Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Gay marriage stalls… for now
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* The Senate Democratic leadership did not have a good week…
On guns, the Senate Wednesday advanced out of committee two bills that would ban an array of automatic and semi-automatic weapons plus the ammunition they need to operate.
But the measures withered under a furious pushback from the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights advocates, who told the Sun-Times Thursday that neither measure had more than 27 or 28 votes in the Senate, shy of the 30 needed for passage.
Cullerton acknowledged the votes weren’t there for either gun bill but said “we learned about potential ways to enhance those bills. Those bills, of course, will be taken up in the next General Assembly.”
* More…
Sen. Dan Kotowski, D-Park Ridge, said the failure to call the gun bills also was because some supporters were absent.
“The reality is, in order to get it passed, we have to have people in their seats,” he said.
Gun rights supporters said the assault weapons ban, as written, would outlaw the sale of far more guns than military-style assault weapons. A second bill to ban the sale of large-capacity ammunition magazines would be unworkable, they said.
* But it’s not over. yet House staff has reportedly contacted the NRA to let them know that Gov. Pat Quinn and Mayor Emanuel will attempt to push a gun and magazine ban when the chamber reconvenes for the lame duck session this coming Sunday.
Senate President Cullerton has said he will call his chamber back on Tuesday if there’s anything to do. But attendance issues are going to be a problem then as well.
…Adding… IR has ISRA’s take on the Senate proposals…
- The Illinois State Police would be given full control over the design and operation of commercial gun ranges in the state. That control would extend from the design of the bullet backstops to qualifications of range employees and even to the color of the paint on the walls of the men’s room. The State Police would determine the hours of operation, what types and calibers of firearms could be discharged at the range, and even a minimum number of square feet. Every range customer would have to undergo a background check and each customer’s visit would be logged by the range operator. Any Illinois law enforcement agency could conduct unannounced and warrantless inspections and searches of ranges at any time. Those searches and inspections would extend to range customers and their property. That means that the Chicago Police Department would have the authority to raid a range in Peoria and roust the customers of that range. The bottom line is, this range regulation proposal has the sole objective of running commercial shooting ranges out of business. We had never seen anything like this before, but the intent was clear.
- All semi-automatic firearms would be either banned outright, or be so severely taxed and restricted that ownership would be impractical. We expected to see attempts to ban or regulate AR and AK type firearms, but what we saw in Cullerton’s proposal carried that to an extreme. Cullerton’s gun ban would extend to all semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns. Additionally, many pump action rifles and shotguns would be banned as well. This ban would include such classics as the 1911 and the M1 Garand. Of course, all Glocks, Sig-Sauers, and other popular pistols would be banned as well. Estimates are that about 50% of rifles and 80% of handguns lawfully-owned by Illinois citizens would be subject to ban and confiscation under the Cullerton gun ban.
- A bizarre and convoluted scheme to register all “ammunition feeding devices” capable of holding more than 10 rounds – including magazines, stripper clips, drums, etc. Since none of these devices possess serial numbers, owners of these devices would essentially register them under the “honor system.” Of course, we all know how well criminals stick to the honor system.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 10:30 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Gay marriage stalls… for now
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I don`t understand the logic other than a total ban of guns in Illinois. So we run more businesses out of the state and lose even more tax revenue and jobs!!! We already ran Les Bauer out of state might as well run Springfield Armory and Rock River and all the other gun shops out too!!! No wonder we as a state are broke!!!
Comment by highspeed Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 10:49 am
Sez that although the wing nutz are going to rant all day about this, in the end it will be the juries and insurance industry that “takes their weapons”.
IMO it will be without a shot.
Comment by Simon Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 10:53 am
Simon,
As a general rule, there is no liability for injuries caused by third parties.
The bad guys don’t have coverage. The people who might have some liability would be people who fail to secure their guns and have them stolen.
However, I’ve never seen a case on that point.
So I just don’t see insurers getting too involved on the issue.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 10:56 am
On to the merits of the bills –
I’ve made no secret over the past few days that I favor reasonable gun control, including registration and banning clips over a certain size.
However, Dan’s bills are a big disappointment. Both are over broad and unworkable. They read more like a rough draft or an opening offer than serious legislation.
Dan’s a smart guy. He can do a lot better.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 10:59 am
SIMPLE FACT: The City of Chicago prohibited handguns for 28 years until the law was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 as unconstitutional. Yet 513 people were killed in Chicago in 2008.
In 2005, that number was 451 and 75% of the murders involved a firearm. The African American murder victimization rate was 34 per 100,000; the Hispanic rate was 11 per 100,000, and the white rate 3 per 100,000. Over 75% of victims and 88% of offenders had a prior arrest history. At least 30% were gang altercations. Over 40% of victims and 60% of offenders were between the ages of 17 and 25. 85% of victims and 93% of offenders were male.
