Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - The rest of the story and a Statehouse roundup
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Fun with numbers
Posted in:
* Should all current and future home rule ordinances regarding guns be abolished? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:37 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - The rest of the story and a Statehouse roundup
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Fun with numbers
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Yes. We need one set of rules.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:39 pm
Ys, don’t want to try to keep track of hundreds of slightly different rules.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:40 pm
No clearly the 2A Whack Jobs who need feel that gun wrapped to their waist need to be constantly aware of which of the 200+ permits they need to have handy as they go town to town.
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:41 pm
No. Why have home rule authority in the first place? Local control used to be a bed rock conservative theme. There has been local control of firearms since Tombstone. It’s a proud American tradition.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:42 pm
Yes. For the same logic that abolishes use of cell phones while driving. Too hard to keep track of when and where.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:42 pm
You just want another 100 response question! The answer is no. What works in Effingham doesn’t necessarily work in Englewood. Communities should be allowed to adopt reasonable restrictions (and yes, that is allowed under the constitution).
Comment by Chicago Cynic Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:44 pm
No, it’s a big, diverse state. One-size-fits-all doesn’t always apply, as those opposed to Illinois blanket ban on carriage would agree.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:46 pm
Why is Illinois so behind on this concept?
Most municipalities that write their own laws need their own staff to enforce the home rule ordinances. Let the state control the law for conceal carry, and let the state’s attorney prosecute the violations. Keeping all the home rule ordinances just adds another cost to the price of keeping dangerous people off the street.
Comment by Pete Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:50 pm
No. The differences between urban and rural areas are vast. If more control was not necessary in urban areas and around certain locations, why do we have cell-phone restrictions and drastically lower speed limits in specific urban areas? Yet, these controls are not needed state wide.
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:50 pm
No. why should I be put at risk because some gun nut south of Effingham wants to shoot at squirrels with a bushmaster.
Comment by Bill Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:52 pm
I have to agree with the NRA on this one.
There should be one gun law, set by the United Nations.
It is unduly burdensome for gun owners to comply with a patchwork of laws as the travel from state to state and country to country.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:52 pm
===Let the state control the law for conceal carry===
This is NOT about concealed carry. It’s about all gun-related municipal ordinances.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:54 pm
–There should be one gun law, set by the United Nations.–
YDD, you’re quite the mischief-maker.
You’re on the milk carton for months and then you show up to set people off on the U.N. and the Black Helicopters…..
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:55 pm
We are one state. It would be tough to carry and keep track of where it is legal/illegal.
Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:59 pm
Absolutely not - it’s a big, diverse state, and residents should be able to address this issue by doing what they feel is best for their own community.
Comment by OldSmoky2 Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:02 pm
Yes, same reason as others–State pre-emption far better than a patchwork of arbitrary regulations from town to town.
ALSO because certain jurisdictions will abuse any latitude they have, and we all know whom I’m writing about.
Comment by Harry Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:02 pm
Strong yes.
Initially, local control hasn’t worked (unless you are a lawyer handling 2A cases, in which case it has been awesome). It hasn’t been shown to reduce crime or to take guns off the streets or to accomplish anything at all.
Second, one state rule is simply easier to both enforce and comply with. There will be fewer questions about interpretation as a statewide body of caselaw develops.
Municipalities may be good at developing zoning codes, but gun codes? No, for that you need something state wide.
By the way, I wonder how many of you voting no also support local control over whether a local county clerk “shall issue” or “may issue” a marriage license. It sure seems like value some basic rights very differently.
Comment by HenryVK Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:05 pm
circular firing squad makes a great argument for the opposite position. There is no way to enforce home rule laws on an issue like this. There must be one set of rules.
Comment by cynical retiree Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:09 pm
Yes. Living on the border of Chicago, it’s so odd that if you live in my house you need to pay $125 for a class, $100 for a permit, fingerprinting and $15 to register each firearm with the city. But if I lived one house over, I’d just need to own a FOID card.
It leads to frivolous and arbitrary laws that have no point whatsoever except for discouraging gun ownership. Did you know that the Chicago training requirement doesn’t even require you to fire a shot? Or a perfectly legal rifle immediately becomes an evil assault rifle the moment it has a tiny clip that can attach a bayonet? Pretty sure bayonets are exclusive to collectors and not criminals.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:10 pm
–By the way, I wonder how many of you voting no also support local control over whether a local county clerk “shall issue” or “may issue” a marriage license. It sure seems like value some basic rights very differently.–
LOL, Henry I never made the connection between between marriage and gun ordinances.
But you might be on to something. In the wrong hands, a marriage license can be awfully hazardous as well.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:10 pm
@Cynic - it ain’t working in Englewood now. So, you think that by restricting gun ownership rules, you will drop gun violence in Englewood now? Fascinating! Yes, let’s pass conceal/carry laws and make the rule statewide, so all these 2nd A nut jobs can now go legally hunting. Yes, that’s just what a law abiding citizen wants to do. Go to prison. Just fascinating.
Comment by Fan Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:12 pm
Yes. If we have state-wide concealed carry, citizens should have the same laws state-wide to follow. This includes gun/bullet/magazine standards…….they should be the same for everyone.
Going forward, anytime a new gun law is brought forward it should have to go through the General Assembly. These people get paid to make laws protecting Illinoisans, they shouldn’t pass this on to locals.
Comment by TCB12 Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:14 pm
Word,
Some are convinced that marriage equality will destroy society. That doesn’t seem rational to me, but some hold that view.
Others think that allowing people to have guns will destroy society. That also doesn’t seem rational to me, but some hold that view.
If we are going to allow local decisions based on the perception that doing otherwise puts our society at risk, it would seem to make sense to allow local control over all those rights.
Again, I don’t take that view. I value freedom. But some don’t.
Comment by HenryVK Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:14 pm
I agree with YDD. I doubt that’s a surprise.
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist. Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:20 pm
Yes - Abolish all! We need one law not hundreds of slightly different laws that can make us into criminals or “scare” us into giving up our rights. Having hundreds of differing laws on one topic is terrible.
Comment by Ben Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:25 pm
We must have one set of rules that are known to all and not a patchwork. Otherwise good honest people are charged as criminals for not knowing some arbitrary rule set by some liberal community. What if they pass a law that requires all guns to have a six pound weight attached or ban commonly owned weapons? Then what?
Comment by Bill K Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:28 pm
There must be one law, one set of rules. The object of Laws is not to create criminals. But to set rules for us to follow. Different sets of laws depending on which side of a map line.
Comment by POAT Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:31 pm
Yes, one citizenry, one law. Deal with it!
Comment by I'm Strapped Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:31 pm
Yes, we need one set of rules so you do not have to guess which town has which statute.
Comment by why? Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:33 pm
It is the god-given right of every municipality to pass silly pointless laws that make their voters feel happy. Such as ultra-local gun control.
Comment by Will Caskey Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:33 pm
Yes, one size does fit all, when it comes to the Constitution.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:33 pm
@ Ben: “We need one law not hundreds of slightly different laws that can make us into criminals or “scare” us into giving up our rights. Having hundreds of differing laws on one topic is terrible.”
And yet we have that right now on other issues.
In fact, other states which have CCW allow local regulations in some instances. These are states that Ben probably does not like.
Comment by New Name Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:34 pm
One state…one set of rules. If Chicago wants their own rules then I guess we have room for one more star on the flag.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:34 pm
Abolish home rule - my constitutional rights do NOT change according to what zip code I’m in or whether I cross an arbitrary line on a map.
Comment by Indigo Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:34 pm
Home rule laws should only apply to the people who live in and vote in that area. California has determined that black cars use more energy than other colors, so if some city makes it illegal to have a black car, then we would be o.k. with that to protect our planet. Right?
