Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: State budget problems hurting university credit ratings
Next Post: Cullerton vindicated by court ruling
Posted in:
* The House rejected several gun control measures yesterday. The Sun-Times has a pretty comprehensive story up about yesterday’s debate. The failed proposals would…
(R)equire gun-owners to report private transfers of firearms to state police within 10 days; train and be certified separately for each weapon a gun owner wishes to carry; carry only one firearm per license; purchase a $1 million liability insurance policy; and give the Legislature until Jan. 1, 2016 before any legislation can take effect.
* One of the other two amendments which passed yesterday is already in an NRA-backed bill…
The first piece of legislation, sponsored by Rep. Ann Williams (D-Chicago), passed by a 67-44 margin and would ban gun owners from “knowingly” bringing firearms into bars or restaurants that serve alcohol. The restriction would not apply to street fairs and vendors, Williams said.
The second was opposed by the NRA, but backed by several of its supporters…
And the second adopted measure, sponsored by Rep. Robert Martwick (D-Norridge), gives police the option to object to a concealed-carry application when the applicant has been arrested five times or three times for gang-related offenses in the last seven years. The legislation passed by an 84-29-1 vote.
Rep. Jack Franks didn’t like that one…
“I could be arrested on the House floor if I start screaming and throw a box of Kleenex,” Rep. Jack Franks (D-Marengo) contended. “I can think of lots of reasons people get arrested but not convicted. So, why are we using an arrest standard and not a conviction?”
The provision was supposedly aimed at gangbangers and others who are habitually arrested, but never actually convicted.
* Other amendments which have passed the House in previous weeks…
require gun owners to register their firearms, report lost or stolen guns to state police within 72 hours and lock up their guns if living with someone who could be mentally ill or have a criminal history.
Take a deep breath before commenting, campers. I had a long conversation with some idiot this morning who sent me an e-mail calling me a “Nazi,” so I’m in no mood for nastiness here. Deletions will be swift.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 9:53 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: State budget problems hurting university credit ratings
Next Post: Cullerton vindicated by court ruling
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
–The first piece of legislation, sponsored by Rep. Ann Williams (D-Chicago), passed by a 67-44 margin and would ban gun owners from “knowingly” bringing firearms into bars or restaurants that serve alcohol.–
How would you not “know” you went into a bar with a gun? Make a few stops along the way?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 9:57 am
I guess I’m a bit confused by the opposition to the arrest provision. If you’ve been arrested 5 times the chances are pretty good that you are probably not a good person. Rep. Franks argument is kind of silly in that regard.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 9:57 am
I’m always amazed by the insurance proposals. A Chicago alderman keeps doing the same thing.
Right now, there are no insurance policies available that would make a difference.
If you have an accidental discharge of a weapon, you are likely covered under your homeowners, which most people already have.
If your gun is stolen and used in a crime, or if you use it in a crime, there will be no coverage.
The insurance requirement adds nothing. But yet our State Reps keep pushing it.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 9:59 am
wordslinger, that’s standard legal language.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 9:59 am
Thanks.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:02 am
skeeter: i agree with you on the insurance. however, there are many non homeowners. they rent and many do not carry renters insurance so they would not be covered in any manner in the event of accidental discharge. yet these persons should and will be able to obtain ccw.
Comment by wizard Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:03 am
Demoralized,
The objection is that it gives the police way too much power.
Don’t like somebody? Arrest him. And do it again. And again. No conviction necessary.
Banning permits for convicts is one thing. Arrests are another.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:03 am
Franks is right on target. “Arrest” standard contrary to Constitution and Common Sense.
Comment by x ace Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:03 am
Word, another question along the same lines would be how would you know whether or not a restaurant served alcohol? Not opposed to the rational but looks like an escape valve by claiming, I didn’t know they served alcohol. The old what did you know and when did you know it.
Comment by Nuance Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:09 am
Do people really think that a gang-banger is going to a) get a concealed carry permit; b) worry that after the 5th arrest that if they did get a concealed carry permit that it would be taken away?
Comment by East Central Illinois Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:11 am
I agree that the arrest standard is extreme. Arrests are not convictions.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:11 am
eci: LOL
Comment by wizard Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:12 am
==the option to object to==
I don’t like it, but if there is an option to appeal it is ok. I also think about domestic issues where someone is arrested but never prosecuted. I don’t want that guy to have a gun. As long as the objection is appealable and due process afforded, it is not a ban.
Insurance is useless and probably not legal. How can they require a million dollar policy for guns and only $20,000 to drive a car when you are much more likely to be injured by someone negligent in a car accident. The reality is people who can’t afford it just ignore it anyway, just like car insurance.
