Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

The limitations of laws and the governor’s proposed way forward

Posted in:

Illinois

* David A. Graham in the Atlantic…

In retrospect, the points where Illinois law broke and failed to stop Crimo are apparent. The problem is that making red-flag laws less porous requires a statute that either is a confusing kludge or raises troubling civil-liberties questions—or both—all in the service of a relatively simple goal of preventing dangerous people from getting guns. In effect, a strong red-flag law risks trampling on Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights in the name of protecting Second Amendment rights, while weaker red-flag laws may barely work at all. […]

But reliance on family members is an inherent weakness in red-flag laws. Relatives are best positioned to know when someone is in distress, and may feel most at risk from a loved one’s threats, yet they are also most likely to forgive a child or sibling or parent and to feel protective, rather than call the police on them.

Maybe, then, police should have more leeway to deny permits or, as in the case of Crimo’s threats, arrest a suspect—but any system that gives police greater discretion risks abuse and replicating existing inequities in the system. A white young man from a prominent local family (Crimo’s father was a candidate for mayor not long ago) might end up getting a pass, while a less fortunate young man of color would be blocked. (I have previously written about how Black Americans do not, in practice, enjoy the same Second Amendment rights as white Americans.)

Eschewing discretion and mandating that police act more strictly might produce more equitable results, but would risk violating due-process rights and protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Writing such a law in a way that would pass muster with a judiciary as hostile to gun control as the current one is unlikely. […]

Red-flag laws as they exist (and as they may expand under the new gun law) are probably a good thing, even if their only effect is to drive down the gun-suicide rate. But the Highland Park shooting demonstrates that existing red-flag laws have important limitations, and trying to strengthen them is likely to present serious downsides. If the goal is to reduce the risk of mass shootings, there is a simple way to do that without disparate effects on different people: Make it harder for everyone to get guns.

* Gov. Pritzker was asked on CNN about what law changes he supports…

I think that there are probably three things that need to be looked at here.

One is changing some of the verbiage in the law on red flags so that something could have been filed, that would have prevented the FOID card from being issued.

Two is that we need to ban assault weapons, not just in the state of Illinois, but nationally.

And then third high capacity magazines. So there’s no reason why someone should have 90 bullets at the ready, 30 in each of the cartridges that he used, and that’s just something that I don’t think civilians should have. And I’ve talked to police since the shooting who would tell you that the size, the caliber of the bullets that were being fired is much larger than the size, caliber and speed of bullets that even police carry with them. Why do civilians need this? You know the name of the weapon that this shooter was using is the Smith and Wesson M&P 15. You know what M&P stands for? Military and Police, and that’s who perhaps should have these weapons, not civilians, being able to just walk in and buy one.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 10:27 am

Comments

Regarding one of Graham’s points, in the recent SCOTUS decision striking down New York state’s gun law, numerous public defenders (including Cook County’s Sharone Mitchell) filed a brief in support of striking down the law, specifically for the racially disparate civil rights claims Graham mentions. The difficulty of this situation is that all the tools were there for Crimo, they just weren’t used (or were abused).

Comment by Google Is Your Friend Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 10:48 am
The Gov should stay way from technical details of these weapons and ammo, and stick to their horrendous impacts on human beings.

These weapon systems were designed to inflict maximum damage in combat.

Comment by walker Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 10:48 am
“90 bullets at the ready, 30 in each of the cartridges that he used”

JB’s team should have given him better notes - weapons have magazines that hold cartridges. Cartridges are individual rounds. he meant “magazines”. on the national stage, his messaging should be accurate.

Comment by Donnie Elgin Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 10:49 am
Getting a gun should be very difficult and only for people who can prove their mental and technical competence. I admit to not knowing how to write that into a law which is fair to the person desiring to own gun(s) and the public who has an expectation of not being killed at a 4th of July parade.

Comment by DuPage Dad Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 10:51 am
aha, the gun nuts are scared. the more the the damage from the guns is discussed or perhaps soon shown, the more they go to the minutae of guns and that they think they need these guns for protection. like they are a target like the gov, not.

