Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Caption contest!
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** All politics is local
Posted in:
* The show starts at noon…
In a pivotal showdown on guns, the Illinois House plans Tuesday to begin a marathon series of politically divisive votes to lay down limits on where exactly gun owners can legally carry their weapons in public.
The unusual maneuver orchestrated by House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago), a traditional proponent of gun-control measures, will focus on 27 different tweaks to pending concealed carry legislation bearing his name.
Nearly a dozen different legislators filed amendments Monday to Madigan’s bill, laying out specifically where gun owners could take their weapons once the state answers a December federal court order to end Illinois’ outright ban on carrying concealed weapons.
Some of the places the amendments would bar gun owners from taking their weapons include government buildings, child-care facilities, casinos, hospitals, stadiums and arenas, protest, museums, universities, public transit, amusement parks and churches. […]
“It gives every member of the House a chance to participate,” Madigan spokesman Steve Brown said of the unusual approach in debating such a huge array of amendments one by one.
All 27 amendments are here.
* There’s also a big dispute over “may” or “shall issue”…
“I think the biggest sticking point is going to be “shall issue” against “may issue” more than anything,” explains Representative Brandon Phelps of Harrisburg.
Phelps is sponsoring the current right to carry legislation, co-written by the National and Illinois Rifle Associations. It says that a license to carry “shall” be issued.
Phelps explains, “If you meet the qualifications and you pass the background check, I think you ought to be able to be awarded a concealed carry permit.”
But “shall” doesn’t cut it for many northern lawmakers. They want language that says a license to carry “may” be issued, depending on the judgement of local authorities. They argue that language works well in a handful of states, including New York.
“Many local law enforcement officials in smaller and rural communities know their citizens personally. These local officers are well aware of who stumbles out of the bar,” explains Mary Kay Mace, who lost her daughter in the shooting at Northern Illinois University in 2008.
* Background…
Madigan spokesman Steve Brown said that Tuesday marks the “first of probably several sessions” on the topic. The goal is to give lawmakers the chance to “speak to and vote on” numerous gun issues, Brown said.
The motivations of the state’s longest-serving speaker, however, are not always clear in a Capitol where he has largely controlled the agenda year after year. Hot-button legislation often is worked on behind closed doors among competing interest groups and heard at the committee level; then a single bill that lawmakers can take or leave is voted on. Madigan also sometimes will survey his Democratic members privately to see what they could support on issues such as tax increases. […]
Rep. Brandon Phelps, who has pushed for allowing concealed carry in Illinois, has added his own question to the Tuesday mix, an amendment that would legalize the practice but require training and prohibit guns from being taken into schools, stadiums and bars.
Phelps suggested the speaker’s Tuesday debate is an attempt to find out where every lawmaker stands on the various issues that have come up in hearings before the House Judiciary Committee.
“A lot of people across this state and nation will be watching,” said Phelps, a Democrat from Harrisburg in far southern Illinois, of Tuesday’s action.
Doing it this way will leave individual lawmakers less political cover to run away from a bill by simply arguing they didn’t have a chance to add an element, such as certain restrictions for a firearms bill. The approach also puts many freshman lawmakers as well as some squeamish veterans on the spot, requiring them to take clear positions on politically difficult issues.
* More…
The speaker’s approach allows political protection, said Kent Redfield, a former House staff member and retired political scientist at the University of Illinois at Springfield.
A comprehensive “clean bill,” such as one Phelps has introduced, would require a single yes or no, without nuances that can be explained away at election time. Redfield said the Madigan process allows Democrats, who understand the state must adopt gun legislation, to nonetheless vote against provisions they find particularly distasteful and politically risky.
“An up-or-down vote on a clean bill, you either voted for or against,” he said. “If you allow a bunch of votes, then people can be on specific roll calls for specific provisions and he can give them some cover” from outraged voters.
I’ll post a live blog later this morning. Make sure to watch it.
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 9:50 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Caption contest!
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** All politics is local
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Question to anyone who knows. Rich perhaps. How do they go about bringing all the disparate amendments together? I read all of them and quite a few have elements that directly conflict with others. Is that a committee thing? There are also a lot of unintended consequences for example the daycare language would force a homeowner who operates a daycare at home from being banned from ever having an operable firearm. In fact it is so poorly written i don’t know if you could even carry the gun from the house to your car to go hunting.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 9:58 am
If you look upon every bill as an attempt by the sponsor to both satisfy his/her campaign contributors while garnering the most votes in the next election then a politician’s concept of “public good” is defined. Too much cynicism? Sorry it was making my head explode.