After the Supreme Court decision, Chicago instituted new regulations and is considered to have some of the strongest gun laws on the books. But 506 murders occured in 2012. The ten year average is 477.
The point here is you can institute all the gun laws you want BUT THE CRIMINALS WILL STILL HAVE GUNS AND USE THEM!!!
Comment by Both Sides Now Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 11:04 am
Skeeter, Relay that message to the former shareholders of Johns-Manville that all those asbestos claims were fictitious.
Comment by Simon Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 11:05 am
Skeeter….
It appears we are headed for Concealed Carry. If a concealed carrier’s weapon discharges accidentally, or perhaps even for any other reason, and I’m hit by the bullet, the concealed carrier better have liability insurance. Else, his house and everything else he owns will be mine.
Comment by Deep South Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 11:10 am
Simon,
Johns Manville involved concealing the fact that a product caused meso.
Gun manufacturers have statutory immunity from suit.
That leaves gun owners. As noted above, as a general rule there is no liability for criminal actions by third parties.
A gun crime would be intentional and thus excluded from coverage.
The only way for their to be liability would be negligence for failing to secure the weapon and having it stolen. We just haven’t seen cases on those grounds.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 11:11 am
Deep South,
That’s a good point. The way I read a standard Homeowner’s policy, it likely would be covered (I haven’t read a policy over in detail looking for that issue, but I can’t think of an exclusion that would apply).
There may well be coverage for accidental discharge.
I haven’t seen numbers from other states to know how likely that scenario would be. The question is how often the claims are made, the cost of defending them (Loss Adjustment Expense) and the amount of losses. I’m just not aware that it has been a big issue elsewhere.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 11:17 am
Sez that this is the beginning of the end of the gun industry. I would bet that the first stage of the asbestos industry had immunity as well. The law evolves. Not fast, but it does. There is way too much money to be made.
Comment by Simon Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 11:30 am
“. If a concealed carrier’s weapon discharges accidentally, or perhaps even for any other reason, and I’m hit by the bullet, the concealed carrier better have liability insurance. Else, his house and everything else he owns will be mine. ”
How many times a year does this happen in conceal carry states? We talking hundreds? Thousands? More?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 11:31 am
“. If a concealed carrier’s weapon discharges accidentally, or perhaps even for any other reason, and I’m hit by the bullet, the concealed carrier better have liability insurance. Else, his house and everything else he owns will be mine. ”
How many times a year does this happen in conceal carry states? We talking hundreds? Thousands? More?
So you’re saying the concealed carriers don’t need liability insurance because it doesn’t happen hundreds of times? Even if it happens just once, you better hope you’re not the one.
And with more and more concealed carriers on the streets, well, you understand my point…there’s bound to be more “accidents” especially since quite a few of the concealed carriers shouldn’t even have a gun in the first place.
Comment by Deep South Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 11:49 am
Oh, and BTW, does offer such a policy. But it makes no mention of accidental or negligent discharge.
http://www.locktonaffinity.com/nrains/defense.htm
Comment by Deep South Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 11:53 am
I may be hassled for this but it is a pet peeve of many who post here. Skeeter, the “clips” you refer to are actually called, properly, magazines.
Frankly, I wonder why we are trying to “ban” anything. Many who post here wish that some/all drugs are legalized. When pressed, we are told that we should consider addressing the behavior of the substance abuser, rather than the substance itself since banning has been proven not to work. I would submit, at risk of hitting the straw man button, that we should consider punishing the behavior of the shooter, not trying to ban the hardware. It is not the hardware that is causing the problem, it is the user.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 11:58 am
Du Page,
It is because rational adults are capable of drawing lines at what is reasonable.
The right to own a handgun does not equate to the right to own a nuclear submarine. There is a line somewhere that rational people will draw.
That should be part of the test for gun ownership — are you capable of acknowledging that society imposes limits? If not, then no gun.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 12:16 pm
dupage dan - I doubt that anyone here believes drugs should be unregulated. Alcohol is legal, but it’s highly regulated.
I’m a gunowner. I don’t believe all guns should be banned. However, I think they should be regulated, including new regulations.
It would be nice if the ISRA or NRA would propose some ideas (other than armed guards and violent video game reform) that might improve overall gun safety. Mental health should certainly play a part, but is there really no regulation directly related to the guns themselves that could possibly save some lives?
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 12:30 pm
The proposals are just pandering. None would last 48 hours before a court strikes them. Gun control advocates and safety nuts need to focus their attention on how to elect a competent Mayor of Chicago. If you can’t get illegal guns off the street now, making them illegal in Carbondale won’t fix the problem.
By the way for the leftist wingnuts, if you ban pump action and semiautomatic shotguns you are banning most guns used for hunting. This would be an ecological and economic disaster. Gun Control advocates need to just go away. Gun control doesn’t work, and it is not Constititional in a form IL will pass. You lost, get over it.
