Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Quinn talks about guns

Posted in:

Illinois

* This is a pretty good summation of the governor’s responses to questions about the aftermath of the recent Colorado shooting…

Governor Pat Quinn says he does not support concealed carry guns in Illinois. He doesn’t believe that allowing people to carry concealed weapons is a way to prevent violence.

Quinn says he also supports a ban on assault weapons in Illinois. The governor also believes that high-capacity magazines need to be regulated and prohibited.

He wants Illinois to be a leader and show the way on the gun control measures.

* Listen to the raw audio…

Click to download

There’s nothing really all that new here, but I thought you might want to discuss it anyway.

As always when we talk about this issue, take a deep breath before you comment. If you don’t, it’s very likely that your comment will be deleted. So, what’s the point in going all nutso in comments when nobody will see it anyway? Thanks.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 9:14 am

Comments

Gandalf: *takes deep breath before the plunge*

Comment by ZC Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 9:18 am
I hate debating this type of thing after a tragedy because it amounts to measuring ourselves by our failures as a society. I’m always in favor of honestly examining our shortcomings, but when people have just died, it seems impossible to do so in a respectful manner without politicizing their deaths. I’ll keep my opinion to myself for now, and instead ask that everyone simply try to show love, grace and mercy to someone else today and every day.

Comment by Infidel Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 9:24 am
Since almost every State has conceal and carry laws,whos mind does the Governor think he’s going to be changed?

We should get in step with the rest of the country
and pass conceal and carry.

Comment by mokenavince Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 9:27 am
I saw Governor Quinn at the White Sox game last night. I yelled “thanks for raising my taxes” but I don’t think he heard me. It was also “White Sox Legislative Caucus Night” and the scoreboard mentioned Barbara Flynn Currie and Ed Maloney.

Gun control-works real well in Chicago….

Comment by Ravenswood Right Winger Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 9:35 am
How about a compromise? What would be better:

A) Status Quo

B) Ban assault weapons, armor piercing bullets, and high capacity magazines…and allow conceal carry.

Comment by Robert Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 9:36 am
The gun lobby must know that this is not a good time to push conceal-carry. Even for people open to the idea, there is some gut feeling that the more guns in the city, the more gun deaths in the city. Assault weapons are another story completely.

Comment by Dan Bureaucrat Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 9:37 am
I can see both sides of the discussion about this issue. I’ve always wondered though, in cases like Colorado, if there was concealed carry, how do the police, or for that matter anyone in the area, know who has a permit and who is the criminal when something like this breaks out. Would citizens start shooting other permit carrying citizens out of confusion compounding the problem?

Comment by Give Me A Break Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 9:39 am
Ravenswood Right Winger - Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 -He heard you. I was wondering why he said “you’re welcome”.

Personally, I agree with the right to bear arms and do not see the need for some weapons or high capacity magazines.

Comment by Wumpus Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 9:40 am
I’m pretty moderate on guns- Allow legal ownership and conceal carry but keep it strongly regulated to make sure it isn’t abused.

I never understand why high-capacity magazines aren’t a common sense thing to ban. Both this shooting and the Gabby Giffords shooting involved the use of military-style extended or drum clips. The only reason a rifle needs to hold 100 rounds or a pistol holding 30 rounds would be military or massacre.

Police said lives were saved because his 100rd drum clip jammed. Well what if he had to reload 5 times? Would a few more people have made it out the door? Would the delay give someone the chance to take him to the ground?

I fear the only reason common sense reforms like this aren’t enacted is that pro-gun activists believe that ANY regulation is a slippery slope to the elimination of all gun ownership. Even a common sense regulation like this that can save lives while keeping the rights of legal gun owners unharmed.

Comment by Anon Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 9:45 am
Would those bans stand up in the courts? That’s yet to be seen. Every Glock 17 (one of the most popular handguns) comes with two ’so-called’ high capacity magazines included. You can these buy ’so-called’ high capacity magazines for the .22 caliber Ruger 10/22 rifle at Cabelas or Walmart. Once the cat is out of the bag, it’s tough to put back in.

Comment by Allen Skillicorn Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 9:49 am
So Quinn wants Illinois to “be a leader and show the way on gun control measures”? I guess adding more window dressing laws banning one thing or another will make a difference, even though we already have tons already on the books. Chicago has even more laws than the rest of the state- guess they are working because you never hear about anyyone getting shot there (and no, I don’t own guns and I am not a memberof the NRA. Just tired of having a government run by nannies)

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 9:51 am
There’s no better time to talk about the issue, as we hear quite often that we only need to be concerned about weapons in the hands of gangbangers and convicted felons.

According to Time, under Colorado law, Holmes legally purchased his assault rifle, shotgun, two Glocks and 6,000 rounds of ammunition.

Colorado is an open-carry state that requires a conceal-carry permit, so Holmes may have violated the law if he attempted to conceal his weapons before he started shooting.

However, since Colorado is a “shall-issue” state, Holmes almost certainly would have received a conceal-carry permit if had bothered to apply for one as he had no criminal record or history of mental illness.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/21/colorado-theater-shooter-carried-4-guns-all-obtained-legally/

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 9:51 am
Anon @ 9:15 was me - reformatted phone so erased auto fill

Comment by Roadiepig Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 9:53 am
Chicago has the toughest gun control laws in the country, yet Chicago citizens face a higher murder rate than U.S. troops in Kabul. Gun control laws only impact law abiding citizens.

Comment by Old school Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 9:54 am
=== yet Chicago citizens face a higher murder rate than U.S. troops in Kabul===

That’s not a good comparison. You’d have to compare troop shootings to cops being shot at for a more accurate pairing.

And, as we discussed last week, most of the people being shot in Chicago this summer are gang affiliated. They wouldn’t qualify for concealed carry anyway.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 9:58 am
If you want to own a handgun, shotgun, or hunting rifle, fine. But who gets to purchase assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and massive amounts of ammunition should be restricted and highly regulated. Why are our national politicians so afraid to talk about this?

Comment by Wensicia Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 9:59 am
Gov. Quinn - you want more gun control, I want a pony.

We’re both going to be disappointed.

Comment by Ken in Aurora Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 10:00 am
Chicago’s experience seems to prove that local gun bans cannot be effective. Unless you want to set up road blocks at each entrance to the City (or state), it is pretty easy to move guns into town.

Until we get national legislation, none of this can be effective. We may as well as allow them, and get the tax revenue from the sales.

Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 10:06 am
–Gun control-works real well in Chicago…. –

Not sure what you mean by that. Do you think gangbangers and felons should legally be allowed to carry weapons?

Holmes was legal until he started shooting.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 10:14 am
Some of you have known Barack Obama a very long time and I was curious as to whether you’re surprised or disappointed about him not willing to go to bat on this issue at all.

Comment by Shore Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 10:15 am
I don’t understand what -this- incident in CO has to do with concealed carry.

Regardless of whether concealed carry laws work, or IL should have them, the guy who shot up the CO theatre was -armored-. And it was dark, and tear gas was fizzing everywhere. There are narratives where concealed carry might make sense or a difference. This tragedy was not one of them.

Comment by ZC Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 10:16 am
This is a tough one. I have a FOID. Even though I believe that people should have the right to own firearms, I believe in responsible regulations. If we have to have car insurance and title registration, why not better gun regulations?