Comment by Anon. Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 10:11 am
I respect Prof Redfield a lot, but how about charaterizing it as allowing the House to work its will, rather than the assumption this is being done in some cynical way to allow Democrats to “get some cover” politically?
Speaker should be commended for this approach. It is comparable to what would be termed an “open rule” in the U.S. House, where members can offer amendments and let the chips fall where they may after all the votes have been held.
As for Mason born- that is my question also. Say that two amendments, each with provisions that conflicts the other, manage to pass.
Which provisions then would prevail? The last one?
Comment by have issues? Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 10:12 am
Is there something in the various prohibited place amendments that defines what it means to be “near” one of the prohibited places? Some kind of distance measurement? It seems that most of Chicago, and many suburbs, would be a prohibited place depending on how broad it means to be “near” someplace.
Comment by mjrothjr Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 10:12 am
My question is this: Once the gun thing has run its course, what’s the next tangential issue that lawmakers are going to use as a distraction from getting anything meaningful at all accomplished with regards to pension reform and our headfirst run into the wall of bankruptcy in our state??
Comment by BigDoggie Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 10:14 am
I am interested in the “may issue” vs. “shall issue” distinction. When I was a reporter in Iowa, the state went from “may” to “shall” in regards to gun permits, and received mixed reviews from the state’s various county sheriffs, who actually issue the permits.
I can understand how a “may issue” clause could give law enforcement officials a more flexible failsafe in keeping guns out of the wrong people’s hands. A person could have a clean legal background, but what if he or she is going through some emotional trauma, or are too closely associated with a criminal?
However, I can just as easily understand how a “may issue” system could be abused. A person may not look right [cough] to a law enforcer and be denied something another equally qualified applicant would receive.
It’s a hard decision. I don’t envy the lawmakers who have to make it.
Comment by Andy M. Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 10:19 am
BigDoggie- That’s why gay marriage is heating up. Then we will be back to casinos again. Anything to avoid talking about the budget issues…
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 10:30 am
Andy, I think in the Illinois context, may-issue would be the out for the Cook County sheriff not to issue conceal-carry permits to Cook County residents.
If that happens, the question becomes would permit-holders from other counties be able to carry in Cook?
The 2nd Amendment was pretty sleepy as far as the courts go for most of the country’s history. It’s all just getting started now with Heller and McDonald.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 10:36 am
Hmmm seems my comments arent submitting. Why is that?
Comment by USMC Janitor Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 10:40 am
Not only is May issue a way for Cook County to not issue permits it is also abused. Those that pass all other requirements may NOT be issued a permit, but friends of the sheriff and donors to his campaign MAY be issued permits.
Think that wont happen in Illinois? why should the single mother with a crazy EX be denied a permit but some political hack get one? that is the problem with MAY issue.
Comment by USMC Janitor Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 10:46 am
So basically amendment 27 is Rep. Phelps bill, currently this is the last amendment and if it passes replaces almost everything in HB1155 with his language. Is this correct?
Comment by Farker Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 10:51 am
Andy,
You’ve kind of hit the nail on the head. With the May issue what if you slept with the Sheriffs wife back in high school for example that is kind of the problem with local discretion. If as some states have done and Phelps bill requires is a local LE blocks the permit they have to inform you of why and you have recourse to appeal. That isn’t the approach the Amendments are pushing their standard is may issue if you have a need. their definition of need requires you to have a need in excess of the general population’s need for protection. That is where the rubber meets the road. Also pretty sure demanding a need to approve what is a right would probably be struck down by Possner.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 10:51 am
Given the 7th says there is a carry right, and the 10th just said concealed carry is not a right, has anyone put up a straight open carry amendment here in IL?
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 11:02 am
===“If you allow a bunch of votes, then people can be on specific roll calls for specific provisions and he can give them some cover” from outraged voters.===
I think the reverse is also part of the point with this exercise. Imagine the direct mail that can be used against someone who voted to allow guns in day care centers, or churches, or someone who voted against requiring a psychological evaluation as a condition for CC.
The amendments are going to be a minefield for those who support Phelps’ bill. They almost certainly have to vote against most of the amendments and they’ll be bludgeoned with those votes come election time.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 11:05 am
@ 47th
This is what I wrote @10:51
“So basically amendment 27 is Rep. Phelps bill, currently this is the last amendment and if it passes replaces almost everything in HB1155 with his language. Is this correct?”