Comment by the Patriot Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 12:30 pm
They can pass whatever they want; it will just be one more law that gets ignored … this time by usually law-abiding citizens … which just leads to more disrespect for all laws.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 12:47 pm
I guess the loonier the law, the quicker the courts will dispose of it
Comment by Plutocrat03 Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:03 pm
“So you’re saying the concealed carriers don’t need liability insurance because it doesn’t happen hundreds of times? Even if it happens just once, you better hope you’re not the one. ”
This is why I don’t travel outside of Illinois to conceal carry states. I’d like to take my family to Disney World, but the probability of one of my loved ones getting gunned down in the parking lot in a “wild west” crossfire is just too great.
I’ll stay in Illinois where I don’t have to face this risk thankyouverymuch.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:06 pm
“They can pass whatever they want; it will just be one more law that gets ignored … this time by usually law-abiding citizens … which just leads to more disrespect for all laws.”
Yeah, just like our bank robbery laws.
You know, we’ve outlawed bank robbery for over 200 years, but we have over 5000 bank robberies every single year.
Let’s just give up. Drop these laws that are not followed. Legalize bank robbery.
Are you with me, RNUG?
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:11 pm
I appreciate the responses - however, I have not been able to secure a response from many here when I ask what types of drugs we should continue to ban, if any, or how to regulate, other than to deny access of drugs to minors. Frankly, that doesn’t seem to be much of a regulatory stance to me.
Skeeter, could we remain in the realm of the real world, instead of going off the deep end with a nuclear submarine? Hyperbole may be your hobby but it is of little benefit to this discussion.
To set up some type of reasonable line of inquiry, I would ask that we engage in a broader rational discussion of the issue rather than just about the effects of some of the hardware under review. As posted by many here in previous streams, large capacity magazines are a distraction when you compare them to an easy way to reload with smaller magazines or, for that matter, with speed loaders and revolvers, as an example. The same problem exists with the idea of banning future sales of semi-auto handguns. Due to the nature of firearms and the ability to use them in a devestating way even if you succeed in your bans, the creation of new regulations around these bans will not gain you the results you seek, unless you are seeking a symbolic victory, IMO.
The point I am leading up to - there still has been little discussion about addressing the shooters. Recent incidents involved severely disturbed individuals who were apparently making comments or gestures of a troubling nature, leading up to the events, and nothing was done either due to reluctance on the part of witnesses, or the restrictive nature of laws regarding the rights of the mentally ill. The focus remains on the hardware which, it has been debated, will not provide the kind of relief you are saying you want. Rather than using over the top rhetoric about military hardware beyond the reach of most nations, let alone individuals (howsabout ICBMs, Skeeter) I would like to hear some suggestions on how to address the behavior of the shooters and/or how do we protect vulnerable persons (students) from potential violent persons.
Window barriers on schools, volunteer armed guards culled from the ranks of retired military/law enforcement personnel, for example We have set up protection for courts and judges thru metal detectors and barriers in courtrooms, why not put some reasonable barriers in schools?
What kinds of measures should we consider to enhance the ability of concerned folk to identify disturbed individuals who could pose a threat to others and secure them in such a way that we are protected from them?
Hardware is a distraction - I truly believe that expending the energy needed to address this issue by focusing on hardware is misplaced and, ultimately, will fail to reduce the number of incidents or, for that matter, the number of victims.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:14 pm
Skeeter and bank robbery - more hyperbole from the master of useless rhetoric. Doesn’t further the discussion one whit but could make for a pretty bumper sticker.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:15 pm
What a week for Senate Dems. The Illinois GOP must be beside themselves wondering how these guys can beat them like rented mules.
Get your stuff together.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:17 pm
Du Page,
If my bank robbery analogy upset you, you don’t seem like the sort of calm and reasonable person that should have access to a gun.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:17 pm
=== quite a few of the concealed carriers shouldn’t even have a gun in the first place. ===
What is your source for this?
Comment by Just Observing Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:17 pm
Du Page,
You also don’t like my nuke analogy.
Is there a line where we say “this weapon is legal bu this one is not”?
Does such a line exist?
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:18 pm
DD, don’t kid yourself — you never miss the Strawman Button, just as you never address the question at hand.
You wander around the block in a daze fabricating a debate other than the one in front of you and wonder why people don’t address it on your own fictional terms.
Good work, if you can get it. Who pays for it, anyway?
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:20 pm
=== This is why I don’t travel outside of Illinois to conceal carry states. I’d like to take my family to Disney World, but the probability of one of my loved ones getting gunned down in the parking lot in a “wild west” crossfire is just too great. I’ll stay in Illinois where I don’t have to face this risk thankyouverymuch. ===
Is this a joke? You are seriously saying you refuse to travel to any of the other 49 states because they all have some form of conceal carry? You really think the odds of a wild west shootout in the parking lot of Disney World is “too great”? When have you heard of a shoot out in the parking lot of Disney World? The odds are infantile.
