Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Jackson pleads guilty: “Tell everybody I’m sorry I let them down”
Next Post: Today’s quote
Posted in:
* I told subscribers about this earlier today in some detail…
Prosecutors in Chicago are telling state lawmakers they can essentially ignore a federal court ruling and not legalize concealed carry in Illinois.
The Illinois House on Tuesday held the first of two statewide hearings on how to legally allow people to carry a gun in the state. Illinois is the only state in the nation that bars anyone from carrying a pistol outside their home. In December, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said Illinois must change that.
But Paul Castiglione, policy director for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office, told lawmakers there is no need for a new law.
“Only the Illinois Supreme Court can declare a statue from (the legislature) unconstitutional,” Castiglione told lawmakers Tuesday. “I heard (someone) say that after 180 days our UUW (unlawful use of weapon) statute is unconstitutional. Not so.”
* More…
“Until the Supreme Court of the United States has spoken, state courts are not precluded from exercising their own judgments on federal constitutional measures,” said Paul Castiglione, representing the Cook County state’s attorney’s office. “Because lower federal courts exercise no appellate jurisdiction over state courts, decisions of lower federal courts are not conclusive on state courts.”
More…
“After 180 days, anyone who decided, for example, to walk down Michigan Avenue in Chicago carrying an AK-15 would be subject to arrest and prosecution for violating the [Unlawful Use of Weapons Act,]” said Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney Paul Castiglione. He said the Cook County state’s attorney’s office intends to enforce the Illinois Unlawful Use of Weapons statute, which outlaws carrying guns in public, after the deadline, unless lawmakers change it or the Illinois Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional. “The lower federal courts, either the district courts or the courts of appeal, cannot tell the Illinois Supreme court how to rule or whether or not that law is constitutional. The only court that can resolve that split is the U.S. Supreme Court.”
The Illinois Supreme Court is currently reviewing another carry case, People v. Aguilar. “The real trigger for when this committee and this legislature has to act, I submit, is if and when the Illinois Supreme Court ever decides that the [Unlawful Use of Weapons] statute is unconstitutional.”
* Video…
* That belief is not shared by others, however…
Rep. Mike Zalewski, a former prosecutor, immediately questioned Castiglione’s suggestion that lawmakers are not under a “ticking clock” to act, saying the Alvarez aide “kind of dropped a pretty big rhetorical bomb on some of us.”
“We should tread carefully, tread lightly on that specific conclusion because we’re charged with passing a constitutional statute down here in the next 60 to 90 days or so,” said Zalewski, D-Chicago.
Ronald Rotunda, an expert on the Illinois Constitution, sided with Zalewski.
“Whenever the 7th Circuit and the Illinois Supreme Court have a conflict, the federal court will win,” said Rotunda, a constitutional law professor at Chapman University in Orange, Calif.
* Meanwhile…
The National Rifle Association says it’s non-negotiable:
Public-transportation users should to be allowed to carry guns on buses and trains.
The question surfaced during a hearing Tuesday aimed at meeting a federal court demand to draw up legislation permitting Illinoisans to carry concealed weapons. A top NRA lobbyist said he won’t bend on allowing bus and train riders to arm themselves.
“I don’t believe people who need public transportation to get around should be prohibited from exercising their constitutional right,” said lobbyist Todd Vandermyde, who later questioned the contradiction of a motorist being allowed to carry a gun in their vehicle but not a mass transit customer. […]
Last week, the leaders of the Chicago Transit Authority, Regional Transportation Authority, Metra, Pace and others wrote to House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago), calling the idea dangerous and warning it could lead to “catastrophic” results.
“The issue is that you’re dealing with a confined space where the public expects some safety,” Jordan Matyas, the RTA’s chief of staff, told the Sun-Times. “This is just going to lead to problems, and it will lead to what we believe is a lack of security and safety and possibly reduce ridership.”
I would hope the RTA had compiled some stats from other states with concealed carry to back up their nightmare scenario, but I doubt they do.
*** UPDATE 1 *** Gov Pat Quinn told reporters today that the state needs to comply with the federal appellate court order.
Quinn added, however, that he doesn’t want people carrying concealed weapons on mass transit.
Audio…
*** UPDATE 2 *** The NRA points to an Illinois Supreme Court decision in People v. Nance…
Finally, the State and the City cannot evade the Landry injunction by arguing that the state courts of Illinois are not bound by decisions of lower federal courts.
As a general rule, the interpretation given to Illinois statutes by the lower federal courts is not conclusive on the courts of this state. Hanrahan v. Williams, 174 Ill.2d 268, 277, 220 Ill.Dec. 339, 673 N.E.2d 251 (1996). That rule, however, is addressed to the situation where the federal court’s decision is being invoked as precedent on a point of law. In the case before us, the Landry decision is not being cited for its legal analysis. Whether the federal court’s analysis is correct is irrelevant.
Whatever one thinks of the federal district court’s reasoning, its decision is binding because it constitutes a valid judgment by a duly-constituted tribunal on the same question presented here and prohibits the same prosecuting officials involved in this case from enforcing the same statute against the same class of defendants to which the defendant in this case belongs.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 11:51 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Jackson pleads guilty: “Tell everybody I’m sorry I let them down”
Next Post: Today’s quote
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I suspect public transportation will miraculously become negotiable and pointed to as a major concession by the NRA in time.
Anyone who’s ever been on a packed bus or train during rush hour knows what a ludicrous idea this is.
Currently, people are getting mugged for their smart phones. What are you going to do on a crowded train if some nut goes for your gun? Start blasting, innocent bystanders be damned?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 11:59 am
Since the gang members that use public transportation are already armed with guns and it doesn’t seem to a problem, I doubt it will become one when law-abiding citizens start carrying.
Comment by Downstate Illinois Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:04 pm
I thought it was also ludicrous when the CTA eliminated conductors from its trains. The only employee on board now is the motorman who operates the train. Having a push button to alert the motorman that there is a disturbance or an emergency on an elevated train does not seem to be a sufficient safety precaution for me.
Comment by Esquire Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:07 pm
@ Word.
Really? “What are you going to do on a crowded train if some nut goes for your gun?”
Remember…this is conceal carry. Not open carry. If you are concealing it…no one knows you have it.
BTW, as Rich pointed out it would be nice to back up these unsubstaniated claims of danger and increased violence.
Do you have some evidence that allowing conceal carry on trains and buses in other metro areas has lead to gunfights, or an increase in violence?
