Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Speaker Madigan fights back
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* Not all state concealed carry laws are equal. Click the pic for a larger image…
* The reason I bring this up…
The House gave gun rights advocates their first legislative win of the year in a move that some saw as a Republican reversal on protecting states’ rights: approval of a federal regulation that would require states that issue concealed-weapons permits to honor such permits from other states.
The GOP-led chamber approved the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, intended to allow gun owners to travel more easily from state to state without worrying about whether their concealed carry permit was valid.
The measure passed, 272-154, with 43 Democrats crossing party lines to support it.
The legislation is not expected to be taken up by the Democratic-led Senate. A similar measure failed in the Senate in 2009, although it won support from 20 Democrats.
This bill would mean people living “constitutional carry” states, which have no restrictions at all on concealed carry, could carry concealed weapons in Illinois, and Illinois couldn’t do anything about it. According to Todd Vandermyde with the NRA, the bill would not effect Illinois.
* Joe Walsh…
“Today’s vote brings us one step closer to making Illinois a right-to-carry state and allowing Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights across state lines. Currently, Illinois is the only state in this nation that denies its citizens the right to keep and bear arms. The vote today shows just how archaic Illinois’ gun laws have become and how important it is that they be repealed.
“I have been on the frontlines of the Second Amendment debate since I came to Congress in January. In a recent back-and-forth debate that I have had with the Brady Campaign, I have defended the Second Amendment stressing the importance of gun rights and how they are being disregarded, especially in Illinois.
“I am pleased with the outcome of today’s vote and will always be an outspoken advocate for Second Amendment rights and particularly, a repeal of Illinois laws preventing the right-to-carry.”
Today’s vote is a victory for gun-owning, law-abiding citizens nationwide,” said Hultgren. “The passage of H.R. 822 means that a concealed carry license, like a driver’s license, must be recognized by other states. This commonsense bill ensures that a law-abiding citizen’s Second Amendment right to self-defense does not stop at their state line, and I was proud to support its passage.”
“NRA has made the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act a priority because it enhances the fundamental right to self-defense guaranteed to all law-abiding people,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “People are not immune from crime when they cross state lines. That is why it is vital for them to be able to defend themselves and their loved ones should the need arise. And today, thanks to the work of Randy Hultgren, Congress has moved one step closer to advance crucial self-defense laws in this country.”
Thoughts?
(And I do mean “thoughts.” Do your very best to avoid bumper sticker slogans and talking points. A lifetime banishment is something you don’t want.)
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 3:27 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Speaker Madigan fights back
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The bill apparently would not apply to Illinois, according to AP. Rep. Tim Johnson tried to amend it so that it would apply everywhere, even places that currently don’t allow concealed carry (IL and DC), but the amendment failed.
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/state-and-regional/illinois/lawmaker-fails-in-bid-to-bring-concealed-carry-to-illinois/article_05c787b5-1e2f-59e2-b5ba-22d008275db0.html
Comment by South of Sherman Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 5:18 am
Illinois screws everything up. This state sucks!
Comment by Slamdunk Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 5:27 am
The US House is so far out of the mainstream now that any of these bills they pass are just jokes. I’m looking for a much more sane, normal, and middle of the road House after next November. The voters will send the court jesters back to their pizza parlors, office cleaners, or wherever else they came from. Joe Walsh will be back on unemployment.
Comment by Bill Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 5:33 am
I am always opposed to moves by the federal government to diminish the sovereignty of the individual states, and the “interstate commerce” clause of the federal Constitution has certainly been one of the most blatantly misused vehicles for accomplishing this. Republicans who love to rail against the all-powerful imperial government in Washington are hypocrites for supporting a measure such as this which attempts to nullify the will of the legislature of this state (However much I may often disagree with the legislature).
Comment by Skirmisher Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 6:51 am
Of all the states in the union Illinois stands out alone– all by its lonesome– as the only state wearing the deep blue color on the above map’s template, but “the US House is so far out of the mainstream now that any of these bills they pass are just jokes”?
Comment by Responsa Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 7:06 am
Help me understand why people need to carry concealed weapons in the first place. Not saying gun advocates are wrong, I just don’t understand.
It’s supposedly about the right to self-protection, can somebody please link me to a study the frequency of crimes that are actually prevented or lives that are saved by people carrying concealed weapons?
