Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: An inauspicious beginning
Next Post: *** LIVE *** SESSION COVERAGE
Posted in:
* The latest results from the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute’s statewide poll of 600 registered voters…
1. What do you think is more important? Protecting the right to own guns, or controlling gun ownership?
Protecting the right to own guns 31.3%
Controlling ownership 59.5%
Other/Don’t know 9.2%2. In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?
More strict 72.3%
Less strict 2.2%
Kept the same 21.3%
Other/Don’t know 4.2%3. Do you favor or oppose banning high-capacity ammunition clips that can contain more than 10 bullets?
Favor 62.8%
Oppose 33.3%
Other/Don’t know 3.8%4. Do you favor or oppose a law which would make it illegal to manufacture, sell, or possess semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles?
Favor 58.7%
Oppose 35.2%
Other/Don’t know 6.2%5. Do you favor or oppose a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?
Favor 32.7%
Oppose 61.3%
Other/Don’t know 6.0%6. Do you favor or oppose a law that would require background checks before people – including gun dealers – could buy guns at a gun show?
Favor 92.5%
Oppose 5.5%
Other/Don’t know 2.0%7. Do you favor or oppose putting more armed guards or police in schools?
Favor 46.3%
Oppose 44.8%
Other/Don’t know 8.8%8. (IF YES ABOVE, N=278) Would you be willing to pay higher taxes to pay for more armed guards or police in schools?
Yes 63.3%
No 30.9%
Other/Don’t know 5.8%9. Do you believe the Second Amendment includes the right to carry concealed weapons in public?
Yes 39.5%
No 49.7%
Other/Don’t know 10.8%10. (IF YES ABOVE, N=237) Do you believe there should be exceptions to allowing concealed weapons in public places—excluding them from such places as schools, college campuses, shopping malls and movie theaters?
Yes 71.3%
No 20.7%
Other/Don’t know 8.0%
* From the Institute…
About twice as many Illinois voters surveyed thought controlling gun ownership was more important than protecting the right to own guns (59.5 percent to 31.3 percent). A recent poll of all Americans taken by Pew Research, shows a 49 to 42 percent split on that question. […]
Even within constituencies that are seen as pro-gun, majorities in the Simon Poll said they favored stricter gun control. These groups included downstate voters (66.1%) conservatives (54.6%) and Republicans (55.4%).
Significant majorities also favored most of the specific gun-control policy proposals tested in the poll, including requiring background checks before anyone—including gun dealers—could buy firearms at gun shows (92.5 percent); banning high-capacity ammunition magazines (62.8 percent); and banning semi-automatic “assault rifles” (58.7 percent).
“It’s striking how much stronger the support for gun control measures is in Illinois compared to the nation as a whole,” said David Yepsen, the director of the Institute. “But it’s not surprising because on measurements of many social issues, the electorate in Illinois is more left of center than the American electorate.” […]
Among those who thought the Second Amendment did cover concealed weapons, a large majority (71.3 percent) thought there should be exceptions to concealed-carry in places such as schools, college campuses, malls, and theaters.
Subscribers have the complete crosstabs.
Take a deep breath before commenting, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 9:22 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: An inauspicious beginning
Next Post: *** LIVE *** SESSION COVERAGE
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
So far, I’ve deleted two commenters who can’t bring themselves to believe this poll by the Public Policy Institute.
Didn’t y’all learn anything about polls from the GOP presidential race last year? Disbelieve at your own peril, folks.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 9:44 am
Disappointing but not really surprising.
I wonder what the poll results would be on “reasonable restrictions” of some other constitutional amendments.
Comment by BleugrassBoy Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 9:44 am
I am a gun owner and I would say I am somewhat pro-gun owner rights. I also feel that concentrating on gun laws to prevent what happened at Sandy Hook takes the discussion away from other issues that contribute to these tragedies, mental health, etc.
All that being said I also had my eyes opened by an article in the Trib over the weekend. I normally do not read the Trib but I noticed an article regarding gun purchases and skimmed it while waiting for my wife to do some shopping. ( Needless to say I was dumbfounded. The article told of a college kid who routinely goes to Indiana gun shows and buys duffel bags of guns and them gives them to an affiliate who happens to be a gang member in Chicago who sells them on the street. Apparently they then split the profits. The article also said that the gang member will take orders for guns people want and then gives them to the college kid who then fills them. I didn’t get to finish the article to get all of the particulars, but this raised a lot of questions in my mind. What happened to the waiting period or doesn’t Indiana have one? If this kid does this routinely don’t the sellers start to wonder where all these guns are going? Or don’t they care? This is one area where laws have to be changed or enforced. This is ridiculous that this is allowed to happen. And I don’t know of one of my friends who are also gun owners who would not agree with me. This isn’t about infringing on the rights of gun owners. this is about domestic illegal arms dealers. And they need to be stopped.
I have a daughter who lives in Chicago and I am constantly concerned about all the stray bullets that are flying around there.
Comment by Irish Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 9:58 am
Which constitutional amendments aren’t subject to “reasonable restrictions,” Bluegrass Boy?
I’d love to hear about ‘em!
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 10:00 am
Irish - congrats, you’ve seen the other side of the gun culture. Mass killings and general “gun violence” are totally different things. And the lack of controls on who can buy weapons and how those weapons are tracked after purchase from a licensed are the biggest contributor to our gun violence problem. All the things discussed in the poll that are already riling up certain segments will not impact the problem you’ve identified.
but anything that will impact the straw buyer situation will be immediately shot down because it will “lead to confiscation.” I’m still waiting to hear gun rights advocates clearly explain what they would do to stem the tide of guns flowing to criminals.
Comment by Colossus Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 10:09 am
It’s nice to remember that civil rights transcend poll numbers.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 10:10 am
It’s a good thing the contsitution can’t be amended by simply having a poll. I wonder what other rights citizens would give away when influenced by a media frenzy.