Thanks.
Comment by How Ironic Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:07 pm
Wordslinger: What will your assailant do? If resisted, will -he- “Start blasting, innocent bystanders be damned?” The aggressor determines the rules, after all…
Comment by Jeeper Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:08 pm
On the main topic, OK; listen to Paul Castiglione and the other prosecutors in Chicago.
PLEASE!!
Comment by Jeeper Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:10 pm
Wow. Did Castiglione go to law school, or does he just watch Fox stories about southern states trying to bring back Calhoun’s doctrine of interposition?
If Illinois tries telling the 7th Circuit they don’t have to follow its judgment because they’re a sovereign state, there will be some very unpleasant lessons. Judge Posner will teach Mr. Castiglione and others about how our federal system works.
Comment by Anonymour Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:11 pm
===If you are concealing it…no one knows you have it.===
I see you haven’t spent much time on the CTA during rush hour. We’re packed in pretty tight on most trains/buses. I can often tell what some of my fellow passengers had for lunch and how much change is in their pockets.
And it isn’t violence that concerns me most. It’s accidents.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:13 pm
I don’t know that I’d trust an opinion coming from Alvarez’s office.
If concealed carry becomes legal, how could they enforce a ban on public transportation? Search everyone before boarding a bus or train?
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:15 pm
===And it isn’t violence that concerns me most. It’s accidents. ===
Totally understandable. However, are there any statistics from other states to back up your fears?
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:15 pm
How Ironic, wallets, phones, etc., are concealed in jackets and purses but get stolen every day.
There are train runs where folks are so packed together that you’d be legally married in some states.
Put it this way, if there are sensitive area prohibitions, public transportation rates. If not, then I hope the GA allows for law-abiding citizens to conceal-carry under the Dome and in all public buildings.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:16 pm
Interesting concept, that federal court rulings don’t apply to state law…
I am not an attorney but it seems, well nuts… If that were the case I suspect all of sorts of federal court rulings would be ignored by the states, unless I am missing something that isn’t happening, it is?
Using that same logic, couldn’t a state ignore what the court said about Obamacare as long as there is some local law that precludes it.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:18 pm
We are the last state to do this. It’s time to stop being stupid.
Alvarez’s office is nuts.
The idea that there are going to be mass shootouts and folks blasting each other on public transportation has never happened in any other state that has handled concealed carry. That fear has been long put to bed.
Stop the stupidity and get this thing done.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:20 pm
The Federal Court has “Primacy” (it controls) because the ruling concerns a federal constitutional gaurantee, i.e., the 2nd Amendment. The Illinois Supreme Court cannot overrule a Federal Court on a Federal question.
Comment by Fair Share Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:21 pm
The strength of the conceal carry is that it is unknown who is carrying and who is not.
Also, I do not understand how anyone sworn to uphold the law can decided NOT to do so. Can any other professional decide to selectively do his/her defined job and expect sympathy from the customer/consumer or their boss? I don’t think so. For me the law is absolute. It is or it is not. It appealled and ruled from the court, THAT is the law until overturned on appeal!
Comment by LisleMike Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:22 pm
“After 180 days, anyone who decided, for example, to walk down Michigan Avenue in Chicago carrying an AK-15 would be subject to arrest and prosecution for violating the [Unlawful Use of Weapons Act,]” said Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney Paul Castiglione.
What the heck is an AK-15. At least spend some time learning about what you are talking about.
Comment by Again Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:22 pm
Can I get a show of hands of people who think Alvarez is competent to hold office? Castiglione must not be a scholar of Constitutional Law.
Comment by Fire Anita Alvarez Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:23 pm
If you have been through concealed carry classes you know that you will be held legally responsible for any deadly force used against anyone that is not threatening human life (not property). You will also be held responsible for any harm done to innocent bystanders. Just saying, a responsible, law-abiding concealed carrier would be unlikely to draw down in the situation being discussed.
Comment by Nuance Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:24 pm
===are there any statistics from other states to back up your fears?===
First, I said concerns, not fears. New York’s mass transit system is the most like Chicago’s, and the MTA doesn’t allow passengers to have ready to use firearms on its trains and buses. That makes it difficult to get good information on this subject.
But I hear you, absense of evidence and whatnot. Fair point.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:24 pm
I always thought as a licensed attorney, an officer of the court, that I could not IGNORE court rulings or even start movements to IGNORE court rulings. Prosecutors included. I can appeal those rulings or campaign to change them, but to IGNORE them in my eyes reflects something entirely different and a dangerous course of action for lawyers to engage in. As a lawyer, you take an oath to uphold the law and to act as an officer of the court. Maybe Alvarez and her gang cut class when that was taught?
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:30 pm
castiglione is insane..there is a 200 year history of federal courts declaring state statutes unconstitutional…hard to believe this guy is even a lawyer, if he is indicative of the level of sophistication and legal knowledge in the SA office, God help us…
Comment by stratten Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:38 pm
An AK-15 is an “assault weapon” by the transitive property of Democrats. You know, AK-47 -> AR-15 -> AK-15.
That being said, whether a federal court has rules or not, as long as the state and local laws are still on the books, you’re likely to get arrested if you try to carry a concealed weapon in North-Eastern Illinois and get caught doing it.
I welcome someone else to be the test case that proves that the federal circuit court’s ruling overrides
Comment by elginkevin Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:42 pm
I once had a county commissioner tell me that he would not apply a state law, passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, to county actions because it had not been tested in court. we got a few people together to change his mind. oh, the Commissioner was gradate of Harvard Law School.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:46 pm
Rich Great point asking for proof. Since we are the last state in the nation proof should be easy to find. As for selectively choosing NYC for comparison doesn’t really work since NYC does allow guns if you are one of the very few who are allowed to carry in the city. The reason it is not a good point is because the population allowed to carry is about the same as Chicago right now. Such as off-duty cops, alderman, etc. Now there are a few such as celebrities and Jewelry dealers while moving jewelry who can but i doubt De Niro (no idea if he carries) takes the Train especially when packed. I could be wrong does CTA ban off-duty cops from carrying or alderman?
I have a question for everyone who opposes this. Please take this as an honest question does the statement from Alvarez’s office above help or hurt the cause? I mean he is basically telling the 7th circuit to go get stuffed at the same time Madigan is appealing for an en-bloc hearing and considering appeal. I would think from the judges i know that if you are on the fence on this might you decide to uphold just to stick it to Alvarez??
