-abortion.
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 2:20 pm
At least both polls reveal the outlines and the potential punch of the direct mail, broadcast ad messages to be used by both sides in the next House and Senate races.
Comment by David Ormsby Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 2:21 pm
so how would you have worded the question differently?
Comment by defaultdotxbe Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 2:22 pm
All you have to do is ask it straight. Look at any poll out there for guidance.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 2:23 pm
I’ll take a stab at it. “Would you support a law that allowed trained, law-abiding citizens unlike yourself to carry a firearm to protect yourself and your family from harm?”
I suppose that would garner a different response by the respondent.
Comment by The Good Lieutenant Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 2:29 pm
I think we’ll have to resolve this over beers. I call a beer summit!
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 2:30 pm
To paraphrase Moynihan:
“everyone is entitled to their own poll, but not to claim validity for their illegitimate poll.”
Either the poll is scholarly valid or it is not. The gun-runners poll wouldn’t pass an intro social science class no matter what the topic was; it’s just shy of a push-poll. The gun opponents poll appears to be balanced and w/o bias based upon the quotes in Rich’s column. You can argue the issue all you want, but not the scholarly legitimacy of the polling instruments.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 2:33 pm
So those seeking a state law to allow for concealing the fact that they’re carrying guns now object to the term conceal carry?
When did this happen? Advocacy groups on the Internet certainly don’t have a problem with the term. What’s the beef?
Let’s try not to debase the language in pursuit of our objectives. Also, if you believe you have a right to this activity under the Constitution, don’t lower yourself by pursuing a state law.
If it’s a right, no law is needed, and you undermine your position negotiating for one.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 2:35 pm
===David, c’mon, man, when have you ever seen a legit poll ask a question like this: ““Would you support a law that would allow trained, law-abiding citizens like yourself to carry a firearm to protect yourself and your family from harm?””
Please.===
Rich, I think you have to frame the question in this way in order to overcome the stigma that has become the norm in our culture. When you ask the question “Do you support the idea of people carry concealed firearms”, most people who aren’t already proponents (and I’m talking about people that I discuss the topic with at work and other places on a regular basis) are going to freak out and say “No way!”. But if you explain to them that there is eight hours of training required that includes instruction for safe firearms handling, the laws pertaining to carry and the use of lethal force and live fire instruction, when you explain to them that extensive background checking and fingerprinting is done, when you turn the light on in peoples heads that the kind of people who need this are women and elderly who would otherwise be helpless to a large aggressive male attacker, they can then think about it in a different light. I don’t think the question misleads, but it does expound on necessary details of the bill, that it does take precautions, that it has been crafted out of negotiations, there are representatives who are on record who have opposed carry in the past who now are saying with respect to carry “the Chicago way has not worked, let’s try something else”. I think the world “concealed” is irrelevant. The concern people have, who have concern, is about people carrying loaded guns. Some people are more concerned about open carry than they are concealed, there are a myriad of opinions out there, it’s impossible to coalesce them into a black and white debate and thus, it’s that much more important to weight the question with the “bias” that you claim.
Comment by Josh in Champaign Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 2:40 pm
Wordslinger, we believe we have the right to keep and bear arms. The second Amendment says nothing about bearing concealed arms and Court precedent indicates that States can ban the carrying of concealed firearms. That would indicate a general negative view of ‘concealed’.
The flip-side of this, which apparently many people don’t recognize, is that we have the right to carry unconcealed firearms.
I, for one, would prefer the choice of either. I would choose concealed myself. I also suspect that IL lawmakers and people in general, would rather have licensed people carry discreetly as opposed to openly.
IL will have to allow carry in some form. I think a license requiring yet another background check, training, and qualification to carry concealed is probably more palatable to most people over unregulated (or even regulated) open carry.