If protecting your family at any and all costs is your highest priority, you should really avoid placing them in cars or taking them swimming.
Comment by Just Observing Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:23 pm
Let me flesh the prior comment out a bit –
Dan says that the problem is that guns get into the hands of the wrong people.
He’s absolutely right.
The amount of venom directed at me the past few days has been incredible.
All for suggesting that at some point, we need to draw a line on weapons.
Anybody who read the comments would know that I thought both bills were bad. Yet I still hear the hate from the pro-gun extremists.
Way too may gun owners, including many who post here, have gone off the deep end. They are absolutely consumed with hatred for people who want to limit their hobby in any way.
The guy who posted that weird rape thing yesterday at 2:00 a.m.? No way he should have a gun. The person yesterday who made some claim that people who believe in gun control abuse kids? Keep that guy away from sharp objects, much less guns.
People like Du Page Dan who throw hissy fits over the idea of banning a 30 round clip? Sorry Dan. You are not one of the calm and rational ones.
You are right, Dan. We need to look closer at the people who have access to guns. You shouldn’t have one.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:25 pm
Skeeter, Robbing a bank with a gun is an illegal activity. Running over your spouse with your BMW is an illegal activity. Beating your neighbor with a baseball bat is an illegal activity. Cooking tylenol with ammonia to make meth is an illegal activity. Where are you going with your bank robbery analogy?
Comment by Endangered Moderate Species Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:27 pm
Endangered,
It was in response to the following:
RNUG - Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 12:47 pm:
They can pass whatever they want; it will just be one more law that gets ignored … this time by usually law-abiding citizens … which just leads to more disrespect for all laws.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:30 pm
I must be slow (I have been told that before), because I don’t get it.
Comment by Endangered Moderate Species Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:31 pm
Endangered,
If we should get rid of gun possession laws because they are ignored, then shouldn’t we get rid of the rest of the laws that are ignored?
Or should we just get rid of the ones that you like to ignore?
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:32 pm
==Window barriers on schools, volunteer armed guards culled from the ranks of retired military/law enforcement personnel, for example.==
Ok, so the shooter would be deterred from entering the school? He’ll just stay outside instead, waiting for the children to enter or leave school, or attack them during recess? How about firing on a school bus? I suppose we could arm bus drivers, have students wear full body armor if they walk to schools. Hell, there’s plenty of ways to address this problem rather than limit military-style, semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines that can wipe out large numbers of victims from a safe distance.
Comment by Wensicia Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:35 pm
=== Yeah, just like our bank robbery laws. You know, we’ve outlawed bank robbery for over 200 years, but we have over 5000 bank robberies every single year. Let’s just give up. Drop these laws that are not followed. Legalize bank robbery. ===
It’s an apples to oranges comparison. A bank robbery is guaranteed, 100 percent of the time, to harm someone, whether that be financially, physically, and/or psychologically. And the fact that it is illegal is necessary in order to prosecute.
The inverse is true for mere gun possession — simple gun possession never causes harm. It is irresponsible or criminal use that causes the harm. Thus the criminal use is illegal.
Comment by Just Observing Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:36 pm
The Chicago murder report from 2011 shows that there were 433 murders in Chicago that year. Of that total, 13 were by assault with hands/feet/fists. That doesn’t include the 4 that were strangled or the one that was killed with a baseball bat, or the 3 that were killed with an automobile. Thirty one were killed by stabbing.
Guess how many were killed by a rifle… Only one.
And yet banning so called “assault rifles” and their magazines is the course of action the politicians want to take?
Banning assault rifles is not about gun control. It is about controlling the subjects of the realm!
https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports/Murder%20Reports/MA11.pdf
Comment by Ronbo Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:36 pm
==Du Page,
You also don’t like my nuke analogy.
Is there a line where we say “this weapon is legal bu this one is not”?
Does such a line exist? ==
Yea, it’s called the National Firearms Act (NFA) was passed in 1934. It was referenced in Heller.
That’s the line
Comment by Todd Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:38 pm
– Robbing a bank with a gun is an illegal activity. Running over your spouse with your BMW is an illegal activity. Beating your neighbor with a baseball bat is an illegal activity. Cooking tylenol with ammonia to make meth is an illegal activity. –
The problem here is that you bring in all these other tools and concoct scenarios where they are used for other than their designed purposes.
Guns are killing machines, made to shoot people dead. Read the advertising, for crying out loud. The manufacturers don’t tout the effectiveness of hitting a paper target in a gun range.