Comment by the Patriot Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:13 am
@Skeeter:
That’s ridiculous. If you know that is going on right now I’d like to hear about it.
@Word:
Arrested FIVE TIMES. I don’t find that extreme. I find it extreme that people would object to it.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:21 am
What if you don’t drink alcohol? If anything, this should be decided on a site by site basis by the business owner using a sign at the front door.
Comment by Fan Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:21 am
As one of the few people who doesn’t really care either way on this issue I have to say I’ve been pretty disappointed in the fact that a lot of the issues surrounding these school shootings-mental health of young kids, how parents/teachers/fellow students should respond or deal with them, ect have been buried in this debate so that partisans could attack each other on the gun issues. To a lot of us, including your kids this is about safety and I think a lot of partisans should really be upset they have missed the point here so that they could instead trash each other.
Comment by shore Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:23 am
–Arrested FIVE TIMES. I don’t find that extreme. I find it extreme that people would object to it.–
Innocent until proven guilty, dude.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:23 am
Demoralized,
An arrest is not a conviction.
The standards are very different.
An arrest ultimately means nothing.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:24 am
@Word and Skeeter:
I would refer you to @the Patriot’s comment. I think he makes a very good point. I’m sorry but if you are arrested 5 times you’ve got a problem and I don’t want you having a gun on you. You are clearly prone to doing things wrong.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:26 am
Demoralized,
You may want to look at the United States Constitution. It provides some detail on these issues.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:30 am
I like Jack Franks’ idea of arresting Jack Franks for his antics on the House floor. Please contact your legislators and encourage them to support this worthwhile suggestion.
Comment by The Captain Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:30 am
@ Demoralized
That is my point exactly. Whether the person is arrested 3 times, 5 times, 25 times, do you think this concealed carry law is going to impact them and make them think twice before carrying a gun - - with or without a permit??
Comment by East Central Illinois Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:33 am
Demo, you’re willing to give the police way too much power. The burden is on the state to prove charges in court, an individual has a right to put on a defense and a judge/jury decides.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:33 am
As a “gun guy” I am on the fence about a couple of these.
I agree arrests are not a conviction, therefore someone arrested for protest, or arrested for having a firearm in their trunk in the city of chicago then released and charges dropped, or… well you get the picture. I agree that we dont want thugs and those with records getting permits. But the concept here is innocent until proven guilty. An arrest is not guilty. So its hard for me to get behind even if it sounds look a good idea to keep bangers or others with bad intentions from getting guns. I mean I would like to say that if you had 5 arrests in the past 5 years police can search you at any time because you are probably doing bad things… but I know that not right to do either.
On the bar thing, the trick is defining bar. I go into an AppleBees or Joe’s Grill in some small town to get a burger and an ice tea, the law will define a bar by getting a certain % of revenue from alcohol. In some cases its obvious. In other’s (the little grill by the golf course I hit sometimes) not so much.
I would rather it be about intoxication. I mean I can go to a bar from 8pm until 2am and drive home tonight without issue. As long as I am the designated driver and dont drink or am under the legal limit and not impared.
The insurance thing is simply silly. 1 Million buck insruance policy against what? What insurance company is going to cover you for illegal acts? which is what we are really trying to stop. Negligent discharge (not accidental) is a small small % of what we are trying to “fix” here and the insurance policy is just yet another cost to add to gun owners. Fine for people like me that could pay if we can get it. but 1500-2000 dollars a year to the single mom scraping by? nah, lets price her out of it!
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:34 am
===give the police way too much power===
They only have the option to object. I’m not sure that’s too far out of line, considering that some folks want to give them outright veto power for any reason whatsoever.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:34 am
@Skeeter:
I’m familiar with the Constitution. You might want to try reason sometime. If you want people who are chronically arrested to carry a gun that’s fine. We are all entitled to our opinion. I happen to think it’s not a good idea. I could care less if you have been convicted. People don’t get arrested 5 times for no reason. I get tired of people in the gun debate throwing reason out the window.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:35 am
The 3 arrest or 5 arrest law part is only going to hurt the law abiding citizens only. Period. Those that don’t give a flip about laws will do what they want to do.
Comment by East Central Illinois Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:35 am
===The 3 arrest or 5 arrest law part is only going to hurt the law abiding citizens only. Period. ===
LOL.
Dude, how many times have you been arrested?
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:37 am
@ Rich:
LOL, no arrests for me! OK, OK, I see your point! But the argument I’m trying to make is that this part of their law is “aimed” at the wrong part of the problem. (pun definitely intended there)
Comment by East Central Illinois Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:41 am
Rich,
I have to commend you “Deletions will be swift”
Hilarious!!
Comment by Ah HA Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:41 am
“Those that don’t give a flip about laws will do what they want to do.”
Guess that’s why they keep getting arrested.