Comment by Capt'n Ron Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:34 pm
One state law.
A homerule municipality can ban semi-auto pistols, certain magazines, heck if they wanted they could ban certain types of ammo (ex: ammo used by the military, JHP’s, etc.). This would create criminals out of people who, while in their own municipality, would be law abiding.
Comment by MrMonarch Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:34 pm
- wordslinger - Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:10 pm:
“–By the way, I wonder how many of you voting no also support local control over whether a local county clerk “shall issue” or “may issue” a marriage license. It sure seems like value some basic rights very differently.–
LOL, Henry I never made the connection between between marriage and gun ordinances.
But you might be on to something. In the wrong hands, a marriage license can be awfully hazardous as well.”
Henry never said you did, but I do like the way you dodge the issue with a lame joke. Perhaps you would like to take a pass on why a single law is necessary for civil unions and not guns?
Full Disclosure: The only comment I have ever made was not pro or con on civil unions, it was about the need for a single Illinois law. This comment was made when Alverez indicated she would not enforce Illinois law.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:37 pm
Yes. Lots of people already said why better than I can
The patchwork thing.
Comment by elginkevin Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:41 pm
I wonder if the Home Rule folks would support a local regulation that limits what a new paper editor can write in his editorial?
What happens if Mayor Rahm decides that it is a violation of local law to criticize the way he is running the City of Chicago?
Would abridging the 1st Amendment like that be ok?
Something to think about…
Comment by TheDaveFactor Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:42 pm
One state one law.
The people who believe in home rule to outlaw or seriously restrict guns for law-abiding citizens must believe that the 14th amendment of equal protection under the law does not apply to people in Illinois.
All in Illinois are equal. I do not support no civil rights for those unfortunate enough to live in home rule communities that hate civil rights, while the rest of the state has civil rights.
Comment by BeeKay Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:44 pm
Agreed, TheDaveFactor, we ain’t talking posted speed limits or red light cameras, which are perfectly valid uses of home rule.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:45 pm
Cmplete piecemealing is going to cause problems.
A preptive statewide regulation scheme need not be perfectly uniform (there could be a couple/few sets - and locals could be given the power to adopy Plan A, Plan B or Plan C)
Comment by titan Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:48 pm
cause downstate rules do not work for an urban area.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:49 pm
=== No. Why have home rule authority in the first place? ===
Home rule does carry limitations. Municipalities, even home rule ones, are creatures of the state. There are plenty of laws that preempt home rule authority, such as only the state can license doctors (imagine if every municipality in the state had different standards for doctors). In fact, Illinois grants more power to home rule municipalities than most states.
Comment by Just Observing Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:49 pm
Yes. It is not just to subject citizens to a confusing patchwork of laws, particularly so regarding an enumerated constitutional right.
Comment by Carl from Chicago Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:49 pm
How would well would it work if driving laws differed from community to community?
Comment by sigun11 Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:50 pm
Yes. Abolish home rule chaos on guns. Setting up a crazy patchwork quilt of localized laws governing the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is just a way to guarantee the suppression of that right. Local leaders, most of whom will have no background in either constitutional law or the practicalities of gun ownership and use, will produce such chaos for responsible gun carriers that they won’t be able to exercise their right with any certainty of outcome.
It would be like letting every town and hamlet make up their own rules, however ignorant, about additional restrictions on federal voting rights, or additional “localized” restrictions on free speech or free assembly or freedom of religion. Such a system would end up keeping the right in name only, an illusory right that cannot be practiced because the “localization” of gun laws is not set up to guarantee freedom, but to guarantee technical errors that assure the defeat of one of our most basic freedoms, our right to protect our lives with armed force when necessary, whether inside or outside our homes.
Comment by Springfield Reformer Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:52 pm
Gun control people like to compare registering guns to registering cars, how about we compare gun laws to traffic laws, local control of traffic laws would mean different signs, and different rules. Home rule, Englewood and Oak Park, all drivers have to drive on the left side of the road, and green means stop, red means go. Try to visit that town without dying. Give me one law that everyone knows.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:57 pm
Home rule in regards to guns is not the same in regards to other topics because people do and will travel with guns. Currently 190 ordinances on the books, and surely more to come if home rule is not abolished, how does a law abiding firearm owner know that they are law abiding from one town to the next.
Mass confusion!
Comment by CGS Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:57 pm
You cannot have traffic laws that vary from one town or unincorp area to the next, or it would be entrapment and bad public poliicy.
Home rule should be for local issues that do not really transcend borders, or are unique to residents of that town ONLY.
You cant have disparate laws for major statewide issues that would be applied to those who are otherwise in full compliance with all state laws, and are placed into the category or criminals simply for driving down the street across a invisible border.
A home rule unit may handle its water usage ban days differently from a neighboring town or unincorp area, but this affects residents that LIVE there, and are informed of such deviations.
You cant have firearm laws altered from one town to another for the same reason one town cannot legalize murder, by local ordinance.. major issues are statewide, not confined to one tiny community whim
Comment by sneaky pete Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:57 pm
Right’s do not change based on upstate or down!
Comment by Bill K Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:59 pm
“How would well would it work if driving laws differed from community to community?”
Like motorcycle helmets laws?
Comment by Disgruntled Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:00 pm
***But you might be on to something. In the wrong hands, a marriage license can be awfully hazardous as well.***
Unlike a gunshot wound, a bad marriage is a slow and painful death…
Comment by Slick Willy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:07 pm
===or additional “localized” restrictions on free speech or free assembly===
Man, that was mind-boggingly misinformed. You do realize that home rule units can enact their own public gathering ordinances, right?
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:09 pm
==This is NOT about concealed carry. It’s about all gun-related municipal ordinances.==
No. Allowing doe culling in and around Granite City on private land is different than banning shooting a raccoon in Northbrook in a backyard.
The permit required for hunting and taking does is the same state-wide, just as the permit requirements for concealed carry should be the same state-wide.
Comment by DanL60 Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:10 pm
Why have home rule if you can’t decide what is best for your community? A big no.
Can’t wait until everyone on the CTA is packing except me…
Comment by Loop Lady Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:11 pm
What happens when Peoria passes a local law that a spouse can be compelled to testify against his or her husband or wife in a criminal trial?
Will the Home Rule folks still think that that is just fine?
Comment by TheDaveFactor Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:22 pm
Yes, preempt. It’s silly that things that are legal here int the unincorporated county part of Aurora are illegal just down the street in the city of Aurora. (Of course, Aurora fancies itself to be Chicago on the Fox.)
We need uniform statewide laws affecting all aspects of firearm ownership.
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:27 pm
Yes.
When dealing with issues rooted in the Constitution and Bill of Rights (right to bear arms, right to privacy/abortion), it is best to have a common standard in place.
Otherwise, if we’re going to go with Home Rule on guns, we should also support Home Rule on abortion, etc. in order to remain consistent in our beliefs and prevent any double standards.
Unless, of course, those supporting Home Rule on guns also support Home Rule on abortions.
I’m not ready to go there. Others may be.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:31 pm
People seem to forget that we are talking about a RIGHT protected under the U.S. constitution. Their local government can not trump the BILL OF RIGHTS. ONE STATE - ONE LAW
Comment by johnsxdm Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:32 pm
“How would well would it work if driving laws differed from community to community?”
You could make the same case for it, after all what works for driving in rural areas certainly does not work in a large city like Chicago. People should be required to get a Chicago endorsement on their drivers license before entering the city in a vehicles
/sarcasm
Realistically this is not about what works in community, its about someone legally carrying a firearm and suddenly becoming a criminal because they crossed a city line into a jurisdiction where the gun they are carrying is arbitrarily banned.