Since that is the purpose of their existence, it would seem society would have an interest in regulating their use.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:39 pm
Skeeter, I appreciate your passion. The difference in our opinions is that you want to regulate the owners of tools that have been involved in heinous crimes.
I believe the person whom actually commits the crime should be punished.
To use one of your famous analogies. If you are driving over the speed limit in your BMW and hit a child on the street, you are the one who committed the crime and you are the one who should be punished. Your crime was not the fault of all BMW owners. If we take all BMW’s off the road, reckless drivers will still drive recklessly, they will just be driving a different piece of machinery.
Comment by Endangered Moderate Species Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:40 pm
=== If we should get rid of gun possession laws because they are ignored, then shouldn’t we get rid of the rest of the laws that are ignored? Or should we just get rid of the ones that you like to ignore? ===
Laws that get overwhelmingly ignored are in fact one reason to examine an existing laws. Law abiding society tends to ignore laws they find irrational and unjust, and follow laws they find logical and just.
Do you oppose civil rights activists in the ’60’s breaking the law by holding sit-ins at diners or refusing to move to the back of the bus?
Comment by Just Observing Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:41 pm
zSkeeter,
The ppoint I was making is IL has lots of tough gun laws on the books (much tougher than the rest of the nation), along with laws about murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc. Other cities with less draconian laws don’t seem to have the murder level Chicago does. Let’s try actually enforcing what we already have on the books …
Or maybe, given your tendencies, you’d rather just repeal all speed limits …
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:45 pm
Endangered, and I give you credit for being one of the more calm and rational ones on this.
Certainly destructive acts should be illegal.
Running over a pedestrian should be illegal.
Shooting an innocent person should be illegal.
But beyond that, there is a line where we say “This items (or this activity) is so likely to be dangerous that we need to ban it.”
We do it for everything from speech to chemicals. Limitations on what we can own and do are a routine part of daily life. We all accept it.
Unfortunately, the rabid pro-gun people just don’t seem to accept that everything should have limits.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:46 pm
–volunteer armed guards culled from the ranks of retired military/law enforcement personnel, for example.==
What nonsense, what laziness of thought.
No problemo — armed, unpaid, volunteers to react with deadly force in enclosed spaces with children to armed intruders?
Just like a crossing guard, or a lunch lady.
Last August, highly trained, highly paid, New York police officers confronted an armed man outside the Empire State Building.
After the shooting was done, nine bystanders had been unintentionally shot by the police.
Guns are serious business. So stick your stuff about “volunteers” going armed in the schools.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:46 pm
Just Observing,
Please tell me that you don’t honestly view the right of people of color to dine where they want as the moral equivalent of somebody owning an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:47 pm
dupage dan @ 1:14 pm:
I agree but all that stuff won’t get discussed … because it costs money. Passing useless new laws only costs a day’s session paymeents …
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:48 pm
“This items (or this activity) is so likely to be dangerous that we need to ban it.”
Who will determine what is a dangerous activity? Does a parent who never played football determine that football is dangerous? Does someone in the inner city whom has never been on a farm determine fertilizers are dangerous? Does my neighbor determine if it is dangerous for my child to climb a tree? Does someone who has never been to a gun range and participated in shooting sports determine that it is unsafe for anyone to have certain firearms? Does my big brother really need to help me determine what I believe to be safe and unsafe?
Comment by Endangered Moderate Species Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:57 pm
Are there no existing limits to gun purchasing and ownership in IL? That’s news to me and everyone else that lives here.
I don’t recall (for example), having to pass a background check and waiting a day to purchase a computer which I would use to exercise my 1st Amendment rights, while I need to do exactly that when purchasing a rifle or shotgun to use when exercising my 2nd Amendment rights.
Here’s an overview of the ones imposed by the state, there are many others at the federal level:
http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/ptfire.pdf
What I don’t see in any of these discussions is a realization that what one side sees as ‘reasonable,’ the other side merely views as yet another emotionally-driven ploy to do >something
Comment by Brian Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 1:59 pm
“Who will determine what is a dangerous activity?”
We do, through our elected officials.
We do it as a matter of routine.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 2:03 pm
–Who will determine what is a dangerous activity?–
If we’re in the United States, my guess is it would be elected legislatures and executives, subject to judicial review, in the the classic division of powers model.
C’mon, man. Your argument has degenerated to regulation of anything is illegitimate.
Think about that the next you get a glass of water from the kitchen tap.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 2:04 pm
Endangered, Simon Sez the juries will determine that. They will also determine that many lawyerswill be rich, manufacturing a gun will be impossible in the USA for public sale, the cost of home insurance will be astronomical for those that choose to hang on to their weapons, not to mention pariahs as well. Give it 30 years.
Comment by Simon Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 2:05 pm
“Does someone in the inner city whom has never been on a farm determine fertilizers are dangerous?”
First, nearly everybody has been on a farm.