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:53 pm
Amalia just curious what county?
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:55 pm
Actually, if a notice of appeal or a writ of cert on file, the effect of the 7th Circuit’s ruling is, in effect, stayed. And thus, the law in Illinois remains in effect. While it could have been said less aggressively, Castiglione is correct. Perhaps Louis skipped that class.
It’s pretty obvious that the people who believe they can bring their weapon to bear on a moving train or bus have never ridden one. That is just pure nonsense. One more reason for home rule exemption. If statistics are needed, please produce any that show a weapon can be safely and accurately employed on a moving train or bus. Heck, it’s hard to toss a beer to someone on a floating dock!
Comment by Springfieldish Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:59 pm
Dear Anita:
“Just when I thought you couldn’t possibly be any dumber, you go and do something like this… and totally redeem yourself!”
All the best,
Harry Dunne
Comment by Formerly Known As... Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 12:59 pm
Two things for Mr. Castiglione:
First, Article VI of the US Constitution says:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Second, are you willing to do the contempt of court jail time for any Illinois official who defies a federal court order on this?
Comment by Anon. Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 1:04 pm
Alvarez and Castiglione are taking an immediate reality (the current state and local laws remain unchanged) and distorting it into proclaiming a legal right (the state and local authorities have a continuing right to enforce the laws on the books). Yes, until the GA and the City Council enact laws that facilitate concealed carry, folks that would like to conceal and carry will be running a risk. But don’t they remember bussing for school desegregation. If the federal court detects opposition or even foot dragging on the part of the GA and City Hall, it will impose mandatory action to “get” concealed carry enacted. Rotunda is right.
The cost to all of us in Castiglione abiding by his threat is that the state and local government will be exposed to possible financial costs related to the legal liability inherent in that approach, i.e., a new law suit and punitive costs assessed by the federal court. Nice way to put taxpayers’ dollars at risk.
Comment by Conservative Republican Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 1:08 pm
I’m willing to put some research in coming days on the public transportation issue if I become convinced it’s a serious position. Personally, I think it’s a designated sacrificial lamb for negotiations.
I imagine some suburban lawmakers might get an earful about conceal-carry on Metra and Pace.
There aren’t many comparable systems to the one in Northeastern Illinois except out east.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 1:16 pm
Spring
We can go to a gun range any time you want and i could demonstrate proper employment of a weapon from a moving platform. If it is a skills test you want i can call a few other combat vets to demonstrate. As for the carrying on a CTA train i think the goal here is if i am a chicago citizen moving from work to home and pass through an area i feel i need my weapon for protection then saying i can’t take it on the bus doesn’t work very well does it? Now the reason why this cannot be dropped is because by saying no public transportation you are saying if you do not own a car then you basically cannot carry.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 1:17 pm
As for the train thing…
As a rider of Metra I am wondering, how do you regulate that? Is it only on the train? Is it town by town (home rule)? So a person could be legally carrying for part of their trip but not another part? I think on my ride I pass through two counties and at least 10 municipalities (perhaps more).
Again, don’t have a strong desire to cary, but do see security guards from time on their way to and from work with a sidearm so there are armed folks on the train who do not work for one of entities that provide security for metra.
Then again in some ways mass transit security is a joke, the best place to find an Amtrak cop (they patrol Union Station) is talking to a beer vender and I could outrun most of them easily. The TSA folks stand around in groups.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 1:17 pm
Also would it regulate the stations? So if someone was coming to pick someone up at a station would they be covered by a metra restriction.
I see the logic of ‘no’ on mass transit, I just see it becoming a nightmare for someone who wants to carry legally. What about someone who wants to carry because of the walk from Union to their workplace or whereever are the out of luck?
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 1:20 pm
Word
Maybe you should do your research on the amount problems it causes I am curious to see results. Pretty sure you would be surprised with what you find. I am for CCW yet even i am amazed at how few problems are encountered. the usual ones involve young (career wise) police officers who do not follow their training and overreact to CCW holders. Usually not fatal but more a civil rights unlawful detention thing. I am almost 100% positive this is not a bargaining chip see my previous post.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 1:21 pm
Springfieldish: You said “It’s pretty obvious that the people who believe they can bring their weapon to bear on a moving train or bus have never ridden one.”
There have been two questions:
1. Whether someone -else- might “mug” a person carrying a gun to get it
and
2. Whether the person carrying legally might “Start blasting, innocent bystanders be damned?”
In neither case has the assertion been made than -anyone- could reliably aim a firearm on a CTA bus or train. Though not from Chicago, I -have- ridden both at rush hour and agree that good marksmanship would be rare…
Comment by Jeeper Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 1:23 pm
Conceal Cary on METRA and PACE….
Does that mean the one rider of those systems is a CC advocate? Or does that include the driver?
Comment by Plutocrat03 Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 1:29 pm
Word,
I’ve been digging and it’s pretty tough to find data on mass transit incidents. However, a University of Pennsylvania study using NEISS data from the CDC reports that, of all firearm injuries (non fatal), 24% were unintentional shootings.
That’s a pretty big “whoops” factor in my book.
Between 2003 and 2007 nationally, more than 81,000 people were shot and wounded unintentionally. An additional 3,100 were shot and killed unintentionally.
And that doesn’t count Dave Sweum.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 1:32 pm
@Mason, Cook….of course!
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 1:32 pm
Sorry, here’s a link to the study:
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 1:33 pm
Excuse me, that should be Dale Sveum.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 1:34 pm
What? I will give you the Pace thing, but Metra, seriously? There were 80 million trips taken on Metra in 2011 about 17 million were on my line BNSF..
The trains I take are full and at night (the 5:22 to Naperville & Route 59) often standing room only.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 1:37 pm
Decisions of Federal Appellate Courts are not binding precedent on State Courts. Indeed, it is not uncommon to have opposite opinions from different Circuits. The decisions is binding on the parties to the case, not others. That being said the opinion does have persuasive value and I would expect that most state courts, including the Illinois Supreme Court, would give an opinion of the Seventh Circuit great weight.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 1:43 pm
–Does that mean the one rider of those systems is a CC advocate?–
You can’t be serious about Metra.
Pace is another story. But the suburbanites insisted on an underutilized bus system as part of the RTA deal.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 1:45 pm
There is lots of discussion of where some people want concealed carry prohibited. I think that the discussion should be reversed.
