Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: About that “555-page bill”
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Posted in:
* I’m stealing Eric Zorn’s traditional headline because I’m also (again) posting one of his blog items. Zorn and I are both somewhere in the middle of the gun debate, and his piece is quite good. Some excerpts…
I also don’t understand how you can watch this video [of Logan Square store owner Luis Quizhpe], which became the subject of news stories worldwide, and argue that store owners such as Quizhpe are better off because of Chicago laws that prohibit store employees from carrying handguns. […]
I don’t understand why gun-rights advocates are so stubborn about mandatory background checks in most instances when firearms are sold or transferred. Yes, it can be a hassle. But it should be a hassle. We’re talking about passing around lethal weapons. It should always be harder to buy one than to buy a box of Sudafed. […]
I don’t understand why so many staunch gun-rights advocates are simultaneously paranoid about government power and vehement about the need to keep the U.S. military robustly funded. Swarthmore College political scientist Dominic Tierney labeled this paradox “the great gun gobbledygook ” in a recent essay at TheAtlantic.com and noted, “Conservatives say that a weaponized citizenry is a necessary shield against dictatorship. I’ll take the argument more seriously if conservatives stop arming this tyrant to the teeth.” […]
I don’t understand why gun-control advocates focus so much attention on “assault weapons” and limiting concealed-carry rights when by far the biggest problem we have with firearms comes from illegally obtained, unregistered handguns.
I don’t necessarily agree with everything in his piece, but I do agree with pretty much everything I’ve excerpted. And on his very last point, I couldn’t possibly agree more. Part of the problem, as I see it, is that liberal politicians just don’t know what to do about crime, so they fall back on time- and poll-tested “solutions” that won’t make a difference, but sound good to the masses.
His closing…
Finally, I don’t understand why an issue that’s so perfect for compromise — for people of good will to come together to craft ways to lower the rates of violence and protect the rights of law-abiding citizens — remains so intractable.
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 2:05 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: About that “555-page bill”
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Store owners (even in Chicago) CAN have guns. As can people in their homes (provided they are not a felon). The Agg UUW law prohibits guns in places except one’s own abode, land, or fixed place of business (fixed meaning you can have one at the 7-11 but not if you are a pizza delivery driver out and about). People seem to ignore this when they want to make it sound like laws will prevent people from defending their home or business.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 2:11 pm
Liberals and conservatives are so hung up on their talking points that they hear nothing in the debate and since there are no clear facts they just keep shouting the same thing over and over.
Comment by Cassiopeia Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 2:13 pm
===Store owners (even in Chicago) CAN have guns.===
The point he made was about employees, not owners.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 2:13 pm
Also, notice that Eric said “carry,” not just “have.”
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 2:14 pm
While the ag uuw statute allows for it, i think it is the chicago ordinance that does not, as they dont even allow you to take it out on your own porch
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 2:18 pm
Todd,
Didn’t you guys have a bill you worked on with the GA that was a reasonable compromise? Whatever happened to it?
Comment by Cincinnatus Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 2:26 pm
Thanks for letting me visit Illinois politics, today.
I disagree w/Eric on background checks. The instant check was a better answer than a three day waiting period carved out by the NRA and the gun control crowd. Most everyone agrees on background checks, supports them and they are near universal, now. FFL dealers make up the bulk of “gun show” sellers and they are required to do back ground checks.
Expanding checks are great on paper but HOW becomes a big issue. The ACLU has concerns, veterans have concerns and individuals who may wish to sell to friends or give families have concerns. If you go on an anti-depressant after a loved one or colleague dies — and you get reported — can the govt. infringe on your rights permanently for a temporary situation? Even felons can get the franchise back?
Conservatives can own guns and like a big military because it is one of the few institutions that work and are trusted–unlike the rest of govt. Many gun owners and conservatives are veterans. You tend to support groups you trust. Zorn conflates political viewpoints w/trust and familiarity.
Comment by Greg Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 2:41 pm
Cincinnatus
Pretty sure MJM took the actual compromise bill and then decided that he would use it as a new starting point and try to extract additional consesions.
Rich
I noticed you left out the May-issue versus Shall-issue part of the article. Most of it was pretty good stuff. I assume you think there won’t be problems with fairness on a May-issue basis?