But yes, we routinely let non-farmers decide what fertilizers are dangerous. Part of the reason is that fertilizers can be used to blow up buildings. And cause cancer.
I won’t rely on farmers to keep building safe.
Also, the farmer wants to maximize production. I want 1) Not to be blown up; and 2) To eat foods that won’t cause tumors.
Due to those two reasons, we are better off if farmers not the final say on fertilizer.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 2:06 pm
RNUG,
You are absolutely right. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, gun control in one city cannot work.
But that doesn’t mean that it would fail when put into place on a statewide or national level.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 2:09 pm
Does a parent who never played football determine that football is dangerous?
My mother had to sign the waiver warning her I could sustain serious injury or death by playing football. It was an annual argument in our house because I did sustain injuries over the years, though she did eventually sign off every year. I guess you could say that my parent who never played football had to determine whether it was too dangerous.
Comment by Colossus Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 2:11 pm
Skeeter, the point i was also trying to make is that most activities come with a certain amount of danger. Head and neck injuries to football players is a concern of the MDA. Equipment continues to be improved, but the fact is football is a dangerous sport. Are we going to ban football. No.
Allowing children to climb trees, is dangerous. Heck, we now make the kids wear a helmet while peddling their tricycle; but are we going to ban kids from climbing trees? No.
Shooting for sport and protection has the possibility to be dangerous. That is why we require gun owners to attend mandatory gun safety classes and we require FOID background checks. Is it a perfect system? No, but is there a such thing as a perfect system? The hobby of shooting is not anymore dangerous than the activities many of us perform on a daily basis.
One last point; firearm ownership is protected by the 2nd amendment and that right cannot be removed by elected officials, as you wish.
Comment by Endangered Moderate Species Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 2:15 pm
“One last point; firearm ownership is protected by the 2nd amendment and that right cannot be removed by elected officials, as you wish.”
Come on, Endangered. You know better.
The legislature routinely limits our fundamental rights. We do it with free speech. We do it with religion. We do it with interstate travel. We do it with guns.
You can do better than that lost post.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 2:21 pm
“Head and neck injuries to football players is a concern of the MDA. Equipment continues to be improved, but the fact is football is a dangerous sport. Are we going to ban football. No.”
Are you honestly claiming that banning AR-15s with 30 round mags is the equivalent of banning football?
I’ve spent way too much time arguing these points. I’m no longer going to respond to the ridiculous.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 2:25 pm
I think a number of pro-gun types would go along with The Patriot@12:30pm. We should all accept what happened recently as a part of the freedom to have guns. Forget it and move along.
Some who are a bit more socially aware go with the “Let’s enforce the laws we have now” line. Keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys kind of sounds good too.
Here are a couple of concepts to chew on. The person who shot the first responders in New York had served time for murder and was not supposed to have guns. It seems he got a young 18 year old neighbor girl to buy the guns for him in her name. She is I think now about 24, Do we throw the book at her? How about the guys now dead mother and sister, you would think they knew he had those weapons. If still alive would they be held responsible. Of course the person who sold the guns had no idea what was up. An old guy and a young girl picking out an AR and a pistol in her name would not set off any alarms.
On a more personal note. I have posted before that I sat on the jury of a murder trial. The basics were a young girl died of a shotgun deerslug blast at close range. Only two people in the room at the time, the young man on trial claimed it to be an accident. What bears on our topic right now is this young man due to previous legal issues could not get a FOID card and the gun should not have been in the house. It came out that he had in fact purchased the pump shotgun a few months before the shooting for $100.00 from a friendly co-worker for protection. Not sure what happened to the co-worker but I feel he should have been sitting at the table with the young man. The young man made a 911 call from another location because he had no phone. I think the hundred could have been better spent, he now has a long time to think about all that. When we think about enforcing the law a recent issue with a gun in carry on luggage comes to mind also.
I think it would take a dedicated task force to make a dent in all the laws that are being broken. Where does the cost of that come from? Maybe the folks who buy and keep weapons? Also how much stomach do we have to inforce the laws. Does a 24 year old girl need to be locked up over a stupid mistake made as a teen.
Bottom line if you do not want to see bans how about some good ideas to change the landscape. Or is the status quo fine?
Comment by Bemused Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 2:39 pm
More vehemence from the self-appointed real keepers of the truth.
It appears that the ONLY solution to this problem is the limiting of the capacity of magazines and the banning of certain types of weapons. Because word and skeeter have proclaimed it.
Wanting a society free from risk is all well and good but I live in reality, not some fantasy world where we can delude ourselves into thinking we can prevent such heinous acts by banning a high capacity magazine. Or perhaps, we can reduce the number of victims thru such action. word refers to an incident where the gun fire by LE ended up with persons being injured. That is a shame. How do you propose to prevent that from happening again - ban the police from having firearms? Yours is a circular arguement without a reasonable solution.
