Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Mary Lee Leahy
Next Post: Caption contest!
Posted in:
* Look, like it or not, if it’s a constitutional right to carry a gun outside one’s home, then that means everybody has to be treated equally under the Constitution…
The head of an influential bloc of black lawmakers says he may be able to support a law that allows Illinoisans to carry concealed weapons in every county except the state’s most populated one.
State Rep. Will Davis, D-Homewood, who chairs the House Legislative Black Caucus, said Cook County is too congested to allow people to carry firearms on the streets and should be exempted from any statewide concealed gun law.
“I think there could be some room for compromise,” Davis said.
As head of the black caucus, Davis could play a key role in crafting a concealed weapons law in the wake of a federal court ruling Tuesday that struck down as unconstitutional the state law that prohibits most citizens from carrying a concealed handgun in public.
There are ways around this, but the NRA will likely do everything it can to block them. For instance, the county sheriff could be given discretion on whether to issue permits. It’s unlikely that Cook County’s sheriff would hand out very many. But the NRA is so far taking a hardline stance against any such ideas…
“We are not going to accept that. Chicago is not going to get their own rules. Your rights don’t change by the zip code you live in,” said Vandermyde. “We’re not going to accept that kind of legislation here in Illinois.”
* Cook County and Chicago are gonna fight tooth and nail to water this down as much as humanly possible…
Mayor Rahm Emanuel blasted Tuesday’s federal appellate court decision as “wrongheaded” as he offered legal help to Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan as she weighs an appeal. […]
For his part, Emanuel noted his efforts while working for former President Bill Clinton to require background checks for gun buyers and ban semi-automatic assault weapons.
“We fought against the National Rifle Association. They had not been beaten in 30 years in the United States Congress, and we beat ‘em,” Emanuel said.
“I think this opinion by the 7th Circuit Court is also wrongheaded,” he added.
* But there’s a real danger with appealing this ruling…
“If the bill is appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court rules in favor of concealed carry, all of the states that have restricted carry laws go bye bye,” said Vandermyde.
* So if it’s not appealed and if Chicago and Cook can’t come to an agreement or find the votes to beat the gun guys, the NRA can just stall this thing until June, when the appellate court will step in…
The Court has given the legislature 180 days to find a solution.
“If they fail to do that, the Unlawful Use of Weapons’ action is found to be unconstitutional and there’s an injunction against its enforcement across the state,” said Vandermyde. “That means, if you have a FOID card in your pocket, you’ll be able to walk down the street with any firearm that’s legal in the state of Illinois.”
* Gov. Quinn is taking a far more moderate approach following the ruling than Emanuel…
“We have to have reasonable limitations so people who have clear situations where they should not be carrying a gun, for example, those with mental health challenges, those who have records of domestic violence, we cannot have those sorts of people eligible to carry weapons, loaded weapons, on their person in public places” Quinn said.
National Rifle Association lobbyist Todd Vandermyde said the governor is “being very pragmatic in his approach” on concealed carry. Though Vandermyde expected gun rights groups to hold firm on a variety of points, he said his group wanted to “work for a reasonable solution and policy on right to carry.”
Contrast those comments with last year…
“The concept of concealed, loaded hand guns in the possession of private citizens does not enhance public safety, on the contrary it increases danger for everyday people as they go about their lives,” Quinn said, according to the Chicago Tribune.
“I don’t think we’re in the business of trying to increase danger to the people of Illinois. We want to work with our law enforcement and prevent bad things from happening,” Quinn continued. “I think the passage of this law by the General Assembly would be most unwise and they should know where they governor stands [i.e. he’d veto it] and where the people stand.”
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 9:56 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Mary Lee Leahy
Next Post: Caption contest!
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
It looks like my investment in holsters and pocket pistols is about to pay off.
Comment by Enemy of the State Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 10:01 am
Sounds like the Rahm-inator and the black caucus would like special rules and laws for Chicago. Maybe, they want to form their own state. There is no rational basis for their desire other than “wrongheaded thinking” on their part.
Comment by Downstater Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 10:04 am
That fellow Quinn needs to step into the real world.
Many, many people presently carry a concealed weapon, in his case being his tongue, as every time he loosens it, it misfires.
Comment by Sunshine Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 10:06 am
I guess Rahm is just worried Chicago might become the murder capital of America….oh wait….