I live one town south of Chicago, here we have a higher rate of gun ownership, a lower rate of gun crime and no extra gun control laws. Explain that.
Comment by defaultdotxbe Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:32 pm
Voted yes, think we need a uniform set of laws for guns, but the other side of this is…could home rule cities allow for LESS restrictions? Think about it-could a city allow open carry… say from a gun range to a near-by restaurant?
Also, Yellow Dog’s comment was more subtle than most of the commenters here realized. The United Nations is pretty much anti-gun when it comes to civilian gun ownership; there is no way that American gun owners want the U.N. to have control of our guns, although Obama, Hillary, Durbin, etal are trying through the weapons treaty.
Comment by downstate commissioner Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:33 pm
Yes because of home rule units like Vernon Hills. Their ordinance requiring constant firearm trigger lock renders concealed and home carry useless.
Comment by stl2020 Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:36 pm
Question for Rich. I apologize that it is off topic, please forgive me. What exactly is “Sock puppetry”? I haven’t seen that term before. Thanks, and again, my apologies for the digression.
Comment by TheDaveFactor Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:37 pm
===What exactly is “Sock puppetry”?===
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:38 pm
Hundreds of different firearms laws depending on what zip code your in……really?
Comment by Leonard Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:39 pm
@downstatecommissioner - YDD’s comment wasn’t subtle. It was a joke. That you didn’t get.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:40 pm
As a resident of Chicago I think it is more accurate to say “what *doesn’t* work in Chicago doesn’t work downstate”.
Comment by David Lawson Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:40 pm
Interesting, learn something new. Although the link you posted was actually to a wiki about puppets made from socks. Apparently, the internet use of the term (which I believe you meant) was easy to find from there. The internet term is all one word, apparently, not two words.
Definition is:
“A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term—a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock—originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an internet community who spoke to, or about, himself while pretending to be another person.[1] The term now includes other misleading uses of online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a third party or organization,[2] or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym[3] and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer. Many online communities have a policy of blocking sockpuppets.”
Thanks for indulging my curiosity.
Comment by TheDaveFactor Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:45 pm
==People seem to forget that we are talking about a RIGHT protected under the U.S. constitution==
That wasn’t the question. Nobody is talking about banning guns. The question was about local gun laws. Gun laws don’t violate your rights. Oh, and there are LOTS of “rights” that are protected that are dealt with at a local level. For example, the exercise of your 1st Amendment rights differs from place to place depending on local laws regarding assembly, etc. The 2nd Amendment isn’t some special carve out not subject to regulation. I don’t think home rule should apply to gun laws but that’s not because I think it violates the Constitution because it doesn’t.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:48 pm
Rich Miller, you’re right in that I stated it rather badly. In my own defense, I would point out that local laws concerning free speech & free assembly, while they can impose some modest limitations on time, place, & manner, cannot be so abusive of the essential right that they effectively destroy the right, and therefore such local rules tend toward uniformity anyway. This is because the federal case law has probed the limits of what is acceptable and what is not. Yes, you may still find a few places that are not so well tuned constitutionally, but if nobody complains, it’ll never get tested in court. That doesn’t make it right.
Gun rights are different. For one thing, we are only just now beginning to really explore the constitutional boundaries, so the laws are not nearly as uniform by practice and tradition as they are in other areas of constitutional law, and much local law is grounded in rank ignorance of constitutional authority, not to mention the practical aspects of gun technology. Ignorant law is always bad law. Always.
Furthermore, gun laws, not unlike voting rights, are particularly sensitive to location issues. Generally speaking, private people exercise free speech and free assembly in one location at a time (radio hosts and politicians are another matter). But in these modern times, good citizens who carry guns for self-defense tend to travel widely, traversing many municipal boundaries every day. The right is federally guaranteed, but the multiplicity of conflicting local rules necessarily causes a race to the minimum, i.e., they can become such a burden that the right becomes unusable in practical terms, and that transgresses the constitutional prohibition against infringement, however indirectly.
Anyway, that is the point of what I was saying. I hope it makes more sense to you now. Sorry for the distraction caused by my earlier vagueness.
Comment by Springfield Reformer Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:49 pm
Okay, you abide by your home rule law. If you live in Chicago and spend a certain % of your waking time there, that is your law. If you live in a 2nd ammendment friendly area (let’s say Hoffman Estates) and travel to Chicago 1nce a week, you fall under the Hoffman Estate’s rule.
Wumpus for Gov and Rich Miller for his Lt Gov!
Comment by Wumpus Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:54 pm
It doesn’t appear that the home rule ordinances regarding firearms have done much to prevent the crimes they were supposed to.
Comment by Kevin Highland Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 3:00 pm
Local govts have a compelling interest in regulating *some* forms of First Amendment expressions such as parades and large gatherings that place a strain on shared resources. No permit required to carry a sign.
What is the overwhelming govt interest in regulating carry? Certainly prohibitions on use of a firearm make sense. Can’t be target shooting or pigeon hunting on Michigan Avenue. However, self-defense is another matter…life is the ultimate right.
Comment by David Lawson Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 3:01 pm
@downstatecommissioner You couldn’t possibly let this go by without reminding us Obama and his henchmen are coming for your guns?
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 3:04 pm
@Demoralized: You said,
“Nobody is talking about banning guns.”
They most certainly are talking about banning guns. How many times did they reference Chicago’s AWB in the Executive Committee yesterday when arguing against 2193’s wiping away of “Home Rule” laws? The Home Rule gun control folks are must definitely wanting to have the power to ban firearms, and magazine sizes, and don’t forget that they don’t want to lose the fees and taxes that they have imposed up there.
Comment by TheDaveFactor Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 3:05 pm
–Yes, one size does fit all, when it comes to the Constitution.–
Well, you better get yourself to the Supreme Court, because last I checked there are 50 states with 50 different sets of laws regarding guns.
–Henry never said you did, but I do like the way you dodge the issue with a lame joke. Perhaps you would like to take a pass on why a single law is necessary for civil unions and not guns?–
Gee, that’s a tough one, Cincy. As a true conservative, I believe what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is not government’s business to judge through the law.
It’s also not grist for hack political partisans to smear candidates they don’t have a crush on.
But also as a true, small-government conservative, I believe local elected officials are best-attuned to their citizens wishes regarding Constitutionally-sound regulation of lethal weapons.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 3:05 pm
My firearm is legal where I live, and it is illegal in Chicago.
Why is that?
First and foremost because I don’t live in Chicago.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 3:06 pm
Another reason I want to see preemption: cities like Oak Park and Autora that have a history of passing restrictive firearm laws because the political animals in charge don’t like firearms. Unpopular rights are still rights.
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 3:09 pm
Yes, wipe the slate clean. None of these home rule ordinances were written with the idea of a state wide concealed carry permit in mind. Holding onto a patchwork of regulations seems foolish.
Comment by Anon Post Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 3:21 pm
One State, One Law!
Comment by Hrlydrvr Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 3:22 pm
Excellent posts on all sides of the debate. That is all.
Comment by Reformed Public Servant Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 3:27 pm
I know I am in the minority, but the whole idea of home rule is that if a community of people wants a more strict or expansive prohibition or requirement, so long as it is constitutional, go ahead. I’d prefer one rule for all. But home rule on many, many subjects works very well.