I’m with the innocent until proven guilty thing.
Arrests alone shouldn’t count.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:46 am
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 9:57 am:
I guess I’m a bit confused by the opposition to the arrest provision. If you’ve been arrested 5 times the chances are pretty good that you are probably not a good person. Rep. Franks argument is kind of silly in that regard.
Guys as a former union organizer, i got arrested several times on BS charges. Tresspassing on a public road for one. They charges were always dissmissed, but notnbefore i was taken away in handcuffs and processed. Sometimes you end up with anti-union companies who have an in with the local cops.
I was even threatened with arrest in chicago for putting up scabby our inflatable rat. Even after we won a federal court ruling saying we could.
The gang stuff with those specific charges, is one thing, the general idea that you are now guilty until proven innocent is just a bad idea and wont fly.
The williams amendment wont make the final cut. We agreed to no guns in bars. However, we wont agree to any resteruant that serves alcohol. Some reteruants dont mind, others do. That is why they can post And make their own decisions . Kinda funny how some people rant and rave for local control, but when we give local establishments the ability to make up their own mind, thenanti-gunners want a statewide ban.
Go figure.
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:47 am
“Those that don’t give a flip about laws will do what they want to do.”
Guess that’s why they keep getting arrested.
I’m with the innocent until proven guilty thing.
Arrests without convictions, pleas of guilty shouldn’t count.
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:49 am
===Some reteruants dont mind, others do. That is why they can post And make their own decisions===
I think this is the best way to address the issue, allow private property owners to decide for themselves whether or not to allow CCW on their premises. If they post a no-carry sign, the firearm gets locked in the car. Simple as that.
Also, I love Scabby the inflatable rat. I smile every time I see it.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:53 am
Sorry, I meant “unless pleas of guilty”.
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:54 am
@Todd:
Fair enough. Spell out arrests for certain things. Felonies. Higher classes of misdemeanors. You can reference certain sections of the criminal code to limit it.
I happen to think most of these amendments are silly. This particular one, though, I don’t find unreasonable, but I understand your concern. But, as I said, there has got to be a way to make it palatable.
And that whole rat thing is just funny. Clearly the inflatable rat was a scourge that had to be dealt with swiftly.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:56 am
>>>>>> How would you not “know” you went into a bar with a gun?
I think that Sen. Trotter could tell us?
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 11:01 am
@Demoralized — Essentially you are arguing that we don’t need the courts — that the police can also be the Judge and jury. Why stop at there? How about if you get five driving tickets but aren’t convicted you lose your license? Or if the IRS audits you three times in your life, they no longer have to prove tax fraud and you automatically get jail time? Or if a police officer has more than five citizen complaints against him or her, they automatically get fired?
Comment by Just Observing Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 11:04 am
Demoralized,
You just don’t seem to get how low the standard is for arrest.
As Todd pointed out, anybody who protests for civil rights is going to have arrests on their record. If you see the police acting improperly, guess what is likely to happen? Yes, you will also be locked up. Union organizer? Locked up.
Arrests mean that some PO wants to take you off the street for a bit.
Or the PO wants give you a good scare.
That’s it. Without a conviction, arrests mean nothing at all.
You may live in some world where POs only bring in the really really bad guys. But that’s not real life.
By the way, your “You might want to try reason sometime” almost seems ironic. So far the only “reason” you’ve tossed out can be summed up as “POs only arrest bad people.” And again, that just doesn’t have a basis in fact.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 11:13 am
Arrests for civil disobedience would count. Demonstrators would get to the 5 arrests pretty quickly.
Comment by Robo Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 11:14 am
The insurance thing is equal to a poll tax. Poor people who can’t afford it can’t exercise CCW under such a scheme.
I can afford to pay $100 every four years to vote, but its not right.
Thanks Todd for your work, I take it you are Todd V. from IL-NRA.
Comment by CarrollCounty Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 11:19 am
Honestly after having reviewed the Supreme Court’s new decisions, I’m fuzzy on how you can deny concealed carry permits to -convicts-, much less arrestees.
The Supreme Ct says owning a gun is a fundamental individual right. Well, convicts don’t lose their free speech rights when they’re out of prison and back on the streets; how can they lose their Second Amendment right? It’s a right now, not a privilege - they should be able to go back to packing heat like anyone else.
And yes I’m aware that the Heller decision majority opinion explicitly denied this - it’s just that, as Stevens’ minority dissent pointed out, if you permanently treat convicts like second class citizens where Second Amendment rights are concerned, Justice Scalia’s opinion does not make much logical sense. Not that Scalia generally lets logic get in his way these days …
Comment by ZC Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 11:22 am
@Skeeter:
I conceded Todd’s point which is why I responded that you limit it to felonies or other higher level misdemeanors. You reference the criminal code to sort that out like they did for the gang part of the amendment. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this point.