Comment by just sayin' Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 10:09 am
Im not understanding the logic that we may not appeal the decision because it may cause other states to lose their restrictive carry laws. Why does the Attorney General care what happens to the restrictive carry laws of other states? If she feels that appealing this ruling will be in the best interests of Illinois, then she should do it.
Now with that said, there is obviously a delicate balance for her in that the legislature may be able to pass a form of a restrictive carry law that passes constitutional muster while restricting carry in a way so that it isnt a concealed carry free for all. That, to me, is the big issue.
Comment by Anon-amiss Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 10:11 am
They already do background checks
, make sure a person is not mentally ill, or a domestic abuser, when you get your FOID card. Does Quinn have no clue on current Illinois law?
Comment by Evil t Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 10:15 am
“If the bill is appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court rules in favor of concealed carry, all of the states that have restricted carry laws go bye bye,”
I don’t see this happening, but I believe an appeal would be a waste of time and money. The GA needs to craft a concealed carry law everyone can live with.
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 10:17 am
Could a law exempting the state’s most populous county stand up to Constitutional muster? Wouldn’t equal protection laws apply?
Comment by LincolnLounger Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 10:17 am
Quinn wants a ban on commonly possessed semi-automatic firearms as part of what he would sign for CCW, how moderate is that?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-emanuel-quinn-gun-ruling-20121213,0,5976534.story
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 10:20 am
Hey Sunshine and Evil t - Even Todd V called the Governor’s response pragmatic. In case you’re unfamiliar with that word, it’s a compliment. Maybe you should look past your hatred of Quinn and see that he’s supporting a reasonable approach to crafting this law.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 10:21 am
Quinn knows what the current law is. I think he may be trying to inflame the passions of his Chicago base hoping that they would be upset at the (impossible) idea that the insane will be running up and down Michigan Ave with assault rifles.
-Anon-amiss-
The AGs from the may issue states (like NY) would apply enormous pressure on AG Madigan to NOT appeal to the SCOTUS. If SCOTUS decides against Illinois even may issue would be a dead issue. Illinois would have even less leverage than they do now. We are not living in a vacuum.
Passing a restricitve CCW law at this time may not be possible - the NRA appears to have the upper hand.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 10:22 am
Is the governor ok? A reasonable, pragmatic approach to any issue seems so out of character for him. At least his inconsistency is reassuring.
Comment by AC Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 10:24 am
Isn’t there some risk in the NRA overplaying their hand with the federal court? Say a compromise concealed carry measure similar to Brandon Phelps’ bill — one with a fair ammount of restrictions — fails to pass the GA next Spring because the NRA withholds support because they want 180 day period expire, counting on the court to then impose a no-holds-barred concealed carry order. Might Judge Posner be ticked off at the pro-gun forces in that scenario and instead of issue a no-restriction concealed carry orderand invite someone to submit to the court a concealed carry
Comment by Frank Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 10:25 am
If the state wanted to get out of the fight, it simply could pass discretion to issue permits to the counties and let the counties fight it out in federal court should they decide to do so. Of course, the assumes the pro-gun votes in the ILGA let them get away with it. The pro-2A crowd would be fine with constitutional carry but I suspect the AG would appeal to stay the opinion before it got that far.
Comment by Fight for the Chicago Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 10:30 am
Guns already are too plentiful on some neighborhoods’ streets. Alderman Roberto Maldonado said that while a concealed carry law would not allow gang members with criminal backgrounds to carry guns, the gang members could prey on law abiding citizens and steal their guns.
Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Chicago-Vows-To-Fight-Concealed-Carry-Ruling-183331821.html#ixzz2EwNmPk7S
What world does the good alderman live in? He really thinks people are more likely to victimized because they are carrying a concealed firearm?
Comment by Anon* Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 10:32 am
=== “I think there could be some room for compromise,” Davis said. ===
There was a lot more room for compromise last year. And the year before. And the year before that. And the year before that.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 10:33 am
@AC, it’s only a matter of time until Quinn unleashes “Petey the Pistol” to accompany “Squeezy the Snake”.
Give it 2, maybe 3 weeks tops, until the Facebook page, new video and press conference are ready to go.
“I tell ya, people are gonna love Petey. We can’t go wrong!”
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 10:39 am
Chicago is not going to get their way on this. Todd and the Constitution won’t let it happen. A reasonable law will probably be passed; but, reasonable to the NRA not to Chicago because ANY type of CCW is unreasonable to Chicago.