Do you know if this is true? And if it is wouldn’t it mean that they could vote for the earlier amendments if Phelps is the last one and replaces all others? Assuming Rep. Phelps has his votes lined up.
Comment by Farker Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 11:14 am
RNUG
Phelp’s bill contains provisions for both but besides that there is no other amendment dealing with that. Note the 10th has no bearing on IL at present only the 7th does.
47th
I think you hit the nail on the head this may be a way to peal off some of the support for Phelps Bill from “moderates.” To me where i live most politicians would benefit from voting no on the psych etc and even some of the others due to poor wording on the part of those who submitted them i.e. adjacent lots and sidewalks. (the wording bans CCw on private property if it is adjacent to a school or daycare) Seems to me at best this stiffens both sides and makes a compromise less likely.
Farker
I would bet Phelps has a majority for his he had a majority two years ago for basically the same thing just not enough to override home rule. The question is does he have a huge majority.
BTW who assigns the number to the amendment i.e. 1 through 27? is it the order received?
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 11:24 am
I think RNUG hit on an issue that’s not getting enough political attention. The ruling in the 10th Circuit (that the 2nd Amendment confers no right to conceal carry) is directly contradictory to the ruling in our 7th Circuit. This virtually guarantees that the Supreme Court will end up deciding the issue.
So far, the momentum to pass a conceal carry law is based on the situation that would happen on June 8 if no law is passed: full conceal carry with no permits. But if the Supreme Court decides to take this case, probably the first thing it will do is put a stay on the decision of the 7th, which will leave intact a complete concealed carry ban.
This would completely change the short-term power dynamic. If the pro-gun forces want concealed carry in Illinois now, they would be wise to consider more compromises. Otherwise, they have to take their chances in the Supreme Court. And it won’t necessarily be today’s Supreme Court if there is another vacancy in the next year.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 11:31 am
Mason born,
Thanks. That was all I could find either.
As far as peeling off support, I wonder how many “present” votes we’ll see today?
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 11:35 am
–As far as peeling off support, I wonder how many “present” votes we’ll see today?–
In the GA, a “present” vote is the same as a “no” vote.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 11:37 am
Other
You have a point however the NRA is Drooling over Madigan Appealing precisely for the reason you mention. They want to get this to Supremes and they want to do it while the same judges form Heller and Mcdonald are still there. Also this is the case they want to argue not the 10th’s. IL with it’s total ban on anything, unless you are on your own property or hunting, is ideal for them to argue. The 10th’s is more abstract in that open Carry is allowed but CCW required for concealed. The problem in the 10th was with a home rule city Denver saying no open carry. that is quite a bit different than the IL Case.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 11:38 am
Perhaps this is a test drive. If this process of building a bill via amendments works, maybe the speaker will roll it out for other issues. I just hope it does not push out the agreed bill process, which has served the state well on quite e few issues.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 11:43 am
the Other Anonymous @ 11:31 am
I’m not sure it is totally contradictory.
In my take on the 7th ruling, they tossed out the IL ban because it did not allow either open or concealed. The 7th is saying there is a carry right and, because of the way the case was brought, the focus has been on concealed.
It appears the 10th is implying the open carry allowed in Colorado is broad enough that concealed is not needed there.
Eventually it will all get sorted out …
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 11:47 am
Word,
“Present” is no in terms of passing a bill.
But in terms of politics back home … it wasn’t a “no” vote.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 11:55 am
===Perhaps this is a test drive.===
Historically it’s been the job of leadership to protect their members from tough votes, not to encourage it. This is a departure from that long standing practice. I think it’s designed to get it all out there at once and force votes.
I suspect Phelps’ amendment would have the most votes, but not enough to preempt home rule. This exercise will tell him what sorts of changes he’ll need to get over the home rule hurdle.
I doubt anything passes today. But there will be a lot of angry legislators tonight, on all sides of this issue. Most likely this series of roll calls should set the table for further negotiations that will ultimately result in a CC law before the court’s deadline.