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 2:43 pm
Josh, your explanation only goes to show the invalidity of the Rifle Associations poll and discloses their disingenuousness in publicizing the phony results, which is the topic of this thread.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 2:47 pm
I’m trying hard to stick to the polling angle, but here’s a funny anecdote that underscores the idea that a poll’s wording is the art in polls that must be as good as the sample (or science) of polling:
In the late 1980s, a one-time up and coming Alderman who wanted to be a Congressman commissioned a poll that asked respondents if they knew the name of their US Representative. As it turned out according to the poll, less than 30% knew the name of their Congressman. The conclusion: the incumbent must be vulnerable because so few voters knew who he was.
Had they instead asked, “do you know Sidney Yates is your Congressman?”, Edwin Eisendrath could have saved us a lot of time and himself a lot of money.
This debate over semantics is due, in part, on the code-words used by all sides in the gun debate, but especially by those proponents of CC. “Shall issue” is one such code phrase. It would take paragraphs to decipher that for neophytes, but the 2nd Amendment supporters know it be heart. And they respond to it.
So when you’re writing your polling questions, think very hard about how they are written. Otherwise, your results won’t be worth much. As is the case here.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 2:51 pm
Josh, would this be an acceptable explanation for both sides?…
Now I am going to tell you what supporters and opponents have to say about this issue:
[ROTATE STATEMENTS]
__ Supporters of the proposal say that because everyone has a right to defend themselves and a
Constitutional right to bear arms, everyone who is of age, passes a criminal background check and
attends gun safety classes should be able to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon in public places. They say citizens in every state except two are already allowed to carry concealed weapons and law-abiding citizens in Illinois ought to have the same rights as the vast majority of U.S. citizens, to defend themselves and their families against crime, which will be reduced if criminals don’t know who is armed.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 2:56 pm
Wordslinger, i don’t care if others use “concealed carry” or the slightly more awkward version that most of the press seems to prefer, “conceal and carry,” but no, it’s a lot simpler for me to use “Right to Carry” and I’ve been doing that for a couple of years now. You’ll notice a lot of advocates in Illinois doing the same, and the reason is pretty simple and benign–I’m not against open carry, and I’m not against people carrying things other than firearms (there are states where a “Concealed Handgun Permit” allows the bearer to carry a couple of handguns, but he’ll still be arrested for a knife or a baton.)
As for Wordslinger’s earlier point about the “48 states” claim, it’s certainly true that it includes states without shall-issue right-to-carry, but even in that set, most of those states have MUCH better systems than Illinois. In New York and California, for instance, there are many counties where the sheriffs treat the process as shall-issue. Illinois doesn’t even have that.
But it might be more accurate to compare Illinois to its neighbors, so let’s take a look:
Wisconsin: Allows only open carry, and in practical terms, only began to allow that a couple of years ago. Closest thing to Illinois in some ways (though they’re allowed to own weapons that are prohbited on a felony level in Illinois.)
Iowa: Recently switched from “may-issue” to “shall-issue” right-to-carry licenses after years of finding that counties that issued lots of licenses had no problems.
Missouri: Became shall-issue in 2003, but allowed open carry without a license before that (I carried a firearm openly there in those years, and nobody ever batted an eye at it.)
Kentucky: Shall-issue right-to-carry. I don’t recall how long it’s been, but I believe they passed it in the early 1990s.
Indiana: Shall-issue right-to-carry with zero training requirements, and the lifetime permit is not much more expensive than the shorter-term version, so most people pop for that . . . . and since their transport laws are so weird, most gun owners buy a permit just so they can be sure they won’t accidentally get into trouble on the road.
The truth is that if the anti-gun side tries to make a big deal out of the word “concealed,” they run the risk of replicating Ohio, where gun owners denied “concealed carry” but allowed open carry simply began to exercise that right. Members of the public who were frightened at the sight of guns or simply found them too icky to look at in Starbucks demanded that Something Be Done About This, and the compromise was to give the final impetus to a new law allowing concealed carry (they didn’t ban open carry, to my knowledge, they just figured that most people would rather carry concealed, given a choice. They were right.)