I think assault weapons deserve very rigid regulation, if not outright banning. I am not sure on this issue, but why do we need killing machines if we are not killers? In Chicago, many of the homicides involve gangs, so that excludes many people. Since a large majority of us are not involved in gangs or threatened by them, why do we need assault weapons?

I am wavering on concealed carry. If many of us are packing guns, do we want to live in that kind of society, in which we don’t trust one another? Should’t we also try to reach out to each other and build trust?

Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 10:20 am
== Not sure what you mean by that. Do you think gangbangers and felons should legally be allowed to carry weapons? ==

I suspect the thought is some of the toughest gun control laws in the state if not the nation do not seem to be helping much.

Also for what it is worth when you are the only state that does not allow for something be it Illinois with concealed carry or Iowa with title insurance, being the only state in the country that does not allow something makes me wonder a bit.

Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 10:23 am
I think the courts have been misinterpreting the 2nd amendment for decades. How can you have a “well regulated militia” without regulating it? Congress has the power to regulate the citizen militia. We know this because it is illegal to own an automatic weapon, a rocket launcher, a howitzer, etc.

I realize I’m in the minority and there are a host of court decisions against my position, but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong.

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 10:24 am
Two observations.

According to news reports I’ve read, guns were banned in the theater. Apparently the law abiding citizens complied with that, since I have not read of any attempt by the theater goers to stop the gunman.

Larger capacity magazines are nothing new. Under the previous ban of ‘large capacity magazines’, my 22 semi automatic pistol made in 1954 would not be permitted. Magazine size really doesn’t make any difference; you can change in a couple of seconds anyway.

One opinion:

If the citizens of this State aren’t allowed to protect themselves, we should require the politicans to play by the same rules … no armed security staff.

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 10:24 am
@Give Me a Break. I’ve got a friend in Missouri with a conceal carry license, when he took the classes he was told that when the police arrive on the scene everyone is considered a “bad guy” and to place your gun on the ground.

@Wensicia Most assault weapons bans define an “assault weapon” as a semi-automatic firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun) with a detachable clip of 10 rounds or more, a pistol grip on the forearm of a longbarreled firearm or on the barrel of a handgun, or has a folding, telescoping (read collapsing), thumbhole, or pistol grip stock. They also list a number of specific firearms.

During the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 my dad was unable to buy a clip for a .22 pistol that is used for hunting and target shooting. AR-15s, which are commonly referred to as assualt weapons, typically fire a .223 Remington round (5.56 NATO) and are great for hunting varmints like coyotes, foxes, groundhogs, etc. Mini-14s (which are commonly listed in an assault weapons ban) fire a .308 Winchester (7.62 NATO) are great for hunting coyotes and medium sized game.

Many hunting firearms have also been adopted by the U.S. military. The 1897 trench gun was a 12 ga pump action shotgun adopted by the military that was origionally manufactured by Winchester as a gun used for hunting. The only alterations made by the Army ordinance department was the addition of a heat shield on the barrel and a bayonet lug on the end. The M-40 Sniper Rifle used by Sniper/Scouts in Vietnam and is still used by the U.S. Military was origionally manufactured by Remington as the Model 70 and intended for hunting (its a bolt action rifle and fires a .308 like the Mini-14). The Remington 870 is another pump-action shotgun designed for hunting and adopted by the military for use. 870s have been modified by the military to create what is called the “Master Key System” because it can “open any door.” Essentially a Master Key is an M-16/M4 with a 12 guage 870 attached under the barrel.

To conclude, just because something is considered a “hunting” gun does not mean that it can’t also be considered an “assault weapon.” And just because a firearm is classified as an “assault weapon” does not mean that it does not have a purpose in hunting as well.

Comment by Ryan from Carrollton Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 10:25 am
Shore, I’m neither surprised nor disappointed in Obama’s lack of leadership on gun issues. In Springfield, while he voted for many gun control bills, he was hardly a leader. In fact, he was conveniently absent for a critical vote and the Tribune hit him hard for it.

The NRA and the gun manufacturers are making millions telling the gullible that Obama and the UN are going to take away their guns. It’s nonsense and always has been. Obama hasn’t proposed any gun legislation, hasn’t promised to, and has done nothing to justify the paranoia of the pro-gun community.

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 10:27 am
>>I suspect the thought is some of the toughest gun control laws in the state if not the nation do not seem to be helping much.

Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 10:32 am
===he was conveniently absent for a critical vote===

That vote was taken over Christmas break. He was in Hawaii and his daughter got an ear infection and couldn’t fly home. Not sure it was all that convenient.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 10:34 am
–Also for what it is worth when you are the only state that does not allow for something be it Illinois with concealed carry..–

Trying getting one in Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delware or urban areas in California, New York or Massachusetts.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 10:35 am
The Aurora killer reportedly had a 100-bullet magazine for his assault rifle. I support the Second Amendment, but I wonder if it precludes a ban on such high capacity magazines?

Comment by reformer Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 10:36 am
IL Hunting Digest:

It is unlawful to:

“use a shotgun capable of holding more
than three shells in the magazine and
chamber combined. Any shotgun having a
capacity of more than three shells must be
fitted with a one-piece plug that is irremovable without dismantling the shotgun or
otherwise altered to render it incapable of
holding more than three shells in the magazine and chamber combined.”

I don’t recall hearing from hunters or the NRA to have this gun regulation changed.

Three shells seem to be the acceptable limit for sporting and safety.

Comment by vole Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 10:36 am
Darn computer did it again. I posted above, but there was a glitch.

In response to OneMan, I wrote that it’s hard for gun regulations to work when violent criminals in places like Chicago are obtaining their guns easily from places with less gun regulation. I once saw a guy on television selling guns from the trunk of his car, outside of a gun show.

Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 10:38 am
Unfortunately despicable things like this in colorado happen and it should not. Do people in society today really trust one another with all of the lawsuits that are filed and where a handshake is no longer relied upon. Society needs to be more respectful and trustworthy for things to change, still have hope that will happen but am not going to hold my breath.

Comment by anon Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 10:42 am
In my opinion, Quinn is pitch is perfect on this one. He speaks first of the victims, especially the family from Illinois which lost a son, and then of what to do about it, an assault weapons ban and the banning of big clips. And he clearly knows the legislation as he gives the sponsors. As for concealed carry, in the Colorado case the offender had on law enforcement grade protection with the exception of one piece that law enforcement will not identify so the effect of the average concealed weapon might be negligible. and in the dark of the theater, dangerous also.

while I agree with the U.S. Supreme Court that there is an individual right to own a gun, and that freedom is important, things have crossed the line. And Justice Scalia says things can be regulated. do we want an AR 15 and a 100 bullet clip to represent our freedom? do we need an AR15 and a 100 bullet clip to represent our freedom? I think the Illinois Legislature can do what Quinn said, and show the way that these things should not be legal here. we don’t need them to be free in the exercise of our gun rights.

Comment by amalia Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 10:42 am
Rich, I know the story well. I used it as an example of Obama not being a hard-core anti-gun politician, which is true. He knew the vote was coming, and yes, his daughter was sick. But if he was a staunch anti-gun leader, he might have returned for the vote.

He didn’t. He took the hit for missing the vote. Gun control was not central to his political biography and it isn’t today. That’s my point, which is why I’m neither surprised nor disappointed that he hasn’t taken on gun control as president.