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 2:50 pm
@Anonymous That store owner was not allowed a Pistol… He could keep a big long gun somewhere, but not a pistol. Pistols are for home use in Chicago. The four corners. Not your porch, or your yard or garage.
Comment by RonOglesby Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 2:52 pm
@ Rich and Eric…conservative and “liberal politicians just don’t know what to do about crime, so they fall back on time- and poll-tested “solutions” that won’t make a difference, but sound good to the masses.(aka their base)
Comment by Charlatan Heston Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 2:54 pm
===I assume you think there won’t be problems with fairness on a May-issue basis? ===
There will be fairness problems, I’m sure, with a “may carry” law. But local sheriffs and chiefs should have some input. I’m not talking about a total veto, just some significant input.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 2:55 pm
What Mr. Zorn and those in the middle on this do not understand is that the Universal background check is not that…
Sorry. its not. I am gun owner. I would consider myself pretty “hard core”. But I am pro-background check. I dont want felons or other that shouldnt to have guns!
But the bill the Feds always propose is not about “get a background check” even though they call it that. It should say “Go to a federally licensed gun dealer, fill out forms, pay that man to fill out the federal forms, run a NICS check on a FBI system, then transfer gun”
There is a system in place. If they wanted Universal background checks they would open that system up for responsible gun owner A to check on purchaser B right there. Print out the “OK, he’s good to go form” and we do the transfer. Hell charge me 5 bucks for it.
But instead the bill has me drive to and pay a 3rd party to use a federal system. This is not a Cop, or LEO… Its some private business.
So Yes, background checks. but no to forcing me to go to a priv business to pay them to use a federal system.
The devil is in the details. if they really wanted to make background checks universal they could. What is always proposed is all transfers go through federal dealers.
So the 125 dollar shotgun I just sold to my neighbor the cop would cost me 25-35 dollars more and the time to find a dealer willing to do the transfer (not all will).
Comment by RonOglesby Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 2:58 pm
A simple solution for at least some of the background checks is an online database of all FOI card holders. If a background check is done as part of the process to get the card, just a online check of the ID# would verify the validity of the card & no additional background check would be needed. If the holder of an FOI card was later found to no longer be eligible to purchase a firearm, the database would be updated to reflect the change.
The real problem is not finding a mechanism to do the background check, it is getting accurate, reliable & current information into the database.
With an online verification system, all that a gun seller would need to do the background check is a quick check onj the validity of the FOI card.
“I disagree w/Eric on background checks. The instant check was a better answer than a three day waiting period carved out by the NRA and the gun control crowd. Most everyone agrees on background checks, supports them and they are near universal, now. FFL dealers make up the bulk of “gun show” sellers and they are required to do back ground checks.”
Comment by AFSCME Steward Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 3:12 pm
Most states do not have FOID cards.
Comment by bluecollar Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 3:24 pm
=== But local sheriffs and chiefs should have some input ===
As long as none of those in law enforcement are named “Skeeter”, I should be ok
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 3:26 pm
Rich
So what is your opinion, I am curious not trying to bust your b$lls, of the Phelps bills requirements for local input?
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 3:26 pm
I always wonder what the objection to the language in the Phelps bill for the Local input. Local PD can stop an application. Which seems to comply with the May-issue crowd. However if you are blocked there is a clear route to appeal. Which seems to really prevent a lot of the unfairness. For instance i (Local LEO) don’t like Ron because my Ex-wife left me for him.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 3:32 pm
completely agree with zorn’s points. dont take away or limit the kind of weapon one can have, but register the gun to the owner, background check all purchases, and license all owners. allow peole their right to bear arms, just put the necessary restrictions in place to ensure that those who oen them are not criminals and are not insane. If lost or stolen, report it, or be responsible for crimes committed with the weapon. Why should the conditions on owning and driving a car be more stringent than owning a deadly weapon?
Comment by anon Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 3:33 pm
Regarding Zorn’s comments:
Storekeepers with guns: Some would argue that storekeepers shooting robbers adds insult to injury. Robbers only rob in an attempt to achieve equity between the greedy shop owner and the little guy.