We’re making some sausage today campers and it ain’t going to be a pretty process.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 12:00 pm
@the Other Anonymous - the 10th and the 7th decisions are not directly conflicting. The 10th says you don’t have an absolute right to have concealed carry and the 7th says you can’t ban both open and concealed carry.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 12:01 pm
===In the GA, a “present” vote is the same as a “no” vote.===
Not on amendments. Plurality required to pass.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 12:05 pm
47th
I think you have the best read on it. However i am wondering why MJM is willing to Pee-off so many of his caucus over something that could have been negotiations. I mean even the all powerful Madigan will need them for some of the upcoming fights.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 12:36 pm
–Not on amendments. Plurality required to pass.–
Mea culpa. Sorry to put out incorrect information, folks.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 12:37 pm
===why MJM is willing to Pee-off so many of his caucus over something that could have been negotiations===
Because the clock is ticking and he doesn’t want this distracting everyone at the end of May. Better to get it out in the open now, which will force meaningful negotations and speed up the process.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 12:40 pm
47th
I get that but i guess what surprises me is we have many tough fights ahead. The dem supermajority is kind of loosely held with a lot of regional issues such as CCW. Seems prudent that if you really have no choice but to pass something why anger a significant part of your coalitiion? I agree they would like to get this behind them as quick as possible.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 1:15 pm
Brandons bill has a supermajority if it hits the floor clean.
My guess isnthe anti-gun chicago crew are trying to get a regulatory ban amd force it back into the courts and keep litigating it.
Madigan my guess is wants the roll calls to play with suburban repubs
Thenschool amendment and others is very broad and at the end of the day render the carry provisions meaningless
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 3:18 pm
The 1000 foot distances around schools, day care centers, etc. will serve to make many small towns “no carry zones.” Adding the “adjacent property including parking lots” will make it illegal to carry your pistol from home as you will be prohibited from leaving it your car to enter the facility.
Toss this puppy. If Madigan insists on this language, stall until mid-June…
Comment by Jeeper Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 3:49 pm
–My guess isnthe anti-gun chicago crew are trying to get a regulatory ban amd force it back into the courts and keep litigtating it.–
Who started the litigation? I think their names were Heller and McDonald.
And it’s going to keep on going. Anti-abortion folks never stopped after Roe vs. Wade.
You choose that route, you’re in for the ride.
I suspect that a home-rule bill could have passed long ago.
How about now? Do the 98 County Romantics want conceal-carry at home, or are they desperate for it in Chicago?
As far as Brandon goes, Madigan has been carrying the Singing Phelps Crew for a couple of generations now, starting with David back in the 80s.
He’ll take what he can get, and do what he is told.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 3:59 pm
Todd
What is chance on Madigans shell bill can you muster 50% to kill it?
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 4:22 pm
Jeeper,
If the adjacent property is privately owned, I wonder if a ban might be cause for an action under the “takings” clause? Would the GA be so eager to extend those boundaries if they had to actually pay for the right to do so?
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 4:23 pm
Does Todd really need to kill it or just have his #27 replace all of it?
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 4:30 pm
RNUG
Good question and i wish i knew the answer. If Todd is right sounds like the 27th Amendment will pass. Seems like Madigan is trying to make Political hay.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 4:36 pm
If its bad enough we’ll move to kill it..
Word — you’re right we went to court. Not the chitown crew wants to try a regulatory ban. We’ll litigate if need be, or go to foid card carry in june.
Deal with it.
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 4:51 pm
===or go to foid card carry in june.===
Todd, with respect, your roll call will start to disintegrate the closer we get to June. Madigan needs 60 votes to ensure we never see the doomsday scenario of FOID card carry in Illinois. If push comes to shove, he’ll have his 60 votes.
You know it. I know it. Everyone on your roll call list knows it.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 4:59 pm
They’ll get something done. Not a single Chicago pol wants the whole state to go Constitutional carry.
I don’t get the mindset and unwillingness to think about the logic of the no guns near schools/daycare centers. Why do libs continue to maintain these ideas and continue to maintain kill zones. That is what Gun Free Zones really are. Carte blanch for a gun toting madman.
I’m a teacher and I don’t feel safe in my own school. I do at home because I always have a loaded gun within arms reach.
Comment by downstater Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 5:08 pm
47 - i doubt it.
I’m here in the room where the guys are saying if its bad enough we will kill the bill
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 5:19 pm
–Word — you’re right we went to court. Not the chitown crew wants to try a regulatory ban. We’ll litigate if need be, or go to foid card carry in june.
Deal with it.–
You and I, like every other citizen, will deal with it. No problem here.
Once you choose the courts, though, you’ll be dealing with it the courts for a long time.
Seriously, in the end, do you think cities like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago are going to be dictated to by the standards established in the state legislatures of Alabama and Arkansas?
Not going to happen.
Deal with it.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 5:35 pm
==Why do libs continue to maintain these ideas and continue to maintain kill zones. That is what Gun Free Zones really are. Carte blanch for a gun toting madman.–
Yeah, like that parking lot in Tuscon, where the Congresswoman, the federal judge and the baby girl were murdered, and many more was shot.