Comment by Mongo Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 3:28 pm
==Well, you better get yourself to the Supreme Court, because last I checked there are 50 states with 50 different sets of laws regarding guns. ==
You mean 49 states with 49 sets of laws, and then IL with potentially 220 sets of laws
Comment by defaultdotxbe Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 3:32 pm
I voted Yes. The ability of people to carry firearms on their person through multiple municipalities makes the homerule restrictions completely impractical. As i see it when there was a ban on carry if Chicago required a permit then the vast majority of people who would be affected by that regulations lived in Chicago. since they lived in chicago they knew about or should have known about the local regulations. If they disagreed they could work to change them or move. If someone was driving through Chicago with a firearm (say on the way to WI for a deer hunt) then most likely they weren’t stopping and weren’t affected. Now that Joe Citizen will have the option of carrying a firearm with him on his daily errands. It becomes infinitely more likely that John citizen will run afoul of these laws. That being said perhaps the Compromise for Mr. cullerton would be the Homerule can only enforce those regulations for those Citizens who are Citizens of the Homerule Community.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 3:39 pm
Unless each municipality posts their specific rules and regulations at their entrance borders, how is the average person supposed to keep track as they move about the state? This should be a state wide issue to alleviate confusion.
Comment by 3rd Generation Chicago Native Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 3:39 pm
Yes, traveling is so easy, why should one IL Resident be a criminal in one area of the state and not another.
Comment by Gary Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 3:42 pm
No. This is a very diverse state with different needs for different areas. Home rule authority was established to allow some cities, villages, and Cook County to establish rules, regulations, and laws that are tailored locally to meet those needs. Pass a set of rules that should generally apply and then allow home-rule units to supplement, as needed.
Comment by Foxfire Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 3:47 pm
Chavez-respecting Obamist: Yes, I could have, but the UN is NOT friendly to American gun owners, which was the point of the comment. And I don’t believe that Obama and “henchmen” (actually have a lot of respect for Hillary and Durbin; Obama has been a HUGE disappointment to me since the beginning of his 2nd term) are actually after all of our guns, but they seem very friendly to those who are…
Comment by downstate commissioner Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 3:49 pm
==No. This is a very diverse state with different needs for different areas. Home rule authority was established to allow some cities, villages, and Cook County to establish rules, regulations, and laws that are tailored locally to meet those needs. Pass a set of rules that should generally apply and then allow home-rule units to supplement, as needed.==
How is it that some communities in suburban Cook County have no extra gun laws, while the next town over has a laundry list of them? Are two neighboring communities that much different? Or could it be that all the extra laws really aren’t necessary?
Comment by defaultdotxbe Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 3:57 pm
One set of rules per state, please!
Comment by Damfunny Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 3:59 pm
“Should all current and future home rule ordinances regarding guns be abolished?”
Yes.
The reason shows when you compare the language between the Raoul-Cullerton bill and the Phelps-Madigan bill on preemption, you can see Raoul-Cullerton leaves something to be desired.
The Raoul-Cullerton bill, for licensed carriers, leaves much to be desired. First, the language of the Raoul-Cullerton bill says that the state preempts carry, but not possession and transport. This essentially means that while Chicago’s ordinance against carry is nullified, the requirement to possess a Chicago Firearms Permit is not nullified. If you travel to Chicago with your IL carry license, you won’t get popped for the city carry ordinance, you’ll get popped instead for city ordinance requiring registration, licensing, bans on magazines over 12 rounds, or a ban on laser sighting components (that ban is truly dangerous because it’s stated purpose is to make a shooter less accurate, allowing an increased amount of harm to innocents).
Unlike cellphone/text in cars where you just get a 100$ civil fine, these city ordinances allow arrest, throwing in jail, impounding and seizure of your car, etc etc etc. Raoul-Cullerton doesn’t address these.
The Phelps-Madigan language of full preemption is the only way to keep these above stupidities from occurring. If I have a license from the state of Illinois, I shouldn’t have to worry about a obscure mag ban in a village popping me for a year in jail.
Comment by Gray Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 3:59 pm
The question is really how do we avoid the arrest of a person who’s only fault is ignorance of the law. Now, normally, we say that ignorance is no excuse, but when the penalty is so high and the amount of law one must know in order to drive from place to place that old saying can in no way apply. No single person can possibly be expected to be so well informed. If the penalty was more like a traffic fine, then it would be easier to concede to the old adage.
Comment by Capt'n Ron Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 4:02 pm
–You mean 49 states with 49 sets of laws, and then IL with potentially 220 sets of laws–
Many of those 49 states have local gun ordinances beyond their states’ base laws.
If you want a national standard, get going on an amendment to the Constitution. There have been no federal court ruling, ever, that mandate a national standard to the 2nd Amendment.
As Justice Scalia wrote in “Heller.”
–Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws
forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualific
ations on the commercial sale of arms.
Miller’s holding that the sorts of
weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.–
That’s the best opinion you’ve gotten since 1789.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 4:02 pm
The comments before me pretty much says it all. All I want is to be able to drive from Gurnee to Cario without having to worry about what some self important politican has cooked up to hinder my God given right each time I pass a county, city, village, town or dog catcher line.
Comment by gspgundog Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 4:03 pm
Yes…..Is common sense an explanation?
Comment by Not in the Know Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 4:04 pm
“Many of those 49 states have local gun ordinances beyond their states’ base laws.”
Mostly discharge ordinances. When it comes to possession and carry, Illinois stand alone as the only state not to preempt in some fashion.
Comment by Gray Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 4:08 pm
I believe the state should handle all firearm related issues, this way everyone in the state knows the same law and fully knows what is expected of them when they conceal carry. A good example of an issue of home rule ordinances would be a person has a handgun that uses a 18 round clip and is legal in their county to have, but they travel to chicago or cook county with that clip and now are felons due to home rule firearm ordinances. It’s very hard to see how anyone could know all home rule ordinances in this state as even the verbiage used in each home rule law tends to differ slightly so interpretations are endless.
This would lead to honest law abiding citizens to become felons for nothing more than not being able to memorize all home rule laws on firearms that’s where having one statewide uniform law makes very good sense.
Comment by bloval27 Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 4:11 pm
“Many of those 49 states have local gun ordinances beyond their states’ base laws.”
I’m fairly certain that the trend in other states has been preemption for the same reasons that it is desirable here.
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 4:13 pm
Yes, I think they should be. One state, One Law, ONE STANDARD. Why is it that the locations with the highest most stringent laws have the highest crime rate? The laws that govern should not be dictated by zip code.
Comment by Netech Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 4:24 pm
1 set of rules
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 4:28 pm
So what is the compelling govt interest in forcing my wife to forego using the standard 16 rd magazine that came with her 9mm pistol?
Comment by David Lawson Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 4:36 pm
One state, One law. No driving 5 minutes and becoming a criminal due to imaginary city lines.
Comment by Scott Deering Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 4:49 pm
Yes,While driving it is impossible to know what the laws are in any given area.
Comment by reelpro Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 4:57 pm
State issue. Funny how Cullerton hides behind IL Constitutional law on pension reform but wants carve-outs of whole counties when it comes to how the second amendment is applied.
Comment by Big Muddy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 5:08 pm
====“Many of those 49 states have local gun ordinances beyond their states’ base laws.”====
==I’m fairly certain that the trend in other states has been preemption for the same reasons that it is desirable here. ==
Like with carry in general I think wordslinger wants IL to be the last to get on board with the rest of the nation
Comment by defaultdotxbe Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 5:13 pm
So far I have read about bubba shooting squirrels with a bushmaster, hunting in a neighborhood and all variety of home rule reasons. Seems the point we are missing here is we are talking about law abiding gun owners turning into criminals just because of geographical location. We need a standard set of laws for law abiding gun owners. I don’t recall seeing anything on the news about all the gang bangers turning in their so called assault weapons and high capacity mags in Chicago, or paying the tax for them. people who go through the extremely burdensome procedure this state is requiring for a ccw permit aren’t going to be the ones we will need to worry about. One set of gun laws for the whole state makes enforcement easier for the police and the citizens of the state.