Background Checks: I don’t think anyone wants bad guys to get guns. But face the facts here All the background check bills are written by legislators that hate gun owners. They write draconian bills designed to diminish gun owner rights then wrap these bills in banners saying “Reasonable” and “Commonsense” when the proposals are neither. I think most gun owners would accept a system where they could get a “go/no-go” assessment of a potential buyer with no permanent paperwork and if they are provided with an affirmative defense in any future actions or claims brought by those who may fall victim to misuse of the firearm sold in that transaction. But I don’t see gun owners agreeing to onerous requriements just because they are billed as being “for the children”.
Military Power: I am certain that those who fear military power are in a minority whose ranks are puffed up by the media for shock value. The gun owners I know are all want to see an America with a strong defense. I think most field grade officers would disobey a command to fire on American citizens. Generals, on the ohter hand…
Assault weapons: I think most “gun control advocates” are more interested in controlling social conservatives than they are in controlling guns. The term “assault weapon” is merely a symbol designed to elicit a reflex reaction from uninformed individuals that hear it. Gun onwership is the one issue that cements the ranks of social conservatives. Eroding that bond through lies is a typical tactic of the left. It’s not about guns, it’s about power.
Regarding Zorn’s closing remarks. Again, this isn’t about guns, it’s about ideology. The sense of individualism and self reliance that goes along with civilian firearm ownership is inconsistent with the type of society that “progressives” envision. Elimination of private firearm ownership is a mere stepping stone to achieving the social changes they seek.
Comment by Mister Wonderful Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 3:34 pm
I am pretty sure that Quinn and Lisa Madigan’s view of may issue is that they may issue you a permit if you have a good reason to want/need one. It should be exactly opposite: without a good reason to deny (w/reasons spelled out in the law) a permit is issued.
Comment by 332bill Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 3:38 pm
The issue is just too heated. Very good piece by Mr. Zorn. A reasonable, well-crafted, middle-of-the-road Bill can, and must be, drafted, that contains what polls indicate are at least what the majority of Illinoisans can live with, but I fear this thing could drag on into the Summer with lawyers for the State begging the Court for more time to finish it up and pass it to at least SOME Legislative Majority (and at least sufficiently to the Governor’s satisfaction as well)…
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 3:56 pm
First off, I’m a gun-rights supporter, but not an NRA/ISRA member. I grew up around guns and enjoy hunting, but no longer own a gun.
That said, I don’t understand why my friends in the gun-rights movement don’t lead the fight to shut down the black market in illegal guns. They should be on the front lines of finding ways to take guns out of the hands of the gangs and street criminals. Instead, their actions only serve to protect the very people who are the real problem.
Comment by anon sequitor Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 3:57 pm
Compromise is impossible because the nuts on either side of the debate believe that the nuts on the other side are paranoid and dishonest.
And they’re both right.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 4:00 pm
The issue is so “intractable” for (at least) two reason. First, listen to the emotions. Forget the topic, just listen to how people express themselves on this issue. Makes the “smoking in bars” issue sound like a polite discussion in an English drawing room.
Second, there is a general ignorance of history. Many say the 2nd Amendment is “self evident” or “self executing” when history shows that is not true. The 2nd Amendment was adopted December 15, 1791, less than 2 months after the US Army suffered the greatest defeat at the hands of Native Americans in St Clair’s Defeat. The response was the Militia Act of 1792 (Chapter XXVIII of 1792), which made “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia” . Those males had to train at their own expense twice a year, and were subject to court martial for disobeying orders. The law was invoked by George Washington during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. While Militia laws have changed since then, not much discussion about that law. On it’s face, it says the 2nd Amendment was about being in a State sponsored and controlled Militia.
Comment by Anyone Remember? Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 4:07 pm
Anon - that’s what we pay the cops to do.
Comment by Mister Wonderful Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 4:07 pm
Mister Wonderful, you may wanna talk to your family doctor about your kinda creepy paranoia.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 4:15 pm
Richard, so you invite people to comment on your site then insult them when they do?
Comment by Mister Wonderful Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 4:18 pm
===Elimination of private firearm ownership is a mere stepping stone to achieving the social changes they seek.===
I think Rich was being kind, Mister Wonderful. Your ridiculously paranoid comment deserves a much better insult. I’d offer my own, but then I’d risk being banned for life and you’re not worth it.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 4:23 pm
Mr.JM
==Compromise is impossible because the nuts on either side of the debate believe that the nuts on the other side are paranoid and dishonest.