I, too, am concerned re straw man purchases. This is something that should be looked at carefully and addressed. The mental health angle seems absent from the poll except for the general background check aspect.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 10:11 am
I’m not a gun owner and I agree with Irish. This isn’t about infringing on the supposed rights of legitimate owners/buyers. It’s about stopping the sale of guns to people who shouldn’t be allowed to have them.
Comment by Cheryl44 Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 10:11 am
There are “reasonable restrictions”, or at least some practical limits, on most of the rights enumerated — press, assembly, speech, petition, warrantless search and seizure etc. — while maintaing the underlying rights overall. Why should the 2d Amendment be the exception?
Let’s not treat it as an icon.
Comment by walkinfool Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 10:15 am
Irish, the Trib article was a real eye-opener.
This particular straw buyer was making more gun runs to the Indiana shows than a frat boy makes beer runs on a weekend.
No background checks, no waiting periods, no record of transactions. And all legal.
Let’s not pretend that the sellers at the shows are naive; when some kid is paying cash to load up duffel bags full of guns, they know the end-market is the gangbangers.
And these “law-abiding” sellers are making loads of money arming the gangs.
You want to talk rights? Let’s talk responsibilities.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-guns-gangs-20130217,0,980710.story
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 10:18 am
Dan - All I hear about “mental health” is inputting the names of those adjudicated as mentally ill so they show up on background checks. That’s like finding a finger sized hole on the Titanic - sure, it’s a structural failure, but dwarfed by the other problems to the system. Only those who seek out treatment and are sent through the court system would show up in there, and that’s an intensely small fraction of people that we would all agree are mental ill and should have limited access to destructive weaponry.
When mandatory, ongoing screening and no questions asked admissions are offered to high quality and insurance covered therapeutic programs, allowing anyone access to care for mental illness without the current stigma of “Oh, you have a mental illness? You must be ready to shoot up a school!”, then I’ll start listening. But the cost of making true progress on the mental health gaps in America such that they would impact violence rates will be so expensive it will make the War on (Some) Drugs look like a PTA fundraiser.
So it’s not that I’m rejecting the mental health angle out of hand, I just have heard from far too many people who use it as a way to deflect from regulation without truly contemplating what it is they are saying. Focusing on mental illness reporting for background checks is a drop in a bathtub, not even a bucket.
Comment by Colossus Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 10:18 am
–It’s a good thing the contsitution can’t be amended by simply having a poll.–
Was there a poll about amending the constitution? I thought it was about stricter gun sale laws.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 10:23 am
92.5% of respondents want strict background checks for gun buyers. The other 7.5% are presumably people who can’t pass a background check.
Seriously, you don’t have to be Karl Rove to understand the power of that number. 92.5%!
That’s where the feds are going and it really needs to happen at the federal level. The Indiana thing (a state ID is all you need) that the Tribune reported was the elephant in the NRA’s living room. Nobody wants to talk about it.
Those here pushing for preemption say they don’t want a patchwork quilt of laws ignore the very same problem with 50 state laws and the lack of any meaningful federal regulations. Well, I think the feds are going to give us some uniformity soon and if not, the House Republicans will put their majority at risk in 2014.
92.5%!
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 10:26 am
Well, we do live in the NannIest of Nanny States, so some of these results are not that shockIng. Sad, but not shockIng.
Want to try and get results immediately and without infringing on any ones rights? Jack the penalties for illegal gun possession and straw purchasing. Use a gun while commiting a crime, Life in prison, no parole. Let’s just see what the bad guys do then.
Comment by Fan Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 10:26 am
Dupage– the straw purchase issue was addressed here in illinois back around 2005. So was the unlicensed dealer issue. And most people dont realize it but the waiting period applies to all sales/tranfers. Not just retail sales
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 10:29 am
Colossus - My biggest issue is why then did it take Sandy Hook to get the politicians riled up? As you point out Sandy Hook and the gun violence in Chicago are completely different. They need to be dealt with in different ways.
These gun issues in big cities have been going on for years. And Chicago has had some of the strongest gun laws in the country. Yet the guns keep flowing into the city. Why? Because having gun laws on the books do not do anything if they don’t address the real problem, and that is my beef with politicians wanting more restrictive gun laws. They pass a few laws that don’t address the real problem. Then they walk away patting each other on the back and counting the votes they just earned and the violaence continues because they didn’t understand the real problem and as a result didn’t fix it.
And why are we having long arguments about magazine sizes and banning “assault weapons” (which to the politician is any gun that can shoot five shells in rapid fashion.) instead of d4ealing with the situations described in the Trib article? Most of the shooting in Chicago are done with pistols and most of the time six or less shots are fired. How does the national debate on magazine size and assault weapons even come close to fixing that?
So yes the article was an eye opener for me. One because I didn’t know that went on. Naive? maybe. Two because I thouyght that the laws already on the books would prevent this from happening. So where fault for that lie? Not enough police? Lack of real concern? You have to admit that all of the previous shootings in Chicago did not generate the publicity that the young lady from near the President’s neighborhood did.
Comment by Irish Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 10:29 am
I also read the Tribune story. Everyone should do so. One important question: If straw gun purchases are so simple to pull off in Indiana, why haven’t there been a corresponding number of gun related fatalities in the Hoosier State?
Perhaps the answer is because Chicago has a huge gang problem?
I strongly recommend commenters consider reading the cover story in the recent issue of “The National Review.” It is about Chicago and it is not pretty. The demolition of several large public housing complexes has had the unintended consequence of causing gang related crimes to soar all across Chicago and its suburbs.
Disarming law abiding citizens or creating new restrictions upon the right to own guns is not going to keep weapons out of the hands of gang members who routinely violate the law. The Constitution is still the constitution and the recent court decisions are still valid.