@ZC:
The Courts have NEVER ruled that there can be absolutely no restrictions. Under your logic the mentally ill should be allowed to have guns. The 2nd Amendment, like any other Amendment, has never been given the status of no restrictions whatsoever. The Supreme Court has said as much in their decisions. Those restrictions should be greatly limited but I don’t consider denying guns to convicts or the mentally ill to be an onerous restriction.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 11:31 am
Ok, aside from Todd the serially arrested, how many others on this board have been arrested and how many times?
I’ll start: Never.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 11:42 am
Domestic issues. A hypothetical, except for the screaming part-My 20-year old wife and I at 22 get in a argument with a lot of screaming and shouting, the neighbors hear it, call it in, the cops show up, and one (or both) are arrested. Kiss and make up, charges dropped and 30 years later, concealed carry becomes legal. Both of us desire concealed carry permits-denied.
Almost as bad- Order or protection against a spouse-actual reason is just to prevent them from coming to the house. As my soon-to-be ex son-in law told us, he would have to turn in a gun if he owned one, even though there has never been any violence acts.
While I understand the fears, a one-size-fits-all prohibition isn’t right…
Comment by downstate commissioner Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 11:46 am
Note here the new judicial logic of the Second Amendment - if you’re a “good person,” the right permanently applies to you, and you can certainly own handguns and maybe other stuff.
If on the other hand in the eyes of society you become a “bad person,” ie a conviction, your Second Amendment rights can be stripped permanently and the Bill of Rights and the Constitution will forever turn a blind eye to you.
I view it as somewhat alarming if we really did interpret the other provisions of the Bill of Rights under this novel scheme law-abiding conservatives and libertarians have cooked up for the Second. I certainly hope this sentiment doesn’t infect the rest of the BoR. The Bill of Rights is supposed to be a shield for everyone, even controversial or unpopular figures or yes even law-breaking ones.
Comment by ZC Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 11:46 am
It’s not the gun, it’s not who has the gun, it’s what is done with the gun. There are laws on the books such as “15-20-Life” that are seldom used by prosecutors and judges. Why not start there and see what happens.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 11:51 am
@Chicago Cynic 11:42…huh? explain the arrest comment for the uninformed, which includes me.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 11:56 am
I’m curious about where a homeless individual might purchase a homeowners policy?
Comment by benji Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 11:57 am
I have a problem about registering guns. The state shouldn’t have the right to know what steps I take for protecting myself. I don’t have to register my newspaper or book, why should I have to register my gun if I have one, which I’m not saying, because no one on this blog has a right to know what steps I may or may not be taking to protect myself.
There’s another issue I have not seen reported. Due to a change in either state or federal law or regulations, police departments in Illinois are no longer able to sell confiscated guns. Instead they are required to keep them forever, which seems to be a bit ridiculous, not to mention an expensive mandate on local governments.
Comment by Downstate Illinois Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 11:58 am
Come on, ZC.
There are all sorts of limits on other constitutional rights. Stop acting like the 2A must be completely free of all restrictions.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 11:58 am
ZC, in several states you lose your right to vote if you are a convicted felon. There is no more basic right in a democracy than that.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 12:00 pm
Started that last post, called away, posted it without checking to see what had happened since, so sorry if it was a little out of sequence. I have never been arrested, but the way it is now, it is more likely than not
….
Comment by downstate commissioner Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 12:01 pm
Amalia,
My post referred to this stuff above:
“And the second adopted measure, sponsored by Rep. Robert Martwick (D-Norridge), gives police the option to object to a concealed-carry application when the applicant has been arrested five times or three times for gang-related offenses in the last seven years. The legislation passed by an 84-29-1 vote.
Rep. Jack Franks didn’t like that one…
“I could be arrested on the House floor if I start screaming and throw a box of Kleenex,” Rep. Jack Franks (D-Marengo) contended. “I can think of lots of reasons people get arrested but not convicted. So, why are we using an arrest standard and not a conviction?”
The provision was supposedly aimed at gangbangers and others who are habitually arrested, but never actually convicted.”
Comment by Chicago Cynic Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 12:04 pm
“And the second adopted measure, sponsored by Rep. Robert Martwick (D-Norridge), gives police the option to object to a concealed-carry application when the applicant has been arrested five times or three times for gang-related offenses in the last seven years.”
The part I think is most important is “the option”. That means to me that even after being arrested multiple times the police might not object to a concealed-carry application and it would be approved. How many people will actually be rejected because of this provision? Could it be that the language is designed to make the number zero or near zero?
Comment by Property owner Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 12:05 pm
All of this wrangling and hand-wringing is utterly meaningless in the end.
