Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

* UPDATED x2 * Quinn pulls media stunt over assault weapons ban

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

Gov. Pat Quinn plans to propose a ban on assault weapons in Illinois.

The Democrat will use his amendatory veto power Tuesday to include the ban in a bill related to ammunition sales. It would then be up to lawmakers to accept his changes or reject them. […]

His proposal will face big hurdles in Illinois, even after the massacre at a Colorado movie theater renewed national debate about assault weapons.

Cook County’s ban has undergone legal challenges. The Illinois Supreme Court this year reversed lower-court rulings that found the ban constitutional, sending it to trial court.

* From the governor’s AV message…

I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment - the right to bear arms.

However, the proliferation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines undermines public safety and the rights of personal security of every citizen.

* So, why is this a media stunt? Well, I’ll tell you why.

The Senate bill in question is sponsored by Sen. Dave Luechtefeld, a southern Illinois Republican. As the sponsor, he controls the bill’s fate. And there’s no way Luechtefeld will ever move to accept that amendatory veto. Not gonna happen. Not even if Hell freezes over.

This amendatory veto is merely a way to get the governor’s name in the headlines yet again. Nothing more, nothing less.

*** UPDATE 1 *** And it begins. From a press release…

GOVERNOR’S PUBLIC SCHEDULE
**Tuesday, July, 31 2012**

CHICAGO – Governor Pat Quinn will hold a media availability with Orland Park Police Chief and American hero Tim McCarthy to discuss the governor’s action today seeking a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines in Illinois.

WHEN: 1:30 p.m.

WHERE: Fulton’s
The Bridge Room
315 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, 60654

*** UPDATE 2 *** The Sun-Times contacted Sen. Luechtefeld, the bill’s sponsor…

The underlying bill’s sponsor, state Sen. David Luechtefeld (R-Okawville), predicted Quinn’s actions may doom the original legislation because Chicago Democrats will be loathe to support an override and cast votes against the governor on a gun-control issue.

Luechtefeld also accused Quinn of trying to take political advantage of the July 20 shootings in the Denver suburb of Aurora, where 12 theater-goers were murdered and another 58 were wounded by an assailant bearing an assault weapon.

“He likely knows this won’t go any place,” Luechtefeld said of Quinn. “But because of what happened in Colorado, he’s going to exploit that as much as he can.”

To override Quinn’s amendatory veto, Luechtefeld would need 36 votes in the Senate and 71 votes in the House, where House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) traditionally blocks such wholesale rewrites of legislation by governors.

If those supermajorities aren’t reached and there is not a majority vote in each chamber to accept Quinn’s changes, the underlying bill will die, along with the governor’s proposed bans on the sale and possession of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 11:38 am

Comments

Quinn is looking more like Rod every day …

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 11:46 am
There are 18 days between now and the pension special session. I think the Governor would be better advised to use that time to drum up support for his pension plan statewide, meeting with editorial boards, holding news conferences in every media market statewide and maybe even doing a couple of town hall meetings.

I know that he would almost certainly be yelled at by angry union members in those town halls — but I also think it wouldn’t do him any harm to be seen as standing up for everyday taxpayers against the loudmouthed special interests.

I don’t see that these one-off news confs do him any real good. What impact does this have on his approval ratings? Especially if the ban doesn’t actually pass.

If the Governor really wants to be a national leader in promoting sensible gun control legislation, then terrific. But that would require a focused campaign, inside and outside the state — and he should probably get the pension issue settled first.

Comment by soccermom Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 11:49 am
Quinn is shameless. He knows the votes aren’t there to approve his ban. Just ask Rep. Acevedo and Alderman Osterman about the impossibility of getting an assault weapons ban through the House.

Comment by reformer Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 11:55 am
I’ll defer to Todd, who I expect we will be hearing from shortly.

But my understanding is that the underlying bill, which allows for ammunition to be shipped via U.S. mail, violates current postal regulations.

If that’s the case, it probably should have been vetoed in its entirety.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 11:55 am
Clearly a media stunt as you suggest. Sorry to see good cop Tim McCarthy going along with it.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 12:03 pm
The quick google check seems to show that you can’t ship through the postal service but some private carriers will take ammunition.