A better plan to allow everyone who supports concealed carry too have it, as I see it, is very simple:
1 - Concealed carry is allowed on the public streets, highways, and sidewalks.
2 - Concealed carry is allowed on any property that the owner of the property allows it (call it an ‘opt in’ policy).
3 - Concealed carry is prohibited everywhere else.
This allows all those who approve of concealed carry to have it along with all like minded residents of Illinois. This is, I feel, a classic case of individual choice and the exercise of peoperty rights.
Comment by Property owner Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 1:51 pm
amalia I kind of assumed that. We use to call the Pentagon the puzzle palace. I am afraid Cook County has claimed that title.
47th I have seen that study and seen it debunked however in either case this data is not that relevant. Here is why if a mugger shoots a victim on the train it is rolled in there. your CCw people will be trained to some standard and educated as to their rights and responsibilities. I am curious as to what the percentage of liscensed CCw holders who have accidently shot someone or even committed murder as compared to the general population. Just so you know Firearms accidents have been declining quite a bit since this study was done. Oh yeah you can thank the NRA for the Decline.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 1:53 pm
You know, I remember Sister Mary Hypotenuse saying that a couple of fools spoiled all our fun when she shortened recess. I get that there are many responsible gun owners that have gone through training to be able to bring a weapon to bear on a train, or on a plane or in a box or with a fox. But, seriously, the expectation that the vast majority of the people Todd wants to be able to go to Taste of Chicago, have a few beers and then ride the Metra home with their guns strapped to their hips are those, “responsible” individuals. So, spare me all the training you’ve had. And, go seek obfuscation of the issue by demanding statistics of the virtually unquantifiable. Just look at the accidental discharges at gun shows during the ‘National Gun Day’ last month. Just look at the raw accidental discharge injury statistic. Then look at the people on the train after a Cubs game. You want them armed?
Comment by Springfieldish Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 1:58 pm
Uh, precedents of lower federal courts may not be binding law, but judgments are. The 7th Circuit opinion enjoined the enforcement of the law and determined it was unconstitutional, but stayed the mandate for 180 days. If Alvarez wants to violate that injunction/declaration after the stay ends, she can learn some very basic law that she seems to have missed in law school.
Comment by Anonymour Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 1:59 pm
Property
I assume you have problems with the bill as written may i ask what? Right now as written property owners can opt out with no more than the cost of a few signs. I don’t see how property rights are infringed? Public transportation by nature is Public property so no infringement there. As for the parking lot exemption you have to keep the weapon in your car which is your private property. Please explain the property rights concern.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 1:59 pm
The presence of folks lawfully carrying a concealed firearm doesn’t automatically mean there will be shootings if something goes down. There was someone at the Arizona shooting who was carrying a concealed weapon and he didn’t use it - one reason he mentioned is that he didn’t want to be seen as a second shooter.
Thoughtful people are all around us, despite some folks cynical comments to the contrary.
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 2:02 pm
Currently, except for a few days a year, you can bring an open alcoholic beverage on a Metra train (trust me, I know). Would that have to change? If so, I can think of a few businesses that would go under.
Also, at times, I’ve witnessed Metra conductors tossing troublemakers at the first stop (not me; but then again, I am the first stop). Will they have to be armed now to enforce the rules?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 2:05 pm
Spring
Read the bill drinking and carrying is not legal taking a gun to a cubs game is not legal. You are trying to apply some sort of general stat to a very specific subset of individuals. You are the one stated no one could do it. I will be perfectly honest with you i wouldn’t use my weapon on a crowded train because the risk to those behind the target is unacceptable. Again no one thinks blasting away on a train is either best option or advisable however to get from point A where it is legal to point B where it is legal may require someone to carry on the means of transportation. So tell me how many discharges then at the so called gun day i think i heard of 2 maybe. How many people attended just assuming 200,000 pretty sure more but you tell me.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 2:08 pm
I read the article in the Post-Dispatch over lunch about yesterday’s hearing. It quoted someone who wanted local police to play a big role in determining who could carry gun.
While I understand the sentiment, how could we do that following the rule of law when the police chief of Chicago thinks civil rights should be determined by public opinion and the Cook County prosecutor doesn’t even understand basic legal principles that we teach students as freshmen in high school.
Comment by Downstate Illinois Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 2:14 pm
Downstate
I think this done by a couple of states usually they require some sort of clear legal language for when the sheriffs can deny. Now will Cook county screw it up absolutely. I kind of like it since ISP is basically incompetent when it comes to FOID and i don’t see them getting better in this regard.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 2:18 pm
Amalia — nice story, but has there been a Harvard Law School graduate on the Cook County Board in the past 50 years? How old are you?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 2:22 pm
The Cook County States Attorney isn’t familiar with People v. Nance?
OK, Anita. If you say so.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 2:24 pm
– It quoted someone who wanted local police to play a big role in determining who could carry gun. –
Among the other 49 states, there is a range of conceal-carry laws. Some states have “may issue” laws in which the elected county sheriff has the discretion to issue permits.
Think Northern states with large urban, suburban and rural populations, a la Illinois.
Could have had that law here years ago, and conceal-carry would have been legal in most of Illinois, except for the insistence of some.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 2:24 pm
The same conclusion is mandated by principles of state and federal comity. Where a federal court has declared a state statute invalid and enjoined the state from enforcing it, courts of review in other jurisdictions have recognized that they are bound by the federal court’s injunction (see State ex rel. Department of Human Resources, Adult & Family Services Division v. Northland Insurance Co., 139 Or.App. 92, 100, 911 P.2d 942, 947 (1996)) and that “until such time as the federal court’s decision is reversed by the appropriate appellate court, the permanent injunction issued by the federal district court will be binding on the State * * * and its instrumentalities.” Unborn Child Amendment Committee v. Ward, 318 Ark. 165, 167-68, 883 S.W.2d 817, 818 (1994).
In sum, the attempt by the State to relitigate the viability of section 25-1(a)(2) of the Criminal Code of 1961 constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the federal court’s judgment. If the State seeks relief from that judgment, its recourse is with the federal courts, not the courts of this state. Until the federal courts modify or dissolve the injunction, the courts of Illinois cannot permit the State to prosecute defendants in violation of the injunction’s commands. Our judiciary will not be the agent for contumacious conduct.
People v nancy. . .