Comment by Jechislo Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 10:39 am
—The AGs from the may issue states (like NY) would apply enormous pressure on AG Madigan—
What kind of real pressure would the other AG’s be able to put on AG Madigan? What is she supposed to do, not advocate the position that she feels is best for her state because Eric Schneiderman tells her not to?
When it comes down to it, AG Madigan should be more focused on working with the legislature to come up with a strategy to resolve this issue. If the legislature can’t pass something, then the appeal is probably the best way to go. Don’t see how doing nothing is an option for an anti-CC AG.
Comment by Anon-amiss Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 10:39 am
I do not see them excluding the largest population base in Illinois. It will either be all counties or none and we know it will not be none. If they would have passed a bill that allowed CC, then they would not be in this situation.
Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 10:40 am
The FOID card keeps people from purchasing and possessing a gun, with mental health issues and problems with domestic violence. The conceal carry may never come to pass, but Chicago cannot be exempt. The citizen south of I-80 have had laws and rules force on us for years, by the Chicago politicians. Maybe just once with the help of the Federal Supreme court, Southern Illinois may win one!!!!!
Comment by George Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 10:43 am
I am glad the Governor is being “Pragmatic”. If he understood existing law he would already know you need a FOID card to get a gun in Illinois. The FOID card law was not struck down so still applies. You cannot get a FOID card if you are a domestic abuser, have a mental illness or a felon. The Governor is being “Pragmatic” because he wants to run for Governor and is the only Democrat at least trying to reach out to a huge voting bloc in the South. So I say good for him but let us see his future actions match his present words.
Comment by Nagidam Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 10:46 am
Oh and to Rep. Davis, excluding Chicago or Cook County will never happen. Period. End of Story. There are plenty of points to compromise regarding Conceal Carry this is not one of them. If Anita Alvarez can take Sen. Trotter to the woodshed for a mistake imagine what she would do to an ordinary person that accidently wondered into Cook County and was arrested for having a weapon on them.
Comment by Nagidam Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 10:54 am
Anon 10:32: =He really thinks people are more likely to victimized because they are carrying a concealed firearm=
I’ve heard the same argument when someone suggests open carry. They are fearful of becoming targets. But isn’t the point of carrying a gun that you not become a victim?
Comment by Just askin Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 11:00 am
I am a Chicagoan and do not own a gun (I may in the future), but I do not want to see Rahm and other Chicago politicos wasting time, money, and energy on depriving Chicagoans of their rights.
Comment by Just Observing Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 11:03 am
interesting political problem for Lisa. who does she want to go to bat for? those who want her to appeal, and those who want a new law to be weak as narrow as possible, dont seem to be arguing the specifics of the decision. they are still arguing their preferred political positions.
Comment by langhorne Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 11:15 am
@Frank:
The courts don’t work that way, that would be legislating from the bench. If the IL legislature passes SOMETHING, the court will be satisfied, and if they pass nothing, then the permanent injunction against the law goes into effect, and again the court is satisfied.
The question of a new law being unconstitutional or not is a new case and would have to be litigated from zero, but Posner’s ruling would still apply.
The question of Chicago writing its own concealed carry law is also a new case that would have to be litigated from the beginning, but it would fare even worse than the Illinois law because once again Judge Posner’s ruling is now guiding precedent in the 7th Circuit.
Legal options for Illinois and Chicago anti-liberty proponents are narrow, and likely to get more narrow in the future.
Comment by Left Coast Conservative Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 11:34 am
Chicago’s crime rate will go down. Emanuel is to thick to figure that out.
Comment by Just Sayin' Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 12:03 pm
Rahmbo may be a lot of things, but thick ain’t one of them. I honestly think he believes in his principles - they just aren’t the same as those of his critics. (Or mine.)
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 12:06 pm
Dear Goddess, someone get me a drink. I just defended Da New Mare’s virtue.
;-)
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 12:07 pm
ouch!
“- just sayin’ - Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 10:09 am:
I guess Rahm is just worried Chicago might become the murder capital of America….oh wait….”
Comment by siriusly Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 12:10 pm
=Rahmbo may be a lot of things, but thick ain’t one of them. I honestly think he believes in his principles - they just aren’t the same as those of his critics. (Or mine.) =
Too bad Rhambo’s principles have not worked with regards to fewer murders in Chicago and less drug usage and lower crime in general. Seems as though his principles may be wrong.