I don’t have a problem with Quinn using the Bully Pulpit on the issue, or hearing from the police chief who took a bullet for Reagan.

The underlying bill has a veto-proof majority, so call the roll.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 12:08 pm
Because nothing says weapons ban like a steakhouse…

Not too far away from the office, wonder if I can get in?

Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 12:08 pm
More than shades of Rod. Why he can’t see that poking the legislature is going to backfire on him in the special session.

He is going beyond his usual goofiness into downright stupidity.

Has the senate scheduled executive appointments yet? They have some of his most erstwhile friends, and legislative unfavorites, on hold awaiting action.

Comment by Cassiopeia Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 12:09 pm
Next:

Quinn holds a press conference demanding the GA address the failure of the Cubs to field a decent team this year.

It just seems to be the next likely stunt in the downward progression of Quinn’s publicity tour.

Comment by Wensicia Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 12:20 pm
There are probably 5 million or so firearms in Illinois that would be subject to this “assault weapons ban.” There are probably 10s of millions more of so-called “assault weapon attachments” in circulation in the state. I doubt that any more than 10% of Illinois firearm owners would comply with this law voluntarily. So, how on earth would the state plan on enforcing the ban? House to house searches? And meanwhile, crack and meth labs flourish, and rapists, robbers, and flash-mobs rule the streets.

Comment by PeteyPal Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 12:28 pm
some state has to try and get this done. I’m hoping they figured this play into their strategy, and if so, go for it.

Comment by amalia Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 12:32 pm
Oh, look, a squirrel!

Comment by Cincinnatus Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 12:33 pm
>>>>Sorry to see good cop Tim McCarthy going along with it.

I don’t think that this is a change of posture for McCarthy.

Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 12:35 pm
IF we can get these pointless weapons banned then the 5 million or so assault weapons in the state will simply have to remain in the homes of the people who own them, Petey. I wouldn’t confiscate them, as they were bought before the ban. But I would prosecute if they were ever used outside of the home of the gun owner.

Comment by Cheryl44 Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 12:43 pm
Well that’s nice, I help pay for the facility in Sparta and he has a nice little exception for going to and from Sparta for the banned guns but it appears you can’t own it in Illinois under his proposal.

Also has any crime been committed with a 50 cal, I know it is big and frightening, but it is a bit large to use to knock off a local 7-11…

Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 12:45 pm
@wordslinger -

Thanks. Hopefully we’ll hear from Vandermyde soon and he can clear up the confusion about legislation permitting the shipment of ammunition via USPS.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 12:56 pm
My recollection of that bill was that it changed a quirky portion of Illinois law where intra-state sale of ammo was allowed but if a gun owner wanted to purchase out of state ammo, they were barred. This fixed that quirk, and that’s why many of us suburban and city legislators voted for it.

Comment by Sale Fan Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 1:14 pm
And he was doing so well this week.

Comment by walkinfool Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 1:18 pm
Once a media _____ always a media ______.

Comment by Obamas Puppy Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 1:21 pm
The thing that has me confused is the question of how this sort of thing could possibly be seen to net anything positive for Quinn….???? How could any sort of publicity from this act gain a net increase in votes for Democrats in the next election?

I know that I am not attuned to any sort of Chicago way of thinking. I wish I understood this whole thing better than I do.

Comment by JoeVerdeal Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 1:23 pm
YDD

Ummm, nope don’t know where you get the idea the law is unconstitutional..

For one thing it isn’t just the USPS look at the text…

Permits an Illinois resident to purchase ammunition from a person within or outside of Illinois if shipment is by United States mail or by a private express carrier authorized by federal law to ship ammunition.

it is an OR between the USPS or private express carrier, not an and.

Also using the federal definition of Ammunition (also seems to match at least MA)

http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/ammunition/
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section121

Ammunition is defined by federal law as cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm.

The bullet (the part that actually travels out) is not explosive nor flammable, the same is true of a cartridge case. It can hold parts that are explosive and flammable but are not that way in and of themselves. So they also do not fall under the explosive and flammable rules of the USPS.