But the facts certainly aren’t getting in the way of the NRA and the gun manufacturers as they use irrational fear to make boatloads of money.

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 10:42 am
@Ryan

Respectfully, is it your opinion regulations and bans can’t be placed on any weapon because it could be called a crossover weapon? If not, what weapons do you believe should be restricted from the general public?

Comment by Wensicia Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 10:47 am
vole,

The 3 shell limit is a DNR hunting regulation and is only true of shotguns used in the field for hunting. If you don’t hunt with it, there is no restriction on shotgun capacity.

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 10:52 am
@amalia 3 30 round clips staggered and taped together can have the same effect as a 100 round. Does anyone need an i-phone? Does anyone need a Maseratti (sp?)? Does anyone need expensive bottles of wine? Does anyone need a 250,000 Sq. ft. house? Does anyone need a jet ski or fiberglass pleasure boat?

Comment by Ryan from Carrollton Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 10:55 am
Ryan,
When used as designed, will a bottle of 1990 Krug wipe out a movie theater?

Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 10:59 am
@Wensicia, full auto. They are highly restricted, but not completely prohibited from private ownership. Private individuals may own a fully automatic weapon or a selective fire weapon but only with the proper (and expensive) federal licenses and oversight.

I would suggest maintaining the current level of federal gun laws with the only exception perhaps of a federal right to carry reciprocity act.

Comment by Ryan from Carrollton Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 11:02 am
==I can see both sides of the discussion about this issue. I’ve always wondered though, in cases like Colorado, if there was concealed carry, how do the police, or for that matter anyone in the area, know who has a permit and who is the criminal when something like this breaks out. Would citizens start shooting other permit carrying citizens out of confusion compounding the problem? ==

Can you point to a single example in the other 49 states where this has occurred?

Comment by East Sider Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 11:02 am
Skeeter,
Guns are an inanimate object and they are only as good or as bad as the person using them. If someone drinks a bottle of Krug and decides to dragrace though a crowded area, it could have much the same effect.

Comment by Ryan from Carrollton Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 11:05 am
@Ryan from Carrollton, oh, yeah, thirty round clips sound so much better….not. Scalia believes our freedom can be regulated and we can do that.

Comment by amalia Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 11:05 am
re Quinn and “He doesn’t believe that allowing people to carry concealed weapons is a way to prevent violence.”

No one really does - but they are a way to limit the innocent body count in one of these things.

As it stands in Illinois/Chicago the only people armed are the criminals - and innocents/law-abiding citizens are stripped of their right to self-defense.

Comment by titan Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 11:07 am
nope, not surprised at barack’s (or most democrats’) unwillingness to get out in front of this issue. i know this is about illinois, but since the question was asked, it’s relevant to mention that in the swing states democratic VOTERS (or what we like to call the base) are deeply divided on, or utterly in favor (new hampshire, north carolina, virginia, colorado, etc), of gun rights. you can’t pass gun control legislation through congress (regardless of who has the majority) and it does no good for a president to take a position that has no hope for passage. gun control advocates may not like it, but if they spent a little time knocking on doors in the swing areas of the swing states, they would likely come across some union member who would tell them that they want to vote democratic but they have real concerns about the democratic party’s position on guns (and sometimes abortion gets thrown in there, as well).

having said that, quinn has shown some real courage in getting out in front of this issue, because it’s sure to be used against democrats in downstate and even collar county elections this fall…

Comment by bored now Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 11:07 am
Grandson of Man,

I have a real problem with how a lot of the politicans define ‘assault weapons’. Fully automatic weapons (i.e., a lot of what we think of as military assault weapons) are already banned at the federal level and have been since 1934. As Ryan pointed out, a lot of ‘civilian’ weapons have their military counterparts, so drawing the line by just citing a make and model doesn’t really cut it.

Personally, when my old 22 semi pistol with 4 inch barrel is defined as an assault weapon just because it has a 10 shell magazine, I think that is going too far.

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 11:07 am
–Guns are an inanimate object and they are only as good or as bad as the person using them. If someone drinks a bottle of Krug and decides to dragrace though a crowded area, it could have much the same effect. –

Ryan, taking your line of thinking to its logical conclusion, a dynamite vest or some C4 in your shoes are just fashion accessories except in the wrong hands.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 11:20 am
Guns have been around for a few hundred years but these types of violence have only become common in the last 50 years or so. What good do more laws do? Isn’t killing someone already against the law? What other law is needed if everyone simply obeyed existing laws? What’s changed in the last 50 years? People have. Why is that? Is it because of violence in tv, movies, games, etc.? Is it all due to drugs? Wouldn’t someone killing someone with a single-shot rifle be just as tragic? More gun laws is not the answer. Fixing what is wrong with people (society) is the answer but I have no idea how that can be done.

Comment by Shermanite Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 11:27 am
We should ban cars as they kill people all the time.

Comment by Liberty First Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 11:29 am
Initially Ryan, nobody is going to consume a bottle of Krug and do something crazy. Paying $150 for a half bottle IS the crazy thing. What they are likely to do is to bore the people around them by discussing, in a voices way too loud, the numerous layers of flavor and the fact that finish that lasts a week (and it is not like I’m speaking from experience on that one. Nope. Not me). While admittedly painful, it is probably less painful than being shot.

That being said, I’ve been on the fence on gun control for a long time. There is a big part of me that believes freedom is important enough that we should allow people to own guns.

Ryan, and then I read comments from people you who tell me that a bottle of Krug is just as dangerous as an AK. Then I start thinking that the pro-gun people have simply lost their minds.

Where are the reasonable people in the gun lobby? Where the people who can say “Guns are a right. But we really don’t need guns that can easily wipe out a theater.” Where are the reasonable people in the gun lobby that can even admit that guns are dangerous? That seems obvious. It is no different than admitting that sharp objects are dangerous. But the gun lobby won’t do that, and the result is that people like me end up on the side of the gun control people.

Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 11:34 am
Here’s another feel good law the Illinois GA could pass … let’s ban gangs and gang-bangers!

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 11:35 am
“We should ban cars as they kill people all the time.”

Only the ones in Cars 2. The rest are not designed to kill.

Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 11:36 am
== But the gun lobby won’t do that, and the result is that people like me end up on the side of the gun control people. ==

So, I guess you come down on the other side of the 1st Amendment as well, because of the Westboro kooks?

Comment by East Sider Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 11:37 am
These comments by Quinn are also a cute little political maneuver to give the Southern Illinois Democrat legislators (many of whom are in big trouble in this election cycle) a chance to pander to the pro-gun crowd about how they’re “standing up to the Chicago gun control lobbyists.” I’ve received “legislative updates” from Dan Beiser that are some of the most blatantly political pieces (trumpeting concealed carry) that I’ve ever seen.

Comment by East Sider Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 11:41 am
“So, I guess you come down on the other side of the 1st Amendment as well, because of the Westboro kooks?”

Am I missing something? Did the Westboro kooks shoot 80 people? Did they kill 12? How does “admit that guns are dangerous and that we need some limitations” translate to “abolish the First Amendment.”

I hate these threads. Every time I read them, I want to send a check to the Brady organization.

Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 11:49 am
Making it difficult for law-abiding gun owners to obtain and enjoy semi-auto weapons wil have ZERO effect on the mentally deranged madmen and gangbangers.
Quinn is a tool, a mouthpiece for the Chicago Dem machine. His comments are about what we should expect.

Comment by G Whiz Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 11:51 am
Skeeter,

Maybe I can explain a bit from my observations over the last 40 years or so.

In the past, a lot of pro-gun people have tried to be reasonable and effect compromises. Every time they did, the anti-gun people have come back and wanted more stringent rules and even outright bans.

The FOID system we have here in Illinois today is the result of such a compromise around 1968. As I remember it, the deal was basically the pro-gun side could live with FOID if that was the end of it. But it wasn’t the end of it … every year there are either proposals, new regulations, or new laws that slowly chip away at the freedoms and impose more gun control.

Eventually people say “enough” and harden their position. That seems to be where we are now in Illinois; they are tired of being “salami sliced” one regulation at a time.

Based on the national norm and the last few years of 2A SCOTUS rulings, Illinois and especially Chicago is quite a bit out of the mainstream on this issue. Illinois on concealed carry; Chicago on possession plus the rest of it. The fact that Chicago is still trying to circumvent the SCOTUS ruling against them is a good example of the anti-gun mindset there.

Finally, right now the pro-gun people have taken a page out of the liberal playbook that says if you can’t get your program enacted, go to court … and NRA, ISRA, etc. feel they will eventually win in court so they see no need to compromise …

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 11:57 am
Keeping the status quo will have ZERO effect on the mentally deranged madmen and gangbangers. G Whiz is a tool, a mouthpiece for the ISRA machaine. His comments are about what we should expect.

Comment by Colossus Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 12:23 pm
I have huge problems with people at both extremes of this debate. The so-called ‘assault weapons” ban attempts of the past were justifiably discredited because persons who know nothing of guns (Pat Quinn being a perfect example) proposed sloppy legislation that attempted to ban far more than actual assault weapons (Which actually are already banned in Illinois, by the way, if you accept the military definition of what constitutes an actual assault weapon versus something that merely looks like one). On the other hand, I have been an avid shooter all of my life and there is no earthly reason for anyone other than the military to use anything capable of holding more than 3-6 round of ammunition. If you need more than that, then what you really need is some shooting instruction, because you simply can’t shoot! What is needed is some common-sense legislative negotiations by persons who are both knowledgeable of firearms and their uses and genuinely respectful of one anothers’ concerns for both Constitutional protections and public safety. Of-course, that ain’t gonna happen.

Comment by Skirmisher Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 12:34 pm
Seems every time some whack job kills some one with a gun, then lets ban them. Chicago which has the tightest gun control in the state also has the highest murder rate.

Instead of banning guns why not execute killers within one week of the crime or we could keep the status quo, just give them natural life! I would bet dollars to donuts that Quinns security and Rhams security have some very high capacity magazines stuck in their pistols. But then teir life is more important than yours our mine.

Hey Quinn, lets ban alcohol as everyone knows drunk drivers kill. But only when they get behind the wheel. Same applies to guns they never hurt anyone unless an idiot picks it up. Whats next in this worthless state? Baseball bats, knives, screwdriver, etc. Any thing and everything can and will be used by some one intent on doing harm to some one else.

Comment by The ghost in the darkness Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 12:35 pm
“The NRA and the gun manufacturers are making millions telling the gullible that Obama and the UN are going to take away their guns. It’s nonsense and always has been. Obama hasn’t proposed any gun legislation, hasn’t promised to, and has done nothing to justify the paranoia of the pro-gun community.”

If that is true, please explain to me his selection process for two SCOTUS members. I find it difficult to believe that both being rabidly anti-gun is a simple coincidence; but it may be that he simply selected people with a certain mindset which includes that perspective. Either way, the pro-gun community is wise to do everything within its power to prevent any more coincidences like that.

Comment by Logic not emotion Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 12:35 pm
–We should ban cars as they kill people all the time. –

Can’t argue with that logic. Just pack up the kids in the AR-15 to pick up groceries.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 12:40 pm
amalia
Don’t get your hopes up about passing gun control in Springfield. During his career in the House, Harry Osterman was regularly frustrated by the gun lobby, which has clout in both parties.

Comment by reformer Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 12:55 pm
-He wants Illinois to be a leader and show the way on the gun control measures. -

Kinda like how Illinois has been a leader on fiscal mismanagement, corruption, unfunded pensions, high taxes, lawsuits, etc?

Comment by East Sider Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 1:00 pm
East Sider: You made me laugh; but I think you’ve captured it well.

Comment by Logic not emotion Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 1:16 pm
Where to begin. . .

To answer a question about the slippery slope, it is not our “paranoia” that says it is, it is the actions of the gun hating, gun control crowd that show us we were right. Take our state of Illinois. First off we have to have a state “license” or “permit” to own or possess a gun. That usually takes 30 days to get on the first go around. So we have a licensing scheme with a 30 day waiting period. Then to buy a gun from a retailer, you go through another waiting period, and another background check. All of what the anti-gunners want in their utopia.

The background check at point of sale was added in 1992. In 2005, not being content with all of the above, the anti-gunners wanted checks on sales made at gun shows. And a new law was passed requiring that any firearm sold at a gun show, must have the buyer run through the FTIP system again despite having the mandated FOID card.

Then over the past few years they have come back demanding that all sales of firearms must go through the FTIP system or a gun dealer, before the sale can take place. They have since amended that to be only handguns, but back in 2005 it was “just” sales at gun shows.

Add to that, the state police began creating a database of all transactions on background checks, without any legislative authority. And they can look up just how many times you have been called in for a background check, which is done only when you go to buy a firearm. And we have seen Chicago PD go on fishing expeditions with Chicago residents over these. And you wonder why we don’t want to give another inch?

So when people who don’t like gun owners, the NRA, ISRA or guns in general, and complain that we won’t budge or give into their “common sense” proposals. There is a reason for it. No matter how much we give, it is never enough.

Now, once again, those same people are wanting to ban whole classes/types of firearms, accessories, parts and even gear; citing that civilians don’t need this or don’t need that. And this is where we gun guys part company and dig in our heels.

It is not the Bill of Needs, it is the Bill of Rights. And we don’t have to justify our exercise of our rights. Why do I not consent to a search by cops without a warrant – because I don’t have to. Why do I choose to remain silent instead of answering all their questions – because I can.

And those who often scream for the restrictions of our rights under the Second Amendment, are many of the same who claim we should be tolerant of other views on a whole host of issues. That submerging a cross in urine is a valid use of the First Amendment and that we need the taxpayer supported NEA to promote the Arts and that .001% of art like that should be tolerated for the greater good. Just as an example.

but on the Second Amendment, and our rights, there is no tollerance and we should tolerate all the restrictions they whish to foist upon us.

In 1994 a ban on military looking semi-automatic firearms and NEW magazines holding over 10 rounds of ammo was passed. It went away in 2004. Since then, gun control advocates were not merely happy with the 1994 ban and have sought to expand it. Take a look at Rep. Acevedo’s bills to see how much broader it is. So broad that firearms like the Ruger 10/22, and Remington 11/87 shotgun are included. A bill so broad that it would outlaw the sale of Glock handguns.