That madman plotted it out real well. Arizona has very strict gun laws.
I also remember the madman who knew that Reagan would have no armed protection around him when he started blasting. Brady and McCarthy might disagree, but those madmen are smart.
Columbine, armed guards. VA Tech and NIU police forces….
Do you “gun-free zone” dystopians get Green Stamps for ignoring every fact and all logic?
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 5:52 pm
== Adding the “adjacent property including parking lots” will make it illegal to carry your pistol from home as you will be prohibited from leaving it your car to enter the facility.==
Amendment 18 allows firearms to be stored in cars: “Nothing in this Act shall affect or prohibit the possession, carrying, or transportation of a handgun or other firearm which is possessed within a vehicle, carried within a vehicle, or transported within a vehicle and the handgun or other firearm:”
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 5:58 pm
So if you live by a school you forfeit your rights?
Comment by Rebel13 Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 6:20 pm
- I do at home because I always have a loaded gun within arms reach. -
It must be tough to be so afraid all the time. In my 27 years downstate I only had a loaded gun within arms reach when I was hunting, never felt compelled to load it any other time.
Now that I live in Chicago I’m never within arm’s reach of a gun unless I’m behind a cop on an escalator. I feel just fine up here, too.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 6:31 pm
Todd, are there 60 Reps in that room and are they all prepared to follow you off the cliff to FOID only carry?
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 6:40 pm
Rep. Dunkin’s Amendment withdrawn…oops…
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 7:42 pm
wordslinger-Newtown, Co Movie Theater, Oregon Mall shooter. I only had to go back less than a year to get examples. You have to draw on 30 years to find examples.
How many of those kids or movie theater patrons would still be alive if the shooters had met armed resistance sooner? Answer-we’ll never know because they are Gun Free Zones.
Small Town Lib-I’m not afraid at home. I am prepared to meet an intruder with a armed response to protect myself and my family. You stand ready to dial 911 and pray that a cop with a gun will get there before you or your family breath their last breath.
Comment by downstater Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 7:46 pm
- You stand ready to dial 911 and pray that a cop with a gun will get there before you or your family breath their last breath. -
Nah, I just kind of go about my day and don’t worry about extremely rare hypothetical situations.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 7:48 pm
To each their own. I hope you’re never in a situation where you wish you had a firearm.
Comment by downstater Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 7:52 pm
==How many of those kids or movie theater patrons would still be alive if the shooters had met armed resistance sooner?==
Or, how many more would have died? As I wrote in another thread: Let’s assume that someone opens fire on the crowd. What happens next?
Those with concealed weapons draw them and look around for the shooter. What do they see? Several other people with drawn guns. Who do they shoot? How do they know which gun holders are the good guys and which are the bad guys?
In a dark theater this could be even worse than what happened. As each concealed-carry “good guy” opens fire on whoever they think the shooter is, the “good guy” now appears to be a shooter to other “good guys” with guns.
Cases with large crowds are terrible examples for the pro-concealed carry folks to be using.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 7:57 pm
I would think that in a mass shooting in a very public place the shooter is going to be the center of attention and the focus is going to be very focused.
You seem to be of the thought that CC people are going to start drawing guns and shooting at every person with a gun. The focus will be on the original shooter but I do see the potential for colateral damage.
Look at the Clackamas Mall shooting. Shooter retreated and committed suicide when confronted by a CC holder. CC holder never fired because he couldn’t get a clear shot. Who knows how many that guy could have killed if he had met armed resistance.
Comment by downstater Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 8:06 pm
==You seem to be of the thought that CC people are going to start drawing guns and shooting at every person with a gun.==
That is the assertion of the CC proponents and the assertion you made in the comment I was quoting. The CO movie theater is a very good example. A dark theater & many people, how would anyone know who the shooter was? When the shooting begins, some folks will see the shooter immediately, but others will look up when they hear gunfire. They are likely to see several people with guns drawn. How will they ID the “bad guy?” Law enforcement officers spend years training and practicing for that moment. To assert that CC will address this issue is a stretch.
I am not opposed to CC. However, I think that when the proponents overreach, they do not help the cause.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 8:17 pm
Anonymous 8:17 was me.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 8:22 pm
So the CO shooting might have lead to a different set of casualties had their been armed resistance their. Fact of the matter is that the shooter passed up theaters closer to his home that were showing the Batman movie in favor of a GFZ theater. So by going there and being law abiding citizens, the victims in that theater became sitting ducks.