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 2:29 pm
Mason- Therein lies the problem. Are you in the majority or minority? The problem is that this concealed carry law doesn’t require any real degree of ‘responsibility’ nor is Todd and his cabal willing to negotiate any. Because the law prohibits consumption, are you really saying that those carrying won’t? We’ve already seen commenters here in previous posts explain the need to have their guns in a bar. And frankly, while I’m sure there has been some training, forgive my doubts that in the heat of the moment, on that train, years after that training, it would all be employed as practiced. If we’re to err, why are so many willing to err on the side that they’re more skilled and more capable rather than less skilled and more subject to the vagaries of a given environment? If you are willing to engage in self-deception, let’s let it be self-deception that doesn’t end someone poor schmuck’s life.
Comment by Springfieldish Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 2:34 pm
Does anybody in Anita’s office know anything about the law? This is shocking.
Basic rules — when a federal court INTERPRETS Illinois law, the federal court ruling is binding on the parties but is only persuasive in state court.
We usually see that in personal injury cases that go to the federal courts based on diversity. State courts don’t have to follow.
However, when it comes to interpreting the U.S. Constitution, the federal court is absolutely binding. That has been the case for roughly 200 years.
Typically, law students learn these concepts in their first semester.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 2:39 pm
===47th I have seen that study and seen it debunked however in either case this data is not that relevant.===
I’m calling your b— s— Mason Born. Produce a link to anything credible that debunks the Penn study or concede the point that more than 20,000 people are accidentally shot and wounded each year in the US.
You don’t think the fact that one in four firearm injuries are accidents is relevant to a discussion about allowing firearms on crowded commuter trains? What do you think is relevant?
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 2:41 pm
I doubt that the RTA has any specific data to conceal carry and mass transit. Frankly, I don’t think they need to get that specific. The evidence that More Guns = More Gun Deaths is as overwhelming as the evidence for Climate Change, yet still argued with ferocity.
46 percent of Louisiana households own guns. Louisiana not only has a murder rate twice that of Illinois, it also has the highest firearms death rate in the country.
In fact, ten states have higher murder rates than Illinois, all with some form of conceal-carry.
Ah, some would scream, “Those ‘Illinois’ numbers mask the high murder rates in Gun-Free Chicago!”
Sorry, Charlie.
15 U.S. Cities have higher murder rates than Chicago:
New Orleans
Detroit
St. Louis
Newark
Baltimore
Oakland
Kansas City
Philadelphia
Atlanta
Cincinnati
Stockton, CA
Cleveland
Memphis
Washington, D.C.
Miami
Comment by Math Counts Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 2:47 pm
Spring
You kind of disturb me with your analysis there. That analysis could be used to destroy every civil right in the constitution. Will there be people that don’t comply with the permit requirements yes there will be. Those individuals will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However in 49 other states those people have been in the minority. Do you have a reason why you think IL will be different? Please tell me, and please don’t call legal gun owners a cabal, what your version of responsibility is? I know this concerns you the thought of citizens carrying. But it has been tried and in effect in some states since 1987 no state has repealed it. In fact the states that have had it the longest are repealing some of the restrictions that were in the original bills. I guess what i am saying is Todd and company do not want to live in a state where they have shootouts every day. The things they are proposing are not novel ideas. The bill crafted is more restrictive than FL and quite a few other states they have tried to compromise more so than many would prefer. This bill is very similar to the last bill before the 7th judgement a lot of negotiations went into this.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 2:50 pm
The thought of the people I ride the bus with all having concealed weapons on them scares the bejeusus out of me, even if I had one too.
Comment by Nicholas Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 2:55 pm
@47th Ward.
You said: “You don’t think the fact that one in four firearm injuries are accidents is relevant to a discussion about allowing firearms on crowded commuter trains?”
And I say only if those 1-4 injuries are currently occuring on commuter trains. You are trying to compare apples to oranges.
What percentage of those accidental shootings are attributable to children to find unsecured firearms in the home.
Where are the vast majority of those accidental shootings are in the confines of a home.
Can you point out in other states that have conceal carry where a large percentage of accidental shootings occur in not only a public location, but specifically on a mass transit train/bus?
You can’t extrapolate one statistic to include all scenarios and call it a day. Try again.
Comment by How Ironic Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 2:56 pm
47th
In 2008 the number was 15,500 in 08. http://www.thesurvivorsclub.org/extreme/surviving-accidents/accidental-shooting
as for debunking look up John Lotte. I know you think he is biased but find someone who can refute his findings on the science and not opinion.
now here is what isn’t relevant hunting accidents, morons who don’t clear the weapon before cleaning, a child who finds a loaded gun, etc. Do you think they will be hunting on the CTA train or cleaning the weapon. What would be relevant was some data referring to legally carrying a weapon on public transit. you won’t find it because it hasn’t happened enough for there to be any data in 26 years. You need to read my last post and relax this really isn’t the end of the world.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 2:59 pm
47th Ward
If you want to restrict CCW because 20,000 people are accidentally shot and wounded, then what should we do about the 2,250,000 people injured or killed in automobile accidents? (2009 stats).
Comment by PM31 Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 3:03 pm
Another Fun Fact:
Springfield, Illinois has a higher Violent Crime Rate than Chicago. Much higher in fact.
Comment by Math Counts Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 3:06 pm
By the way, all this fear of armed riders is slightly ridiculous.
Come on. Do you really think the bad guys aren’t already riding the el with guns?
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 3:09 pm
@PM31 -
How about require them to pass a reasonable test to get a license? Or prohibit drinking and carrying a concealed weapon? Or require them to have insurance?
Just spit-ballin’ here.
Because these are things we’ve done to reduce traffic fatalities that have worked.
Comment by Math Counts Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 3:09 pm
“Right now as written property owners can opt out”
Why should I need to do anything to keep what I have now? It is the gun owners who want do something they cannot do now. If anyone needs to do something it should the gun owners who are looking for another place where they can carry guns.
“Public transportation by nature is Public property so no infringement there.”
I see something like a Greyhound bus as being open to the public and used by the public but a Greyhound bus is not owned by the public (by a unit of government) but buy a private company.
“Please explain the property rights concern.”
As I read HB 997 it appears to me that it only covers the inside of buildings or other enclosures (what the bill calls a ‘premises’). It appears to me, and I may be wrong on this point of law, that the land around my buildings under HB 997 is always open to others to carry guns on. In my case the open land (including parking lots, etc.) represents most of the area that I own. If I understand the proposed bill correctly this would mean a loss of control to me as a property owner.