And they’re both right.==
You may have hit the nail on the head. Although on the Gun Rights side the real nuts aren’t even involved. They are the ones rabidly posting that there should be no bills whatsoever or as they say no permision slip.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 4:25 pm
just the way
That bill was written and proposed was voted on in the last General Assembly got 65 votes but needed 71. That bill is the current Phelps bill. It has Local input on who can carry, restrictions for schools etc., and live fire training requirements. If passed it will instantly become the most restrictive Shall-issue bill in the country. It will literaly toe the line between May-issue and Shall-issue. The big problem so far appears to be the Home rule issue. Phelps bill preempts home rule.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 4:35 pm
Mr. Wonderful: Nearly every NRA/ISRA member I know can tell you at least one dealer or seller who regularly skirts the law. Do they call the cops to report them? Of course not. The gun-rights advocates should be helping the cops, not blaming them for not doing their job.
Comment by anon sequitor Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 4:41 pm
“forcing me to go to a priv business to pay them”
That is one problem with the ‘reasonableness’ of the background checks. In Illinois, if I have a FOID, the I should be able to log in to a computer system to verfy that my neighbor is a reasonable person to sell my old firearm to. If it is to a non-state resident, then logging in to a federal system should be an option to satify the background check requirement. Forcing someone to go to a commercial enterprise to transfer property is wrong.
Another danger to firearms owners in the push to include ‘mental health’ issues into a database. Anecdotal (i.e. unverified) reports claim that authorities have seized/confiscated weapons when a gun owner has sought treatment for depression etc. Does that mean someone who actually needs mental health treatment will have to avoid treatment to retain their collections? A possible avenue for abuse along the lines of allowing too much power in the hands of LEOs.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 4:41 pm
I think the ultimate in “universal background checks” is the suggestion of opening up the current NICS check done at a FFL to everyone. Make it a 900 number with a set fee and as a seller I get a magic approval number that tells me the buyer isn’t disqualified. Tell me I have to keep a record of the sale for x number of years. Make this an affirmative defense like it is for the FFL holder.
This is almost the situation in Illinois. When I as a private party sell to another private party, I’m supposed to make a copy of their FOID and keep a record of the transaction for 10 years. The FOID is the background check in this case.
Let’s update that to the phone call or website that should hopefully be attached to a current & accurate database.
Comment by Kevin Highland Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 4:54 pm
anon sequitor
You seem to forget that the arguement isn’t whether we stop Criminals the arguement is what is the best way to do that. In particular what is the best way to do that without infringing on the constitutional rights of the legal owners. Whether those rights come from the 2nd amendment or the 4th. After all if we went door to door and searched every house after every shooting we would find quite a bit.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 4:55 pm
Kevin
Marvelous idea. I like the 900 number aspect.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 4:56 pm
Anon - who are these dealers who are skirting the law? What are their names? I will gladly tun them in.
Comment by Mister Wonderful Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 5:10 pm
I don’t understand high capacity magazines. We have seen they are quite useful for murdering a bunch of terrified first graders huddled in a corner. Just what else are they good for? The WWII GI got by just fine using an M1 with an eight-shot clip. I would say limit all magazines to eight shots. Ban the manufacture, import, sale, or possession of anything bigger.
Comment by Excessively Rabid Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 5:14 pm
Quick question for excessively. What do we say to the parents of the 8th kid?
Comment by Mister Wonderful Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 5:17 pm
“Finally, I don’t understand why an issue that’s so perfect for compromise…”
The sad thing, I believe a high percentage of the population in this country would like to compromise in the interest of preventing gun violence. It’s the few extremists on the right and left that are keeping us from having sensible gun laws that also protect 2nd Amendment rights.
Good column by Zorn.
Comment by Wensicia Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 5:21 pm
ah, Eric. so willing to let someone have a gun and potentially kill an offender but not willing put to death those who were on death row who actually killed people.
though I do agree with the column, I find his lack of consistency to be sad.
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 5:23 pm
–Conservatives can own guns and like a big military because it is one of the few institutions that work and are trusted–unlike the rest of govt.–
You’re missing the original point, which was that some feel the need to arm to defend themselves from a tyrannical government while supporting massive amounts of arms for the force that would oppress them.