Comment by Senator Clay Davis Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 7:21 am
Just curious: do you have to conceal? Can you carry the weapon in a holster for all to see?
Comment by Kasich Walker, Jr. Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 7:24 am
Yep the only thing missing from Joe Walsh’s highly charged, confrontational, in-your face meetings where he screams at his own constituents are hidden semi-automatic firearms.
Comment by just sayin' Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 7:29 am
I am a conservative, Tea Party attending, FOID card-holding, Republican.
This type of legislation makes me incredibly angry!! With everything else going on in the country, this is what we need right now??
At the same time, as Rich correctly points out, if you believe in state’s rights - you can never support this bill.
Congressman Walsh, survey your district. Is this what they are demanding? I guarantee it wouldn’t even make the top ten list of true concerns, if you cared to ask them.
Several years ago, a friend suggested that DC and Springfield are simply theater. The politicians prefer to “perform” rather than actually accomplish.
This is comparable to our fearless Illinois leaders shutting down Catholic Charities (via Civil Unions bill) rather than figuring out why we can’t pay our bills and why so many companies are leaving the state…..but I digress.
Comment by Downstate Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 7:32 am
The support of this bill by Joe Walsh showes that he is soft in his support for states rights.
Comment by Left Out Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 7:52 am
To the best of my knowledge Illinois is not an open carry in public state. So no, you can’t wear a gun on your hip unless you are a copy and some security roles (and then only related to your job and going to or from the job) as I understand it.
I don’t have a problem with concealed carry but let the courts or the leg deal with it, don’t know if I want the feds in on this one (either way)
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 7:55 am
The bill would not apply to Illinois, and the current ban on any type of carry would be unaffected.
The clash comes as to what to do about rights espoused under the Second Amendment, when they may clash with notions of the 10th amendment.
Many believe that States’ don’t have rights. they have powers and duties that they are allowed to perform in self governing. But people, individuals have rights. It was kinda like backwards day watching those who would normally use the federal governement to get their way now decry the actions of the congress to try and protect a right.
in 1994 many of the same people decrying the legislation thought nothing of imposing their will to ban sales of new semi-automatic firearms by the federal governement. Where was the cry for the states to govern themsleves?
Where was the cry that we have urban parts and rural parts of the country with differing views on guns and the decision should be left to those state legislatures?
To those who think that the congress is somehow out of the main stream, consider 49 states have some form of carry. and as Wordslinger has pointed out, they are not all the same.
41 are shall issue, 8 are may issue. Alabama is a may issue but if you have a pulse and can fill out the form they issue a permit.
So the overwhelming numbers are congressman from states with a carry law. Thee were several people who got up during the debate and annouced they had a carry permit. But a look at say New Yorks delegation shows the split that I think mirrors the Country.
Those from urban areas don’t like it, those from other parts don’t mind it or support it.
But what really seems interesting to me, is that in 1994 the congress passed by 1 vote, if memory serves me right, a ban on the sale of certain new semi-autos and a mags over 10 rounds. in 2004 that ban went away. And today we now have 275 members of the House voting to support right to carry.
To me it shows the shift on the issue that has taken place and now highlighted by recent gallop polling 47% of all households claim to have a gun.
17 straight months of increased sales based upon the number of FBI background checks.
During the past session a clear majority of the House voted for a carry law, 65 votes. Illinois has a ban becuase of procedural moves to make it harder to pass the bill and the weighted influance of Chicago and Cook County.
But that may be coming to an end.
I will be away from a computer a good part of the day, so I won’t be able to banter back and forth as much as some may like.
Comment by Todd Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 7:56 am
Rich, you probably need to change the post. Illinois unfortunately won’t be covered.
Comment by Carry Me Please Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 8:14 am
Thoughts? What are the odds the Senate gets this through to the White House?
Legislative activity in a divided Congress going into a Presidential election 12 months from now is going to be a lot of posturing producing bills with little chance of becoming law. I give this one about as much chance to become law as I give the Respect for Marriage Act coming out of the Senate.
Comment by Boone Logan Square Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 8:22 am
Walsh sez,
“Currently, Illinois is the only state in this nation that denies its citizens the right to keep and bear arms.”
Really? Really, Joe?
What an idiot.