Comment by Amalia Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 11:14 am
Biden announced today that is working on making assault weapons illegal. I wish him luck but the gun owners are a pervasive lot.

Comment by Lurker Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 11:15 am
==JB’s team should have given him better notes - weapons have magazines that hold cartridges. Cartridges are individual rounds. he meant “magazines”. on the national stage, his messaging should be accurate. ==

Nobody cares.

Comment by Arsenal Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 11:20 am
== You know what M&P stands for? Military and Police==

M&P is simply a Smith and Wesson brand name that has been around for over half a century, covering everything from rifles down to small caliber handguns. So good luck basing any ban on the argument that it’s called a name that sounds bad, under the new Supreme Court standard.

Comment by fs Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 11:23 am
“M&P is simply a Smith and Wesson brand name that has been around for over half a century”

Correct. A brand name - indicates it is a tried and true weapon system that has been used in professional settings under harsh conditions. Gun owners and industry folks have known that for decades firearm manufacturers will design/sell into these markets and also sell them into the civilian marketplace. S&W, Glock, Colt, and Sig all do it.

Comment by Donnie Elgin Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 11:33 am
I disagree with both walker and Donnie on this one. Republicans have a habit of being intentionally wrong about the details of people and things they dislike. I’ve crusaded before about using “Democrat” when “Democratic” is grammatically correct, but Republicans also go out of their way to malaprop words like “transgender” and “climate.” Democratic pedantry on the specifics of climate science and gender identity have had no meaningful effect on public opinion.

Frankly, I like that JB isn’t extremely precise about gun terminology. It means he’s not a gun hobbyist, just like me. It means he never found tools of violent death fascinating or worthy of space in his brain. Republicans revel in their ignorance of concepts they find distasteful while Democrats blush. It’s one of the many imbalances created by Democratic self-doubt. We don’t need to have this discourse on the terms of the gun industry’s choosing.

Comment by vern Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 11:35 am
It’s not a matter of need JB, or your opinion of what people should be allowed to have. Try to keep up. And how are we supposed to be part of well regulated militia if we don’t have proper weaponry?

Comment by Captain Obvious Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 11:44 am
@vern
Your critiques are always worthwhile

Comment by walker Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 11:52 am
== I like that JB isn’t extremely precise about gun terminology. It means he’s not a gun hobbyist, just like me. ==

That’s all fine and good, until you have to write legislation trying to ban specific types of weapons using ridiculous arguments like a brand name or whether something just looks bad. Unless the Governor intends to include such things as a Model 1899 “Military and Police” revolver.

Comment by fs Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 11:57 am
thanks, @walker (banned punctuation)

Comment by vern Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 11:59 am
===until you have to write legislation===

Yeah, I’m thinking governors don’t write legislation.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 11:59 am
===Biden announced today that is working on making assault weapons illegal.===

There is an assault weeapons ban bill in the General Assembly. HB 5522 was filed in January but never even made it out of the Rules Committee. However starting last week it suddenly got a boatload of co-sponsors.

https://tinyurl.com/4rw9es9u

Comment by Nick Name Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 12:00 pm
=== until you have to write legislation ===

The only think Pritzker needs to write precisely on legislation is his signature. But if it makes you feel better, I also oppose enacting unabridged CNN interview transcripts into law.

Comment by vern Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 12:01 pm
I would add a fourth new law–banning the owning and possession of body armor by civilians. While it wasn’t the case in Highland Park, it has been used in other recent mass killing events, like Buffalo. I see no reason why a civilian needs body armor.

Comment by G'Kar Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 12:01 pm
The governor never said that anything should be banned based on its name — he said that 30 round magazines should be reserved for the police and military and not civilians.

(imho, there should have been a paragraph break after “Why do civilians need this?”)

Arguments over “M&P,” “AR,” etc. are a deliberate and pointless distraction.

– MrJM

Comment by MisterJayEm Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 12:06 pm
== Yeah, I’m thinking governors don’t write legislation.==

Many with a similar mindset and misunderstanding a firearms will, however. And that’s the point. The 1994 ban was almost laughable in considering cosmetic aspects of firearms over actual functionality, for example. With the way such bans will now be evaluated by the courts, these concerns about verbiage aren’t going to be small.