(Since I can’t post them here, I have created a new thread over at Illinois Carry where I can to help illustrate the issue for those who don’t know a lot about guns. )

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=30784

And HB-1294 is yet another example of the anti-gunners never satisfied appetite for more bans, more restrictions, more hassles on the law abiding. Since they have proven, that they can’t be appeased, the gun guys have dug in and are not going to be moved.

But in the discussion, of who “needs” an AR-15 or an AK or anything else, again most of us believe that we don’t have to justify our “need” to exercise our right. It’s my money and I’ll spend it on those things I want to that are legal to own or posses. We generally have more faith in our fellow citizens that today 99.99% of 80 million gun owners didn’t kill or hurt anyone today. And controlling what or how many of what they own is not the solution to crime.

The movie shooter was one with no criminal history. He passed 4 background checks. It is yet unclear if he has had any history of mental health issues. But he put a lot of planning into his actions. From buying the ticket and parking his car around back to wedging a door open to the booby traps he left behind. Just how do you propose to stop someone like that?

Even under the 1994 ban, he would have been able to get an AR-15. He would have been able to get a magazine that holds more than 30 rounds. So the answer is to what ban more of what law abiding citizens can currently own? We just don’t subscribe to that.

Comment by Todd Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 1:21 pm
“Holmes was legal until he started shooting.”–wordslinger

Not so. The theater locale of the Aurora massacre had opted out of Colorado’s concealed carry law by posting signs forbidding firearms on the premises. The civil lawsuits are already being readied on this.

To the point of Rich’s post, Quinn’s comments remind me of Einstein’s definition of insanity–doing the same thing (continuing the gun bans, expand it) and expecting a different result. It won’t change a thing. It will only make the armed thugs feel safer knowing that the victims are disarmed.

As a downstater, I benefit as the armed thugs flock disproportionately to Chicago to take advantage of all the disarmed citizens there. The criminals are not stupid; they avoid places like my homestead and go for the low hanging fruit.

Beyond that, Quinn and all “gun banners” are talking around the elephant in the living room. They are very comfortable with concealed carry, as long as it is government agents doing the carrying. What they are really uncomfortable with is the non-government employee carrying. Remember, your average cop has more firepower in his cruiser (in the form of former military weapons that are fully automatic) than our soldiers overseas. Quinn, et al. is comfortable with this.

As someone who carried for many years, I will ask: If guns (handguns, in particular) themselves are that dangerous, why do cops carry them? In the land of the free, do our police carry offensive weapons, or merely great defensive weapons? To ask is to answer, and the answer begs one follow-on question: why deny law abiding citizens of Illinois access to the greatest (may I add American made) self defense tools in existence?

Comment by 30 Year Army Vet Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 1:22 pm
New bumper stickers:
“Guns don’t kill people, the NRA kills people”

“I oppose concealed carry–if someone wants to carry, I want it done openly…I want to know who to stay away from.”

Comment by D.P. Gumby Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 1:22 pm
I suggest we strengthen protections keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill by allowing the police to search insurance and medical records.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 1:27 pm
RNUG,

I agree that your pistol should not be classified as an assault weapon. I think otherwise of the gun that was used in the Colorado shooting. That is the AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle that shoots 100 rounds and whose bullets can pass through two people at once. I support, at the very least, strict regulations on such a gun.

I am reading now that an expired federal weapons ban would have made it much harder to buy this gun.

Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 1:29 pm
“Guns don’t kill people. They just make it easier.”

Maybe instead of gun control we can have a debate about massacre control.

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 1:32 pm
Todd, do you think that anybody who needs a gun NOW should have a gun? Or should they have time to cool off?

I’m sort of surprised that the gun lobby takes pride in opposing background checks at gun shows. I would hope that the gun lobby would want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane.

Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 1:43 pm
Skeeter — I think that if you can pass the background check, you shoul dbe able to plunk down your cash and walk away with your property.

In Illinois we have already waited weeks or months to get a FOID. I own more AR-15s than the nomenclature suggests. Why do i have to wait 24 hours for the next one?

what about the womon who has a need for protection becuase the OP is worth the paper it is printed on? How long should she have to wait?

On the background checks at gun shows, it’s not pride, but an example of how the anti-gunners are never satisfied and that their will be a new threat or problem. What most people don’t know is that in Illinois, we just don’t get a background check when we apply for a FOId and or buy a gun. the databases in run alomst everyday against new mental health admissions and criminal records input.

We do want to keep guns out of those who would use them for criminal purposes and those of impaired mental facilties. the question is how? how to balance public safety without trampling on the rights of citizens.

remember it was the NRA that passed the FTIP system for Illinois two years before the feds passed the Brady law.

Comment by Todd Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 1:51 pm
word, explosives themselves are not evil, it is only the way in which they are used which makes them evil. C4 used on a construction site or in a rock quary is perfectly legitimate. When a terrorist or criminal uses it to attempt to kill people then it becomes something evil. An individual cannot simply walk into a gunshop and buy a pack of composite four. To legally own explosives you are required to obtain a number of federal licenses and have proper places to store it.

No amount of laws or regulations restricting firearm ownership could have prevented what happened in Colorado. By all accounts the perpetrator was a model student with no history of criminal activity of mental illness that would have prevented him from owning a firearm.

Comment by Ryan from Carrollton Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 1:54 pm
“I am reading now that an expired federal weapons ban would have made it much harder to buy this gun.”

Not at all true. I and many others bought ARs and other semiautos during the ban that were simply altered to remove the prohibited cosmetic features.

Don’t beleive everything you read. There was an absolutely silly piece in the (UK) Guardian yesterday about how easy it is to purchase ammunition, rife with factual errors. To their credit the editors I contacted appeared interested in correcting their article. We’ll see.

Comment by Ken in Aurora Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 1:57 pm
“- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 1:27 pm:

I suggest we strengthen protections keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill by allowing the police to search insurance and medical records.”

Please tell me this is satire.

Comment by Ken in Aurora Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 1:59 pm
This is a mental health issue people. It has nothing to do with weapons; however, weapons do enable. we have to decide as a society that either we have all or no weapons to control the symptom, but not the disease people.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 2:00 pm
I agree with Todd, we (law abiding gun owners) have given and given and still the anti-gun crowd wants more restrictions on us that simply won’t affect crime. I’ve had the opportunity to live in three other states over my lifetime and IL is the single most restrictive state where firearms are concerned. Odd that it is also the state with the highest crime rates of all the ones that I’ve lived in.
We know that gun control in Chicago doesn’t work, at all. If existing laws don’t affect the criminals, why think that a “high cap” magazine ban would? They’re criminals. I have zero desire to own a 100 round magazine for my AR-15, that’s a ton of weight to lug around. But I don’t care if someone else has it, if they want to break their back carrying that weapon on the range, so be it.

The only way to change things is to allow law abiding citizens to protect themselves. Will deaths end? Not at all, but maybe it’ll be the aggressors that are dying instead of their intended victims. Maybe after a few instances of that, they will think twice…they are cowards to begin with.

Those of us in the more southern parts of the state enjoy a much lower rate of crime because the criminals here are cowards too and they know that most every home has weapons in it. Heck, local law enforcement even encourages folks to get training and be able to defend themselves because they know how big this county is and that their response time could be very long.