Comment by Property owner Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 3:10 pm
@Skeeter @ 3:09 pm:
WOW!! You **CAN** be reasonable!! Whoodathunkit?
Comment by Jeeper Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 3:35 pm
Jeeper,
And you can’t.
Please tell me you don’t own a gun.
Or sharp objects.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 3:39 pm
–By the way, all this fear of armed riders is slightly ridiculous.
Come on. Do you really think the bad guys aren’t already riding the el with guns?–
Skeeter, I can only go from 25 years of twice a day on the train, 5 days a week, 50 weeks in a year.
I’ve never seen a gun on a train.
I’ve seen chains ripped, phones grabbed, purses snatched, and every order of lunatic known to man howling at their devils and performing every bodily function.
But never a gun. I know it’s happened, but it’s rare that gun is displayed on the CTA.
I know there are gangsters on the train. But it’s not like they get up in the morning, pack a lunch and a Glock and go to work in the Loop.
Their business is in the neighborhood. And if they’re any good at it, they don’t ride the CTA like lunch bucket willie-lump-lumps like I do.
I’m sure they carry a gun in matters of business, but I doubt if they do it all the time. Risk/reward.
Seriously, guns on an el train are a bad idea. Packed to the gills, some nut reaches in your coat, looking for your wallet and tries to steal your valuable gun? Bad news, man, in a very enclosed space.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 3:40 pm
Property
I understand your concerns and i share the belief that Property rights should remain sancrosant.
Point 1. Would you really not put up a sign to say no if you had to opt in? I am pretty sure you will admit the cost of signage is a small price to pay. According to the 7th circuit it is a right that should not have been abridged in the first place therefor this makes whole those who have been infringed upon.
2. Greyhound is a specific issue i don’t think that is the objective of the bill. I do believe the reference is more for city buses. To me Greyhound is a private service note amtrak is not.
3. The way i read it and i am no lawyer but the exception is for the parking lot. If it includes the lawns or yards around your business then i also have concerns. The point of the parking lot exemption is to allow CCW holders to store the weapon in their vehicle while they go to your business. I believe that it has to be a lot open to the public but i need to reread the section. Since their vehicle is their Private Property it is a compromise preserving their property rights as well. To be honest i think this helps if you are a commercial business if not for the lot exemption a % of your customers would be restricted from visiting your establishment.
Math
what further test do you reccomend? The law prohibits drinking and carrying. Insurance really? Requiring insurance to exercise a right might be tricky.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 3:43 pm
@Jeeper
I have argued with skeeter before he is actually very reasonable you two just can’t manage a conversation without getting all sideways today. I actually enjoy his opinion of all the people that knee jerk on this he actually thinks and discusses his opinion.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 3:47 pm
Mason,
Thanks. I really appreciate the kind words.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 3:50 pm
We are either a nation of laws or we are not. Anita Alvarez swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and its supremacy clause. I vehemently disagree with the 7th Circuit’s ruling preventing the state of Illinois from prohibiting concealed carry and oppose concealed carry, but nullification was settled by the Civil War. I expect Southern politicians that want to ban abortion in spite of Roe v. Wade to be confused about that, but I expect better from the lawyers of the north.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 4:02 pm
Guess running the FOID program in the red isn’t hurting the State too much. They managed to find $2.8M from the Illinois Jobs Now! capital program …
State acquires 547 acres for hunting, other outdoors recreation
http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x930802892/State-acquires-547-acres-for-hunting-other-outdoors-recreation
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 4:40 pm
oops .. wrong thread
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 4:41 pm
Math Counts @ 2:47 pm: “In fact, ten states have higher murder rates than Illinois, all with some form of conceal-carry.”
I’m not sure what point you are driving at, as that also means 39 states have lower murder rates than Illinois, all with some form of concealed carry. And among those major cities with higher murder rates than Chicago, not one of them is located in gun-friendly Texas.
I don’t personally have a dog in this hunt, so to speak, but I get very tired of seeing and hearing cherry-picked studies and stats that are used to support both sides of this debate. The public transit question is a fair issue, one that deserves a reasoned response before an agreed bill is drafted, if that’s even possible.
Ms. Alvarez really frightens me with her poor job performance and lack of basic legal understanding. Nullification went out of style back in 1865, didn’t it?
Comment by cover Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 5:02 pm
FWIW Mason born,
The article you linked to actually supports the research done by Penn.
I know I’m probably wrong, but I’d guess that most of the commenters posting here have never spent much time riding the CTA. Like Wordslinger, I’m on it 5 days a week. It is currently off-limits to firearms. I haven’t heard a compelling reason why that policy should be reversed.
Remember, the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited. Make a compelling argument as to why banning ready to use firearms from the CTA is unconstitutional and moreover, why allowing guns on the El is a good idea. That might move the conversation forward.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 5:04 pm
Anita’s a good trial lawyer and prosecutor. And maybe she can manage an office of prosecutors. But if she’s not federal judge material, better this becomes known now, before she gets lifetime tenure. I’ve haven’t seen so much controversy coming out the the State’s Attorney’s office since….Ed Hanrahan authorized the police raid on Fred Hampton’s house.
Comment by Rudy Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 5:05 pm
Sorry, hisgirlfriday @ 4:02 pm already addressed the nullification issue, I didn’t see that post.
Comment by cover Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 5:05 pm
Was up in Wisconsin this weekend and visited multiple places that had the gun sign (no guns) up. Didn’t seem to be a big issue.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 5:09 pm
I strongly second wordslinger’s sentiments - in the 20 years I’ve ridden the CTA Red Line, I’ve never seen a gun brandished by any person, whether they be a gangster, deranged person, or a workaday stiff.
Another thought - on several occasions I’ve spoken up for women, tourists, and kids who were being physically and/or verbally accosted/abused while riding the Red Line. If it becomes legal to carry concealed weapons on the CTA, I would almost surely be much less likely to do so. Imagine this type of scene - one which I would reasonably guess occurs several times every day - and add concealed handguns, and I think even the least imaginative person out there can see why a vast majority of public transit riders surely shun the idea of a train or bus full of people with guns in their jackets.
Comment by B Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 5:12 pm
B,
Conceal carry only gives the privilege to those who can legally have a gun and jump through the proper hoops.
The guy who is attacking a person on the el probably is not going to jump through those hoops so I don’t think you should spend too much time worrying that they suddenly have guns when they did not before.