Unless, you think it was going to be the National Weather Service or something.
I’m guessing you put a lot more trust in government than you’d care to admit Greg. Like, you trust that when you take a drink of water it won’t poison you. And in the rule of law to protect yourself and your wealth. And that the big red trucks will come if your house is on fire.
Even self-reliant “conservatives” like yourself put your trust in government constantly every single day. It’s fun to pretend otherwise, though.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 5:39 pm
I’m always amazed when people are amazed when politicians act like politicians. Of course they go for the poll-tested solutions that may (or may not) have an actual real impact on the problem.
Comment by Just Me Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 6:41 pm
Mr. Wonderful: That’s my point - the people who know aren’t turning them in, but should.
And I’m not talking about taking away anyone’s rights. I’m talking about going after the people who thumb their nose at the law,
Comment by anon sequitor Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 6:41 pm
Anon - you made a rather serious allegation about licensed firearm dealers violating federal law. You stated it as a fact. As a responsible gun owner I want to know who these people are so I can confront them and then turn them in. I am a member of both the NRA and the ISRA. But I can honestly say that I have no evidence that any of the dealers I know in the Chicago area are violating the law. If you know something different, please provide me names. I want to know who these law-breakers are.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 6:52 pm
==Richard, so you invite people to comment on your site then insult them when they do? ==
That’s about the size of it, although you generally don’t get insulted without reason, and if you do, it’s a status symbol. Get used to it or leave is what I say. So Mr. Wonderful, what are you saying - that there’s no point in restricting anything because somebody is going to die anyway? I say there’s no reason for anybody outside a war zone to have high capacity magazines. I’m not coming for your guns - just your hundred round magazines.
Comment by Excessively Rabid Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 7:01 pm
=== I don’t understand why gun-control advocates focus so much attention on “assault weapons” and limiting concealed-carry rights when by far the biggest problem we have with firearms comes from illegally obtained, unregistered handguns. ===
Although I often agree with Rich and Zorn, this line was a bit off-base:
1. National advocates focus on the assault weapons ban because it is primarily a federal issue. Most others have been state issues for some time, although that could change.
2. Illinois’ gun safety advocates have been focused on conceal carry because the issue is being forced on them by ISRA. Are they supposed to ignore judicial efforts and legislative efforts to enact conceal carry?
3. State gun safety advocates have been pushing to close the gun show loophole, prevent straw purchasers, and keep guns out of the hands of nuts and criminals for atleast a decade, probably longer. Zorn should know that.
Comment by Juvenal Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 7:15 pm
@Juvenal…
If state gun safety advocates have been trying to focus on the “gun show loophole” in Illinois they are wasting their time. In Illinois every gun show sale has to have a background check AND go through the Illinois 24 hour or 72 hour waiting period.
This is the problem with “Gun saftey” advocates, often they parrot something like “GUn show loophole” about THIS state without knowing there isnt one. How we can we as gun owners trust anything else that comes from these people when they dont even know the existing laws?
Comment by RonOglesby Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 7:27 pm
= If you know something different, please provide me names. I want to know who these law-breakers are. =
This Anonymous is not interested in taking names. Please provide them to appropriate law enforcement instead.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 17, 13 @ 12:09 am
Excessively Rabid
Sorry i couldn’t say this earlier i force myself to unplug. Those ww2 G.I.’s only had 8rnd magazines but they were fighting 5rnd bolt action Mausers and Ariskas primarily. They also had Thompson sub-Machine guns with 30 rnd mags and Browning Automatic Rifles with 20rnd magazines. Next time you try to cite Military history you might want to know something about it.
So what is your grand plan to ensure the criminal who breaks into my house only has a bolt action rifle?? Those so called high capacity magazines are also very helpful to protect your life. Unless of course you think innocent victims should have to do mag changes when trying to defend themselves? What if the target doesn’t go down after 1 shot? You are aware that sometimes perps take more than one. Like the one in Georgia that took 5 to the face and neck got in his car and drove off. What happens to the woman and her 2 boys if he had brought a buddy or two under your scheme?
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Apr 17, 13 @ 7:21 am