Comment by Don Gwinn Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 2:59 pm
______________________________________________________________
So those seeking a state law to allow for concealing the fact that they’re carrying guns now object to the term conceal carry?
______________________________________________________________
First of all, that phrasing is misleading. The purpose of the law is not to take an activity that’s already legal in Illinois and begin to conceal it. The purpose of the law is to overturn state laws that prohibit Illinois citizens from carrying firearms at all, in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.
_______________________________________________________________
Also, if you believe you have a right to this activity under the Constitution, don’t lower yourself by pursuing a state law.
If it’s a right, no law is needed, and you undermine your position negotiating for one.
_______________________________________________________________
Uh huh. Do people normally fall for that kind of thing? No, I shouldn’t have to negotiate a new law to protect a right that the state is already infringing, any more than I should have to lock my car doors or tell my kid again to take the garbage out.
However, I’m not doing it because I should have to do it. I’m doing it because I do have to do it, because the people who decided it would be a good idea to infringe on a constitutional right had a lot of political power, and simply making demands isn’t going to get anything changed–but acknowledging that powerful people are doing something wrong and I need the legislature to undo it doesn’t undermine my argument in the least.
Comment by Don Gwinn Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 3:15 pm
Rich - sorry, I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say.
Comment by Josh in Champaign Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 3:23 pm
Post got cut off and I’ve been on the phone. But, do you think that’s a reasonable explanation of your side?
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 3:30 pm
– The purpose of the law is to overturn state laws that prohibit Illinois citizens from carrying firearms at all, in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.–
That makes no sense. You’re in the wrong venue.
If Illinois had state laws that denied freedom of speech, or the right of women to vote, or allowed slavery, opponents wouldn’t be messing around in the GA trying to get them overturned. You’d go straight to a federal judge.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 3:34 pm
Wordslinger,
In my opinion, one should always seek a legislative remedy before suing. It is cheaper and quicker.
It may be that we end up suing IL in Federal Court over this. That will take 1 or 2 years at best and during those years people like Mary Shephard will continue to be brutalized and murdered.
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 3:45 pm
David, irregardless of expediency, it still doesn’t make sense — or even possible — to bargain away on a state level a right bestowed by the U.S. Constitution.
In fact, if it is a Constitutional right, no one has the authority to bargain it away, nor does the GA have the authority to trump the U.S. Constitution.
For example, you raise the vicious attack on Mary Shepard and her friend as a reason for seeking expedient state action. But under Rep. Phelps bill, she would not have been able to lawfully carry a concealed firearm at the church where she and her friend were assaulted.
The 2nd Amendment has been around for 200 plus years, as have local restrictions on carrying firearms in public. If conceal-carry is a slam-dunk Constitutional right, then the NRA is the worst public policy advocacy group of all time. I don’t believe either is true.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 4:26 pm
word linger said,
“That makes no sense.”
Are you saying I can carry concealed right now anywhere in the state?
“If Illinois had state laws that denied freedom of speech, or the right of women to vote, or allowed slavery, opponents wouldn’t be messing around in the GA trying to get them overturned. You’d go straight to a federal judge.”
So your contention is that these other Constitutional Amendments are somehow more valid that the 2nd?
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 4:39 pm
- So your contention is that these other Constitutional Amendments are somehow more valid that the 2nd? -
No, he’s saying that if the concealed carry was obviously permitted by the 2nd amendment, the NRA would be filing a federal case, not mucking about with the Illinois GA.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 4:42 pm
Cincy, based on your difficulties understanding the English language, some (not me) might be tempted to question your legal status in this country.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 4:51 pm
word –
We are contemplating a lawsuit over RTC. Just though we would take a last stab at the legislature before embarking down that road. Seems they could pass a bill to reauthorize the capital bill but they want to see what the court will do first. we didn’t want to be in that position so we opted for legislation first.