But thanks for playing…

Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 1:24 pm
Rod never learned this lesson, but even if the bill didn’t have a sponsor hostile to the Governor’s changes, it would violate Senate Rules to act on it. Senate Rule 9-2(a) requires that the Governor’s changes to a bill “shall not alter the fundamental purpose or legislative scheme set forth in the bill as passed.” There is a like rule in the House. Taking a bill that deals with ammunition and changing it into a ban on assault weapons seems to me to be a violation of this provision. The GA swatted down a whole bunch of Blago’s AV’s citing this rule.

But, I guess if you’re just looking for a press pop, it doesn’t matter.

Comment by TwoFeetThick Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 1:33 pm
Rod never learned this lesson, but even if the bill didn’t have a sponsor hostile to the Governor’s changes, it would violate Senate Rules to act on it. Senate Rule 9-2(a) requires that the Governor’s changes to a bill “shall not alter the fundamental purpose or legislative scheme set forth in the bill as passed.” There is a like rule in the House. Taking a bill that deals with ammunition and changing it into a ban on assault weapons seems to me to be a violation of this provision. The GA swatted down a whole bunch of Blago’s AV’s citing this rule.

But, I guess if you’re just looking for a press pop, it doesn’t matter.

Comment by TwoFeetThick Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 1:33 pm
Oops, sorry for the double post. Don’t know how that happened.

Comment by TwoFeetThick Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 1:35 pm
The USPS thing was an oversight. this was an amendment to a shell bill, since there was a SNAFU with the orginal bill and the committee chairman, so staff grabbed this one and slapped an amendment on it to save the concept.

USPS rules do prohibit the shipping of ammo. But it is legal through UPS, fedex or common carrier.

The bill is in response to the fact that someone with a FOID can order all the ammo they want from an out od state vendor, but not instate. So it would put Illinois retailers on a level playing field.

Comment by Todd Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 1:48 pm
USPS no, UPS, Fedex, etc. yes. not fair to the USPS but also not right. should have to buy ammo in person.

Comment by amalia Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 1:54 pm
Amalia — we already have to have a FOID card. When is enough going to be enough for you people?

If I have my card, I had a background check, so I guess that isn’t good enough. You anti-gun types want licensing, which the FOID is, you want waiting periods, you want all kinds of red tape and regulations, and then you still want more. And you wonder why ourside will not move an inch.

Comment by Todd Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 2:29 pm
The trouble with “assault weapons bans” is they alway include the AR15, the most used rifle for hunting and sport shooting. I have yet to hear a member of the media ask a politician or anti gun group why they do this and not expect the pro gun groups to complain about loosing their guns.

Comment by Liberty First Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 2:45 pm
@Todd, please consult Justice Scalia. regulation is right in the second amendment.

Comment by amalia Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 3:12 pm
Amalia –your right, he did say regulation. Niot outright bans. Could a mail order prohibition pass muster? Maybe. But IF you listen to what he siad int he interview, cannons, banned, but rocket launchers we’ll see. He used the word bear as in carry.

and if you READ Heller, you will find that the types of regulations he talked about are things like bans on felons, and certain time place manner restrictions like government buildings.

But he also said this:

“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modernforms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

I would suggest that your side lost the legal battle, have largely lost the PR battle based upon polling and have lost the political and legislative battle

Comment by Todd Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 3:48 pm
I thought this was an interesting take on some of the more “out there” 2nd Amendment supporters who argue that guns are needed to prevent our government from becoming tyrannical.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/gun-rights

Maybe we need to legalize stinger missiles too if we really are in need of protecting ourselves from government overreach. Why can’t I own a M1A1 Abrams tank? I could park it in my driveway and take it to parades and stuff.

Todd is right. When is enough enough for you people?

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 4:01 pm
Bullets don’t kill people, guns kill people. No wait… People don’t kill people, guns kill bullets. No, that’s not right. Bullets kill assault rifles, people don’t kill people.

Comment by well... Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 4:06 pm
47th ward…

I think we should all be concerned to some extent when an existing right it taken away or reduced by legislation. Be it the esablishment of zones in the public way where protests can not be held or be it guns/speech/whatever.

There are restrictions on free speech that might be good for society as a whole because some people may tend to abuse that right (for example Westboro) but we pause when it is suggested their rights be reduced. I mean, why did those people protesting NATO have to march downtown, wouldn’t have sending a letter been good enough, that is speech isn’t it?