What about the Newtown shootings? Obvious who the shooter was going to be. All of the people in the building were either teachers or students. By all accounts, when the sirens were heard coming towards the school the coward shooter decided to take his own life rather than shoot it out with the police. What would have happened if the first person he encountered was the principal that charged him but instead of coming at him unarmed she drew a firearm? Does he shoot it out with her or turn the gun on himself? If the latter, we have 26 people saved by a CC holder. If the former, maybe the principal wins and we have the same 26 saved lives. Even if he wins we have potentially the same number of victims. We’ll never know what could have been. All we know is that we definately had 26 funerals to mourn over.
Comment by downstater Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 8:45 pm
A lot of assumptions there. Maybe, maybe, maybe. In the same right, what if law-abiding citizens were not allowed to own assault-style weapons with high capacity magazines? In that situation, the shooter would not have been able to obtain his primary weapon.
I have yet to see a study that shows that concealed carry reduces or increases crime. I get that there are folks who want to carry concealed weapons in order to feel safer, and I have no doubt they will, indeed, feel safer. However, that’s all that we know for certain that CC does. It makes some people feel safer.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 9:22 pm
== I suspect that a home-rule bill could have passed long ago. ==
I think you said this in another thread a few days ago.
These are the Mayors of Chicago starting in 1955: Richard J Daley, Michael Bilandic, Jane Byrne (instituted the “Byrne Ban” in 1983), Harold Washington, David Orr, Eugene Sawyer, Richard M Daley and Rahm Emmanuel.
Which of them do think would have entered this debate WITHOUT a ruling from 7CA?
Comment by Jeeper Tuesday, Feb 26, 13 @ 11:36 pm
Pot calling kettle - Speaking of assumptions, you assume, incorrectly I think, that Lanza would not have been able to acquire or deploy the same amount of lethal force if “assault” weapons or “high capacity magazines” were simply not available. The AR-15 is just an ordinary semi-auto. It fires one round at a time. It “looks cool,” but it is not interchangeable with high end military hardware. I am told it is popular with ex-military because it “feels” like an M16.
So, just like the ‘94 “assault weapons” ban, no one really is making sense out of what “assault” means. A Barney-Fife revolver, with just one bullet, can be used to “assault” someone.
But if you counter, what about the “high capacity magazine,” we have another vagueness problem. What determines “High, medium, low capacity?” What’s the reference point? Archaic weapons of the old west, a six-shooter perhaps? True machine guns that can take in hundreds of rounds at a time? Or if somewhere in the middle, then where?
Or if you measure “high capacity” against a purpose, then to what purposes are you limited by the Second Amendment? Self-defense only, where you get your one Barney Fife bullet and the bad guys come with as much they can carry, legal or not? Perhaps Cuomo’s deer hunting scenario, in which you get a limit of ten rounds or the deer goes free? Or what about the Battle of Athens scenario (Athens, Tennessee, 1946), where your government is brutalizing your people, beating them, imprisoning them, stealing their money, stealing their ballot boxes? How many rounds, what kinds of weapons would be most useful for that scenario?
As for “feeling safer,” isn’t that the real reason gun banners want to ban guns? They want to feel safer, they have an inherent distrust of their fellow citizens (even the good ones), they are modern and sophisticated and beyond the brutish, confrontational behavior of the riffraff and so are not comfortable with anything as loud and dangerous and scary as a gun. Besides, it’s just easier to reach “peace in our time” if we make all those bad people give up their guns. So please do not lecture us about “feelings, nothing more than feelings, “ yada yada yada… You feel safer trusting the government. We feel safer trusting ourselves.
Bottom line, the Second Amendment is in the Constitution because the Founders believed they could trust each other, and to trust us their posterity, to be civilized and use lethal force only as a last resort, to preserve life, and to defend freedom. If we relapse into the serfdom of trusting the government more than we trust each other, we signal the failure of the great American experiment in freedom. Our freedom is a double-edged sword. It has given us great successes as a nation, and unparalleled personal liberty as individuals. But it is not a system that can work for a nation of children, ever looking to their leaders as substitute parents. No, it was designed for strong people, strong, well-informed individuals, willing to take on the adult responsibility that goes with being genuinely free. That includes the responsibility to do your fair share to protect and preserve your own life, the lives of your family, the lives and property of your neighbors and fellow countrymen. That’s all we want, the freedom to do what we are supposed to do.
Comment by Springfield Reformer Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 12:56 am