Comment by Downstater Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 12:14 pm
any reason the new law has call for concealed?
Are the 2Aers to chicken and need to hide their pieces? How pink hats so the sane know who is packin’?
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 12:14 pm
The number of policemen on Chicago streets are declining because the city cannot afford them. The Chicago public school system is one of our nation’s top drop out systems. Area unemployment remains high. Taxes will shyrocket to support state, county and local gov employee pensions, further aggravating the prior conditions.
Listening to the Fed Chairman yesterday leads one to believe things aren’t going to get better for quite some time, if ever.
You may want that Glock in your belt in a couple of years.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 12:16 pm
@ - CircularFiringSquad - Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 12:14 pm:
Have you checked your blood pressure lately? You sound stressed.
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 12:21 pm
Just Sayin’, the Chicago violent crime rate IS down, way down when you look at the 30 and 40 year trends. Yes, the murder rate is up over last year’s number, but even with this recent spike, Chicago’s murder rate in 2012 will be about 60 or 70 percent of what it was in the early 90’s and mid 70’s.
Chicago’s murders are virtual all gang-on-gang hits. Gang members already practice concealed carry, so making it legal won’t have much of an effect.
Comment by Fact Check Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 12:59 pm
First off congrats to the NRA folks on thier win. Having said that I will add I do not think a no compromise stance is a good Idea.
I have said before I think very few folks will face a situation where pulling and or useing a weapon is justified. I feel very few who pack will be able to pull that weapon and discharge it in a calm and thoughtful manner when the time comes.
I am still not sure the 2A says folks should have a right to CCW. Even if it does, to what extent can that be regulated. Maybe CFS@12:14 has the right of it. Should not the public know if there is someone with a lethal material among them. Heck if I drive a truck thru town with ammo in it I would need a Haz Mat plaqe on it. Maybe we could have them wear a red and green benie with a propeller on top. Hey we have hunters wear orange so thier buddys don’t shoot em. Of course even that does not always work, see Dick Chaney.
You can laugh at the above but the anti abortion folks have taught everyone how to deal with a call by the supremes you don’t like. Take little swipes at it til you find a chink, then build on it. Something like test yearly for the ability to use weapon and know the law. Charge a fee for such. Not that different from driving. Make them watch several hours of doctors fixing bullet holes in people. You get my drift.
Get a new court and this could all change.
Comment by Bemused Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 1:12 pm
- Just Observing - Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 11:03 am:
I am a Chicagoan and do not own a gun (I may in the future), but I do not want to see Rahm and other Chicago politicos wasting time, money, and energy on depriving Chicagoans of their rights.
+1
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 1:13 pm
Just a quick, nitpicky point here: Don’t overestimate FOID’s mental illness protections. You’re only prohibited if you’ve been admitted to a psychiatric facility in the previous 5 years. For example, Sideshow Bob out on CO would not have been denied a FOID card based on mental illness.
Getting admitted to a psychiatric hospital is surprisingly difficult and would not eliminate the majority of people we would term “mentally ill” from possessing a weapon. This doesn’t even address the lack of needed hospitalization due to inability to pay or lack of insurance.
In no way does this factor directly into the CC debate, but it is an existing and poorly understood facet of established gun law in IL.
Comment by Colossus Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 1:15 pm
Rich said it best: “Look, like it or not, if it’s a constitutional right to carry a gun outside one’s home, then that means everybody has to be treated equally under the Constitution.” Equal protection under the law is a goal we should always aspire to. The law should apply to everyone whether they are a off-duty police officer or a Chicago Alderman.
Comment by Steve Bartin Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 1:50 pm
CircularFiringSquad -
Seriously….do you really need someone to point out the obvious flip-side to making ‘carriers’ advertise??
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 2:04 pm
@ - Steve Bartin - Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 1:50 pm:
That reminds me of something I saw somewhere a few years ago. It went something like this:
“The true test of whether a firearms regulation is reasonable or not is whether it can be applied equally to police as well as private citizens.”
Or something like that.
The premise was that police officers should have no greater right to carry defensive weapons than do private citizens.