“When is enough, enough for you people”

Well I now live in a state where the governor whats to change the law to ban some firearms unless (among other things) you are going to state facility that is a ’shooting complex’ to use that firearm in an event. However as a resident I can’t keep that same firearm in my home. Seems a bit daft. I help pay for a public facility that a guy from Indiana can bring a firearm he keeps in his home but I couldn’t bring that same firearm if I owned it in my own home in the state.

You know I see your point, I am not a big gun guy by any stretch and sometimes I think the NRA and other pro-gun forces reach to far. But I get the if you give an inch they take a mile argument strong pro-gun people make.

I would be more impressed if he was talking about significantly increasing the penalties for a crime committed with one of these things or in general. Take the dude found with dope on him out of the prison system and put the guy who committed the crime with a gun in for longer. Why, because at the end of the day all these people getting shot in Chicago are not being shot with AR15s

Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 4:15 pm
Another bright shining example of why we need to eliminate the amendatory-veto!

Comment by Brendan Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 4:17 pm
@Todd, and Scalia also talked about colonial gun regulations about what weapons could be carried. specifically, a colonial reference. Drudge had it up on screen as in he’s worried that it means restrictions. you know, regulation of guns, banning guns. machine guns are banned. or don’t you agree with that?

Comment by amalia Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 4:22 pm
One Man, I don’t know if you read the story I linked to or not (it’s an opinion about Scalia’s recent musings on the subject), but here are two money quotes:

“The idea that, in the modern world, a country full of people with private handguns, shotguns and AR-15s in their households is more likely to remain a liberal democracy than a country whose citizens lack such weapons is frankly ridiculous. Worldwide, there is no correlation whatsoever at the country level between private handgun ownership and liberal democracy. There are no cases of democratic countries in which nascent authoritarian governments were successfully resisted due to widespread gun ownership. When authoritarian governments come to power in democracies (which is rare), they do so at the ballot box or with heavy popular support; where juntas overthrow democratic governments, as in Greece, Brazil, Chile or Iran, popular gun ownership is irrelevant.”

and

“Nonetheless, I applaud Mr Scalia for doing his part to make this aspect of the gun-rights debate clearer. If the purpose of the second amendment is to enable citizens to resist the government, then the entire regime of current gun restrictions needs to be overturned: citizens need to be able to buy fully automatic assault rifles, rocket launchers, military-grade explosives, remote detonators, armoured vehicles with mounted artillery, surface-to-air missiles, light bombers, armed drones, everything. If some citizens want to keep and bear arms in order to take on the power of the federal government, that’s what it’s going to take. And should those citizens decide to fully exercise such rights, then their second-amendment freedom will become the freedom to be attacked and crushed by the police and the US military, on behalf of those of us who support the integrity of the American government we have elected and the enforcement of its laws.”

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 4:28 pm
Because the ‘tyranical government’ argument is as you admit a bit out there, I would rather deal in the now.

Just as I suspect you would find it ‘unique’ if the state of Illinois was the only state that didn’t allow civil unions (as would I), I find it interesting that Illinois has limitations on how a citizen may carry a gun that no other state has anymore. Anytime most of the people in the country have the right to exercise a right in a given way and a few people don’t, it is always a reason to go hmmmm.

But more so than that, besides the occasional larger scale incident you don’t hear much about these sort of firearms being used in crimes.

This sort of law sounds nice, don’t get me wrong, but does it really solve a problem?

Wouldn’t we be better off making committing crime with guns penalized harsher instead?

Finally, if he is serious about wanting to do this. Have someone bring a bill forward, don’t do the AV thing, that is just good for the soundbite, not progress.

Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 4:46 pm
Scalia is the one advancing the tyrannical government argument because to him apparently there is only one possible interpretation of the Constitution on this matter, a literalist reading based more on 17th Century England than on 21st Century America.

That makes me go hmmmmm more than the fact that Iowa lets me drive 70 mph while Illinois limits my freedom to 65 mph.

And to your point, yes, tougher penalties would be nice, especially if the gun laws were enforced. How about life in prison if a straw buyer’s weapon is used in a crime? On the other hand, according to some, that would be a sign of a tyrannical government…

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 4:56 pm
Most the penalities are already pretty stiff.