That is baloney. Any fool with 3 10 round magazines in a semi-auto weapton can fire off the rounds so quickly that you would think they had a machine gun. I know because I have done it at a firing range. Legally.
Using provocative language in your posts as an attempt to cause intemperate responses is boring. I am used to such tactics and find them amusing, at best - pathetic when it comes from the self-appointed gurus. While you may not agree with my posts, I have a hard time understanding why such inflammatory vitriol is the best response you can muster.
I don’t know what response I failed to act on, word. The stream was about a failed bill - there was no question posted. I looked at the previous posts and didn’t see any specific question posed that I could have responded to. I used the opportunity to suggest a different viewpoint, that’s all. You could have ignored it.
Skeeter, you would like to paint me as some type of fanatic. Please quote any of my posts that clearly identify me as such - I simply posed some possiblities and questions in a respectfull manner. You are the one mentioning hissy fits - I challenge you to post my words that can be construed as off the charts. We can then compare my posts to your calm, respectful posts and do a side by side comparison.
And now, back to my wandering. Which block was I on again? Sheesh.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 2:44 pm
Du Page,
You’ve consistently rejected any attempt to impose any restrictions on weapons. You’ve acknowledged no reasonable restrictions on weapons at all.
You live in a world where nobody can limit you.
That makes you a fanatic.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 2:49 pm
Skeeter, I have NOT rejected any attempt to impose any restrictions on weapons. I simply wish to debate what might actually work, as opposed to enacting some kneejerk legislation that only provides you with a the satisfaction of “having done something”. I don’t operate in a fantasy world. I live in reality - I think in terms of what would work in real life situations, not as part of a diatribe against people who disagree with you. If you could perhaps point to some empircal evidence that smaller capacity magazines would hamper a shooter in a way to lower the number of victims we could debate that. Instead, you throw out bumper sticker slogans and invective.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 3:02 pm
Yesterday, many people posted that smaller capacity magazines pose little barrier to rapid firing of many types of firearms, including revolvers. There was little, if any, reasonable response to such postings. Debates can be useful if folks respond to actual postings, no?
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 3:05 pm
“Skeeter, I have NOT rejected any attempt to impose any restrictions on weapons.”
Fascinating that you would write that line, but then not include any proposed restrictions on weapons. Perhaps you can detail what weapons should be banned and what restrictions you would support.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 3:05 pm
“Bottom line if you do not want to see bans how about some good ideas to change the landscape. Or is the status quo fine?”
The anti’s are relying on emotional, andectote-based arguments to use the force of the State to restrict the rights of people that have broken no law. They furthermore are trying to propagate the big lie that there are no restrictions to firearm purchase, ownership, and usage in the United States, as a tactic to scare people into “doing something.”
While any death of any innocent person is an unspeakable tragedy, based on the data, I’d say the status quo is “fine”. The data (FBI, 2007-2011):
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
…indicates that more people were killed in the US by “hands, fists, feet, etc”, than “rifles.” The deaths of innocents are upsetting, but not a good basis for creating blunt-force laws that affect the law-abiding more than the law-breaking, especially when their actual effectiveness on the bad guys is doubtful, at best.
Let’s start seeing some anti-violence suggestions from the anti-2A folks that doesn’t involve turning normal people into criminals for the heinous offense of owning a piece of metal that’s too big, then maybe the pro-2A side will start taking your suggestions more seriously.
Comment by Brian Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 3:07 pm
Du Page,
You claim that large capacity mags impose no advantage on the shooter.
Then why have them at all?
I’ve asked that question repeatedly. That problem, Du Page, is not that people fail to respond to your posts. The problem is that you ignore the responses and then whine.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 3:08 pm
Skeeter, This debate is at an impasse. Neither side can conclude that banning or not banning more guns or certain clips will make society safer or more dangerous. It has been fun sparring with you.
Comment by Endangered Moderate Species Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 3:10 pm
=== Please tell me that you don’t honestly view the right of people of color to dine where they want as the moral equivalent of somebody owning an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine. ===
Skeeter, no, I’m not saying nor did say they are moral equivalents. I simply responding to the point made that people should not pick and choose which laws they follow — but obviously you are in general agreement with me that in some cases, such as diner sit-ins, one’s conscience trumps the law.
Comment by Just Observing Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 3:13 pm
–Also I like the fact that some shooting and attempted shootings were stop by a conceal and carry permit holders and nothing is very said .–
Well put.
Any links?
http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 3:17 pm
–word refers to an incident where the gun fire by LE ended up with persons being injured. –
That was to illustrate the lunacy of your “solution” of putting “volunteer” armed guards in schools.
That’s what you come up with in your “real world.”
How many moons does it have?