The problem with CC on the el would be people legally having a gun and then having an accidental firing. I’m not aware of that happening often on transit systems from other states.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 5:21 pm
Mason -
Last version of conceal carry I saw only required applicant to hit target half the time. Ludicrous. Would we issue driver’s license to someone who scored 50 percent on the test?
As for the insurance requirement, if you accept that May Issue laws are constitutional, I think you are hard-pressed to argue insurance is burdensome if you are a gun rights advocate. the gist of the NRA argument is that guns make us all safer: heck, insurance companies will be paying you to carry a gun if that is true, because you’re reducing their exposure.
Personally, I suspect guns don’t actually make people safer, they only make some people feel safer, in much the same way lifts make some people feel taller and SUVs make some people feel indestructible. With concealed weapons, there is something about it being concealed that is especially alluring in the pathology. “I have a gun, and no one else knows it” is particularly potent. It is why the NRA pushes for conceal carry and stifles efforts by true second amendment advocates to pass Open Carry.
Comment by Math Counts Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 5:31 pm
Sorry Skeeter, I’m not sure how well you know Chicago or the Red Line, but there are plenty of unhinged folks around who would fit my scenario and who would surely also qualify to legally carry a concealed weapon.
Also, there’s another point here: the verbal incidents I’m describing could turn from an unfortunate but somewhat typical (and relatively minor) city/transit episode into a tragic headline in a heartbeat if there are a bunch of people on the train carrying guns.
So I guess I’m saying that I think you’re way wrong if you think the only problem with concealed weapons on mass transit is accidental firing.
Comment by B Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 5:40 pm
Math
What would the insurance cover?
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 5:44 pm
B,
Good on you. You’re one of the good guys.
I, too, over the years, have inserted myself into some nasty business on the el that was none of my mine, but how can you look away?
As a human being, you dive in and you take your chances.
I’d be happy if the regular dumb schmuck on the el who is being a fool didn’t have a legal gun.
With our decades on the rails, we both know that conceal-carry adds nothing to safety but brings a new factor of risk.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 5:57 pm
B,
Are you suggesting that there is some pent up demand of people who will go bonkers on the el, but only if they can legally obtain a gun and have a permit to conceal carry?
It is possible, but I doubt it. I suspect those people already have a gun.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 6:09 pm
Skeeter, like others have said, legal guns on the el, at the very bestm increase the possibility of accidents and just bad news.
Put it this way — guns shows ban loaded guns, but some fools screw it up and shoot their johnsons off at gun shows all the time.
You want legally, loaded guns on the Red Line at rush hour?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 6:14 pm
At least the Governor has it right on this one. Conceal-carry will indeed have to be allowed, but with a hefty list of reasonable restrictions–public ridership should be included. Places of Worship also.
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 6:22 pm
Stupid quote from Jordan Matyas. Everytime someone is attacked on the CTA now they’ll use the RTA’s quote as saying it is the RTA/CTA’s responsibility to provide a safe environment.
Comment by Just Me Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 6:39 pm
Rich,
Your request for statistics on gun safety earlier today sent me looking. I thought it was odd that, while I could find a lot of old material from the early 1990s, more recent research was hard to find.
Turns out, it’s hard to find because gun rights advocates persuaded their allies in Congress to ban federal funding for research on guns and gun safety in 1996. Who knew?
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470
Maybe it’s time to repeal that ban.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Feb 20, 13 @ 8:10 pm
Word– the effect of a banon the mass transis systems is to effectivly ban caary for a lot of poeple.
Would ypu like tomsee a bus or train pull upme. Have a bunch of peple reach back, draw their handguns, rack the slide drop the mag empty their gun, then put it in a case, the when they get off, uncase the gun, put the mag back in chamber a round and reholster?
Because that is whats going to happen. You will have people handeling guns on the platforms or at the bus stops to comply with the laws.
Comment by Todd Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 7:47 am
Math the training rate right now is a 70% hit ratio. What would you like to see? As for insurance did you get insurance to post here? Did you get insurance to go to the church of your choice? Do you get insurance to talk politics with your friends? The 2nd is a right just like the other bill of rights and has to be protected as such.
For all those scared of an accidental discharge. A concealed carry weapon resides in a holster and it is virtually impossible to fire a modern handgun while it is inside a modern holster. Now to remove that weapon from it’s holster is not covered by the law unless you reasonably believe that your life is in danger. So accidental (we actually call it negligent discharge) discharge is practically impossible.
As for why it has to be allowed on the trains and city buses. a. trains and city buses are public property i.e. owned by the public. b. it will be legal at the destination and the point of embarkation. c. There is a percentage of individuals who have no transportation options other than public transport. d. banning weapons on the public transportation would in fact be a de facto ban on ccw. e. if there is a right quaranteed by the U.S. Constitution then a ban on public transportation infringes that right to those who have no option but public transportation. I know many of you feel that this is armeggedon but it didn’t play out that way anywhere else in the nation and we are the last state.
As for the ban on the studies on guns would you want your tax money to go to a study that’s stated goal was to assess the detrimental mental trauma post abortion say proposed by karl rove? or the cost of free speech as proposed by Rove? The cdc was being used by the Clinton admin to gin up statistics to support his gun control schemes. DO you really want the CDC to become a political tool?
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 7:58 am
Forget the conversation on a conceal and carry bill. We don’t have the resouces or the organizational leadership to execute any feasible bill. It is taking more than 3 months for ISP to process FOID card renewals. The state will be flooded with conceal and carry permit applications and it will take years for them to process without millions in funding which the legislature won’t pass. The inability to have a reasonable screeing process will amount to a ban that won’t hold up in court. This is where the fiscal abyss that Mike Madigan has created is going to make it virtually impossible for him to fashion a functional conceal and carry bill.
Comment by the Patriot Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 8:34 am
I really hate how all you that don’t like guns equates gun owners with gangbangers. It doesn’t seem to sink in to brainwashed minds that it will NOT turn out like the wild west. Over time it will be safer for everyone because now good and evil are on equal footing. Criminals won’t know who is armed and who is not until it’s too late - for them. No one is immortal, no one lives forever we will all go at some time and there is no guarantee how we go will be nice. Get over it and be thankful that some stranger with a gun might save your life or the life of a loved one. Don’t focus on death of the innocent as everyone will eventually go. Focus on the now, your loved ones and how the community needs to change from gangbangers/criminals with guns to good people with guns.