I know I have been an advocate of suing over RTC based upon Heller and we are the only state with nothing. But they wanted to try the legislature first. And good facts make good law. so finding the right plantif was a good part of it just like finding Otis McDonald was good for the Chicaog case.
and I suggest you go read State v Ried from Alabama SC if memory serves me right that ws cited by Heller. it kninda explains the position Illinois is in.
But I am in agreement with you that if we win a carry case, then what is being talked about will be a lot more than they would get otherwise.
However, while I believe that carrying a handgun is protected under the Second Amendment as well as Heller, I do think that certain time place and manner restrictions will be allowed by the court.
they said as much in Heller with airports and schools or “sensitive” places. But I don’t beleive the blanket ban will stick.
And why no one has gone after it yet, is because to do so invites a felony and loss of your 2A rights with such a conviction.
Comment by Todd Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 4:58 pm
Todd,
Who in the world do you think is being fooled by that last post?
You give up rights? Voluntarily? Sure. Because that been the NRA strategy over the years.
And you feel that people agree with you strongly on conceal carry, but you are afraid to poll using that term?
Seriously, give it up. You sound ridiculous.
Comment by Jasper Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 5:09 pm
Todd, much obliged. My points were more on federalism than gun laws. I know you pursue the political options as they present themselves, but I was hoping some would understand you can’t really argue it both ways from a a philosophical standpoint.
Heller was a big win, no doubt, and not entirely expected by the NRA, I believe.
I wouldn’t wait too long on finding some standing for that federal lawsuit on conceal carry, or RTC, though. Those 5-4 decisions are a shaky foundation, and Scalia’s ober dictum on conceal carry in Heller is a house upon the sand, as Justice Posner has posited.
Obviously, who holds the presidency and the Senate will be big deals on the issue in the coming years as Supreme vacancies occur.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 5:19 pm
Jasper I’m not sure what your smoking or if you forgot to take your meds, but what I said was
I can see the court allowing the license or permiting system for the carrying of a handgun. As Heller said it is no the right to carry what ever firearm for whatever reason whereever. I get that. I read the decision.
So while I believe it is my right to carry a handgun, under the 2A and Heller, I can also see the court imposing some restrictions on it as they mentioned in Heller. I can also read the other things they alluded to in Heller.
That isn’t giving up your rights, its recognising that the court said it was not an unlimited right.
wallking down the street with a machinegun slung over your shoulder is going to get you a lot of trouble. and none of which I think the court will find unconsitutional. but that is a far cry what what we are talking about.
We already have several lawsuits in the works. Chicago 2.0, one Texas, Chicago 3.0 with Shawn Gouder over not issuing a CFP for a misdemenior conviction, Califoria on a carry law, california on an ammo law, Cook Couny Semi-auto ban, got three perkilating in Indiana.
As for using the term, who said this is about concealed?
Comment by Todd Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 5:22 pm
Word,
How many other Amendments, like the ones I mentioned, have 6 SCOTUS and 19 Federal Appeals cases concerning the right to bear arms, after which the law of the land always comes back to the right being existent. What we are witnessing is a relentless attack by the gun control lobby from whatever avenue of the argument they can dream up next. We see the Chicago law on arms overturned, and we see another ordinance slightly different from the first implemented. This cycle has been repeated over and over again on the 2nd Amendment for over 100 years.
Is Illinois a leader in the liberal cause of gun control, or is it behind the power curve of opinion, as witness by the laws in the other states?
You may think it is the former, I think it is the latter. Illinois is vying to become the most liberal state in the US, surpassing Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York and California. Many may think this is a good thing, but I cannot look at the so-called “leaders” in this state and think that we are ahead of that power curve on just about any issue. We hear people on this blog always extolling the virtues of moderation, yet Quinn and this GA are constantly pushing the state further to the extreme agenda of the proponents on the left.
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 5:29 pm
===How many other Amendments, like the ones I mentioned, have 6 SCOTUS and 19 Federal Appeals cases===
You ever follow 1st Amendment law?
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 11 @ 5:30 pm