Comment by milk4me Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 2:10 pm
Amalia, the size of the clip does not directly affect the lethality of a firearms. The lethality of a firearm is determined by the caliber, or size of the bullet determined by the bullet’s diameter; and by the amount of powder used to propell the bullet. For instance, a .22 caliber bullet is .22 inches in diameter, and a .22 long rifle is more powerful than a .22 short because it has more powder behind it. In the same vain, a 30-06 is more powerful than a 30-30 which is more powerful than a 30 Carbine round.

The 30-30, which has been a very popular hunting round for medium sized game like deer is actually more powerful than the much bantied about AK.

Assault weapons bans to not address ballistics but rather cosmetic or aesthetic funcionts of a firearm like stocks, pistol grips, clips, etc.

Comment by Ryan from Carrollton Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 2:11 pm
–I’ve had the opportunity to live in three other states over my lifetime and IL is the single most restrictive state where firearms are concerned. Odd that it is also the state with the highest crime rates of all the ones that I’ve lived in.–

Is that how it works, tougher gun laws, more crime?

I didn’t realize Nevada, South Carolina and Tennessee had such tough gun laws. Could it be other factors are in play?

http://voices.yahoo.com/most-dangerous-states-america-violent-crime-rates-7260628.html?cat=54

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 2:18 pm
No word yet on if Gov. Quinn will get behind banning grants from the National Institutes of Health: you know it can lead to mass murder.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/07/24/james-holmes-received-26k-grant-from-bethesda-based-national-institutes-of-health/

Comment by Steve Bartin Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 2:26 pm
- Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 1:29 pm:

RNUG,

I agree that your pistol should not be classified as an assault weapon. I think otherwise of the gun that was used in the Colorado shooting. That is the AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle that shoots 100 rounds and whose bullets can pass through two people at once. I support, at the very least, strict regulations on such a gun. ==

The AR-15 is not nearly as strong as most other hunting rifles. If you want to ban the 100 round magazine, fine, but banning the gun is pointless. And, people who aren’t familiar with guns love to throw around the term “semi-automatic” like it means “uzi” or something. Most hand guns are also semi-automatic.

Comment by East Sider Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 2:36 pm
Aren’t those “law abiding citizens” that keep getting mentioned just people that haven’t been caught yet?

If this right to arm yourself on the streets is so important, why isn’t the ISRA willing to accept some sort of personal responsibility along with that right? Since we don’t have a ‘maniac or idiot’ test available, perhaps some kind of insurance and acceptance of responsibility for that thing you want to carry. If you really are law abiding citizens, why would you not want to show some responsibility to the community?

And frankly, I’m tired of hearing that anyone who thinks that there are too many guns on the street is some kind of gun control freak. Face it, there ARE too many guns on the street. Illinois won’t pass a concealed carry law until the ISRA is willing to accept some measure of personal responsibility for gun owners. You can’t have your cake and shoot it too.

Cook County hospitals are treating gun shot victims in record numbers and the only people not paying their share of the cost are the weapons and the ammunition manufacturers and distributors. Someone is selling the gangs guns. Someone is making a profit off of the shootings in Chicago. But, thanks to the NRA and ISRA, they get a free ride while the rest of us pay. Open the sales books nationwide. If someone is buying ten weapons, society has a right to make sure they have those ten weapons, because we know that the gangs are getting guns. The gangs aren’t just planting bullets out in Marengo and growing them.

Comment by Springfieldish Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 2:39 pm
I normally stay out of gun control debates because the abstract issues of concealed carry and bans don’t impact me because I’m not a gun person and have no intention of becoming one. I am, however, a dyed-in-the-wool comic book fan and suddenly this has been made very personal for me; a midnight screening like this is akin to church for geeks, a completely non-judgmental space to let yourself commune with likeminded people. I know, it sounds stupid, but here we are.

It seems to me that, in an alternate world where guns were never legal and there weren’t ~2M guns floating around the private market, Sideshow Bob in Aurora would never have been able to kill and wound all those people because he would never have had access to the devices used to cause such carnage. This is a pretty non-controversial statement to me. What you call “gun banners” are pointing out that access to these devices facilitated and amplified the carnage. When you work from this alternate world, you can wee where that mindset makes sense.

I realize we don’t live in that world, we live on one in which it is (despite all the protestations) easy and legal to get a hold of a gun. It might not be as fast or as anonymous as you like, but for the average person, if you want one you’ve got it. And this right is enshrined in the constitution and (despite all the protestations) it’s not going to be taken away in any fundamental or trivial way.

The commonly held and hard to refute premise that government is built upon is that the purpose of government is to solve problems that individuals cannot solve on their own. I’d like to ask the pro gun rights folks who rightly pin the blame on the human brain that pulled the trigger: what should have been done to prevent this from happening?

Yes, he’s a disturbed individual who is intelligent and resourceful. But concealed carry wouldn’t prevent this - heck, CO has concealed carry. What would have? To the “gun banners”, lack of access to guns would have made this massively more difficult to pull off. Can you explain to me what the “pro gun” side sees as an effective means to prevent situations like this from occurring that doesn’t involve concealed carry?

This is an honest attempt to focus on the problem that individuals are unable to solve for themselves and I would appreciate a thoughtful reply.

Comment by Colossus Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 2:43 pm
For whoever said it up there someplace–pony-owning is not nearly as much fun as you think. Ever clean a litter box? Ponies “litter boxes” are a lot bigger and smell worse too.

I hate the idea of conceal carry but I have no logical argument against it. I don’t think anyone who isn’t law enforcement or military has any good reason to own assault weapons though.

Comment by Cheryl Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 2:45 pm
Anonymous at 2 pm. I agree that our focus should be on mental health issues and how…or rather how they aren’t…they are treated nowadays. Very little can be done for those who suffer from a mental disease even if there is concern over their doing harm to themselves or others. We abdicated our responsibilities decades ago for the most part…

Comment by LINK Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 2:45 pm
Spring —

ISRA and NRA did take some “personal responsibility” with the carry bill as in training and proficancy and such. But we are not going to take a right and treat it like a privlege.

If there are to many guns on the street in Illinois today, they are mostly in the wrongs hands of those who don’t have FOId cards and could not legally buy or posses one. Not those of us who seek no more than to not leave our safety to that of a mugger’s benevolence.

Based upon what I have seen the 31 source for guns in the City is out of state purchases, Indinana and Mississippi. they use friends, or reletives to buy in other states then illegally take possession and bring them here. #2 is theft. and there is a lot of theft taking place at common carriers, not just home break ins.

you can take your tinfoil hat off about the industry wanting to simply sell guns to anyone for a profit. As the crooks cuase most of the problems that lead to the increased calls for regulation or bans.

Next you’ll be saying the WTC attack was a plot to pass the patriot act.

Comment by Todd Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 2:53 pm
I am sorry for the people that have been lost to crazys over the years and wish there was a way to stop people from being killed by such people. That being said I am a strong conceal or open carry advocate and would like to see this passed in Illinois. It seems eveytime we start to get close to a bill that might pass in this state another mass murder happens somewhere and we are told just be glad for what you have now. I for one am ready to be treated like the rest of the country and can only hope Pat Quinn is a one term Gov.

Comment by Nieva Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 2:56 pm
milk4me,

In Chicago, we may have more gun crimes because we have more gangs rather than more armed houses. If we eliminated gun crimes involving gangs in Chicago, we’d have less violent crime.