Comment by Deep South Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 8:29 am
I think it’s probably got enough votes to pass the Senate, but maybe not enough to get past a filibuster, perhaps led by Durbin. I think this will be an interesting vote for Kirk. It would help him with downstate conservatives but possibly hurt with suburban moms. I think if it gets through the Senate, it’s a no brainer for Obama to veto, especially if Rahm is out front in opposition.
We’ll see.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 8:31 am
Rich: I believe this “This bill would mean people living “constitutional carry” states, which have no restrictions at all on concealed carry, could carry concealed weapons in Illinois, and Illinois couldn’t do anything about it.” is inaccurate.
I believe that the responses from Sherman and Todd are correct. The bill would not affect Illinois. My understanding is that an amendment which would have changed it to affect Illinois was attempted; but that amendment was not successful.
Senator Davis: Thank you for your interest in this issue. Although there have been many studies claiming to show decreases in violent crimes after concealed carry is authorized, they have been criticized by doubters. Likewise, some of the anti-gun groups have sponsored studies purporting to show an increase. The studies by the anti-gun groups of which I am aware have been shown as flawed to a much, much higher degree. Anecdotal evidence and just common sense indicates that violent criminals would be far less likely to attack someone they believe to be armed or capable of defending him or herself. I have no doubt that concealed carry with training would make Illinois citizens safer (especially women and the elderly). Frankly, I think supporting concealed carry would be good public health policy. I also think it would be great economic policy. As we all know, Illinois needs additional revenue to pay its bills. I undersetand that it was projected that the License To Carry proposal (HB148?) would have generated several million dollars in revenues above administrative costs. Those additional funds could go towards paying off bills in a more timely manner or improving the state’s public safety system. Again, thank you for your interest. If you would like to discuss in more depth, just respond and I can contact you if you like.
Comment by Logic not emotion Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 8:37 am
Maybe we could get the NRA and Walsh to sponsor a National Right to Marry Reciprocity Act as well.
Comment by peacelover Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 8:38 am
The overwhelming majority of GOP politicians don’t truly believe in states’ rights. They believe in them when they align with their agenda. Johnson pushing national concealed carry, Hulgren pushing a national driving age, or the GOP pushing national tort reform, are just a few examples of how “states’ rights” is nothing more than a slogan.
Comment by Chester J. Lampwick Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 8:40 am
I am not sure of the constitutional basis for the bill. The arguments would be interesting. But, peacelover’s suggestion highlights interesting ramifications. If rights can be made personal to citizens of the various States, and travel with them, what about the right to marry, the right to choice in procreation, the right to consume alcohol, the right to buy various drugs?
Comment by BigTwich Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 9:01 am
It seems that from the Hultgren’s press release, the bill already became law…
Comment by Anon Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 9:02 am
Irrll should be proud to not be a right to carry state! The purpse of a handgun is to intimidate, threaten and harm people.
We should all be proud to not carry that burden.
Doug Dobmeyer
Comment by doug dobmeyer Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 9:04 am
I don’t understand why we just don’t have open carry. The issue with concealed weapons is that you can not distinguish who is “packing” and who isn’t. This I think would mean that crime would be uneffected because we are assuming that the criminal holding you at gun point has the were withal to think “hmmm wonder if they have a gun”. When those committing crimes, either have nothing to lose or are so hardened that you “the victim” pulling a gun on “the criminal” would not be his first time, are not thinking on the same plane as you the supporter of concealed carry.
Comment by Come on man Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 9:05 am
I think there’s an election next year. The House vote is fodder for funders and mailers on both sides of the issue.
As far as states rights go, thoughtful GOPers would be wise to run away from the concept or at least learn its history before promoting it as some sort of good thing.
From Day One, states rights was about nothing more than protecting the institution of slavery.
Slaveholding oligarchs in the South saw the growth and progress of the Northern states that were not shackled by a backwards, barbaric economy and culture. They knew the day would come when they would be overwhelmed in Congress, and sought to preserve their perverse way of life under the rubric of “states rights.”
That initial argument over states rights got settled at Appomattox Court House. I hear a guy from Springfield and another from Galena were involved.
After the dirty deal that ended Reconstruction and put Hayes in office, states rights became the justification for Jim Crow. That eventually got settled in Congress, where progressive Democrats and Republicans — including the indispensable Everett Dirksen — dragged the segregationists and institutional racists kicking and screaming into the 20th Century.
States rights has never been about liberty or freedom, it has always, always been about keeping black people down.