The only part of the state with a major firearms problem is Chicago … and the problem seems to be the criminals have guns. Since a ban doesn’t seem to work, and neither does paying the gang-bangers to behave, maybe the Chicago politicans should try some good old fashioned policing? Oh yeah, that would require actually hiring more cops … which they can’t afford … and then letting them do their job.

Maybe Quinn should just reassign all the disgruntled IDOC guards to help Chicago police deal with the gangs on the State’s dime … yeah, that’s the ticket … tomorrow’s headline !

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 6:10 pm
yes, but how do the criminals get the guns? do they manifest out of thin air? most are purchased out of state, places with few regulations. or purchased in state from an individual who is supposed to see if the Illinois resident has a FOID. but we all know freedom includes the freedom to sell property, right? (heavy snark about self regulation.) so the guns somehow just keep flowing to the bad guys. it mostly comes from the secondary market so that means there are bad legal owners out there. lots of them. if so much time is spent defending gun owners, what are the defenders doing about the bad gun owners? the lot of the lots of them?

Comment by amalia Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 6:51 pm
@amalia -

Don’t forget, as I remarked earlier, that many guns end up on the street as the result of burglaries of gun owners.

Folks who religiously defend the right to buy any gun but won’t spend $43 for a gun safe.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 7:02 pm
YDD,

Some of us do. I’ve got a gun safe and it cost a lot more than $43 … but it also has more than one item in it.

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 7:11 pm
Hmm. Since the Governor’s values do not appear to be in line with those of the fine citizens of downstate, he is not welcome here (even if he chose to venture south). Ok, maybe just Mayor of my Domain.

Comment by Mayor of Downstate Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 7:15 pm
So Gov. Quinn “improves” this bill by adding language which the sponsor probably can’t accept, and the bill dies. So much for trying to help Illinois businesses compete on a level field with out-of-state vendors. As a plus it is a “in your face” move to second amendment supporters.
Oh, and then let’s have a press conference so the state and nation know that we are abusing the deaths of 12 people in Colorado and exploiting the grief of their families! How utterly and disgustingly shameful! Shame!
The “man of the people” has become the “exploiter of people.” What kind of political advice is Quinn getting? Are they using an ouija board?
Time to impeach this Governor for continuing to embarass the state of Illinois.

Comment by Motambe Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 7:44 pm
@RNUG -

I salute you.

Assault weapons bans are sexy fun for both sides.

But I’ll never forget a study (some years ago) that one in five parents who own guns store their firearms loaded, unlocked, in a place accessible to a child. You know, like a dresser drawer next to their bed.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 7:48 pm
If the governor sticks to the script the next couple weeks will go like this …

He will bus in supporters for Gov Day at the Fair. His supporters will boo Speaker Madigan.

He will persist with his Special Session and add to it.

The political elite will attend their respective national political conventions.

At the Democratic Convention, Pat Quinn and Mike Madigan will hug.

The next day, as Barack Obama accepts the nomination for a second term, Pat Quinn and his aides will fly back to Illinois and use the opportunity as cover to announce state layoffs and closings (you’ve been warned Tamms and Dwight).

OK, that’s enough for now.
Stay tuned for more of Episode 5; Blago’s Lt. Gov Strikes Back.

Comment by Michelle Flaherty Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 9:28 pm
Amalia — i did listen to him and it lined up with what he wrote in Heller.

As to how do the criminal get their guns, well 50% of them picked up in Chicago come from out of state. A large number of the other half use freinds and relatives to commit straw purches on their behalf.

Still more are stollen from commercial carriers and home burglaries. The FOID card owner is not the one who generally commits a crime based upon recent figures for revocations.

Comment by Todd Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 10:41 pm
@ Todd, and what he wrote is that regulation can happen.

so if the guns come from out of state, or are straw purchases, isn’t that still illegal? I think your figures on the stolen vs. straw, etc. are not reliable, or what is the source?