Even though I want to one day own a handgun for my home, because I’m in Chicago, I’m not yet comfortable with concealed carry. I see a scenario in which not only do gangs have guns and shoot each other, but more people committing gun crimes of passion. Do I want to be in a traffic incident with an armed person who is angry and wields a gun at me? I have mixed feelings and used to belong to the ISRA.

Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 3:04 pm
@ - Grandson of Man @ 3:04 pm:

No other states have seen traffic incident gunfights after instituting or liberalizing CCW - why do people keep trotting that out as an excuse for no CCW in Illinois? The “blood in the streets” argument is pretty thin.

Comment by Ken in Aurora Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 3:10 pm
It is a mental health issue. Anybody that thinks a brilliant and determined insane person, intent on murder and mayhem, would not find the means to carry out his evil act is delusional. Instead of wedging a door open, he could have wedged them closed and killed just as many with 5 gal of gas and a match.
I own semiautomatic weapons, handguns, shotguns and more than a little ammo. I have never been tempted to go on a killing spree.

Comment by Tequila Mockingbird Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 3:16 pm
I meant to say “incident” above, not accident.

Comment by milk4me Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 3:45 pm
Here’s a question for Todd. Is the FOID card merely another version of a poll tax? I mean you have to pay to exercise your rights w/both time and money. Right? It’s basically a head tax.

Second, for the second time I’ve seen the idea of making gun owners get insurance in a call for “responsibility.” What’s that all about? In the event of an incident with a firearm – intentional or not – both civil and criminal penalties can be, pardon the pun, triggered. Is this a new argument? Do you not have courts anymore?

Third, as a former resident of the state I have a unique perspective – well no… not really considering the out migration occurring – but bear with me, Todd. Maybe there is just something wrong w/your state. Um…maybe you’re simply not civilized enough in that state to… um… enjoy the same rights and privileges as the rest of us? Your second class citizens by choice. Something less than the rest of us? No?

You elect officials who can’t be trusted with the public till. Elected bodies in a democracy do tend to reflect the values and aspirations of the people who elect them. Right? And look at your fellow citizens in Chicago. It’s reads like anarchy there with the limited 2nd Amendment rights ya’ll have, right now! In turn, these officials are unwilling to grant you the same rights and privileges as other citizens in the states to protect themselves. Judging by your interlocutors, here, they seem perfectly happy to be less than the rest of us. They, apparently, support poll taxes to exercise their rights.* Barbarians or children if you ask me. As a member of two civilized societies (TX, MT), we don’t need all those rules because we’ve the ability to self-govern ourselves. Your fellow citizens, apparently do not.

* poll tax
tax levied equally on all: a flat-rate tax levied on all members of a population, often as a prerequisite to voting
Synonyms: tax, poll tax, levy, toll, duty (bing.com dictionary).

Comment by Greg Blankenship Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 3:51 pm
@reformer….it’s closer than you think!

Comment by amalia Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 3:54 pm
Fox News responds by asking whether it is time to start prohibiting people from wearing costumes to theaters. What’s all the talk about guns and *concealed carry*?

Comment by Surf 1 Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 4:16 pm
–Barbarians or children if you ask me. As a member of two civilized societies (TX, MT), we don’t need all those rules because we’ve the ability to self-govern ourselves.–

I’ve always considered Texas the height of civilization — especially South Texas. That is if you only measure civilization by the quantity and availability of automatic weapons and meth (parts of Montana qualify on both counts as well).

As far as poll taxes, being from Illinois, I don’t know what they are. But I understand the Texas Civilization was one of the last states to have one up until the mid 1960s or so.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 4:18 pm
One thing I understand is why should a responsible gun seller in another state lose his or her rights when the gun they sold legally was illegally used somewhere else. I also understand that guns are like drugs, and that demand will determine supply, so laws banning weapons will be overcome by strong enough demand. I’m just not comfortable with the idea that guns can be bought without so much as background checks or sometimes even without identification.

Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 4:31 pm
Well, WS, my query was meant for Todd but You bring up two points I hadn’t thought of. That is, as Texas has moved away from bad policies (poll tax) to good ones they’ve progressed. Illinois by clinging to tighter controls and introducing more burdens has regressed. And MT has had some success in addressing some of their public policy challenges w/out limiting access to fundamental rights and w/out the carnage in Chicago. It seems here too, these more enlightened states have shown a capacity to govern, improve order while protecting — and per your words — advancing civil rights. Thanks!

Comment by Greg Blankenship Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 4:39 pm
Greg, you need to recalibrate your sarcasm detector.

Comment by Colossus Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 4:46 pm
ah, the too, too much typing on the page patrol has arrived! don’t be fooled by the words you see on the page, the broad brush of “gun banner” with which they paint appears to apply even to those of us who have guns in the home. see, the arms race is very important to them for some reason, so any attack at any kind of gun or implement automatically goes to “you are a gun banner.”

this is years past ridiculous rhetoric. especially when one considers the increasing lethality of weapons produced by the American gun industry ( new toys!!!!) and the powerlessness that we feel when we see big things in bad use. most of the side that wants gun banning actually only wants some things banned. you know, rhetorical patrol, like you, who have no objection to banning machine guns, right? so would that not make you a gun banner? horrors.

Comment by amalia Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 4:57 pm
Todd - Can the tinfoil hat business, pal. Read your long flaming diatribe above and tell me you aren’t the purveyor of anti-gun conspiracy craziness.

Four hours of ’safety training’ is responsibility? Earth to Todd! That’s less training than hairdressers are required by law and I haven’t read about many drive-by bad haircuts.

Right now, if you ‘lose’ a weapon and it is subsequently used to commit a crime, the original owner is not liable for any damages that weapon causes because the law says that is an unforeseeable intervention of a criminal third party. The courts aren’t a vehicle of responsibility. They’re a vehicle of recompense. And federal statutes render the weapon and ammunition manufacturers immune.

Comment by Springfieldish Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 5:14 pm
It is obvious that very few people that post on this site ever leave IL as they refuse to be around guns. If you visit any connecting state the chances are great that you have been near a handgun.

Comment by Logical Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 5:42 pm
@ Springfieldish @ 5:14 pm:

What, you believe if your car is stolen and used in the commission of a crime you should be held criminally responsible? Your ascertain that (absent negligence) a third party can be liable for criminal misuse of a firearm is absurd.

Todd’s not the one flaming here. The over-the-top first sentence of your post is most illustrative.

Comment by Ken in Aurora Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 5:42 pm
Dammit - “assertion”, not “ascertain”.

Comment by Ken in Aurora Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 5:45 pm
–It is obvious that very few people that post on this site ever leave IL as they refuse to be around guns. –

Not seeing the logic there. The issues are reasonable regulation and carrying arms in the public square.

I’ve yet to read anyone here who has a problem with hunting or a gun in the home. Try again.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 5:45 pm
It is tough to have an honest discussion of some of these issues now since there has been a tragedy. I will add one comment concerning “concealed carry” — which in my opinion does not relate to the Aurora killing at all: I am somewhat doubtful that someone with a concealed carry permit could have stopped this premeditated murderer. In a darkened theater with tear gas filling the air, it would have been much harder for anyone to respond by firing a hand gun.