Comment by middle O the state Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 5:23 pm
One state, one law. Home Rule is utterly ridiculous, IMHO.
Comment by MontgomeryCo Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 5:29 pm
Yes. For example Oak Park could pass a 7 round magazine limit but most CCW guns hold more than that. How is one to know this as they travel through?
Comment by milk4me Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 5:30 pm
- Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:44 pm:
You just want another 100 response question!
109 - Congrats Rich! And with all those poll responses and the results moving from 60/40 to 80/20, clearly you’ve attracted the activists.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 5:37 pm
Home rule is fine for many, many things. Ordinances that are local and apply to residents for fixed location local activities are good, such as zoning, business use, etc. However, arbitrary criminalization of the possession of some type of personal property, making one a criminal merely by crossing a political boundary within the same state, is not. This applies to a municipality banning particular types of guns or their equipment, as well as to automobiles and their equipment. It is not just that, for instance, tint laws for vehicles vary from town to town. The same applies to firearms that are otherwise legal to transport or carry across the state.
In regard to firearm regulations and concealed carry in particular, one compromise would be to nullify local ordinances on handguns, their equipment and ammunition for those who possess a concealed carry license. In this way, residents who are not authorized to carry will remain subject to local, fixed location home rule ordinances. In addition, local ordinances on the transport of firearms (e.g. Chicago’s replacement of the state’s “or” with “and” in their’s) should also be preempted. Licensing (such as the Chicago permit) should likewise be nullified for those who possess a concealed carry license, as again it is not just to require both. The City of Chicago will have access to the statewide concealed carry licensee database.
My point is to be just, not try to use law as a cudgel to promote your particular ideology and make life difficult for those who you oppose. I personally do not appreciate the Chicago or Cook County assault weapon ban, and would not shed a tear if they were struck. But I agree, those should stand as local ordinances in this particular instance, with the exemption of non-residents in legal transport. However, Chicago and other localities should *not* be able to ban mere possession of a particular size magazine, or particular handgun, that is otherwise legal to possess and carry in the rest of state, when being transported by a non resident, or possessed by a concealed carry licensee.
Comment by Lawrence Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 5:40 pm
=== Question for Rich. I apologize that it is off topic, please forgive me. What exactly is “Sock puppetry”? I haven’t seen that term before. Thanks, and again, my apologies for the digression. ===
Thanks for asking! I have been wondering about this for a while, although the answer was along the lines of what I was thinking.
Comment by Just Observing Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 5:44 pm
ALL Home Rule Ordinances, of ANY sort, are a critically important and necessary power for Localities within a State–period. And regardless of the Gun-related ones on the Books…! Just start with THIS wavering Dominoe, and then start watchin’ a slough of OTHer Home Rule types of Ordinaces start to fall in coming years! And THEN ya’d have to ask–where does it end??!!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 5:44 pm
==It is not just that, for instance, tint laws for vehicles vary from town to town.==
Since windows tint is considered an equipment ordinance home rule units are not allowed to regulate it. Of course that hasn’t stopped Chicago from issuing citations anyway (they get thrown out in court if you take the time off work to plead not guilty per the state law)
Comment by defaultdotxbe Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 5:49 pm
YES, home-rule only applies to law abiding citizens and not criminals. Give us our freedoms back!
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 6:02 pm
I voted yes just because things like arbitrary magazine limits can effect someone once CCW is here… I drive to naperville and they voted in a 10 round mage limit, yet I live in plainfield and my CCW is a 14 round mag only… Am I breaking the naperville law? yes. How can I as a gun owner be aware of 200 potential different sets of gun laws? Are they going to post them like speed limits or one way streets? I dont think so.
Sorry I am MIA this week folks. I’m in Hawaii at such an exciting time
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 6:08 pm
> Since windows tint is considered an equipment ordinance home rule units are not allowed to regulate it.
That is good. I did not write that it is such, merely as an example of what would not be just. I’m not surprised of course that Chicago ignores such a limitation. Chicago is not terribly interested in justice in many respects.
Comment by Lawrence Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 6:10 pm
Continuity is important.
Comment by pyr1 Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 6:12 pm
Sure why not let home rule set alcohol DUI levels & speed limits through their jurisdiction. What are you afraid of people the guys doing the killing have guns already. Don’t you want a chance to be able to defend yourselves ? 49 other states and not one is the Wild West you pathetic fear mongers.
Comment by Bob Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 6:14 pm
This “we’re big and diverse” statement is dumb and meaningless.
We are not any more “big and diverse” than California or Texas. Both have huge urban centers and lots and lots of rural residents.
Comment by BluegrassBoy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 6:15 pm
==That is good. I did not write that it is such, merely as an example of what would not be just. I’m not surprised of course that Chicago ignores such a limitation. Chicago is not terribly interested in justice in many respects. ==
Its actually an example I’ve used many times to illustrate how Chicago just does their own thing regardless of whether they are allowed to or not.
Amusingly they also raised the cost of their tint citation from 25 to 250 dollars when IL changed the state law to allow front windows tints. Guess they figured 1 out of 10 people will just pay the fine without realizing Chicago isn’t actually allowed to cite them for it.
Comment by defaultdotxbe Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 6:19 pm
Yup, abolish it. It makes about as much sense as allowing home rule cities to set their own blood alcohol limits. Imagine the chaos that would be.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 6:20 pm
Yes. The most common reason we break with local control in this country is when local governments fail to protect, respect, or enforce civil rights. Chicago and others have been doing that with gleeful abandon for decades in Illinois, so it makes sense to defang them.
Comment by Don Gwinn Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 6:24 pm
Yes.
It seems to me that the people who say no must never go anywhere. That’s fine. Stay home and never leave your precious village but don’t deny the other residents of this state their constitutional rights because you’re ill-informed and scared. This doesn’t apply to you so stay out of my business.
I, however, travel through at least 6 different home rule units just on my way to work in the morning and even just to go to the store for groceries I can pass through two in less than a mile.
If any of these ‘no’ voters actually read the bill and its requirements, by the time I can get my permit, I would’ve been checked in many more ways than they would have.
So after having my criminal and mental health backgrounds checked, I would still be a victim of unjustly considered a criminal as I go to the store because I wasn’tmade aware of another municipality’s ordinance on having one less bullet in my magazine.
People that want to change the constitution and make laws for other citizens should be required to have their mental health checked so they can qualify for a permit for the First Amendment. So they can qualify to speak.
Comment by Random Dude Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 6:30 pm
I agree, this state is no more diverse or bigger than any other state. most every state has preemption, but yet some here think we need different laws for every little thing. the right to self defense is guaranteed, that can’t be disputed. The whole wild west scare tactic has been debunked decades ago. Just because we chose to take responsibility for our families safety, you call us gun nuts. No one says you have to own or carry a gun, but those of us who chose to should be treated just as fairly as those who chose not to. One set of laws for the whole state makes sense. It works in the 49 other states and it will work here, but hey why let facts get in the way of the liberal agenda.
Comment by middle O the state Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 6:34 pm
why is the speed limit increased but not in certain counties? why should there not be exceptions on firearms?
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 6:48 pm
Yes. I live in a relatively big area far from Chicago, and two of the several cities butted up against the town I live in are big enough for home rule. One of them already uses that to ridiculous ends for various things. I could literally be driving to/from work or friends’ houses or whatever and have problems because I didn’t have my pokedex of municipal codes memorized.
Home rule should be limited to things like leaf burning, property taxes, noise pollution and lawn length and things that really only matter if you live in that town. People passing through or visiting should not be subjected to all the ridiculous things that city councils come up with.