Comment by fs Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 12:06 pm
The problem with an all out ban on certain weapons
Is that responsible citizens are going to get up in
It
Criminals will not follow any new ban leaving the rest of
Population in danger
And the criminals will know it

Comment by Dave Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 12:10 pm
==until you have to write legislation==

Have you looked at HB 5522, the bill to ban assault weapons? There are quite a few definitions in it and none of them have to do with branding.

Comment by Panther Pride Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 12:11 pm
=== Many with a similar mindset and misunderstanding a firearms will, however. ===

The bill we’re talking about is available to read, so we don’t have to have this third-order speculative conversation. The definition of assault rifle is only a few hundred words, and none of them refer to branding or, as far as I can tell, purely aesthetic considerations.

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=110&GA=102&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=5522&GAID=16&LegID=140047&SpecSess=&Session=

Comment by vern Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 12:13 pm
// I see no reason why a civilian needs body armor. //

Depends on whether you’re a shooter or a parade goer, I suppose.

Comment by XonXoff Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 12:14 pm
HB5522:
My semi-auto rifle is dangerous and must be banned.
But if I register it and pay a fine, I get to keep it.
But if I register it and pay a fine, I get to keep it.

If I get to keep it after paying a fine, then how dangerous is it, really, and why bother banning it at all?

Comment by We've never had one before Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 12:16 pm
The political rhetoric predicated on an idea one branch of another need to do the “job” not designated for them is the distraction to the problem.

A governor owns their signatures and their orders.

The rest is politics to problems, and trying to get to the solutions

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 12:18 pm
Amilia— no we are not afraid

“And I’ve talked to police since the shooting who would tell you that the size, the caliber of the bullets that were being fired is much larger than the size, caliber and speed of bullets that even police carry with them. “

Governor you no less about guns than my dog does

The AR typically fires a 5.56/.223 cartridge weighing 55-62 grains (there are 7000 grains in a pound) the typical 9mm weighs 115-147 grains 2 to 3 times the average weight of a 5.56. And governor there are plenty of pics of cops carrying the same style rifle that day

The problem is this type of ignorance is what will make it into legislation. Fine that makes it easier to beat in debate or court and at this point ill settle for an injunction and court tossing all of this nonsense placing a set of handcuffs on the legislature

But the real question for all of you wanting this— how are you going to enforce this? 2.3 million plus gun owners if each one own one edfected gun and one mag thats 5 million wntries staye police have to deal with iff we comply.

And what do you do if we don’t ? Cant put us all in jail. Few sheriffs outside of cook will enforce it. You gonna have state police scanning social media pages? No knock midnight raids?

New york and other states typically only got a 15% compliance rate with their bans. You need to be thinking well past the legislation and how you will implement it and what ur gonna do when a lion share of gun owners say no

Comment by Todd Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 12:28 pm
==Criminals will not follow any new ban==

So we’re to do nothing on the off chance that a homeowner will someday be able to unload 30+ rounds on a perp using their semi-automatic weapon?

Comment by Jocko Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 12:30 pm
Yes

Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight

Comment by Dave Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 12:33 pm
I agree with JB. No amount/type of red flag laws will ever stop all mass shootings. Our best bet is to limit the lethality of mass shootings by banning military weapons. It won’t be easy and there’s already too many in circulation but we have to start somewhere.

Comment by Sir Reel Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 12:38 pm
== The bill we’re talking about is available to read, so we don’t have to have this third-order speculative conversation. The definition of assault rifle is only a few hundred words, and none of them refer to branding or, as far as I can tell, purely aesthetic considerations.==

It’s also written in a manner that could loop in many types of traditional magazine fed hunting rifles, and possibly shotguns. Going up against a legal standard of review much tougher than before. Good luck.

Comment by fs Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 12:38 pm
===It’s not a matter of need JB, or your opinion of what people should be allowed to have. Try to keep up. And how are we supposed to be part of well regulated militia if we don’t have proper weaponry?===

One. There was 10 years of an assault weapons ban which passed every judicial challenge it met. So I mean you can call prior law an opinion if you want.

two. Im pretty sure that no technology you can by would save you from a drone strike. Good luck finding proper weaponry to defend against that

Comment by Captain Underpants Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 12:39 pm
=== The problem with an all out ban on certain weapons
Is that responsible citizens are going to get up in It. Criminals will not follow any new ban ===

When was the last Tommy Gun shooting in Illinois?