The supporters of freedom and liberty have the votes to keep a restrictive, anti-gun bill from the Governor’s desk.
Period.
Meanwhile, as this chicanery continues, the clock continues to run on Madigan, Cullerton and their merry band of gun eschewing allies who would have us all disarmed for easy victimization by criminals and tyrants alike. They have until June 9th to not only create a carry law, but to implement it as part of a court-approved solution that allows the card-carrying good guys in Illinois the choice to carry the means with which to defend themselves.
Madigan should allow a straight up or down vote on a clean HB-997 and let the chips fall where they may.
Or we can continue this farce which is Illinois politics.
Tick tock. Tick tock.
Comment by John Boch Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 12:08 pm
@ZC:
Statutes are ripe with restrictions on Constitutional rights. There are restrictions on one of the most sacred rights in this country - freedom of speech. Also, have you ever heard of the Patriot Act. I can think of a few Amendments that potentially stomps on.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 12:12 pm
Freedom and liberty? Tyrants? Give me a break. At some point there’s always that one person who completely de-legitimizes a legitimate argument with such nonsensical hyperbole.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 12:15 pm
==require gun owners to register their firearms, report lost or stolen guns to state police within 72 hours and lock up their guns if living with someone who could be mentally ill or have a criminal history.==
Really happy to see these. I’d like to see more general secure storage requirements (are people required to lock up their guns if there are minors in the household?), but it’s a start.
Comment by TooManyJens Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 12:17 pm
“The insurance thing is equal to a poll tax. Poor people who can’t afford it can’t exercise CCW under such a scheme.”
If the person who fires the gun cannot is so poor that they cannot buy liability insurance they probably cannot pay for my hospital bill when they shoot me. That would mean that I would need to pay, both in the physical and financial sense, to recover my health because of the actions of someone else. It appears that there has been an unfunded liability created if the gun owner is not insured or lacks the equivelent amount of other assets. The shooter appears to get all of the ‘benefits’ and the person shot gets the costs and all of the other liabilities (such as pain and suffering). It seems like a bad bargin to me.
Comment by Small Town Tax Payer Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 12:18 pm
@ Demoralized:
Denial has no survival value.
Comment by John Boch Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 12:21 pm
===allow a straight up or down vote on a clean HB-997===
I support your right to urge it, but just because you want something done a certain way, doesn’t mean it’s either right or will happen.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 12:22 pm
Rich,
Legally, Constitutionally - no. No fundamental right to vote in the United States for federal offices; never has been. It’s right there in Article I Section 2 of the Constitution. There are certain criteria we’ve now banned discrimination on (race, gender, being 18 years old). But if Springfield tomorrow wanted to ban all voting not just for convicts but for people who don’t own property - under the Constitution, they could. That’s because voting is a privilege, not a right.
This will be my last shot at my point, because I realize this thread is about other things - but suppose you lost your 4th amendment rights , after a conviction? Hey they found you guilty once; you’re probably guilty again, it would speed up things if the police didn’t have to worry about that whole unreasonable searches and seizures thing.
Or how about this: from henceforth, all IL convicts lose their 6th amendment rights to a speedy and public trial ; hey, they’re convicts right, we the people will be safer if we make sure they stay locked up.
Of course that’s all bizarre … But, one conviction, and you -do- forever lose your Second Amendment rights. My point is this was a bad move to bring court reasoning and constitutional logic into this debate in the first place - we should be debating gun control right now based on What Saves Lives, not novel new rules that seem to have been imported solely into Amendment #2. But with that, I’m out -
Comment by ZC Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 12:36 pm
Wow, John Boch, that argument about tyrants and disarming people is pretty extreme and utterly laughable. Who is proposing disarming anybody??? Nobody will answer that question I’ve asked multiple times.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 12:38 pm
===But if Springfield tomorrow wanted to ban all voting not just for convicts but for people who don’t own property - under the Constitution, they could.===
You’re nuts. There’s something called the Illinois Constitution…
Every United States citizen who has attained the age of 18 or any other voting age required by the United States for voting in State elections and who has been a permanent resident of this State for at least 30 days next preceding any election shall have the right to vote at such election.
The General Assembly by law may establish registration requirements and require permanent residence in an election district not to exceed thirty days prior to an election. The General Assembly by law may establish shorter residence
requirements for voting for President and Vice-President of the United States.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 12:47 pm
—Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 12:38 pm:
Wow, John Boch, that argument about tyrants and disarming people is pretty extreme and utterly laughable. Who is proposing disarming anybody??? Nobody will answer that question I’ve asked multiple times.—–
Diane Feinstein and Mayor Bloomberg.