Comment by Esquire Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 10:30 am
Actually, Colossus, I have commented previously on this issue. I would guess my concern is for the folks who have identified a person who appears obviously disturbed and makes serious statements referring to actions and yet little is done since the person hasn’t actually commited a violent act. The Arizona and Colorado shooters had done such and there statements were ignored. The mother of the shooter in Connecticut was apparently in the process of seeking commitment for her son and may have not secured her weapons sufficiently to prevent his accessing them.
When concerned folks approach authorities with their worries, they frequently end up frustrated. I know, I talk to these concerned folks every day as a part of my work.
Recently, the Illinois Auditor General reported that mental health courts were not sending adjudication reports to the state police as instructed.
I am for what will work - not emotional stuff that makes for good headlines. The purpose of any rules/legislation should be to reduce the tragedies, don’t you think?
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 10:34 am
Another thought. As much as I support the courts sentencing criminals to serve prison sentences for gun related offenses (as requested by the Police Superintendent and the State’s Attorney), the reality is that the county and the state are in dire financial shape and cannot afford to house to many more prisoners. It is easy to fault the judges for being soft on crime when convicted defendants are not put away, but the Governor is closing prisons to save money. It is a “Catch 22.”
In order to imprison criminals, we need to staff the penitentiaries.
Comment by Esquire Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 10:35 am
Irish - I agree with you on just about every point. I’m not a gun person by any means, but my education in the last few months has convinced me that the assault weapons and magazine discussions are misguided and lacking any real impact beyond emotional satisfaction. The national discussion we’re seeing played out is constrained by the Overton window of what is considered possible and, like I already said, anything that allows for actual accountability for what happens to purchased weapons is immediately waved off as being the first step towards confiscation. But when the alternative is the status quo, I think the window will start to shift, but it will take time.
When the President came on to speak about Sandy Hook, my coworker told me we were cleared to watch the speech. I just told her to come get me when someone says something other than what they’ve been saying for 30 years and skipped it. But just like with marijuana or gay marriage, people are starting to realize that addressing issues with the way our society is structured has been put off for too long. The fact that this conversation is happening shows that we are shifting towards a new status quo after decades of stalemate.
Comment by Colossus Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 10:41 am
===Well, we do live in the NannIest of Nanny States===
Don’t be so sure about that. A strong majority favors legalizing medical marijuana and the vast majority don’t want the government to stop gay people from getting married or having civil unions.
Not nannyesque, if you ask me.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 10:41 am
Dan - it’s interesting that you and Irish are positioned on the same ide of this issue, but talking about radically different problems and proposed solutions. Mass killings and gun violence are two different phenomena and will be addressed in different ways. Mental health solutions would be beneficial to avert the former, but would be very expensive to institute nationwide, not to mention require a rethinking of confidentiality. But those solutions will not touch the general gun violence problems we see in Chicago. This is why it’s so easy to throw up our hands and just take the easy solution of banning things that people don’t like even though it won’t help - because the scope of the problem is so big that we don’t want to face up to it.
Comment by Colossus Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 10:44 am
Do the Background Checks Actually Get Done? The only thing the State seems to get done in a timely fashion is send you a renewal for your car license plates. I still get notices to bring my truck in for EPA testing (sold it three years ago) Why is it that LAW ABIDING citizens are being punished all the time and some how its a civil rights or personal responsibility issue ? Some just can’t get around The inconvenience of the Constitution.
Enforce the LAWs on the books and move on. Raise the value of life in the high crime and gang areas. Maybe if political leaders would mandate major gang sweeps on a regular basis instead of spending all there time working on their spin for a good crisis they would actually see a immediate reduction in street violence.
Comment by The Cardinal Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 10:44 am
DP Dan, there are several states that refuse to supply mental health problems for the database. There still remains the fact that there are mentally ill people all over the world. The numbers of people killed by guns is not proportional to mental health. Nor to video games.
Comment by justbabs Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 10:44 am
And I can buy a gallon of Pepsi if I want.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 10:45 am
Todd - Thanks for the update, it’s nice to get background info like that from someone who knows what they’re talking about. I’m interested in your thoughts on the Trib article Irish mentioned about IN based purchases making their way to the black market for weapons in Chicago. Do you have any ideas on how to curb that?
Comment by Colossus Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 10:46 am
As a gun owner, I am not surprised with the poll results. The poll seems to accurately reflect the sentiment of the public. The results also seem to reflect common sense.
Gun advocates need to wake up and be smarter about protecting the rights of gun owners. The old style of the NRA will not work into the future.
Gun owners need to recognize there are problems (see Irish post above). We need to be part of the solution or we will become part of the problem.
Comment by Endangered Moderate Species Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 10:48 am
@DuPage Dan:
The killer at Virginia Tech also had a lengthy history of serious mental health issues that were ignored by the university administrators before he went on his murderous rampage. I am sure that there are other examples, but that case immediately came to mind. The bureaucrats need to improve their performance also.
Comment by Esquire Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 10:49 am
If the problem is Indiana why isn’t their gun crimes as high or higher than Illinois? If it is that easy to get guns in Indiana why don’t they have the problems we are having? It is Chicago where we are having the trouble and the Politicians are trying to blame everyone else but themselves. If the problem is easy access to guns then the problem should be magnified at the source. If there are no background checks why do they have to send straw men? Just go themselves and buy them. There should be a string of FBI and ATF agents following these straw men, I mean if the Tribune knows it you think the CPD or FBI or ATF are blind to the fact it’s happening? Common sense.
Comment by Votecounter Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 11:02 am
From the crosstabs posted, I think the most interesting aspects are 1) the gender difference, with more female respondents in favor of altering existing laws (the ‘do something’ stance) and 2) the big uptick in support for armed school guards among respondents with the least education.
I’m not commenting on the quality of these opinions, just that when I was looking for things that stood out, those were the biggest. The rest was surprisingly consistent.
Comment by Colossus Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 11:08 am
===What happened to the waiting period or doesn’t Indiana have one?
No, Illinois has waiting periods, but the national instant check system replaced any waiting periods in the Brady law.
