Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Northwestern brings in former US Attorney General to conduct process review
Next Post: Federal judge rules that BIPA penalties are ‘discretionary,’ vacates $228 million award, orders new damages trial
Posted in:
* Center Square…
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker appeared to concede that his and Democratic lawmakers’ ban on a wide variety of semi-automatic handguns and rifles has a less than 50-50 chance of surviving in the federal court system.
During a discussion the governor’s office said was about “gun violence prevention” at Temple Jeremiah in Northfield Thursday, Pritzker was asked about the chance his ban on certain semi-automatic firearms and magazines survives a challenge in the federal courts.
“It is not zero chance and it is not, you know, 30% chance, I think it’s better than that that we will win,” Pritzker said. “I don’t know what percent to put on it. I just think we have a pretty good argument.”
* What he actually said during the Q and A…
Q: So at the national level, and there was even an article today in the Tribune about this, we seem to have hit a roadblock to pass a Federal Assault Weapons Ban and the Supreme Court’s, particularly Justice Thomas’, rulings in in the cases before the court, the ruling against state gun restrictions. So take out your crystal ball. Where where do you think this is all going?
Pritzker: Where’s this all going? We need to make sure that we get people appointed to the Supreme Court who are going to do the right thing. [Applause]
I do think that that, again, going back to the case that it is likely to be the Illinois case going to the Supreme Court, I do think that we have, you know, I don’t know what percentage chance to put on it. But it is not zero chance and it is not you know 30 percent chance. I think it’s better than that, that we will win. I don’t know what percent to put on it. I just think that we have a pretty good argument. And it’s demonstrated by the quality of the bill that got passed and signed here in Illinois and the commentary of the appellate court judges.
So you know, when you say where’s it all going? We’re in this terrible situation, where essentially it’s been made available to everybody to go by almost any, lots of hand guns are available to everybody in the audience and everybody out there in the world. And more and more of them have been purchased. And I think we have today read that we have 390 million guns in private hands in a country that has about, what, 340 million people in it. And that doesn’t mean that everybody in this room has a gun but it means that somebody else out there has more than one gun. And as I said before, there are lots of people buying guns because they, not because they feel like they should have a gun or you know, but because now they feel like everybody else has a gun. And so they have to protect themselves, or they want to be like their neighbors who are asking, ‘Do you have one? Do you have one?” And so this is the world we’re living in. And I was just abroad in the UK. They can’t believe what’s going on with guns in the United States and they don’t understand how a rational society like ours can let the continuation of the growth of gun ownership, particularly very deadly weapons can continue to harvest among us.
Please pardon all transcription errors.
* More from the Q and A…
Q: Someone’s asking ‘How do you feel about the safe storage laws and Ethan’s law in particular which has a penalty to parents with minors in the house where guns aren’t stored properly or safely?’
Pritzker: I think we need to pass legislation to lock up guns in homes. [Applause] I think if you’re going to own a gun, you have to be responsible with it. And this is one way for us to demand and to ask people to do the right thing and keep them safe in their own homes. So I’ll just leave it there.
* Insurance requirements for gun owners…
Pritzker: That’s not from my perspective about trying to make it expensive or difficult, you know, we can’t put roadblocks just for the sake of roadblocks to people buying guns that are legal to acquire. On the other hand, there is a real problem when guns are misused, not kept properly, loaned out willy nilly to people who shouldn’t have them. People have to be responsible. And I think that being held liable for that means that you’re probably going to, should have, the requirement or at least, we should be contemplating a requirement of people who are going to purchase a gun to have some kind of insurance. I say that though, without having done the research on what is the cost of that insurance, what would be the liability that people would be subjected to. So I don’t want to just make an announcement here that I think, you know, broadly, we ought to require insurance but I do think we’ve got to contemplate it and there should be hearings about it and we should ask the insurance industry and we should also try to understand what the the cost to an individual really would be.