Is a ban 100% effective? No, we just saw that in Japan.

Is a ban more effective than doing nothing? Yes, we see that every day in Japan.

If you have a suggestion besides “do nothing” that will save more lives than banning assault rifles, please share it.

But the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

Comment by Thomas Paine Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 12:47 pm
Along the lines of what Todd said:
POTUS says that a 9mm “blows out a lung”, somewhere else in the media the AR-15 “decapitates”.

The media socializes these lies and exaggerations, and the liberal gun-fearing populous believes it, having no actual knowledge to fall back on, thus it becomes their truth. Oops.

Comment by We've never had one before Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 12:48 pm
I think there is some validity to the argument the gun folks in this thread have been making about bans based on brand or appearance. Largely because the most commonly filed language for AWB bills matches closely to the old federal ban. One of the biggest problems with that ban was that mfg’s quickly figured out how to get around the ban, leading to what we’re called “pre-ban” and “post ban” AR’s and AK’s, the end result being that even during the ban you could style but brand rifles from both families.
One major difference with HB5522 however is that it delegates significant authority to the DNR to further define and include various firearms. That could/should fix loophole issues and allow the real specifics to be handled by executive rule making authority. I would think that would also help in the case of lawsuits, because if they go a little too far in the SC’s eyes, then it would hopefully only overturn an administrative rule, which could then be quickly fixed.

Comment by Wonky Kong Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 12:50 pm
=Nobody cares.=

Except gun fetishist which takes me back to your comment “Nobody cares” to which I share the response…Ditto.

=And how are we supposed to be part of well regulated militia if we don’t have proper weaponry?=

The USSC has completely ignored the initial 60% of the 2nd Amendment and they don’t care.

You may want to avail yourself of the National Firearms Act. For nearly a century the court has allowed limitations on the weapons American citizens can own. I doubt banning ownership of assault weapons, or adding them to the requirements on the NFA would be stopped by the court unless they want full anarchy on their hands. There has been no discussion of the court nullifying NFA. So the gun nuts shouldn’t be quite so cocksure of themselves even given the recent USSC decision which never spoke to the “type” of weapons.

Comment by JS Mill Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 12:50 pm
Apologize for the typos in my previous post. Autocorrect and I aren’t getting along.

Comment by Wonky Kong Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 12:52 pm
If anything positive comes out of July 4 let’s hope (1) the state police gets adequate funding focused on the FOID program and (2) local authorities receive or unilaterally take more steps to intervene when confronted with situations similar to Crimo

Comment by Sue Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 12:56 pm
Is Todd still around? I asked twice what gunners would do to address mass shootings, but he didn’t reply. I wish he would.

Comment by Socially DIstant Watcher Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 1:00 pm
“There was 10 years of an assault weapons ban which passed every judicial challenge it met. So I mean you can call prior law an opinion if you want”

That was before District of Columbia v Heller (2008) where the Court held that the Second Amendment protects firearms “in common use at the time” for purposes such as self-defense.

AR-15 style weapons and pistols with 10 plus round magazines are likely some of the most common types of weapons sold/possessed - Data from NSSF the trade association for firearms can back that claim up

Comment by Donnie Elgin Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 1:00 pm
=== But the real question for all of you wanting this— how are you going to enforce this? 2.3 million plus gun owners if each one own one edfected gun and one mag thats 5 million wntries staye police have to deal with iff we comply. ===

Todd, first of all, don’t come swooping in with nose-thumbing gun pedantry if you’re not going to spellcheck your comment.

Second, we’ve arrived at the place this debate always arrives at: gun owners threatening violence towards law enforcement. Your willingness to engage in violence against the police should not give you a veto over a democratically elected government.

But you and I both know that this is just cosplay, you’ll never end up in a shootout with the Illinois state police. Your precious death machine is protected not just by the 2nd Amendment, but by the 5th. There’s no mandatory buyback or eminent domain component to the ban, so no one is coming to take your arsenal. If they ever do, it won’t be a no-knock midnight raid. I’ll be a check in the mail for thousands of dollars.