—If this kid does this routinely don’t the sellers start to wonder where all these guns are going? Or don’t they care? This is one area where laws have to be changed or enforced.
The vast majority of FFL (gun dealer licensees) are good guys who would question such purchases. However, it only takes a few to create this kind of problem. It’s a very small number of dealers who end up selling a large number of guns that get used illegally. Part of the issue is that it’s hard to catch them if they know what is going on –in this case they weren’t doing anything illegal though one would hope they would use their discretion. The other part of the issue is that it’s hard to track where guns come from.
If every sale required a background check, this college student would be on far shakier ground. If he is selling to those who wouldn’t pass the check, he can be arrested, or if he is selling to someone who can, but then sells to someone who isn’t legal, we could go after them much easier.
Given Illinois already requires a FOID and 24/72 hour waiting periods, not much of this would affect Illinois gun owners other than having to do a check over the phone or on-line when selling outside of an FFL.
Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 11:15 am
It’s easier to find out who is purchasing cold medicine than who is purchasing firearms.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 11:21 am
Well, question #9 told me a lot about the people being polled.
For the most part, 50% of those polled don’t agree with the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution. It DOES guarantee a citizen the right to carry a concealed weapon in public. The other 49 states have had to abide by the Constitution and the courts and so will Illinois.
If these are these are the same people answering the other questions I see why the answers are what they are.
This sure isn’t my Grandpa’s Illinois anymore.
Comment by Jechislo Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 11:23 am
I agree, Collusus, the gun violence currently in the news in Illinois is essentially gang related. I can assure you that there are disturbed folks everywhere, tho. We just ain’t seen them yet. I also agree that the cost of any program to address this issue could be great with little hope of return on investment in the short term. I have posted here before that the issue remains important but the solutions not so easy especially with civil rights forces seeking to prevent loosening of confidentiality laws, etc.
Todd, the issue mentioned involved cross state straw gun purchases. Good to know the issue was handled in Illinois but it’s obviously easy to cross state lines.
Stricter gun sales laws bump up against the 2nd amendment, word. Can’t have a discussion about the former without dealing with the latter. They’re kinda connected.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 11:29 am
Jechislo - it’s not your grampa’s world anymore, either. Reagan’s been dead for a decade, the Soviet Union for 25 years. A black man was not only elected but reelected president. Gay people can get married and some of them can adopt kids and raise them in public as a family. You can get high at home in two states and no one can say boo about it. Oh, and we have things like the internet and nearly autonomous drones that shoot missiles at people anywhere in the world by remote control. You may have heard something about them.
The solution isn’t to regress back to what worked in a different world. The solution is to find out what we, not our grandparents, think is the best solution to the problems at hand.
Comment by Colossus Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 11:32 am
And, Jechislo, apparently no one agrees with the first amendment, since there are limitations placed on the exercise of that right. Or the 4th Am, since people still take flights and allow TSA to perform warrentless searches. There are limits and curbs on all rights, the 2nd just seems to have lasted longer before those curbs are set in stone. You are correct that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the individual right (including CC). However, at risk of sounding like a pro-lifer, the court has changed its mind before, and as others have pointed out, there’s something different in the air today. Again, I agree that you have made a factual statement. It’s the extension that because your factual statement is true today that no one else understands reality that trips you up.
Comment by Colossus Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 11:36 am
—-For the most part, 50% of those polled don’t agree with the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution. It DOES guarantee a citizen the right to carry a concealed weapon in public. The other 49 states have had to abide by the Constitution and the courts and so will Illinois.
Only the Fifth District Court of Appeals has ruled this way with another circuit ruling contrary to Posner’s decision (Posner himself disagrees with the interpretation, but that’s a different issue). Below, I pasted three paragraphs relevant to your claim from Scalia’s decision in Heller. You make a far more sweeping claim on the scope of the 2nd Amendment than Antonin Scalia. He may side with conceal carry being covered by the 2nd Amendment, but at best, that’s not clear nor is it clear he would have a majority for that opinion. In the past, your claim has not been true which as cited by Scalia in the first paragraph. There is a great deal of difference in what the court said in Heller, and what people keep claiming it said.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 11:42 am
“No background checks, no waiting periods, no record of transactions. And all legal.”
I call foul on this. He may be able to buy from FFL dealers in Indiana, but that would require the federal rules and NICS checks.
If he is buying from individuals, as an IL resident, it is totally illegal under current law to do that in another state. If he is an IN resident and buying privately in IN, it is totally illegal to transfer the gun to a non-IN resident. These MUST go through a FFL dealer under current law.
Enforce the law first, then make new ones. The IN district federal attorney needs to do his/her job.
Comment by CarrollCounty Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 11:44 am
Arch - I feel like I had my sidearm while you performed a full airstrike. Thanks for the Scalia text.
Comment by Colossus Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 11:48 am
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unlicensed-persons.html#gca-unlicensed-transfer
Comment by CarrollCounty Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 11:53 am
“If there are no background checks why do they have to send straw men? Just go themselves and buy them. There should be a string of FBI and ATF agents following these straw men, I mean if the Tribune knows it you think the CPD or FBI or ATF are blind to the fact it’s happening? Common sense.”
Not how things work. First off, the bangers are smart, too. They know that using a ’straw’/'front’ buyer who is clean makes their life far easier, and LE’s life much harder. Also, if you are part of the buying process and you are involved in drugs (fairly common), you might already be under surveillance, so why would you want to cross state lines to purchase weapons. That’s just flat out stupid in terms of risk taking, so the gangs don’t tend to do that.
Also, from seeing the process up close, the different federal/local task forces usually pick up on the illegal possession of weapons through drug enforcement. So, the process tends to be drugs first, guns second.
Running down strawman buyers of weapons is hard, tedious, and honestly, dangerous work, and the joint task forces don’t have a good record at doing it (normally until after the fact, when the illegally obtained weapons start showing up on the street). Then they are easier to track.