You can look it up.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 9:13 am
does not apply to Illinois. too bad Todd will be away from his computer and not available for banter. still wish his crowd would actually work to stop the proliferation of guns to bad people and guns, that, oh, can shoot a bullet from the mall into a White House window.
Comment by amalia Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 9:16 am
“Where was the cry that we have urban parts and rural parts of the country with differing views on guns and the decision should be left to those state legislatures?”
Todd is right. It seems odd for Dems to complain about this (just as it seems odd for pro-gun people to support a national law).
The question of whether the details of gun ownership should be decided on a state or federal level is an interesting one. What is clear, however, is that the current system of both state and feds trying to legislate in the same area is a mess. One side or the other needs to do it. It is impossible to have rational gun policy when nobody knows who is in charge.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 9:17 am
The one thing I thought of was the “full faith and credit” clause. In theory, if a state recognizes a right or privilege, all states have to recognize it (for instance, divorce before universal no fault divorce laws). Not a perfect fit, I don’t think, for concealed carry… would make an interesting legal case (in part bceause I like interesting legal problems).
Comment by John Bambenek Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 9:36 am
“If rights can be made personal to citizens of the various States, and travel with them, what about the right to marry, the right to choice in procreation, the right to consume alcohol, the right to buy various drugs?”
I did not know there were such rights. Where are they defined in the BOR? The right to carry (or bear) is right there in the 2A. All this bill does is allow a person with a carry permit to not have to worry about which states his permit is valid in when traveling.
As written this bill would allow anyone from outside of Illinois with a carry permit to carry in Illinois while residents of Illinois would still not be able to carry.
Comment by Jimbo Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 9:44 am
Would businesses still be able to outlaw fire arms on their property? Most of the busineeses in the parts of Missouri I have been to post, “No Firearms” signs by the front door. Defeats the purpose of allowing concealed carry in the first place, if you ask me.
Comment by Dirty Red Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 9:46 am
–The right to carry (or bear) is right there in the 2A. –
LOL, thanks for clearing that up, Jimbo. What’s all this fuss over the years been about, anyway.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 9:49 am
That’s pretty embarrassing for the US Government to tell Illinois what should have been done years ago.
Comment by ah HA Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 9:53 am
My first observation was that Hultgren’s
Release includes an applause line from the NRA while Walsh’s does not.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 10:00 am
Thank the Lord that we have a divided government in DC! When either the Dems or the GOP are in total control of a government (US or Illinois), nothing but bad things happen.
Comment by Ace Matson Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 10:06 am
“- Jimbo -
As written this bill would allow anyone from outside of Illinois with a carry permit to carry in Illinois while residents of Illinois would still not be able to carry.
Jimbo, as written this bill would allow anyone with a carry permit from any state to carry in any state that allows carry. An amendment offered by Tim Johnson, to allow for carry in states without carry, was not heard nor included in HR 822. Illinois will still be “carry free” if this becomes law. Thoughtful Illinois residents who have obtained permits from other states will be able to legally carry in all other states where carry is allowed… but not in their home state.
Comment by soundguy Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 10:12 am
The 10th Amendment - paraphrased, powers not delegated to the United States….are reserved to the States, or to the people.
Congress should butt out of the concealed carry issue.
That said, Illinois is now the only state that fights crime by disarming the potential victims. Thank you, Chicago, making all Illinoisians potential victims.
Comment by Motambe Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 10:17 am
My understanding after reviewing a mix of studies, is that concealed carry probably does reduce the incidence of violent crimes, but that accidental gun deaths, especially among children and suicide increase much more than violent crimes are reduced. And as emergency room doctors have attested: most suicide attempts fail, but not when guns are used.
So the public health issue is not settled, but seems to favor careful gun ownership, security, and training restrictions.
Comment by walkinfool Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 10:40 am
Will Randy and Joe insist that, say, same-sex marriages from one state be fully recognized in every state? It’s the same principle, after all. Or will they selectively invoke states’ rights?
Comment by reformer Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 10:46 am
Three times in the last month or so, Chicago people have shot burglars or car jackers, yesterday two car-jackers were shot around 117th and Lowe. Two of my semi-retired neighbors were robbed at gunpoint in front of their homes Monday night, in Roseland. People are getting feed-up with this BS. The gun control laws aren’t respected by the criminals anyway. I have changed my position on concealed carry.