Comment by vern Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 1:13 pm
If a ‘assault rifle’ ban passes, you can almost bet there will be a rash of boat accidents where hunting rifles for lost in the river or lake.

A magazine ban down to say, 15, might have a chance.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 1:31 pm
Vern. Im on an excavator trying to type between scrapers at the gun club building a new range

Like i said if we wont register them and wont comply then what? Its not a death wish just a question you need to think past the tip of your nose tot he down stream implications

Most people with a glock have a mag or five that would need to be registered despite having a foid and many have a carry license but that is enough for you guys so when people wont pay the tax wont tell the government what they own and just go about their lives then what?

Comment by Todd Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 1:32 pm
Hey Todd, while you’re into details try to get the name of the person to whom you are responding spelled correctly. And yes, you are afraid. your entire gun industrial complex is built on stoking fear.

Comment by Amalia Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 1:33 pm
==if we don’t have proper weaponry==

Planning on fighting a personal war?

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 1:34 pm
==is built on stoking fear==

And protecting mass shooters

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 1:34 pm
Instead of banning weapons for all in the attempt to stop the very few who would misuse them, let’s focus on identifying the few. I am relatively sure every one of these shooters set off some teacher’s radar during their school career. All it would take is a conversation in the teacher’s lounge, on a regular basis, to ID these potential problems. The info is available, the authorities should avail themselves. Let’s try to narrow the search. Can’t be any harder than trying to disarm this country.

Comment by Papa2008 Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 1:38 pm
===My semi-auto rifle is dangerous and must be banned.
But if I register it and pay a fine, I get to keep it.
But if I register it and pay a fine, I get to keep it.

If I get to keep it after paying a fine, then how dangerous is it, really, and why bother banning it at all?===

Did you mean fee? The bill has a registration fee, but no fines. It specifies that violations are felonies.

Politics is the art of the possible. You have to granfather in current assault weapons owners

Comment by Nick Name Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 1:39 pm
==That’s all fine and good, until you have to write legislation==

Pritzker wasn’t writing legislation, though, and in point of fact, never will.

The gun manufacturers used the meaningless slogan “military and police” to sell their guns. Now Pritzker is using the same meaningless slogan against them. Sucks to get beat at your own game, I guess.

Comment by Arsenal Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 2:29 pm
As I’ve said before I don’t think civilians need a semiautomatic weapon with a 30 round magazine to protect themselves. As far as banning those weapons go, the question to ask is how much gun control restriction will the SCOTUS allow? They will eventually be the ones who decide this as you can bet that they will accept the case if and when this legislation is challenged in court. Like it or not we have a pro gun Supreme Court.

Comment by The Dude Abides Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 2:29 pm
==The problem with an all out ban on certain weapons
Is that responsible citizens are going to get up in
It
Criminals will not follow any new ban leaving the rest of
Population in danger
And the criminals will know it ==

The problem with banning murder
Is that responsible citizens will get up in it
Criminals will not follow any ban leaving the rest of the
Population in danger
And the criminals will know it

Comment by Arsenal Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 2:31 pm
>>>>>Did you mean fee? The bill has a registration fee, but no fines.

Your fee is my fine.

>>>>>It specifies that violations are felonies.
For failing to pay a fine. Like an overdue library book.

Comment by We've never had one before Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 2:37 pm
==Governor you no less about guns than my dog does==

Did that dog type this?

==The AR typically fires a 5.56/.223 cartridge weighing 55-62 grains (there are 7000 grains in a pound) the typical 9mm weighs 115-147 grains 2 to 3 times the average weight of a 5.56.==

Does that mean that people didn’t actually die in Highland Park? No? Then I repeat: nobody cares.

==But the real question for all of you wanting this— how are you going to enforce this?==

With the police, most likely.

==if each one own one edfected gun and one mag thats 5 million wntries==

Do they?

==And what do you do if we don’t ? Cant put us all in jail.==

Don’t have to. Just take care of enough so that a bunch of the others get the picture and willingly surrender their illegal guns.