Just as a point, you would be amazed at the equipment you need to cover just one of these surveillance exercises -often times at night (everybody should have NVG’s, and everything’s being recorded, so you need onsite backups in case some hardware fails, and you’ve got to digitally image as much as you can - and carry more backups). The process is extremely hardware intensive, and that stuff is not cheap. And I will tell you there are ongoing gear issues for the folks going out onto the streets.
Comment by Judgment Day Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 12:06 pm
==Arch - I feel like I had my sidearm while you performed a full airstrike. Thanks for the Scalia text.
LOL-thanks–it’s a very interesting opinion.
—Enforce the law first, then make new ones. The IN district federal attorney needs to do his/her job.
This is why universal background checks would be a good thing. Right now the seller can claim to not know he was an Illinois resident and that may even be true, but if he has to do a background check, he’s going to have to supply ID and confirmation. For the legit seller no problem. For the not so legit seller, the excuse is gone.
Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 12:09 pm
How about cracking down on negligence of mentally ill…
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 12:15 pm
If these limits to clip size are going to apply to handguns, how are we going to be able limit criminals to invading homes solo instead of in groups (so that the defending homeowner is sure the clip will be big enough)?
Comment by titan Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 12:20 pm
“This is why universal background checks would be a good thing. Right now the seller can claim to not know he was an Illinois resident and that may even be true, but if he has to do a background check, he’s going to have to supply ID and confirmation. For the legit seller no problem. For the not so legit seller, the excuse is gone.”
From an administrative point of view, that’s utterly unworkable. Just using IL FOID cards as an example, the IL State Police are backlogged how far? Months???
When one normally does product or service development, one tends to run tests to make sure it’s going to be a viable product/service. Well, if the State of Illinois experience with issuing FOID cards can be considered as a ‘test’ as a starting point for universal background checks, then the process needs a whole lot more work and refining before there it ever a thought of it going operational.
IMO, it’s a concept not ready for prime time.
Comment by Judgment Day Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 12:27 pm
====When one normally does product or service development, one tends to run tests to make sure it’s going to be a viable product/service. Well, if the State of Illinois experience with issuing FOID cards can be considered as a ‘test’ as a starting point for universal background checks, then the process needs a whole lot more work and refining before there it ever a thought of it going operational.
How is the problem with the FOID applications relevant to the NICS?
Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 12:31 pm
You can’t licence a civil right! Nobody cares about the background check as long as there is no one keeping a list of who gets checked and why.
Comment by Votecounter Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 12:32 pm
Having digested the posts the number of issues raised is daunting. I agree as both a gun owner and an ISRA member that some moderation in the absolute defense of a broadly interpreted 2nd amendment is necessary in light of public opinion. Public opinion that has been wiped up by fear and a media war. A big part of our problem comes from two sources in the post Sandy Hook situation.
(1) Wayne LaPierre, his media presence has been a disaster. Most of gun owners are reluctant to be critical of LaPierre because he has become the target of a full scale media assault as has the NRA and its state level organizations. None the less Wayne has been playing the militant defender of the 2nd amendment card too much, and the sophisticated lobbyist that he is far too little. Let’s not forget it was LaPierre who wrote a fund raising letter that described federal agents as “jack-booted government thugs” who wear “Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms”. This was so over the top that President Bush resigned his NRA life membership. Wayne spends way too much time advocating for gun use for the purpose of self-defense and highlighting situations where people have used their guns against criminal suspects, rather than for emphasizing the hunting and marksmanship aspects of owning a gun.
(2) There are unfortunately gun owners who are Preppers, meaning those that believe major disasters are likely to be coming (economic or natural) and that part of preparing for that eventuality includes having weapons due to the breakdown in society. These Preppers have become a force within the NRA and it has become a political problem for the organization because when the root of gun ownership is being ready for a near complete breakdown of society military style weapons take on great importance to those folks. The power of the Preppers within the NRA creates problems in accepting any restrictions on so called assault weapons or magazine capacity, even to a degree gun registration. Given the experience Mr. LaPierre has had with lobbying attempting to mollify the temporary upsurge in support for gun control would be the normal practice for a skilled lobbyist like LaPierre or the other 14 NRA exclusive lobbyists in Washington. Part of the strategy would be to contain damage via compromise and make the gun control advocates the extremists. Maybe even completely defeating entire bills that way.
Given the current situation we are holding on based on voting blocks of Republicans, fewer and fewer rural Democrats, and almost no minorities to keep bills from passing. The flood gates could open or they could remain closed but the poll data Rich has posted worries me greatly about the current thinking of the NRA leadership.
Comment by Rod Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 12:41 pm
“This is why universal background checks would be a good thing. Right now the seller can claim to not know he was an Illinois resident and that may even be true, but if he has to do a background check, he’s going to have to supply ID and confirmation. For the legit seller no problem. For the not so legit seller, the excuse is gone.”
I would accept it if it worked like the current IL private sale rules. Private sellers must keep record of the sale for ten years, including the buyers FOID data.
If I get to make the call, and I get to keep the record, I am okay with that. Creating a registry at state or fed level out of every private transaction is too much, and I think is a goal of the disarmament movement.
They should open the NICS phone system to non-dealers, if it isn’t already. I hear that isn’t available to all now.
Comment by CarrollCounty Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 12:44 pm
—They should open the NICS phone system to non-dealers, if it isn’t already. I hear that isn’t available to all now.
I agree–and you are correct it isn’t available without paying an FFL. I think that opening up the NICS to private sales it would be a relatively easy way to do it.
Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 12:50 pm
Esquire -
The National Review blowing the whistle on the demolition of the public housing complexes? That’s rich, as that was the policy of their Golden Boy, Ronald Reagan.
Comment by Anyone Remember? Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 12:50 pm
And CarrollCounty once again shows why there is no political will to tackle the issue of black market weapons. Because trying to dry up the black market will, with no logical leaps necessary, lead to disarmament.
I understand you value the status quo. I just hope you can someday see the leaps of faith required to move from ensuring guns are not owned by those who are already barred from owning them to confiscating 300M existing weapons.