Comment by evil t Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 12:56 pm
=== that argument about tyrants and disarming people is pretty extreme and utterly laughable. Who is proposing disarming anybody??? Nobody will answer that question I’ve asked multiple times. ===
I’ll answer. True, there is no legislation out there for unilateral disarment (sp?)… but there is certainly a chunk of the American public that supports such a measure. I see it all the time in public and social media debates on the issue… anti-gun folks start off the discussion about background checks and magazine sizes and the discussion often ends with pronouncements that nobody in American needs to own a gun and they point to examples of other countries with near outright bans. Moreover, you have municipalities (e.g. Chicago, Oak Park, Morton Grove) that have banned what most people would consider very benign guns, such as a small caliber revolver. Legislators have and are proposing regulations that would make gun ownership so onerous it is comes close to disarming. So, while anti-gun folks stay away from the language of disarming, some of their actions are very telling. And for the record… I do not even own a gun myself.
Comment by Just Observing Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 1:03 pm
If the police object, what then? If the subsequent process turns the police objection into a de facto veto, then it is problematic. If the subsequent process is resonable, with some appropriate due process protection, then perhaps not.
And, so far, I’ve not yet been arrested (not that high school/college didn’t have the occasional incident where it might have been possible)…and trific stuff doesn’t count, right?
Comment by titan Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 1:09 pm
@ Rich (re:ZC) - I think an attempt to restore the “freeholder” requirement for voting would run afoul of the prohibitions on “poll taxes” as a matter of federal law as well.
Comment by titan Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 1:15 pm
As a grown man (56 yrs old) if I want to go to a restaurant with my wife, sit and have dinner, relax and enjoy myself, I should be able to go and do that even if they serve alcohol there. I won’t be drinking when I’m carrying. Period.
How about we make the law that if you are carrying and are stopped for an offense - speeding or some such thing - you may be given a breathalizer. If you have alcohol in your system you lose your right to carry.
I don’t need someone (read that as Governement) being my nanny. And, as far as I’m concerned, if you are drinking and carrying, you should lose the right to carry.
Comment by Hipshot Percussion Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 1:22 pm
Rich,
OK only to establish that I’m not nuts - I encourage you to do the research here about the status of voting as legal privilege , not right, in terms of the US Constitution.
Now I will freely concede the point that -in Illinois-, the state Constitution puts restrictions on the state legislature so in that sense, yes, Springfield could not just impose property requirements tomorrow. That is an important concession I could have been more clear about. But Springfield could move to amend the IL Constitution, and nothing in the -US- Constitution would stand in the way.
Now contrast, if we amended the IL Constitution to ban handguns, it would be struck down in DC - that would bring the Supremes down on Illinois.
So I’m, err, sticking by my guns and my point here- the right to own a handgun is now far more fundamental and protected in the United States than the right to vote is. If that sounds weird, it is, but it’s also true and you’re just wrong on this point Rich. Any legal scholars /Constitution junkies want to chime in here and defend my sanity?
Comment by ZC Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 1:27 pm
@ZC:
You’re still failing to grasp the point there there is no Constitutional right that is free from some restrictions. The 2nd Amendment isn’t some special case and it never will be. The trick is to balance the restrictions against the right. If I’m failing to get your point then I apologize but I don’t think I am.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 1:42 pm
“Any legal scholars /Constitution junkies want to chime in here and defend my sanity?”
No, because you are simply wrong.
The Court has talked about a few things as “fundamental rights.” For all of them, the Court has allowed some restrictions.
Speech, voting, travel — all fundamental rights. And all restricted to some extent.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 1:46 pm
Hipshot, maybe you don’t need the government to tell you how to be an adult. I’m sure lots and lots of responsible adult gun owners need to have a law in place that keeps them from drinking and carrying. It’s kind of like driving and texting–everyone I know who does it swears they can handle it, even if other people can’t.
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 1:47 pm
Evil T,
Neither Bloomberg nor Feinstein have proposed DISARMING people. Disarming involves going to peoples homes and taking away their guns. NOBODY HAS SAID THIS. Take off the tin foil hat. The black helicopters are not coming to your house to take away your gun.
And Just Observing, there is a portion of the American populace that believes just about anything including that we have an unfettered right to own any weapon of any kind. That doesn’t make it so and it doesn’t mean anyone is proposing any legislation of any kind to make it so.
Geez people, stop believing propaganda designed to scare. Nobody is coming to get your guns.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 3:17 pm
I agree that convictions are much different than arrests and that people are innocent until proven guilty, but if you’re arrested 5 times in 7 years you got problems… lots of problems and you defiantly should not be carrying around a gun, I think they could have lowered the arrest number to 2 or 3 or 1 conviction.