Comment by onevoter Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 10:49 am
This wasn’t the way to force IL into CCW - it needs to be handled legislatively here at home. I have no doubt that it will happen eventually.
Nationwide reciprocity for CCW licensees is a good idea in my opinion - as is nationwide recognition of any civil union or marriage.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 10:54 am
States rights. The “hypocricy” issue should always be measured from a Constitutional perspective, since it is there that the responsibilities of the federal government and natural rights of citizens (enforced by the Constitution) as well as its mention that “if it ain’t in here”, the Constitution is silent on it.
If a law simply states what is already in the Constitution, it is redundant. If a law carries out the intent of the Constitution with clarity and common sense while taking consideration of intended and unintended consequences, it is useful. If a law is in direct violation of the wording or intent of the Constitution, it is unconstitutional. The puddin’ is in there somewhere.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 10:55 am
There’s probably a fourth category there, about “Constitutional but stupid”.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 10:56 am
skeeter
Both parties are selective and hypocritical about states’ rights. Democrats want states’ rights, for example, when it comes to medical marijuana laws, but the Bush administration cracked down in those states.
Comment by reformer Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 10:56 am
State’s rights is a phony ideology. It always has been.
People want what they want. Show me the person who is willing to support state’s rights ahead of an issues s/he cares passionately about.
The Southern states only embraced state’s rights when anti-slavery politicians gained power in Washington. Before the South pushed through the Fugitive Slave Act, which ran roughshod over the state’s rights of non-slave states.
Republicans don’t give a hoot about state’s rights. They want to move the NRA agenda forward. OK, fine.
Republicans also wanted to undermine state sovereignty on health care with their plan to sell insurance across state lines. The principle would be to buy off one state’s legislature (probably a small state) and pass a bunch of pro-insurance, anti-consumer laws in one state and then sell insurance everywhere based on laws in one state.
Gee, thanks, GOP.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 11:03 am
Senator Clay Davis - Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 7:21 am:
Because it’s my Constitutional right.
Comment by Jechislo Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 11:16 am
I have no gun in this fight since it’s not really an issue I care about all that much, but to me that map says more about the failure of the conservative movement in Illinois the last 20 years than it does about anything else. The fact that states like pa, and michigan which have had similar national political stories-voting dem for president every year since 1992 as illinois have gun laws similar to southern states and Illinois has gun laws like dc shows you how politically inept the conservative movement and gun rights activists here have been.
Comment by Shore Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 11:21 am
Jerichslo: Please read Clay Davis’ question again. I am interested as well in an answer to his question, if you want to tackle it.
Having a right isn’t the reason you want to use that right. Having the Constitutional right to vote doesn’t motivate everyone to actually vote in every election.
Comment by walkinfool Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 11:30 am
I own guns, but I don’t see the need for concealed carry. I prefer to have professionals in charge of law enforcement. Perhaps if the Right would stop insisting that cutting taxes and reducing government was the only way to go, we could fully staff the police departments and reduce the need for self protection.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 11:31 am
Jechislo, sorry I got your name wrong above.
Comment by walkinfool Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 11:37 am
I know many folks who carry a concealed gun in Illinois. They are good citizens and as far as the ones I know, they don’t break the law in any other way.
Those who do break the law may call attention to the fact that they conceal carry. It would be interesting to see just how many citizens have been arrested in Illinois for illigally carrying a handgun?
I personally like the idea of conceal carry but also prefer the ide OF STATE SOVERNIETY. m a bit hesitant on
Comment by Justice Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 11:38 am
Oops…..Not sure what happened there…
I personally like the idea of conceal carry but also prefer state sovereignty.
Comment by Justice Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 11:41 am
As much as I’d like to see concealed carry pass here in Illinois, I don’t like this legislation, because it’s an overreach of the Federal Government.
With that said, I just wish that we could have an honest discussion on concealed carry. If you don’t like guns and don’t want to carry a gun, no one will ever force you to do so under a concealed carry law. However, why deny that right to law abiding citizens who own and use guns in a safe and responsible manner for their own protection?
If those who are opposed to concealed carry could provide examples of this so called “epidemic” of gun violence that occurs as a result of c/c laws being passed, I think you might have a valid argument. Those who obtain c/c permits are law abiding citizens (otherwise they couldn’t obtain one) who register everything with the state.