That slippery slope is higher than Mt. Rainier.
Comment by Colossus Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 12:52 pm
===You can’t licence a civil right!===
Ask any lobbyist about that one.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 12:56 pm
“How is the problem with the FOID applications relevant to the NICS?”
If all you are talking about is NICS, it’s not a big deal. But when buying from (or through) an FFL dealer, performing an NICS check is standard operating procedure (not optional).
If the strawman buyer has no hits in the NICS database, then they’ve beat the system.
I’m with CarrollCounty on this one. We don’t need more invasive background checks (or more new restrictive laws), because we just can’t seem to do it well in practice. What we do need is to have existing laws enforced.
I’m just not into seeing a vastly expanded universal background check program instituted nationwide, because I doubt that it will function particularly well, or in a timely manner.
Comment by Judgment Day Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 1:05 pm
Dupage — the trib article was pretty brazen in what they were doing. My guess is they were going to private sellers. Some of the gun shows are pretty big and a lot of people sell their guns, trying to take advantage of price spikes and make some money. Indiana does not have a FOID, no waiting period. Private sales are cash and carry.
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 1:15 pm
=== ===You can’t licence a civil right!=== ===
=== Ask any lobbyist about that one. ===
Rich, technically lobbyists are registered not licensed. A nuanced but important distinction. Still your point is taken. I disagree with registration too.
Comment by Just Observing Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 1:16 pm
Todd I and several people have mentioned that our primary concerns with the whole background check is the FFL and paperwork portion. We have said that if the NCIS system was opened to private individuals we would not be concerned aka i am Joe A. wanting to sell to Joe S. is Joe S. restricted from owning a firearm. Could you give us your opinion? While i am with you on just about everything so far. I could actually agree with that and would be a nice option to CYA. Especially since the Foid card is basically worthless.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 1:26 pm
=== it’s not your grampa’s world anymore, either. Reagan’s been dead for a decade, the Soviet Union for 25 years. A black man was not only elected but reelected president. Gay people can get married and some of them can adopt kids and raise them in public as a family. You can get high at home in two states and no one can say boo about it. Oh, and we have things like the internet and nearly autonomous drones that shoot missiles at people anywhere in the world by remote control. You may have heard something about them. The solution isn’t to regress back to what worked in a different world. The solution is to find out what we, not our grandparents, think is the best solution to the problems at hand. ===
I’m not completely disagreeing… progress is good… but “it’s a different world” argument is always used to justify limiting civil rights. You point to some, albeit monumental, changes in society and you are ready to proclaim society fully enlightened and on a progressive, steady upswing? Your argument lacks complete context as it relates to world history and even the society we live in today.
Comment by Just Observing Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 1:30 pm
@Anyone Remember: I recollect that Reagan spoke out against high rise public housing thirty years ago, but I missed the part where he said to give former residents Section 8 housing certificates to fan out across the city and the suburbs and to spread drug dealing operations and violent crime county-wide. Reagan was against Section 8 programs too, wasn’t he?
I think that you ought to check out the entire article before criticizing its message. I suspect that you have not read it.
@Rod: Wayne LaPierre has overstayed his welcome as the public face of the NRA. True be told, the ISRA has been far more effective on Second Amendment issues and litigation than the NRA in recent years.
Comment by Esquire Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 1:30 pm
===You can’t licence a civil right!===
>>>>>>Ask any lobbyist about that one.
Ask any broadcaster.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 1:43 pm
>>>>> There are unfortunately gun owners who are Preppers, meaning those that believe major disasters are likely to be coming (economic or natural) and that part of preparing for that eventuality includes having weapons due to the breakdown in society.
How is that unfortunate? Seems only prudent.
Remember Katrina.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 1:46 pm
===Remember Katrina.===
And the last devastating hurricane in Illinois was… ?
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 1:48 pm
“Inland Hurricane” back in May, 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_2009_Southern_Midwest_derecho
Comment by Judgment Day Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 1:52 pm
=== ===Remember Katrina.=== ===
=== And the last devastating hurricane in Illinois was… ? ===
A major disaster can come in many forms.
Comment by Just Observing Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 1:52 pm
===“Inland Hurricane” back in May, 2009.===
Yeah. Blew off part of my brother’s roof. Mass casualties? No. Mass suffering? No. Looting? No. Martial law? No.
Get real.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 1:53 pm
Mason — issues surrounding the checks on private sales deal more with the issue of is being mandatory, records retention on the transaction, and ease of availability.
Real question is why doesnt the state police provide a internet based system? That would be available via their website.
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 1:53 pm
===And the last devastating hurricane in Illinois was… ?===
Chicago, 1966. Rueben “Hurricane” Carter devastated Wilbert McClure in a 10 round bout at the Aragon Ballroom.
And Rod’s point about the Preppers is spot-on. Those are the people that scare the pants off sane people, and do a great disservice to the majority of gun owners.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 1:59 pm
===Real question is why doesnt the state police provide a internet based system?===
That’s a good idea Todd. Put it on the table during negotiations. Should be easy to get that included in the final bill.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 2:00 pm
I agree that the demolition of the high rise public housing and the spreading of those folks across the city contributed to the violence we are seeing in Chicago now. Especially when you consider that each of those high rises was controlled by a specific gang. Anytime you take a gang and break it up and drop it’s members in rival gang territory you are going to have issues. I suspect that the Daley administration knew that. Maybe they hoped to spread some of problems out to the suburbs and thus eliminate some of their headaches. It’s kind of similar to a program that the first Mayor Daley had. Back in the sixties and early seventies the first Mayor Daley began a program that was touted as getting urban youth out into the environment so they could experience nature. Was it was really was a program to bus the gang warfare out into the state parks. The buses would drive through the neighborhoods, mainly the ones having gang problems and pick up kids on the street corners and bus them for the day out to state parks where they were dropped off for the day. Many many times fights, stabbings, and some shootings, occurred in the Parks and were dealt with by local Law enforcement. The buses would take the kids back to the city at night to be repeated the next weekend. A local park, Starved Rock, became infamous for the problems associated with this program.