Comment by Ahoy! Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 3:34 pm
CC– the mag ban last week was a confiscation bill. They became contrband per se. Get rid of them, move them or face felony charges.
Maybe last session or the one before Acevedo had HB2414 which required the same of the firearms it banned. Including my remington turkey gun.
It gets tried from time to time. And we just had our favorite comunists Shakowski taking again about banning handguns.
Least we forget new yorks latest move. And i know people whomare moving guns outnof maryland.
Tamato — tamoto
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 4:24 pm
>>>> Disarming involves going to peoples homes and taking away their guns.
Katrina.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 4:26 pm
>>>>>>Neither Bloomberg nor Feinstein have proposed DISARMING people. Disarming involves going to peoples homes and taking away their guns
Discussing why the 1994 act only prohibited the manufacture or import of assault weapons, instead of the possession and sale of them, Feinstein said on CBS-TV’s 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”[26]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dianne_Feinstein
In July 2006, Feinstein voted against the Vitter Amendment to prohibit Federal funds being used for the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms during a disaster.[27] [28]
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 4:28 pm
Todd, so confiscating large mags is the same as confiscating all guns?
And JJJS, why do you bother? The quotes were clearly taken out of context. Yes, she wants to ban assault weapons. Nobody denies that. But ban all guns? Neither she nor anybody else wants to do that, and your quotes don’t prove it.
We saw the results of the ILNRA poll yesterday. Comments like those just play to the paranoids.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 4:35 pm
ZC, you might want to read Heller:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946&hl=en&as_sdt=2,14
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 4:49 pm
Skeeter, so it is alright to confiscate anything? Sorry, I don’t buy that, including the confiscation of vehicles involved with drugs… It may be legal and being used to help small-town police forces, but it still isn’t right. it’s just ….. “un-American”… (okay, you can have fun with that.)
Comment by downstate commissioner Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 4:50 pm
Skeeter
So are you honestly arguing that if you can have a single shot rifle then you can ban everything else? Wouldn’t that be the same as saying you have freedom of speech as long as you can print a newspaper? What other right is layed out like that.
I believe the standard in Heller was weapons in common use at the time. Well that includes AR-15’s, and the 30 rnd mags that come standard with them. DI FI quote wasn’t out of context she clearly states if she had had the political capital she would have confiscated them.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 4:52 pm
“So are you honestly arguing that if you can have a single shot rifle then you can ban everything else?”
That’s an odd conclusion.
Is somebody advocating banning everything other than that weapon?
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 4:58 pm
“Skeeter, so it is alright to confiscate anything”
Downstate, discussion works much better if you respond to what I actually wrote.
You gun owners claim to be calm and rational. Time to start acting like it.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 4:59 pm
Skeeter - Slept in this morning ? I picked up my M1 Garand and 500 rounds of 30-06 cartridges, just got back. She is a beauty = precision American craftsmanship.
Comment by A Citizen Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 5:06 pm
Awesome A!
Since no human will touch you, I guess you have to rub some piece of metal. Do you squeeze it really really tight? Do you really like doing that?
Whatever gets you through the night, my friend!
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 5:09 pm
Actually A, what I love about people like you is that you have such thin skin that you ignore all my posts ripping gun control and then whine like a baby when you see a few that go the other way.
That ILNRA poll was right on point. Whining and paranoid is no way to go through life, son.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 5:12 pm
Skeeter -”Whining and paranoid is no way to go through life, son. ” Physician, Heal thyself!
Comment by A Citizen Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 5:17 pm
Skeeter, the ban on “large” magazines that was debated last week would effectively ban a lot of very common handguns that are constructed to accept a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. This is the reason New York is rolling back their magazine ban before it even takes effect. From the AP:
“‘There is no such thing as a seven-bullet magazine. That doesn’t exist, so you really have no practical option,’ (New York Governor) Cuomo said. He told reporters that any suggestion this will be a rollback of the law is ‘wholly without basis.’
Cuomo said the state needs to allow the sale of handguns and rifles with 10-shot magazines, but New Yorkers will still be required to keep no more than seven bullets in them, except at shooting ranges and competitions. Violating the seven-bullet limit is a misdemeanor, but a violation if the magazine was in the owner’s home.”
Comment by charles in charge Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 5:24 pm
just wondering…meanwhile, in New York, and Colorado, significant gun measures are passing. the AG of NY is on MSNBC right now talking about cooperation with gun dealers. so, are things being handled in Illinois by the political powers that be to get a good result for sensible gun regulations? or are the powers that be just creating roll call votes against which they will run in 2014?
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 5:24 pm
Amalia, Colorado is the baseline for the future, outside of the Deep South, on guns.