Comment by mattqca Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 6:49 pm
–We are not any more “big and diverse” than California or Texas.–
California is “may issue.” Hard to get a conceal-carry permit in urban areas such as LA County and the Bay Area. California also has many local gun ordinances. California will not recognize a conceal-carry permits from another state, and rarely issues non-resident licenses.
Texas has local discharge ordinances and does not allow open-carry of handguns. Texas does not honor c-c permits from a number of states.
Such a patchwork! How can you get through the day?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 6:50 pm
==why is the speed limit increased but not in certain counties? why should there not be exceptions on firearms? ==
Because a speed limit is two numbers posted on a sign that takes a fraction of a second to read. Try reading Chicago’s gun ordinances in a fraction of a second before entering the city limits and becoming a criminal.
Comment by defaultdotxbe Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 6:52 pm
I voted “Yes”. We’re a mobile society today and dozens (or hundreds) of different gun prohibitions would have a overall chilling effect making most law-abiding, legal gun owners fearfull of arrest if they exercised their Second Ammendment rights.
Comment by Gantt Chart Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 6:54 pm
–It works in the 49 other states and it will work here, but hey why let facts get in the way of the liberal agenda.–
What works in the 49 other states? What in the world are you talking about in furtherance of your “agenda?”
There is no single standard among state laws regarding conceal-carry, open-carry, pre-emption, training requirements, fees, shall-issue, may-issue, etc.
They’re all over the place.
To argue otherwise is bizarre.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 6:55 pm
==There is no single standard among state laws regarding conceal-carry, open-carry, pre-emption, training requirements, fees, shall-issue, may-issue, etc. ==
But most have states have a single standard WITHIN THAT STATE. Not long ago Indiana passed a law doing exactly what is being discussed here, preempting all local gun ordinances creating a single unified law for the entire state. That is the trend in many states. Why does IL always have to be the last one on board with these things?
Comment by defaultdotxbe Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 6:59 pm
–We’re a mobile society today and dozens (or hundreds) of different gun prohibitions would have a overall chilling effect making most law-abiding, legal gun owners fearfull of arrest if they exercised their Second Ammendment rights.–
Going mobile means dealing with different rules from state-to-state (different rules within those states via local orindance, too).
The “patchwork” argument is a phony.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 7:00 pm
==Going mobile means dealing with different rules from state-to-state (different rules within those states via local orindance, too).==
I doubt anyone passes through 6 to 10 different states during the course of their daily errands
Comment by defaultdotxbe Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 7:10 pm
so by your reasoning, one local could say liability auto insurance is fine and another could require that anyone driving through has to have full coverage insurance. that’s no different than your argument for different gun laws.
Comment by middle O the state Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 7:13 pm
Some don’t like to admit that Heller and McDonald were game changers. It is now up to the state (and even ’special’ ‘diverse’ cities like Chicago) to justify their gun control laws. There must be a compelling governmental interest in order to regulate firearms and firearm ownership just like with respect to other civil rights.
You can ignore my question in my last comment if you want, but 7CA and SCOTUS won’t. Why can’t Chicago residents own the standard capacity magazines for their firearms yet literally across the street residents of adjacent urban cities can? What is the purpose of the limitation?
Comment by David W Lawson Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 7:19 pm
Saying that someone does not go through multiple states in a day is not a valid argument.. What about a truck driver? What about a traveling sales man? (Yes, they do exist still)
I believe one state, one law. Protect the 2nd and enforce the equal protection in the 14th.
Comment by TCR Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 7:22 pm
Standardization is the norm in most industries within the civilized world. Standardization is key in effectiveness and efficiency. It make things a lot easier for the users to perform tasks similarly.
What would one do for tools if each automobile company would make up it’s own standards for bolts, driving position (left or right), seat size, etc. Why not government within the same state or country?
This question is a lot bigger than guns. We would like to think we are a sophisticated society but we are still struggling after 237 years. Shame on us!!!!
Comment by FJL Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 7:38 pm
You guys are making the mistake of thinking we need to justify our position. They must justify, beyond simply “we said so”, their prohibitions and regulations. All I hear are crickets.
Comment by David W Lawson Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 7:42 pm
80% of the citizens of the State of Illinois want to have no home rule for firearms ordinances.
Comment by downstater Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 7:46 pm
=== 109 - Congrats Rich! And with all those poll responses and the results moving from 60/40 to 80/20, clearly you’ve attracted the activists. ===
I’m wondering if suddenly what I think is less important, simply because this is an issue that I believe strongly about.
Comment by TheDaveFactor Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 8:05 pm
Rights are not given to municipalities, it is given to individuals. An Illinois resident should be allowed the same (individual) Rights as others within the state.
Comment by Dan Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 8:14 pm
Yes one set of laws for concealed carry . I my self drive thru many different municipality’s that can make me a felon in one and the next I am legal . I don’t mind learning 10 laws of what I can legally do . I don’t want to learn a 1000 different laws for each little burb who has no right to over rule my rights to protection where ever I may travel in this State .
Comment by B Diddy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 8:44 pm
@default….but same principle. counties around Chicago are exempted from the speed increase. downstate gets what they want, urban counties get what they want. same principle should apply on local gun ordinances.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 8:59 pm
Lawrence @ 5:40 pm I second your motion !
Comment by B Diddy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 9:23 pm
David Lawson, this is how Scalia layed it down in Heller:
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in anymanner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Seems to leave some room for legislation.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 9:31 pm
Amalia, easy way to fix the speed limit problem, stop electing socialist liberals up there.
Comment by middle O the state Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 9:36 pm
@middle O the state, the point is, upstaters don’t want the increase. nor do we wish to have home rule taken away on guns.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 9:40 pm
You think I don’t know Heller? I was there at the oral arguments and then again when my case was before SCOTUS 2 years later (McDonald). Now that you’ve explained to everyone what we already know, why not answer the question? Ok, some regulation permissible. Heller says so. Heller does not say any thing you want is permissible. So, what is the governmental interest in limiting magazines to 12 rounds in Chicago that is sufficient to override my 2nd Amendment rights?
Comment by David W Lawson Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 9:41 pm
David, I’ll leave it to those who legislators who propose or pass any ordinances to justify them in court if need be.
Just like those who would remove restrictions on conceal carry, as Justice Scalia points out has been upheld under the 2nd Amendment.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 9:54 pm
ahh…now you got nothing.
Comment by David W Lawson Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 9:57 pm
On behalf of gun owners everywhere, I am deeply insulted by the insinuation that responsible gun owners can’t abide by a law unless it is uniform and fits neatly on the back of an index card.
Gun owners pay taxes, and nothing is as nebulous or completely uninformed as the tax code. I have no doubt that gun owners can figure out where it is okay to have a semi-automatic weapon and where it isn’t. Heck, one of them is probably working on a patent for a smartphone app as we speak.
And as if that weren’t enough, you further insult them by insisting on a gun law that is not only uniform, but uniformly weak. I tell you today, gun owners are not weak, they are strong. And they deserve - nay, DEMAND - laws that match their strength. We did not sacrifice blood and life defending this great nation so that gun owners and their fellow citizens in Vernon Hills could demand trigger locks by local statute, if that be their democratic will. With all due respect, where will this encroachment on municipal rights end? Will the restaurant association come next demanding pre-emption of all local ordinances ensuring public health so that gourmands can have a uniform dining experience no matter where they travel?
Oh, how the conservative champions of state’s rights have fallen silent.
PS: Wordslinger, if you were looking for me, you should have put my mug on a beer bottle instead of a milk carton.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:01 pm
Wait!
@wordslinger
David, I’ll leave it to those who legislators who propose or pass any ordinances to justify them in court if need be.