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 3:26 pm
Your questions regarding why we would want a large capacity magazine - was answered yesterday. Perhaps you should re-read the stream. Additionally, it is immaterial to the discussion. Should I only be allowed a weapon or magazine that makes sense to you? No, the issue is one of prevention. Please suggest a reasonable gun restriction that you can show, by empirical evidence, that would protect my right to keep and bear arms while reducing the number of people affected by a mass shooting and we can debate the point.
Calling me a whiner just don’t cut it, Skeeter.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 3:32 pm
As David Kopel explained in the Wall Street Journal on December 17, armed permit holders often serve as the first line of defense against mass murderers:
“The media rarely mentions the mass murders that were thwarted by armed citizens at the Shoney Restaurant in Anniston, Ala (1991 ), the high school in Pearl, Miss. ( 1997), the middle school dance in Edinboro, Penn. ( 1998), and the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. (2007), among others. At the Clackamas Mall in Oregon last week, an active shooter murdered two people and then saw that a shopper, who had a handgun carry permit, had drawn a gun and was aiming at him. The murderer’s next shot was to kill himself.”
Comment by Ronbo Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 3:33 pm
Everyone seems focussed on the so-called “assault rifle” ban, which is not, in my opinion, the worst of what the General Assembly worthies are attempting to do to us. Even if I could accept the notion that “assault weapons” as defined are the root of the crime problem (Whih I do not), I cannot for the life of me understand the General Assembly’s attack on shooting ranges. That seems to be nothing more than a mean-spirited attempt by the legislators to limit the ability of lawful shooters to practice their sport. What public good is served by this? Are they saying that we have a shooting range problem in this State? If we do, it is due to the lack of them. Up in Wisconsin, there are any number of public ranges maintained by local and couny government, the way we do public golf courses here in Illinois. Chicago really does seem intent on making life difficult for shooters all over Illinois.
Comment by Skirmisher Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 3:35 pm
I’m with Skeeter. There are many thoughtful and reasonable things that we can do that make gun ownership safer that don’t infringe on my 2nd amendment rights. I know of at least one range that already limits use to FOID holders only. As proposed, the language of the bills was too broad and probably not safe from a successful legal challenge. I also thought, that as in the Quinn Billthat surfaced post the Aurora tragedy, that the authors were not limited in their firearms knowledge. Finally, I think it was purely strategic on the part of the sponsors to go all in and see what stuck. Ahhh, the legislative process…gotta love it.
Comment by Charlatan Heston Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 3:35 pm
“It appears we are headed for Concealed Carry. If a concealed carrier’s weapon discharges accidentally, or perhaps even for any other reason, and I’m hit by the bullet, the concealed carrier better have liability insurance. Else, his house and everything else he owns will be mine”.
It would be more likely that a gangbanger’s cheap gun would accidentally discharge than a responsible concealed carrier. So are you going to be going after the gangbanger?
Comment by Rusty618 Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 3:36 pm
ooops…were limited in their knowledge..(typing on the run…)
Comment by Charlatan Heston Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 3:36 pm
Darn I wish I had published an “1001 and 1″ excuses book on this issue when CC gets done !!! tick tock… Mayor Rahm its the weekend how many ? with your strictess laws in the country !!! ?? not funny just a fact !!! tick tock
Comment by railrat Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 3:44 pm
Skirmisher raises a good point.
Those regulations seem like nothing more than an excuse to harass ranges.
You would think that, generally, accurate shooting is better than inaccurate shooting. Ranges seem like a good way to promote safety.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 3:53 pm
Geez Word, you really got your undies in a bunch..
try these reports. . .
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/meat-market-clerk-wins-gunfight-with-2-armed-robbers-sends-both-to-hospital/
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/video-houston-tx-store-clerk-shoots-armed-robber-in-the-chest-protects-customers/
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/one-armed-robber-shot-killed-by-would-be-victim-other-robber-charged-with-his-murder/
I don;t see innocent bystanders getting hit. . .
Comment by Todd Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 4:09 pm
Skeeter –
And when the anti-gun types throw all this kind of stuff out there, you and others wonder why the gun guys think that anytime you give an inch they want more. Or that theur have other plans to go farther.
Lets not forget the anti-gunners testimony in committee that this very broad ban was a good first step.
Nor should we overlook the complete ban on the sale of any new semi-auto handgun. Adn it could also have other implication for banning revlovers.
Comment by Todd Friday, Jan 4, 13 @ 4:11 pm
The argument that only criminals will have guns if guns are banned, is true, But the gun ban laws are not designed to punish criminals, they are designed to take guns away from law abiding citizens who love the freedoms and individual liberties that our constitution and bill of rights enduringly ensures for all time. Wake Up !!! IT’S TO DISARM THE MASSES SO THERE CAN BE NO RESISTANCE TO THE N.W.O.
Comment by Spartacus Tuesday, Jan 8, 13 @ 8:48 am