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 2:13 pm
Like someone said previously, you have to have a FOID card to buy a gun. To get concealed carry and lets use Florida for example. You must take a firearms safety class $100, Submit the the application along with, photos and fingerprint cards for the FBI to do the records check and submit $175. Illinois could also add in a sate check if you every had a DUI or DWI then your disqualified. You have to remember the only people who carry in Illinois are Police, Gang bangers and high profile elected officials. (Quinn, Emanuel etc). They require protection from bad people but the rest of the honest people in the state don’t?
Comment by the ghost in the darkness Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 2:20 pm
I am continually amazed at the Democratic party leaders and members at both the Federal and State (Illinois) level when it comes to obeying and abiding by the Constitution. These are the laws we ALL abide by. Start abiding.
Comment by Jechislo Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 2:28 pm
“Equal protection under the law” is NOT a “goal we should always aspire to” it is part of the 14th Amendment.
As to Quinn’s “We have to have reasonable limitations so people who have clear situations where they should not be carrying a gun, for example, those with mental health challenges, those who have records of domestic violence, we cannot have those sorts of people eligible to carry weapons, loaded weapons, on their person in public places” He should stop the demagoguery and work with the NRA to get the most “reasonable” (if only to him) bill that he can. Otherwise, the permanent injunction against the current law will go into effect next June without any further action by anyone.
WAKE UP, PAT! Do what’s right or suffer the consequences.
Comment by Jeeper Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 2:53 pm
Depending on how this falls out, Illinois residents MAY NOT need to get multiple nonresident permits from other states to carry when traveling. Unless Illinois adopts the ridiculous fees Emmanuel, Quinn et al will demand (which I doubt), it COULD save me money…
Comment by Jeeper Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 2:58 pm
tgitd- you would disallow someone that is 60yrs plus because of a dui (with no accident) when he/she was 23? on what grounds? not a felony, not mental illness. unreal
Comment by wizard Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 3:11 pm
“any reason the new law has call for concealed?
Are the 2Aers to chicken and need to hide their pieces? How pink hats so the sane know who is packin’?”
I’ll embrase all your insults going forward. I’m compensating for small you know what. I’m chicken. I’m have a fetish. Whatever. None of it matters because I still insist on my constitutional right to keep and BEAR arms. I’ll agree to identifying myself as a gun owner/carrier when you agree that all anti-2A anonymous commenters on websites must have an identifying logo tatooed on their forehead. You know, just to prove they’re not chicken.
Comment by Confused Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 3:28 pm
@Bemused - good ideas there. Should we also apply them to exercises of the 1st Amendment? Newpapers paying license fees to print, long government mandated training on objectivity and research techniques, and lessons about how bad press work (such as Walter Duranty) covered up horrible genocides, etc.?
Comment by titan Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 3:36 pm
=== “I think there could be some room for compromise,” Davis said. ===
About as much room as he had for allowing his constituents off the gun control plantation in 2011 when HB-148 came up for a vote.
Sorry, Mr. Davis. Constitutional rights don’t stop because you live in a congested area. You better get used to that.
Furthermore, we’re not leaving poor, inner-city residents behind. Frankly, the urban poor have the greatest to gain from the lawful carriage of firearms.
We’re going to have shall-issue right-to-carry here in a few months. And if not, come June 9th or so, we’ll have what we gun folks affectionately refer to as “Constitutional Carry” with a FOID card.
Comment by Templar223 Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 3:40 pm
How will it be determined if the person has a mental health issue? What particular mental health issues will be included in a rejection for a permit? If the person has a permit and then is determined to have a mental health issue what happens?
Comment by INDEPENDENT Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 3:46 pm
>>>>About as much room as he had for allowing his constituents off the gun control plantation in 2011
???
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 3:50 pm
Indy, current gun rules for mental health mandate that a court has had to find you mentally unqualified or you have to have been admitted to an institution. If you’re later found potentially unfit, a court clerk is supposed to forward that info to the ISP.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/06/illinois-foid-screenings-_n_1408094.html
Comment by Precinct Captain Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 3:58 pm
Titan@3:36
First off I have low opinion of what todays Press Does.
If you put a Used Car Salesman, a Politician and someone from the Media in a box I feel it would be hard to tell which one popped out first.
Anyway I went back and reread Amendment One. Not sure what you suggest would be against it. Might could improve the breed.
I have been told before the only point I have is on top of my head. Be that as it may, this stuff is far from set in stone. There may be a constitutional right to bear arms but that right may not preclude the public from being aware you are in fact doing so. I read 2A as meaning you have that right as a member of the National Guard, but we can agree to disagree on that. If there are no controls on that “Right” then this means nothing anyway and I want my new Thompson.