It will happen in a hurry.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 5:35 pm
Word– colorado is not the new baseline. It will not sweep the nation, nor will it pass congress.
amilia –you got it right its a game for the 2014 election. Just hit pieces to be taken out of context. And to keep the shrooms busy.
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 6:02 pm
=== And Just Observing, there is a portion of the American populace that believes just about anything including that we have an unfettered right to own any weapon of any kind. That doesn’t make it so and it doesn’t mean anyone is proposing any legislation of any kind to make it so.
Geez people, stop believing propaganda designed to scare. Nobody is coming to get your guns. ===
I believe it is a pretty good chunk of Americana (maybe 1/4) that would like to confiscate and ban weapons. Still…. it’s hard to claim that legislators don’t want to ban guns when Morton Grove, Chicago, Oak Park, and others banned handgun ownership — I mean, it doesn’t get much closer to a gun ban than that. So, it’s silly to make it sound like it would be absurd to think that there are policy makers and citizens that want and have attempted to ban/confiscate guns.
Comment by Just Observing Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 6:06 pm
>>>>>> Colorado is the baseline for the future, outside of the Deep South, on guns.
Colorado and like ilk are the fodder for federal cases on the 2nd amendment building on DC v Heller and US v Miller (1939).
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 6:33 pm
–colorado is not the new baseline.–
With all due respect, it is. It’s the crack in the ice. Colorado, dude. If you can’t win there, you’re in deep stuff, everywhere, except Dixie.
By the way, the first Illinois GOP candidate for governor who wants to buck the NRA will get the attention of a lot of suburban women.
See Mark Kirk.
The usual suspects out there now don’t have the guts to do it. What they have the guts for, I don’t know. They got beat by Pat Quinn in a historic GOP year.
Don’t worry, 20 years from now, there will still be tens of millions of privately-owned guns in the U.S.
Nobody’s taking anything from everyone. But pretending they are is good for fundraising from the chumps.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 7:57 pm
The ……..”when the applicant has been arrested five times… provision is ridiculous. Here’s a great example of the law of unintended consequences.
No matter if you are a liberal or a conservative this should be a concern for you. Here are some examples:
1. You have a deep conviction about a cause and you protest at a rally. It may be a union rally, it may a “Occupy Wall Street”, a pro-life or abortion-rights protest, an environmental protest, a victims rights protest, a human rights protest, antiwar protest, or protests with civil disobedience etc., or some other rally event or protest, whether on the right or left, and there are arrests. And if you are quite active in these types of events, multiple arrests by participants are common place.
Just because you are arrested does not make you a violent person. You may even consider your rest a “badge of honor.”
2. Is also come place for spouses who are going through a divorce or child custody, etc., to try to get their spouse arrested as a legal tactical advantage for a for a hearing for divorce procedure, etc.. And others who do it for a act of revenge against her spouse.
I’m sure there’s many other examples unintended consequences of this law.
Remember, an arrest is not a conviction.
Comment by Logic25 Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 6:24 am
Skeeter
Perhaps you missed the point or i didn’t comunicate it coherently. The response about Dianne Feinstein had to do with the Chicago Cynic saying no one is advocating for the confiscation of firearms. Fienstein clearly is as well as Gov. Cuomo from New York. Your response to this appears to be well she only wants to take Assault Weapons. The corollary of that would seem to be that if you can possess a firearm at all then you can take the rest. Now if that was not what you were trying to say then i apologize i misunderstood.
Wordslinger
As for Colorado being the future we will know that within 4 yrs. I have a brother-in-law out in CO. right now and was there for the last election. The majority of the politicians who voted for the measures ran on a kind of Libertarian platform i.e. legalize pot etc. A large portion of them claimed to be for the 2nd Amendment and against any gun control. My point is the results of the 2014 election will let us know if Colorado is the future or was a huge overreach by the Liberal Dems. Personally i will be surprised if Hickenlooper is reelected.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 7:58 am
oh, no, I have to agree with both Todd and Wordslinger in one thank you for the response post. YIKES!
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 8:41 am
>>>> Personally i will be surprised if Hickenlooper is reelected.
I bet that’s not even his real name.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 8:53 am
Mason,
They are also coming for your flame thrower and your RPG.
But that’s not the same as the “in the middle of the night jack-booted thugs will come in and take all of our guns” argument that we keep hearing from the NRA types.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 9:00 am
Skeeter
No they are talking about making you sell it to the gov. for pennies on the dollar or go to jail. I have never seen the NRA say they will come in the dead of night. I have seen the New Orleans Police go door to door and confiscate firearms from the law abiding citizens after Katrina.
Please tell me how you equate a Legal Semi-automatic firearm (aka their definition of Assault Weapon) to a Flame Thrower or RPG which is currently illegal to own?
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Mar 21, 13 @ 9:57 am