As for the opponents of “concealed carry permits,” I do not see how this tragic multiple murder adds weight to your arguments. Holmes was not concealing his weapons. He had on body armor and he dispersed tear gas. He smuggled his weapons into the theater via an exit door. His principal weapon was a used combat assault rifle. It was not a pistol or hand gun that someone could hide in their pants or in a shoulder holster. So, I do not see how this case strengthens arguments for opposing concealed carry laws.

Comment by Esquire Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 6:22 pm
==It is obvious that very few people that post on this site ever leave IL as they refuse to be around guns. If you visit any connecting state the chances are great that you have been near a handgun.==

I used to own a .25 beretta, and I’m a pretty good shot. I still can’t see the reason military caliber weapons should be available to all and sundry. We have different classifications for vehicle licenses. Why not the same for weapons?

Comment by Wensicia Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 6:31 pm
Greg – yes a lot of gun owners see the FOID card as a poll tax. And if you take what the US Attorney General said about voter ID laws being a poll tax, maybe there is a correlation. . . .

As to the idea of insurance, the anti-gunners like the idea as they try to continue to equate a right with a privlage of driving a car. No one I know of offers such insurance. But many people who carry, know the types of suits that could come from a use of a firearm in a self-defense situation, so many of us carry umbrella policies on our home owners. But again it becomes a “poll tax” on the exercise of one’s right.

I am becoming more of the mind that some others, not here, have expressed that if you can not be trusted with a gun, you cannot be trusted in public without a guardian.

Grandson – Not in Illinois they can’t. You have to have a FOID if resident and if not you can only “buy” a rifle or shotgun from a FFL and have to show ID and go through a background check. If you live in other states, you have to show an ID at a retail store to fill out the federal paperwork. Private sales are regulated differently in different states.

Amalia – Even the leader of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence owns a shotgun. Gun owner, yes, but one perfectly willing to turn a right into a privilege for the few, well connected upper crust. An now, you seem to be taking talking points from those gun banning groups about “lethality” what makes a gun leather as described before is the cartridge it fires. If you want to gauge that, my bolt action rifle in 300 win mag has a LOT more lethality than any of my ARs. Just google - images .300 win mag and see what comes up. And no the other side doesn’t want just a few things banned. And speaking of lethality, The Army just announced that they are dropping their plans to replace the M2 .50 caliber machinegun. They can’t find something that fills the roll it seems. Oh and that modern lethality of the .50. The M2 BROWNING machinegun, was invented and designed by Illinois’ former resident, Mr. John Moses Browning in 1918. Almost 100 years ago. How do you define modern?

Take a look at the papers I posted on Illinois carry to see the things they are trying to ban. I take it they have some reasonably sharp lawyers to write things. So they are either stupid, or trying to catch as many as they can. I know when I write laws, words mean things and the definitions of things mean a lot.

But we are not talking about a ban on fully automatic machine guns. Capped at 186,000 for civilian ownership. We are talking about modern semi-autos, pistol, magazines and shotguns. If I apply your standard, the First Amendment would be limited to the spoken word and printing press.

Spring – try again. The manufactures’ and dealers are immune from normal sales and commerce. If they break the law, they lose immunity. You can thanks Daley and Cumo for that law since they tried to use the Courts to get what they could not get in the legislature.

Word – looks like you are going to have to take Maryland off that little list of yours. Judge issued another ruling against them today. Good and substantial cause is now enjoined.

Comment by Todd Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 6:39 pm
Good grief, when will the residents and legislators of Illinois realize that if you don’t want to encounter John and Jane Doe legally packing, then don’t ever go out of this state. We are a threat to ourselves and don’t have sense enough to know it. Chicago - you are NOT the largest city in the US and those states have passed a concealed carry. So why are we always catering to Chicago.

Just as an aside, tonight on Springfield Channel 20, one of their reporters showed how to legally carry a gun. She held the gun, removed the clip, then placed the gun and clip in the zipper case. Also showed that a FOID card is required. Interviewed Sheriff Neil Williamson. My question: Was sShe was committing an illegal act unless the FOID card was her own. In Illinois - no FOID card means you cannot legally hold ANY firearm or ANYT ammunition. Comments are welcome if I’m incorrect.

Comment by Little Egypt Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 7:37 pm
Sorry for the typos. I should prufread better.

Comment by Little Egypt Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 7:39 pm
If you have any questions regarding the CWP training or law contact www.e2c.us or 1-866-371-6111 and the Instructors at Equip 2 Conceal will be happy to help you.

Comment by jack Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 7:43 pm
Little E, there’s been a regional solution out there forever involving local control, something of a hybrid CCW such as you’d find in California or New York.

But if the only choice is one-size fits all for the whole state, you’re still going to have opposition. Good for ISRA fundraising, though.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 7:53 pm
“Aren’t those “law abiding citizens” that keep getting mentioned just people that haven’t been caught yet?”

Wow, this has to rank as the least thoughtful comment posted.

wordslinger: Civil rights cannot be subject to “regional solutions”. Jim Crow laws that allowed the south to discriminate against blacks was a “regional solution”. Once you open that door all of our rights can go down the toilet.

Comment by wishbone Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 8:54 pm
Wishbone, I can’t go along with your civil rights history.

Jim Crow laws were an effort to restore southern antebellum culture in direct and conscious violations of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments that had been ratified expressly to kill that culture.

The clear Constitutional violations of Jim Crow were ignored by many powerful interest for a myriad of reasons, including weariness of federal occupation during Reconstruction, the demise of the Radical Republicans and the dominating Congressional power of southern Democrats through much of the 20th Century.

The Second Amendment, since the Constitution’s passage, has yet to be interpreted as guaranteeing a right to conceal carry. Local gun control laws have been around since 1789.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 10:21 pm
Little Egypt,

I just went and viewed that segment and it appeared she was at the gun range during the filming. I don’t know if she has one or not; she only showed the back side of a FOID in the report.

However, from watching the video, if she does not have a FOID, it appears she would fall under this exception:

430 ILCS 65/ … (15) A person who is otherwise eligible to obtain a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card under this Act and is under the direct supervision of a holder of a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card who is 21 years of age or older while the person is on a firing or shooting range or is a participant in a firearms safety and training course …

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jul 24, 12 @ 10:45 pm
Todd, I’m taking my points from a discussion with my husband who is a hunter and shooter who is tired of the nonsense dished out by those who use guns way past the basic need to hunt and target shoot.

and, are you or are you not in favor of the ban on machine guns? if you are, you are a gun banner and you can join the rest of us who get slammed by you as a banner even though guns are in use in our home and we do not want to ban all guns. if you are not, we see you for what you really are. you choose.

Comment by amalia Wednesday, Jul 25, 12 @ 9:31 am
>>>>those who use guns way past the basic need to hunt and target shoot.

Please note that while target shooting might be implied by “a well regulated militia” mentioned in the US Constitution Bill of Rights, hunting is not mentioned in the bill of rights section in either the US constitution nor the Illinois Constitution.

Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Wednesday, Jul 25, 12 @ 10:03 am
@JJJS, interesting point and one which I’m pondering. could not remember what Scalia wrote in the most recent opinions, but think there was some mention of hunting. or perhaps that was Scalia discussing his life.

Comment by amalia Wednesday, Jul 25, 12 @ 11:34 am