Comment by Irish Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 2:02 pm
“Real question is why doesnt the state police provide a internet based system? That would be available via their website.”
Great question. From experience, it’s probably going to require a major culture change. When you are doing this type of development work, you have two main options:
1) System design where the ‘front end’ (interface) is internet based, and the ‘back end’ (database & processing) remains the same as current, or with minimal modifications.
-or-
2) You go with a totally web browser based software applications (say, a WAMP or LAMP based solution).
If it’s (2), CMS will totally freak, and also the State’s internal auditors will come in with a myriad of security concerns (BTDT).
The NRA would be better off acting privately and getting a team of developers together to make such a system happen. Only way to get it done right.
Comment by Judgment Day Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 2:14 pm
Thanks Todd i like your idea of the online it would seem to be easier here since the foid cards are so up to date. (snark)
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 2:14 pm
Question to anyone who knows the law.
The Cook County States Attorney just said “Cook County SAO: Ruling only means that court thinks UUW law is unconstitutional. Only IL Supreme Court or US Supreme Court can change law”. (from live feed) Now my job is making sure buildings don’t fall down. But i was pretty sure that when a federal court issues a decision that a law violates the U.S. Constitution that meant the law is unenforceable. Am i missing something???
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 2:17 pm
From Mr. Lapierre:
–”Hurricanes. Tornadoes. Riots. Terrorists. Gangs. Lone criminals. These are perils we are sure to face—not just maybe. It’s not paranoia to buy a gun. It’s survival.” –
For the record, after Hurricane Sandy, there were no murders in the City of New York for eight days (maybe we should adopt their gun laws). There were 20 arrests for looting.
In a city of 8.2 million people.
Here’s LaPierre’s dystopian America:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/13/stand-and-fight/
Here’s The Atlantic’s analysis (there are many more on the google).
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/02/wayne-pierres-shooting-wind/62118/
The man is a liar.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 2:43 pm
yep. people are ok with new laws. go for it General Assembly. as for the Tribune article, that was quite detailed and should be illuminating for some. but the problem is not just in Chicago with gangs, there’s lots going on with gang activity in northern Indiana. the USAOffice there is quite aggressive with fighting gangs and drugs. we could use more of that in Illinois. but that does not mean we don’t need the new laws. universal background check, here we come.
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 2:43 pm
- Just Observing - Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 1:30 pm:
“I’m not completely disagreeing… progress is good… but “it’s a different world” argument is always used to justify limiting civil rights. You point to some, albeit monumental, changes in society and you are ready to proclaim society fully enlightened and on a progressive, steady upswing? Your argument lacks complete context as it relates to world history and even the society we live in today.”
I wholeheartedly agree.
Comment by Jechislo Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 2:56 pm
So 72% of Illinoisans (with maybe a couple of percent either way) have COMMON SENSE! Well THAT’S good to know!!!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 3:02 pm
=== - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 1:48 pm:
===Remember Katrina.===
And the last devastating hurricane in Illinois was… ? ===
What is your point, Rich? That folks should be owning guns only in those areas that have hurricanes? I just don’t get it. Would you like to personally guarantee that I don’t face any calamity so I can rest easy and not have to worry about me and my family? Or, perhaps, folks should make personal decisions about protecting themselves - doing so lawfully in a way that doesn’t impinge on the rights of others.
Hmmmm - in region 1 (hurricanes) folks can own up to so many weapons. In region 3 (earthquakes) folks can upgrade. In region 2 (midwest) you are out of luck because nothing really bad ever happens there.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 3:03 pm
Not sure if this has already been addressed in any of the above comments, but I think the most concerning thing from this poll is that only 63.3% of the people who want police in schools want those police to be paid for with real money. Apparently the rest of the poll’s respondents want those police to be paid for with “Magic Money”. This state is already spending to much Magic Money; we need to get serious.
Comment by Nick Kruse Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 3:39 pm
===What is your point, Rich?===
Just responding to yet another goofy comment. I’m sure Charles Manson would be pleased that the end of society as we know it is apparently just around the corner. That was his tune.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 3:40 pm
http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x846059120/Some-Chicago-area-police-departments-allow-alcohol-before-work?zc_p=1
Wasn’t it this CHICAGOIAN that said
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2013/02/chicago-police-chief-says-firearms-owners-are-corrupt-and-endanger-public-safety.html
Comment by Common Sense? Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 4:33 pm
A goofy comment about folks seeking to protect themselves during a period of civil breakdown/unrest. Can be caused by natural disasters.
Can also be caused by widespread riots such as those that occured following the Rodney King/police brutality trial. Lawlessness abounded - beyond what the police could control. Store-owners seeking to protect their lives and property used “military style” semi-automatic weapons to keep rioters at bay. Since many of these store owners also lived above the stores they were protecting their lives as well as property. Not able to get away.
Not a hurricane or earthquake in sight. Goofy? Try telling that to the folks who could very well have been killed just for being there.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 4:52 pm
Just Observing (and Jechislo, as co-signer) -
I feel like you sort of shoved some words in my mouth there about “fully enlightened and on a progressive, steady upswing”. Acknowleding that the times they are a’changin’ doesn’t necessarily mean progress, nor does it mean, inherently, regression. Look, I’m in my early 30s. I know I’m a whippersnapper to the gaffers ’round here, but all the issues I brought up are things that I have literally been reading about in the news my whole life, and very rarely did anything ever happen on any of them. Societies go through stressful times which produce changes to deal with the new environment the society is in.