Just like those who would remove restrictions on conceal carry, as Justice Scalia points out has been upheld under the 2nd Amendment.
Do you really? What if our LEGISLATORS decide that they can conform by stripping Home Rule units of their control? Maybe, it is you that needs to petition the courts and establish YOUR right to limit ALL citizens’ rights… Hmmm…
Comment by TheDaveFactor Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:13 pm
Rich, I declare you need to invoke your “Sockpuppet” rule on this…
.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:01 pm:
On behalf of gun owners everywhere, I am deeply insulted by the insinuation that responsible gun owners can’t abide by a law unless it is uniform and fits neatly on the back of an index card.
Gun owners pay taxes, and nothing is as nebulous or completely uninformed as the tax code. I have no doubt that gun owners can figure out where it is okay to have a semi-automatic weapon and where it isn’t. Heck, one of them is probably working on a patent for a smartphone app as we speak.
And as if that weren’t enough, you further insult them by insisting on a gun law that is not only uniform, but uniformly weak. I tell you today, gun owners are not weak, they are strong. And they deserve - nay, DEMAND - laws that match their strength. We did not sacrifice blood and life defending this great nation so that gun owners and their fellow citizens in Vernon Hills could demand trigger locks by local statute, if that be their democratic will. With all due respect, where will this encroachment on municipal rights end? Will the restaurant association come next demanding pre-emption of all local ordinances ensuring public health so that gourmands can have a uniform dining experience no matter where they travel?
Comment by TheDaveFactor Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:15 pm
==@default….but same principle. counties around Chicago are exempted from the speed increase. downstate gets what they want, urban counties get what they want. same principle should apply on local gun ordinances.==
If you think it is the same principle you miss my point entirely.
A speed limit is posted on a sign that takes a fraction of a second to read. Speed limit signs are required to be posted so people know what the speed limit is.
Gun laws are not the same. Chicago has a 6 page list of banned handguns. That’s not something that can be posted on a convenient sign to allow people to make sure they are in compliance with law. Also guns can be added or removed from the list arbitrarily, at any time, with no need to notify anyone of the change.
My point is it is a lot easier for someone to be in compliance with speed limits than with the minefield of gun restrictions Chicago has.
==@middle O the state, the point is, upstaters don’t want the increase. nor do we wish to have home rule taken away on guns.==
Speak for yourself. I live in Cook County too.
Comment by defaultdotxbe Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:27 pm
–What if our LEGISLATORS decide that they can conform by stripping Home Rule units of their control? –
Home rule powers are derived from the Illinois Constitution.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:33 pm
==Gun owners pay taxes, and nothing is as nebulous or completely uninformed as the tax code.==
This comparison is fallacious. A person only has to know the tax codes of whatever jurisdiction their primary residence is in (and perhaps that of their business headquarters if they are also a business owner)
I do not have to know the tax code of every town I might have to drive through on the way to work.
If I buy something in another town I am not responsible for knowing what that towns sales tax is.
Heck even if I work in another state I don’t have to know that state’s tax laws, my employer sends the correct amount of tax to the correct state.
Comment by defaultdotxbe Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:38 pm
I see people here grasping and gasping to hold onto something nebulous like their own opinion.
I also see s cliff.
And we have the legislature slowly realizing that without some form of preemption, CCW won’t be viable nor will it pass both houses.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:45 pm
@TheDaveFactor:
If you do not believe that gun owners are smart enough to figure out the gun laws — despite their fluency in Constitutional history — you must not have read any of their posts here today.
And if my irony is too subtle for you, please accept my apologies, and let me speak plainly.
I have no doubt that the earlier poster was correct that he passes through six different home rule communities each day heading to work, each with potentially different gun laws. I also would bet that they each have different speed limits too, and although the speed limit is clearly posted, on several occasions, perhaps often, he violates those speed limits.
Such are the complexities of modern life.
Yet one situation vexes him and the other is a trifle. why? The right to travel freely is certainly no less of a basic need, in fact it is the very right on which the NRA bases its argument for conceal carry.
I posit that the multiplicity of gun ordinances is not as much of a tangible problem as it is an existential one. The very existence of a gun ordinance that one considers too restrictive - even if it never really affects you - eats at the soul.
The other factor is pure political opportunism. Advocates for this or that routinely argue for “local control” when the consensus at a higher political level is more restrictive than their liking and for “uniform standards” when they can ensure those standards are uniformly weak.
if the NRA had the White House, Congress and 60 votes in the U.S. Senate, they would rush through a national gun bill to their liking under the commerce clause that preempts state authority. And if the shoe was on the other foot, they would argue that what might work in New York City doesn’t make sense in Wyoming, so gun laws ought to be left to each state.
I have no doubt that many who made their comments here today based on some purported object principle would quickly change their minds if the shoe were on the other foot as well.
I stand on a slightly different principle, and that is that we shouldn’t go about changing the rules midstream. both sides of the gun safety debate have been less than overjoyed over the last decade because neither has been able to win an outright victory, which is probably as it should be in a state as diverse as ours. That’s good democracy. But when you go changing the rules of the democracy midstream just to get a particular outcome on a particular issue, it almost always comes back to bite you on the butt on the next issue.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:47 pm
@default:
I assure you that no matter where you live in America, the applicable tax code is more nebulous and heterogeneous than all of the gun laws of all of the states and localities you could ever cross in your lifetime. Probably by a factor of ten.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:51 pm
How is protecting the civil rights of oppressed minorities within a state by the federal govt changing the rules of Democracy midstream? That’s why we ratified the 14th Amendment, in case you forgot.
Comment by David W Lawson Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:52 pm
@DeFault, your sentiment is not reflected in the feelings of the upstaters. in 2006, Cook County had a referendum on the banning of assault weapons. The vote was well over 80% in favor of banning assault weapons. it was not an obscure referendum, but one highly publicized and discussed in the media. Voters indicated their sentiments, local rule enacted.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:53 pm
And do you intend that we have little magazine capacity signs on every roadway border between home rule municipalities?
Since you are here to save wordslingers bacon, maybe you can answer my other question…
Comment by David W Lawson Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:54 pm
Amalia, residents of more than a dozen states held a referendum saying that certain people could be held denied basic human rights…didn’t make it kosher.
Comment by David W Lawson Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:55 pm
==I assure you that no matter where you live in America, the applicable tax code is more nebulous and heterogeneous than all of the gun laws of all of the states and localities you could ever cross in your lifetime. Probably by a factor of ten. ==
Good thing I only have to deal with them once a year, not every time I go to the grocery store, which is when every single gun law for 3 towns around me will apply
==@DeFault, your sentiment is not reflected in the feelings of the upstaters. in 2006, Cook County had a referendum on the banning of assault weapons. The vote was well over 80% in favor of banning assault weapons. it was not an obscure referendum, but one highly publicized and discussed in the media. Voters indicated their sentiments, local rule enacted.==
And the law they passed is so vague it has never been enforced because no one can figure out what is actually banned. The court case is still pending.
Also, ask a few people what an “assault weapon” is. I bet your 80% don’t know the answer is according the law they supported.
Comment by defaultdotxbe Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 11:00 pm
And I can also assure you Default that although speed limits are posted, people routinely ignore them.
Requiring every law or ordinance to be so simple it can be posted on a sign only makes sense if you own a Sign Company.
Want to tote your gun to work? Learn the laws along the way. heck, require ag’s website to have a mobile-friendly map you can click with links to local gun ordinances.