Comment by East Sider Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 11:50 am
- Ken in Aurora - Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 10:54 am:
This wasn’t the way to force IL into CCW - it needs to be handled legislatively here at home. I have no doubt that it will happen eventually.-
I think it will be handled by the courts.
Comment by East Sider Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 11:52 am
Motambe -
While Chicago is a major urban area, a lot of the money that fuels the violence in Chicago and St. Louis passes through downstate Illinois. The open spaces downstate make it a breeding ground for narcotics production and the dispersed or depleted law enforcement staffs blind us all. Think of the millions of dollars that pass by our homes along Interstate 55.
Just sayin’. Chicago ain’t the only ones with a hand in this.
Comment by Dirty Red Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 12:04 pm
The most interesting thing about Joe Walsh’s statement is that first sentence in the second paragraph. Read and think about what it literally says… and what it doesn’t.
Comment by ZC Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 12:54 pm
“ah HA - Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 9:53 am:
That’s pretty embarrassing for the US Government to tell Illinois what should have been done years ago.”
Yeah, that’s how a lot of us felt about health care reform.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 12:59 pm
Walkinfool: Good point about public health issue. Many years ago, I was on a committee that started with the presumption that there was a correlation between firearm ownership and suicide rates. I obtained and read a lot of books about firearms restrictions, suicide rates, etc. It was interesting and initially surprising. The suicide rates were extremely high in some of the countries with the strictest gun control / lowest gun ownership and extremely low in some of the countries with the least restrictive gun control / highest gun ownership. Overall, I didn’t find a correlation between the rates. The real conclusions were that suicide attempts by firearm were more successful than most other methods (as you point out) and that suicidal people will still find some method of committing suicide regardless of available means. As to gun deaths among children… At that time, it seems like the children gun deaths data didn’t differentiate between an accidental shooting of a 5 year old getting access to a firearm and a 17 year old gang member getting killed by a rival gang over drug turf. To me, there is a big difference between those two scenarios; but some anti-gun groups disingenuously categorized them the same way in promoting gun control.
Comment by Logic not emotion Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 1:03 pm
I should have also added that we reviewed a lot of data other than what we could find in books too.
Comment by Logic not emotion Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 1:05 pm
Agree with Shore on this having to do with the failure of the Illinois conservative movement.
This legislation is about the Republican Congresscritters from Illinois being too lazy or incompetent to (re)build a functional, credible party to compete with the Illinois Democratic Party for the voters of Illinois on issues like concealed carry, and who instead of accepting failure or trying to change course to rebuild the party are turning to the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress for help in dictating the affairs of Chicago and Springfield on issues they can’t win at the ballot box. In employing this strategy, nothing is done to advance public sentiment in favor of their viewpoint if it is a minority position and if it is a majority position then nothing is done to punish Democrats at the ballot box for their viewpoint either.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 1:35 pm
Thanks for the info, Logic Not Emotion. But that’s anecdotal evidence. I understand that criminals “may” hesitate if they know C/C exists, but that’s not definitely true by any means.
OneVoter said there was an example of someone stopping a carjacking in Roseland recently, can somebody share that article? And if it happened once, it has to happen frequently. Can somebody show me a study proving that crime decreases after C/C because armed citizens stop crimes?
I also dispute that someone should conceal carry just because it’s their right. We have lots of rights, I’m just asking WHY you want to exercise this particular one so bad.
Comment by Senator Clay Davis Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 1:57 pm
I am opposed to individual States trying to diminish my Constitutional Rights, in this case my right to keep and bear arms. The Illinois legislature is so far out of the mainstream with their anti-gun laws. It is a joke. They all bow to the puppetmasters in Chicago, who believe that it is ok for themselves to carry guns to protect themselves and their family, but not ok for the rest of us. What hypocrites and what an abuse of their power!
Sen. Clay Davis: There are a few things I know about people with a concealed carry permit. I know that they have been background checked by the Feds. I know that they are law abiding because choose to take the legal route of getting a permit instead of just hiding a gun under their shirt anyway like gangbangers do. I know that they train with their firearms so that they can use them safely. I know they have been background checked again for a FOID Card, and background checked again when purchasing a new gun. I know they act responsibly because they don’t want to lose their CCW rights. What do I know about folks without any kind of gun permit? Not much really, they could all be closet axe murderers for all we know.