I’m not looking for a fight here, but telling me that my argument lacks context is projection so hard that if you sat on a DVD I’d be able to watch it on the moon. Millions upon millions of Americans have come of age since the last major gun control debate, and of course the proposed solutions and tenor of the conversation will be different because different experiences have shaped it. Expecting lockstep agreement that current regulatory and legal systems are equipped to provide for the common welfare (which is, after all, what the Constitution is there for) when the gaps in that system are filling news reports literally daily is certainly lacking context as it relates to world history and event the society we live in today.
Nothing in my post was intended to be partisan, and I’m not a bomb-thrower here (for the most part!) But look, if we were to take it there, I think your own words have placed your ideas on the losing side of history, as apparently the gun rights movement intends to keep society unenlightened and on a regressive, downward swing. Thesis, meet antithesis.
Comment by Colossus Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 4:55 pm
@Colossus — I’m in my 30’s too, so from one whippersnapper to another: I just don’t find it a compelling argument that we live in this different, progressive world and therefore should rely on the government to fill in all system gaps. In the grand history of humankind, the past 40 years has been a blip on the radar screen… so to think that since we have a relatively good, stable system that it is here to last contradicts history. And this is coming from a socially liberal, non-gun owning, Chicagoan.
Comment by Just Observing Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 5:17 pm
I don’t know that crime has spread throughout the city because the projects were torn down.
The worst crime seems to be still concentrated on the South and West Sides. A mugging in River North is still big news.
As far as homicides, Chicago’s homicide rate is in the middle of the pack among big cities — except for New York and Los Angeles. What are they doing right? It’s certainly not easy conceal-carry.
Chicago’s annual homicides have been on a long decline, until a recent spike, according to CPD.
1990: 851[9]
1991: 927[10]
1992: 943[10]
1993: 855[10]
1994: 931[10]
1995: 828[10]
1996: 796[10]
1997: 761[10]
1998: 704[10]
1999: 643[10]
2000: 633[10]
2001: 667[10]
2002: 656[10]
2003: 601[10]
2004: 453[10]
2005: 451[10]
2006: 471[10]
2007: 448[10]
2008: 513[10]
2009: 459[10]
2010: 436[10]
2011: 435[10]
2012: 506[11]
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 5:22 pm
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 9:44 am:
So far, I’ve deleted two commenters who can’t bring themselves to believe this poll by the Public Policy Institute.
Didn’t y’all learn anything about polls from the GOP presidential race last year? Disbelieve at your own peril, folks
You’ll delete me again.But we now see what socialist print media looks like. You want to be fair leave everyone’s comments. But you won’t as your making me a firm believer that socialism is alive and well in America!
Comment by The Ghost in the Darkness Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 7:18 pm
Define socialist. Define print media. Now, define socialist print media. Thank you.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 7:32 pm
I can’t believe I’m reading on this site crime has exploded because we tore down the projects and used Sec 8 vouchers to spread the darkies around too much. You may or not be welcome from Rich’s perspective, trying as he does to promote free speech, but as far as I’m concerned, go away. As far as possible. Please. Take your racism and paranoia and go hide, maybe in Montana, or maybe rural Utah. If the apocalypse comes you’ll be safer there, and if it doesn’t (my bet) we’ll be safer here.
Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 7:33 pm
Ninety percent of the people in the State of Mississippi don’t agree with a woman’s constitutional right to have an abortion. That’s why we don’t put our rights up for a popular vote. You have to have a firearm owners id to buy or sell a gun in Illinois so every legal buyer has already been vetted by the state police. There is no “gun show loophole” here. Straw purchases are also already against the law. Enforce it.
Comment by wishbone Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 8:18 pm
–Ninety percent of the people in the State of Mississippi don’t agree with a woman’s constitutional right to have an abortion. That’s why we don’t put our rights up for a popular vote.–
Wishbone, you might want to use a different analogy.
JACKSON, Miss. — Mississippi’s only abortion clinic said it received notice Friday that the state Health Department intends to revoke its operating license.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/abortion-clinic-lose-license-article-1.1248455#ixzz2LP1doiMD
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 8:33 pm
This poll seems to run about the same as the last several I have previously seen on this set of topics in this state. If the people polled were distributed about the state in conformance with the population density, the northeast corner provided the majority of the opinions. No surprises here.
Comment by Jeeper Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 8:43 pm
Rich, thank you for publishing the poll.
Here in Springfield, the locals seem to cling to the quaint notion of “one acre, one vote” rather than “one man, one vote” … .
Based upon “one man, one vote” this is not a state that is favorably disposed towards firearms in urban / suburban areas. People in these parts can’t accept that.
Comment by Smitty Irving Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 9:19 pm
Schnorf, this issue brings out the wingnuts. I learn something new every post.
Not.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, Feb 19, 13 @ 10:12 pm
After wading through all this, I would like to have seen a few followup up questions at the end of the survey to test the current knowledge of Illinois firearm laws.
re #2 - Did you realize Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, including the requirement for a FOID card and waiting periods for purchasing guns?
re #4 & 5 - Did you realize most handguns today are semi-automatics? If the answer is no, a follow-up repeat of #4.
re #6 - Did you realize that a FOID card, which requires a background check, is required for any gun purchase in Illinois, including at gun shows or a private sale? And a follow-up question of should all gun sellers be able to use a telephone or internet based instant verification system?
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 8:15 am
What the heck did I say that warranted deletion, Rich? Suggesting that the wording of two of the poll questions flirted with push polling and suggesting that private sellers have access to instant check?
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 10:14 am
Well I am impressed!!!! You polled 600 people out of 12,852,548 (according to 2012 census bureaus) people that live in Illinois and this means what? You polled .00005 ‘/, of the people living here, how many are gun owners? How many even know what it takes to even buy a gun in Illinois? Really sounds like a fair assessment and a VERY reliable poll. Maybe the people that put the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute’s statewide poll out should read Illinois law on owning, selling, and buying guns.
Comment by Payton Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 7:12 pm
==Well I am impressed!!!! You polled 600 people out of 12,852,548===
It is called statistics. You never poll everyone.
Comment by Nick Kruse Monday, Feb 25, 13 @ 9:03 pm