Comment by Moon Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 9:35 am
An AK-15
http://www.flickr.com/photos/guav/521698335/
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:27 am
I’ve been searching all over the web and I CANNOT find neither the case number for this case nor a link to the actual opinion. Can anyone here help me?
Comment by RonF Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:06 am
RonF
If you are talking about when Alvarez’s flunky said this it was in the testimony Tuesday at the IL House. if you are looking for the 7th circuit decision it is Moore v. Madigan. Does that help?
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:14 am
HB0148 - the Family and Personal Protection Act, which just missed passing the House last year, was SUPPORTED by the Chicago Amalgamated Transit Union.
Comment by Smitty Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 12:05 pm
Show me the news stories of buses and trains being shot up by licensed carry holders in any of the 49 states that have some form of carry (at least 40 with Shall Issue), then we’ll talk. It’s not about not having them on mass transit, it’s about transporting the firearm to where you’re going. Do you expect people to openly remove their firearm, unload it, case it before getting on a bus and then reverse the process when getting off? Come on, and people call us paranoid.
Comment by Josh in Champaign Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 1:15 pm
“After 180 days, anyone who decided, for example, to walk down Michigan Avenue in Chicago carrying an AK-15…”
ummm the heck as an AK15? a rifle? pretty sure, CCW is more for HAND GUNS….
Comment by Cassie Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 4:26 pm
The state of Illinois needs to wake up already. Illinois, with the way so many of their operations are mishandled, deserve to get booted from the union. The state is a disgrace.
Comment by Reply1 Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 4:35 pm
If the federal Constitution does not apply in Chicago, does that mean we don’t have to let women vote and can own black people?
Just curious.
Comment by Scott Wilson Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 4:42 pm
It is time for IL to pass a common sense law that allows residents to protect themselves. It is strange that I can get CCW permits from FL and UT and carry all over the country except in the state that I pay taxes in. It is time to stop ignoring the people who run the MURDER CAPITAL OF USA and start listening to the rest of the people in the state.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 4:43 pm
–If the federal Constitution does not apply in Chicago, does that mean we don’t have to let women vote and can own black people?–
Yes, Scott, that’s what it means.
Your analysis is spot on. Brilliant and unchallengeable.
We’re going to hear more from you, and I don’t mean a postcard.
Did the Decatur Militia run out of gas tonight? Shouldn’t you be on maneuvers?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 4:55 pm
I know that some here may discount any metro system outside of NY or LA as being a comp to Chicago, but the Houston Metro has allowed concealed carry since sometime in 2005?
Perhaps a starting point to examine fear fetched incident’s, or lack thereof.
Comment by TheGoodLieutenant Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 5:13 pm
I saw the comment about CCW holders and incident data.
The Texas department of public safety (Illinois state police equivalent) has to publish each year the number of general population felony convictions vs permit holder convictions. Texas is twice the size and has two large metroplexes plus a drug/immigration problem.
So the data ~ 70,000 felony convictions per year, 110 belong to permit holders. The data is available on their website for those who doubt. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/index.htm# under reports an statistics
Comment by Lids Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 5:51 pm
The criminals are already carrying. What this law does is allow honest folks to protect themselves and their families. Criminals, by definition, ignore laws, only the law abiding folks who actually build society are restricted. I have been working with criminals in IDOC for over 20 years. The “lawmakers” who would deny the right of honest people to defend themselves should be ashamed. “Gun control is the argument that a 110 pound woman has the right to fistfight a 220 pound rapist.”
Comment by K Collier Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 6:06 pm
@Math Counts: ” It is why the NRA pushes for conceal carry and stifles efforts by true second amendment advocates to pass Open Carry.”
You speak with great authority on things you know nothing about. First you cherry-pick bad stats on gun laws and violence and then you strawman the NRA’s position.
You’re a dishonest political hack. You’re not helping the conversation or advancing the discussion. You’ve proven you will say absolutely anything you think will advance your side of the story.
For the record, New Hampshire has the lowest murder rate of all 50 states and has the most lax guns laws to boot. However the correlation between guns laws and murder rate is small. My arguing that we should all be NH is would be just as dumb as your position that LA is murderous b/c of it’s gun laws (gun ownership rate.)
If you don’t want to own a gun then don’t. If you don’t want your wife to know how to shoot a gun take it up with her. But for Kendra St. Clair and all the others like her I support their right to arm themselves for self defense.
Comment by JimmyB Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 6:15 pm
I personally prefer the AR-47 over the AK-15. If I need to get from point A to point B and cc then I need to walk or take a cab? Seems like discrimination.
Comment by gb Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 6:47 pm
Personally, I see no problem with carry on the CTA or mass transit. Folks up in Minneapolis do it all the time. One thing that Chicagoans are going to have to get used to is that bearing arms is a fundamental individual right. After living many years in carry states, I can honestly say that it presents no problems. It would seem that Chicagoans tend to see the world very narrowly … very provincially … on this issue.
Comment by Carl from Chicago Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 7:32 pm
If Federal law does not supersede state law than can someone please tell me why in the State of California, State law abiding citizens are being arrested on the federal level for having medicinal marijuana? When it is legal on the state level?
Comment by Baffled Friday, Feb 22, 13 @ 2:03 am
@ wordslinger “Among the other 49 states, there is a range of conceal-carry laws. Some states have “may issue” laws in which the elected county sheriff has the discretion to issue permits.”
Only a few states are still “may issue”: California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Delaware, Hawaii, and Rhode Island.
Four states allow unrestricted, permitless carry (Vermont, Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming) by any non-prohibited person. Utah and Montana are likely to join that list soon.
37 other states are “shall issue”: CCW permits are required to issued to any non-prohibited person.
There are only nine states left with restricted licensing which shows a huge change since 1986. In 1986 the numbers were reversed with nine states being unrestricted and shall issue, 26 states “may issue” and 15 states being no issue. Should the Illinois legislature fail to enact a CCW permit system by June 8th 2013, Illinois will join the four unrestricted states with unrestricted, permitless carry.
Comment by TD Friday, Feb 22, 13 @ 1:46 pm
Those who think conceal carry = lawlessness or = more violence have not ever looked at a map. The areas with the highest crime are usually also those areas with the most restrictive gun laws. The criminals in Chicago already carry firearms all the time. Allowing CCW will simply allow those who to through all the trouble and training to follow the law to be on equal footing. No state has seen their violent crime rate go up after enacting conceal carry, although several have seen it go down
Comment by Suburbanite Friday, Feb 22, 13 @ 2:24 pm