Deep South: Illinois *is* the only State in this nation that denies its citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Really. Maybe you should give some extra thought to who the idiot really is.
Wordslinger: you are correct about the origins of Sate’s rights. Just as from day one Illinois’ gun bans were nothing more than old man Daley disarming black people.
Amelia: there are already laws against bad people owning guns and shooting at the White House.
Ken in Aurora: civil unions are not a Constitutional Right and your comment is just an off topic distraction to the real issue.
Pot calling kettle: Chicago’s diminished police ranks are not a result of the right cutting taxes or reducing government. LOL, It is the result of democrats stealing from their citizenry. Ask any Chicago cop why there haven’t been any new hires.
Comment by Benny Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 1:59 pm
Amilia - - I’m back
Word – spot on.
Jimbo – you’re wrong.
The bill states that in order for the “law” to apply the state:
“has a statute that allows residents of the
State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed
firearms; or
‘‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed
firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes”
Illinois does not have a carry permit and DOES have a prohibition. So 1. Illinois residents will not get a carry permit out of this. 2. Illinois’ prohibition will not be overturned and 3. Non-residents will not be able to carry in our state.
I would say that it is not a failure of the conservitive movement as it is an indictment of the failing of the republican party. The last election spoke to that.
Comment by Todd Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 2:03 pm
To those on the left that are cynically crying “states’ rights” and those on the right doing the same:
States’ Rights (aka powers) can not trump individual rights. As others have pointed out, the Civil War put and end to that. Also, the 13th and 14th Amendments.
The 14th Amendment, in particular, authorizes the Federal Government to intervene when a state is violating the individual rights of ‘the people’. It was ratified after the 10th Amendment, which means, though I am not a lawyer or con law scholar, that if it is seen to conflict with a prior Amendment, it amends that amendment.
I also happen to be of the opinion that ultimately the 14th Amendment combined with the 1st Amendment right of free association, will bring about nationwide recognization of same sex marriage.
Comment by David Lawson Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 2:10 pm
Mr. Lawson,
Individual rights are not absolute. And gun ownership was not even considered an individual right until a ruling of the Supreme Court in 2008.
Free speech is an individual right with a much longer history and yet the state is allowed to trump individual rights to free speech on a daily basis with the state legally imposing permit requirements for time/place/manner of protests, prohibiting libel and slander and limiting speech that is deemed obscene or to incite violence.
This is even after the Court has used the 14th amendment to apply the provisions of the 1st amendment’s prohibition on Congress abridging 1st amendment rights to a prohibition on state legislatures and local government abridging 1st amendment rights as well.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 3:15 pm
Hisgirlfriday: The First Amendment wasn’t added to protect polite speech, after all, why would anyone need to protect polite speech? The First Amendment is there specifically to protect speech that one might find insulting or dissenting. Think about it.
Comment by Benny Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 3:23 pm
Timmeh, I’m not making things up. You can read all about it yourself in many fine books.
For starters and one-stop shopping, I’d recommend:
“What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 (Oxford History of the United States),” by Daniel Walker Howe. It won the Pulitzer Prize.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 3:38 pm
Friday —
It took about 150 years for the 1st Amendment jurisprudence to start. While SCOTUS finally put it’s foot down in 2008, and condified what many already believed to be the case, the idea that there is an individual right to own and carry a firearm is not new.
Yes there are time place and manner restrictions. And we recognise that the 2A is not an unlimited right, and may be subject to those same type of restrictions.
We just happen to believe that Illinois prohibition on carrying a gun for sefl defense doesn’t pass the constitutional test set out in Heller.
Comment by Todd Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 3:38 pm
Todd, has the NRA ever tried to pass through Congress a national conceal-carry law that would trump any state laws?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 3:43 pm
Word — as in overturn Illinois’ ban or change say Hawaii? No. Not that I can recall. Now congress has been know for trying to blackmail states into getting what they want by saying pass this type of law XX or face a loss of funding for Y.
The Johnson Amendment was defeated becuase it brings a lot of other legal baggage with it. prefer just a “clean” bill as I’m sure it will have enough challenges as it is without adding to it.
They could if they wanted to pass a federal carry permit and say it was vailid in all 50 states if congress wanted to, I would imagine. But our guys don’t trust the feds with such power or information.
does that answer your question?
Comment by Todd Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 3:52 pm
Still, nobody has described WHY C/C is necessary.