==Few sheriffs outside of cook will enforce it.==

Sheriffs won’t enforce the law?

==New york and other states typically only got a 15% compliance rate with their bans.==

I’d happily take getting 15% of these guns off the streets. It’s better than the status quo of getting 0% of them off the streets.

Comment by Arsenal Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 2:39 pm
===Your fee is my fine.===

Poor baby, I guess? Sheesh.

Comment by Nick Name Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 3:10 pm
“Military and Police, and that’s who perhaps should have these weapons, not civilians…” We are citizens, not “civilians.” But interesting that Gov. Priztker gives away his perception of the people who pay police salaries, the lowly serfs/taxpayers.

Hey Gov, promote your gun ban, but don’t exempt police and *retired police* if you’re serious.

Comment by Elmer Keith Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 3:24 pm
Arsenal — yea. Bunch of counties have passed sanctuary ordinances/resolutions lots of sheriffs and cops won’t. Be enforcing these if passed

The cops in my neighborhood won’t as explained to me im suppose to arrest and confiscate guns from my neighbors, people i go to church with, people from my son’s football team for not registering a magazine or firearm they lawfully own? Not happening. That was a sgt on local PD

So the cops are not all behind this effort and lets play the long game, these bills have a 300 day grace period in the next year of believe the foid will get tossed what are you gonna do when the state no longer has that as a crutch or backup?

Comment by Todd Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 3:31 pm
“Illinois Gun Dealers Trade Association” heard from. Merchants of death.

Comment by Amalia Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 4:51 pm
I don’t have the data to back this up, but anecdotally it seems like for a lot of mass shooters the weapons were recent purchases. So let’s say there is an assault weapons ban in Illinois, that could hinder future wannabe shooters from acquiring AR type weapons. Even with the grandfathered in weapons, making an example of people who illegally transfer/sell weapons could serve as a deterrent. That leaves the ability to go to another state to purchase those weapons as the biggest loophole. Since a national ban is highly unlikely, I don’t know how you prevent that. If conservatives want to restrict what happens in other states, Illinois could go the Texas route & let victims sue out of state gun stores for selling illegal weapons. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Comment by MyTwoCents Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 5:03 pm
// And yes, you are afraid. your entire gun industrial complex is built on stoking fear. //

Truth.

Fear sells the (banned word) out of guns. Gun manufacturers now control the former GOP via the NRA.

Comment by XonXoff Monday, Jul 11, 22 @ 6:46 pm
==Bunch of counties ==

38 out of 101 non-Cook Counties. And those are all symbolic measures, too. Many LEOs have said they won’t consider them when making enforcement decisions. Many of those ordinances or resolutions simply say that they don’t want the GA to pass any more gun laws.

And let’s think about this logically: cops are, rationally, afraid of getting killed. That’s what is at the heart of all these incidents where they attack unarmed men but hold back on armed men. They’re afraid of getting killed. So, when push comes to shove, they’re not going to help enforce a law that reduces the chances of them getting killed? That doesn’t pass the smell test.

And then look at what’s happening in Highland Park *right now*. Someone’s going to get sued over the fact that Crimo got a gun. You don’t think police departments are paying attention? You think they’re going to let officers ignore a law and risk more lawsuits just because Sarge told you so?

Most people try to obey the law. That’s why red state abortion clinics are closing. That’s why you pay your taxes. Maybe, if you try really hard, you can convince me that most police and gun owners are more socially malignant than most. Maybe you can convince me that they’re all proto-terrorists just hanging by a thread, waiting for that one provocation.

But man, if you do, even more reason to take they’s guns.

Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 7:48 am
“Your willingness to engage in violence against the police…” Don’t worry, former (fired) NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde only grovels to police. Vandermyde, Valinda Rowe from (southern) Illinois Carry (think Darren Bailey hicks) and ISRA executive director-for-life Richard Pearson are the sellouts who personally signed off on the Duty to Inform in Rep. Brandon Phelps concealed carry bill with the anti-gun IL Chiefs of Police. They are all on the same side against gun owners

Comment by Elmer Keith Tuesday, Jul 12, 22 @ 11:54 am