This is not a personal issue to me. Let the lawers make a buck on it. Public opinion seems to be behind the pro side. Although I do like to plink, I do not want to carry around something I have to watch even closer than my wallet.
Comment by Bemused Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 4:44 pm
So, the right of privacy only applies to the act of reproduction? But wait, I keep getting told I want to carry a firearm because of sexual inadequacy so maybe I actually do have to right to keep the fact that I’m carrying a firearm private.
Comment by Confused Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 5:23 pm
I suspect that if the GA attempts some how to prevent citizens of the City of Chicago from having a right all other qualified Illinois citizens are likely to have that the law will get struck down. So lets not waste more money and time, just write a reasonably restrictive law that has a training requirement and I hope prevents open carry to urban areas which Wisconsin’s current emergency rules do not prevent from what I have read.
I think it would be pretty unnerving to see someone openly carrying a 44 walking down Michigan Ave. I would like to see a rational law passed, its time for the gun control advocates to admit defeat and give it up.
Comment by Rod Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 5:28 pm
I still believe that the best way to pass a Conealed Carry Law is to tie it to revising Unlawful Use of Weapon by a Felon to a Class X Felony. Possesion of Ammunition by a Felon also a Class X. Minimum sentence of 10 years, at 85% for first offense and increase for every subsequent conviction. Mandatory to be Consecutive to any other crime that is commited while in possesion of the firearm. Use the standards now in place to recieve a FOID card, and require a mandatory firearms safety class and “Shall Issue” language to issue permits to Law Abiding Citizens without pricing them out of reach for low income Citizens. Crack down on the Criminals, and reward the Law Abiding.
As far as Open versus Concealed Carry, the only problem I see with that is while wearing a coat or a Lady, who carrys hers in a purse as opposed to making her wear a gunbelt on her dress. And yes, believe it or not, a lot of women will concealed carry.
Comment by SO IL M Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 6:51 pm
News Flash - A lot of law abiding, honest, nice people, both men and women, in Chicago, are currently carrying concealed handguns. They have been for years as a result of understanding some basic facts about living in dangerous neighborhoods.
Comment by Anon. Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 7:49 pm
“We fought against the National Rifle Association. They had not been beaten in 30 years in the United States Congress, and we beat ‘em,” Emanuel said.
Evidently Rahm must have forgotten about the huge mid-term Congressional loses that they suffered after that, which Clinton blamed on the NRA.
Comment by Ronbo Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 11:02 pm
@SO IL M: PLEASE don’t tie this to anything else. The last time, in 1994, they were going to pass a package of several (5?) bills that would make carrying a pistol without a license (previously a misdemeanor) a felony and set up provisions to license people ti carry concealed.
The ONLY bill to pass into law made unlicensed carry a felony. Prior to the effective date of that law, 1 January 1995, you could decide if the possibility of NEEDING a pistol was worth the possibility of getting a 30-90 day jail sentence, possibly suspended for a first offense. After that date, a felony conviction for the same action would strip you of the right to own a gun again, ever. So, it is no longer worth the risk. The law has been changed since then in various ways but unlicensed carriage has remained a felony.
We’ve already traveled the road you suggest; it was a dead end. Please don’t take us there again.
Comment by Jeeper Friday, Dec 14, 12 @ 12:05 am
It’s pretty sad that Illinois has to correct this “mistake” at the order of the court. From the top down, the political realm is so dysfunctional and useless. I think this conceal carry will be tricky because of the social issues and the law. But the bottom line is the right to bear arms to protect yourself inside and outside your home is a constitutional right PERIOD. Good Luck Children on crafting this law for us. We have been waiting patiently.
Comment by ah HA Friday, Dec 14, 12 @ 7:52 am
Chicago politicians saying we can’t have conceal and carry because it is too dangerous sort of sums up how out of touch with reality they are. In case ya’ll did not notice you have the most dangerous city in America. Your incompetence is not a reason to violate the constitution.
It is more than personal safety. The 2nd amendment is so citizens can protect themselves from a tyrannical government. When you live in a state where the dictatorship will not even allow your legislator to vote on an issue like the right to bear arms, you need a gun!
Comment by the Patriot Friday, Dec 14, 12 @ 8:09 am