Comment by Senator Clay Davis Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 4:24 pm
If the British had been able to implement “gun control” and compel the colonists to disarm themselves, we would not be having a civil dialogue about the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution.
Comment by Esquire Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 4:36 pm
Senator –
Necessary isn’t required for a right. I can burn the flag, I choose not to. The availability of a right doesn’t mean it needs to be justified.
But for a great many people, they choose not to be at the mercy of thugs and those who would do them harm for their wallet, watch, car or dignity.
I have a fire extinguisher in my house, several in fact. I don’t plan on having a fire, but I think it’s a good idea. Likewise I carry insurance on my house and stuff. Do I think a tornado is going to strike? No. or the fire I have an extinguisher for? No. But I plan for the worst, expect the best.
Carrying a firearm to many of us is in the same vain. We choose not to be helpless, that we are responsible for our own safety first, after all when seconds count, the cops are minutes away. Even with the Tinley Park murders where the cop was in the parking lot and got their in less than 2 minutes, 5 women were still dead and no suspect.
So the proposition to those that support and want to carry, see it as their right to defend themselves against aggressors, that they, not the state, are the first line of defense and responsible for their own safety.
And as such, we don’t need to justify a need to protect ourselves or families when out in public. You may choose a different path. Fine. But we won’t make that choice for you, and don’t expect you to make it for us.
Comment by Todd Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 4:55 pm
Hmm, states’ rights vs fundamental civil rights…
Can states’ rights trump my 1st Amendment Rights?
The 2nd’s incorporation under the 14th Amendment via McDonald will have to have some meaning over time.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 6:36 pm
== We just happen to believe that Illinois prohibition on carrying a gun for self defense doesn’t pass the constitutional test set out in Heller. ==
Didn’t Scalia state that Heller does not prohibit state laws restricting concealed carry?
Comment by reformer Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 7:04 pm
Reformer - he wrote “carrying a gun” not “carrying a concealed gun”.
Comment by David Lawson Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 7:24 pm
Senator Clay Davis,
Examples can be found comparing different State statistics before and after CC passage. You’ll have to visit some of the pro-gun web sites; they often cite actual FBI & NCIC numbers. To quote Rich: “Google is your friend”.
Here’s one somewhat objective site that actually provides citations for the numbers it cites:
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
It shows declines in Texas and Florida after CC was passed, to cite two states. It also shows a decline in Chicago after a gun ban was passed, but note that the decline was much less than the national decline during the same period, which implies the gun ban actually made things worse in Chicago compared to the rest of the nation.
BTW: Senator, if you are opposed to concealed carry, I can live with that *if* the State allows open carry. Seeing firearms openly carried should definitely be a deterrent … at least for the people actually carrying! The 2A and SCOTUS says it’s my right to bear arms with some limited regulation by s State, so it’s either open or concealed carry … your choice until SCOTUS rules against Illinois and decides for you.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 8:29 pm
I am not pleased with the method used.
I am unimpressed with the goal of the bill.
We are 15 Trillion in debt, and they are doing this?
There must be some campaign funding happening, because this is so stupid.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Nov 17, 11 @ 10:40 pm
Todd, I was thinking more in line of, and I believe this is your position, that conceal-carry is a Constitutional right granted all Americans. Therefore, there should be a codified national standard that would trump all state laws.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Nov 18, 11 @ 7:53 am
Todd, the above question was from me. Thanks.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Nov 18, 11 @ 8:11 am
Word I would have to think about that. it goes to the intersection of who do you trust with the admin of the right, and our guys don’t trust the feds. Are generally more comfortable with the states, as seen by MO, FL, UT, AZ.
The feds witht heir F&F debacle and then ATF tryign to grab new “info” as a potential registration scheme on semi-auto rifles does not lend trust to the feds administering a national carry permit.
Hense 822. And I think our guys would want to split the baby inhalf, national regocnition of state carry permits to prevent a national licensing scheme of any sort. I think it ends up bad, as no matter how you slice it, it still ends up a “national gun license” for private citizens whuch we have always opposed.
The fact is every time the feds are intrusted with some regulation over guns, they abuse it, try to get more and squirt away any credibility of not wanting to turn it into gun control.
I will take my tinfoil hat off now, and go take my meds.
Comment by Todd Friday, Nov 18, 11 @ 9:58 am