Comment by amalia Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 11:18 pm
is it a law that a firearms owner must report a theft of weapons to law enforcement authorities? an Illinois law? if so where are the stats kept? what about Federal? requirement of federal license holders to report? does the ATF get enough budget money to keep track of these things? Cause if Cong. Issa spent as much energy and time helping the ATF with the agency budget as he is investigating Fast and Furious, there might be money for a federal agency in charge of firearms issues to do their job. because the NRA is constantly working to tie the hands of the ATF when it comes to budget and authority there is not enough money, in my opinion, to do what the agency needs to do.

Comment by amalia Tuesday, Jul 31, 12 @ 11:30 pm
Late to the game, but happy to see my friends Amalia, 47 and Todd knocking it out of the park.

You all got game.

Salud to them, and to Rich Miller for hosting a forum where smart people can discuss serious matters in a reasonable way.

To the issues:

–I have no problem with hunting with firearms.

==I have no problem with individuals owning and possessing firearms in their homes. That was a big win with “Heller.”

Are we all cool up to know?

I have big problems with Aurora, Columbine, Virginia Tech and NIU.

Daddio, I grew up in DeKalb and was the Artful Dodger, with a key to every door on campus. NIU was my and my crews’ home.

I went there to school, from “Math 101″ to “Russian Film” at Cole Hall. Fell in and fell out of love there many times.

Cole Hall, as I knew it, is gone. Some gun nut shot it to pieces and killed a lot of kids. I am so sorry and ashamed that it happened in my town I can’t even see straight.

I wasn’t good at geometry, and you can get as obtuse as want, but you’ll never convince me that there was no way to stop that lunatic from spraying the hall. Cole Hall. In DeKalb.

He had weapons and ammunition designed for nothing else.

That was my town and my peeps. I go to First Lutheran Church on Pine Street and I can’t even look at the Cross I’m so ashamed.

Keep your guns, but get real about the lunatics and our duty as citizens.

If you won’t, you’re just like the grotesque Wall Street hustlers and Neo-Con murderers who bring nothing to this country but misery and shame.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Aug 1, 12 @ 1:49 am
@Todd -

Sounds like we’ve got some work to do cracking down on out-of-state sales and straw purchasers. Are criminals going out-of-state to buy guns where protections are weaker, or are gun traffickers bringing the guns in?

I’ve heard snippets about biker gangs getting branching out of the meth business to supply street gangs with guns.

If you’ve got suggestions, I’d love to hear them.

I knew about home burglaries, but commercial carriers?!? Do these folks not have security systems? What gives? You’d think a gun shop would be locked up as tight or tighter than a bank.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Aug 1, 12 @ 7:16 am
Wow having read the AV message, the Governor actually gutted the bill sent to him and did the shell bill game with “By replacing everything after the enacting clause with the following…”! So the intent of the bill sent to him is totally gone. Perhaps Quinn should resign as Governor and run for the legislature.

Comment by Kevin Highland Wednesday, Aug 1, 12 @ 7:32 am
@Wordslinger: you make too much sense on guns.

but, heavy qualification for my assessment of your work, as Todd has dubbed me a gun banner. and therefore a totally suspect person. because I believe that a machine gun should still be banned, because I believe the AWBan should be reinstated. And because I think big clips should not be sold, and internet sales of ammunition should not be allowed. and records should be kept and checked for purchases of firearms.

so I’m a bad person about guns re Todd. tell that to my husband and his many guns and hunting and shooting practices. cause he agrees with me. his assessment of those who believe that they need an AR15 and a 100 round clip to shoot varmints is that they should practice their shooting cause they do not need such a weapon to get the job done.

Also, I’m wondering why if U.S. is so weapon filled that we can’t win many/any of the rifle shooting events at any of the Olympics. Congrats to the Rhode and Hancock, the female and male winners of the skeet contests (Rhode medals for 5 Olys straight, the most for anyone in any sport, amazing)….very fun watching those events live…but those are double barreled shotguns, right? where are our rifle talents, oh great gun lovers?

Comment by amalia Wednesday, Aug 1, 12 @ 8:00 am
I think a lot of people mean well when it comes to wanting gun control. But very few crimes involve these fire arms. I don’t understand how people can be in such an uproar over one incidentin Colorado when the same number of people die in Chicago each week due to proven failure of Gun Control.

Comment by the Patriot Wednesday, Aug 1, 12 @ 8:20 am