Think a municipality you’re passing through has gun safety ordinances that are to restrictive? You should probably avoid it anyway. According to what many folks tell me, if a town won’t let you walk down Main Street carrying a loaded ak47, it probably isn’t safe anyway.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 11:01 pm
==And I can also assure you Default that although speed limits are posted, people routinely ignore them.==
And those people are routinely punished for it, since they cannot claim ignorance of a clearly posted speed limit
==Requiring every law or ordinance to be so simple it can be posted on a sign only makes sense if you own a Sign Company.==
And requiring that everyone be aware of every possible law in every jurisdiction only makes sense if you run a law school
Comment by defaultdotxbe Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 11:05 pm
Speaking of people ignoring speed limits…which of these two things is more effective in discouraging drivers from speeding: 1. Speed limit sign. 2. Police Officer?
Which of these two things is more effective in discouraging criminals from violent crime: 1. Gun-free-zone sign. 2. Police Officer?
It’s almost like there’s a pattern buried in this noise…
Comment by David W Lawson Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 11:24 pm
“And I can also assure you Default that although speed limits are posted, people routinely ignore them.
Requiring every law or ordinance to be so simple it can be posted on a sign only makes sense if you own a Sign Company.
Want to tote your gun to work? Learn the laws along the way. heck, require ag’s website to have a mobile-friendly map you can click with links to local gun ordinances.
Think a municipality you’re passing through has gun safety ordinances that are to restrictive? You should probably avoid it anyway. According to what many folks tell me, if a town won’t let you walk down Main Street carrying a loaded ak47, it probably isn’t safe anyway.”"
Please explain to me why Illinois carry licensees (presuming the Raoul-Cullerton bill passes) should be subject to varying town ordinances on possession & carry of handguns, their components, ammunition or accessories in a way that the licensees of no other state, even historically heavily pro-gun control states such as California & Maryland & New Jersey & Massachusetts, is subject to?
Comment by Gray Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 11:25 pm
Honestly I would be happy is the preemption in HB0183 was strengthened a bit, even if it wasn’t total. Something like since I am a resident of ABC town on ABC’s gun laws and the state carry law apply to me, no matter where I am. So I couldn’t be arrested and have my car impounded for carrying a banned gun somewhere I didn’t know had banned it. (And I know I’m probably not making any friends one either side of this issue with that opinion)
And before someone brings up “walking down main street with an AK47″ That would not be an issue, both bills state you can carry a “handgun” and define handgun as one that is designed to operated with one hand. AK47’s are not designed for one hand (I know there are one-handed variants, but the basic design is still a two-handed rifle, plus a lot of the pistol variants would fall under the states short-barreled rifle ban)
Also, the both bills state it must be concealed. I don’t know about you I certainly can’t conceal a 34in rifle on my person. First cop that sees me would ask if that’s a rifle in my pants, and I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t believe I’m just happy to see him…
Comment by defaultdotxbe Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 11:44 pm
While I was elated at the total preemption in SB2193, a long term goal of mine, I do admit it is an overreach. Likewise the near-zero preemption in HB183 is an overreach. I suspect that the political solution will be a middle ground where carry as well as carry equipment is preempted, but ordinances unrelated to carry are not. This allows Chicago’s AWB and CFP to survive but also prevents firearm carriers from inadvertantly crossing a bridge too far.
Comment by David W Lawson Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 11:51 pm
So using an illogical logic, under home rule, one should be required to have a drivers license and license plate specific to each home rule community, and you must pull over and change the license plates before entering the jurisdiction of the home rule community?
Now if you have 2 adjoining home rule communities, and rye nearest safe place to change plates is 2 blocks before or after you get to the next home rule community and someone runs into you in those two blocks, you could be charged with a felony because you didn’t have the right plates on your car.
Actually in a way I am in favor of home rule drivers licenses. I don’t really want people from Chicago driving in my town unless they can prove they understand proper space between vehicles, which is a foreign concept to them.
Comment by il-logical thinker Thursday, May 30, 13 @ 12:28 am
One set of Firearm rules across the state.
Comment by James Larson Jr Thursday, May 30, 13 @ 5:03 am
Do all you No voters feel that home rule entities should also be able to put restrictions on your freedom of speech? Of course not. Before the “fire!” false argument, how about we say you are not allowed to speak negatively about the current mayor etc. How about home rule removes your right to remain silent? Its all the exact same thing as restricting your constitutionally guaranteed second amendment rights.
Comment by Jeff Hutson Thursday, May 30, 13 @ 7:33 am
Jeff -
See the earlier response from Rich to this false argument.
Home rule units not only restrict and regulate the right to assemble, the regulate political yard signs, door to door canvassing, commercial signage, and all units of local goverment restrict the right to petition governmnt in their meeting laws.
Like the the US Constitution, the Illinois Constitution’s home rule provision is extremely broad. the check on all the hypothetical abuse of home rule is local democracy. Before we rant about the follies of local officials, let me assure you that for every ardent gun rights advocate im Illinois who insists on living in a non home rule community, there are atleast as many prefer to live in communities with what they consider common sense safety ordinances.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, May 30, 13 @ 8:25 am
And, for Pete’s Sake, someone please find me a Constitutional scholar who can explain how “well-regulated” had come to mean “regulated as little as possible.”
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, May 30, 13 @ 8:28 am
back then, “well regulated” meant trained and armed properly
Comment by middle O the state Thursday, May 30, 13 @ 8:38 am
AND, the Constitution was not written so only the elite could understand it! It was written so the common man could understand it as well.
Comment by middle O the state Thursday, May 30, 13 @ 8:55 am
– So, what is the governmental interest in limiting magazines to 12 rounds in Chicago that is sufficient to override my 2nd Amendment rights? –
Sorry, Dave, I assumed that was a statement masquerading as a question.
My guess is proponents of such a rule would put it in the category of public safety. Some would disagree, I’m sure, but that happens all the time in legislatures and public discourse.
As to whether that would be a Constitutionally permissible limitation, well, I guess that depends on what a majority of the Supreme Court says. They don’t always agree, either. As Judge Posner wrote, we’re in “terra incognita” on a lot of these questions.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 30, 13 @ 9:07 am
Abolishing all home rule gun laws is an overreach, but abolishing none is equally problematic. If the issue is personal protection on the streets, then Chicago’s assault weapons ban can stand as nobody will be trying to conceal carry and AR-15. Magazine limits can stand, or at least loading limits, because if there is a threat of so many people you need a large amount of firepower, chances are you should have noticed it had you been paying attention and made every effort to avoid it. Likewise, their ban on lasers could stand, since the purpose of concealed carry is to eliminate an imminent threat, and if the assailant is far enough away you need a laser to target them, the threat is almost certainly not imminent. Alternatively, you can allow the presence of laser sights, but prohibit their use. This solves the problem of guns with built-in lasers.
However, transportation laws should be uniform statewide, as it becomes a nuisance trying to know and enforce all the various home rule ordinances.
Comment by Rev. Rich Thursday, May 30, 13 @ 10:32 am
So these “common sense” safety ordinances are: disarm law abiding citizens and give probation to career criminals who violate the law. Got it. Oh and well-regulated meant “in order”
Comment by Jeff Hutson Thursday, May 30, 13 @ 5:20 pm
–Oh and well-regulated meant “in order”–
What do you mean?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 30, 13 @ 5:25 pm
To understand what well-regulated militia meant, Federalist 29 is required reading. And anyway it modifies militia while the right is held by the people.
You should thank Scalia for centering the core of the right on personal self-defense and not militia as it’s hard to justify an AWB based upon original intent.
Comment by David Lawson Thursday, May 30, 13 @ 5:44 pm
Same laws across state for uniform enforcement and application
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 30, 13 @ 10:08 pm
I think Amendment 5 of HB0183 makes a workable CCW law. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/98/HB/09800HB0183sam005.htm
Comment by David W Lawson Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:48 am