* Taxing ammunition…
Pritzker: I think over the course of the last 35 years that I’ve been engaged in this, that’s certainly something that’s come up quite a lot. Could you just tax bullets, you know, with a high tax and then no one will buy them. I think that the Supreme Court essentially would shut that down because the effectiveness of the Second Amendment, they would say, would be nullified. And again, there may be people you know, who think that we should nullify the Second Amendment, but not the Supreme Court of the United States today.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 10:02 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Northwestern brings in former US Attorney General to conduct process review
Next Post: Federal judge rules that BIPA penalties are ‘discretionary,’ vacates $228 million award, orders new damages trial
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I totally agree with requiring insurance for gun ownership. I think that is totally fair and will an impact on how many guns folks have. I think it should be affordable for reasonable fire arms like hunting rifles or pistols. Guns like assault rifles should be expensive to insure. Discounts given to members of shooting clubs, collector clubs and former military.
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 10:18 am
What happened to “No one is trying to take your guns?”
Comment by We've never had before Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 10:26 am
What happened to “No one is trying to take your guns?”
It still holds true. Nobody’s come for mine yet that I’ve noticed. But I’m not inhaling right wing fearmongering 24/7 so that probably helps me keep my relationship with firearms and their regulation in perspective.
Comment by Larry Bowa Jr. Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 10:37 am
To the best of my knowledge there is not an insurance product that can be purchased to insure a firearm. What would be the cost to come up with a product that would fit what the Governor is talking about. If he thinks a small tax on bullets would be held unconstitutional, I can only imagine the cost of insuring a firearm. But once again, are criminals, who cause all the destruction in society, going to insure their illegally acquired firearms.
Comment by Nagidam Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 10:57 am
==What happened to “No one is trying to take your guns?”==
This law doesn’t take guns away from any law abiding citizen. If you own a restricted weapon, and you register it with the State, you can keep it. You just can’t buy, sell or trade them with anyone else.
Comment by Gruntled University Employee Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 11:02 am
what other item in the Bill of Rights requires Insurance?
Comment by boohoo Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 11:13 am
“No one is trying to take your guns?”
Heard this paranoia from the NRA sheep all my life, and I’m 55…and own more guns now than at any time in my life.
Comment by Flyin'Elvis'-Utah Chapter Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 11:21 am
Illinois will learn the hard way the 2nd Amendment is in effect for long guns, just like it is for handguns. JB is hoping to get lucky; their ‘arguments’ are weak at best, and unsupported in current 2A SCOTUS rulings that overturned rifle bans and other restrictions.
Comment by thisjustinagain Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 11:21 am
Requiring insurance won’t pass constitutional muster anymore than a special tax on bullets will. But hey, take your shot JB. And if you think the 2A should be nullified, there’s a process for that too.
Comment by Captain Obvious Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 11:32 am
=Pritzker: I think we need to pass legislation to lock up guns in homes. [Applause] I think if you’re going to own a gun, you have to be responsible with it. And this is one way for us to demand and to ask people to do the right thing and keep them safe in their own homes. So I’ll just leave it there.=
No I don’t. Very arrogant and paternalistic.
Comment by unafraid Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 11:33 am
“ what other item in the Bill of Rights requires Insurance?”
That’s an interesting question. I would guess practicing religion since churches have property insurance and some have liabilities insurance.
A person can always sue another person who wrongfully or accidentally shoots them, insurance or not. Having insurance (probably an umbrella plan) instead of being self insured isn’t a bad idea.
Comment by Betty Draper’s cigarette Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 11:37 am
Have background checks at both state and federal levels before a gun can be purchased. That’s about it. Although there are required federal checks it is only for licensed dealers and about 60% of all guns are sold privately.
Pritzker needs to get with it and stop all of these other impediments and work to get a law into affect that private dealers are in the federal background check.
Show some leadership and common sense.
Comment by unafraid Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 11:42 am
“what other item in the Bill of Rights requires Insurance?”
What other item in the bill of rights can one person use to injure or kill people?
Comment by Steve Polite Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 11:43 am
===Pritzker needs to get with it and stop all of these other impediments and work to get a law into affect that private dealers are in the federal background check===
He’s the governor of Illinois, not the king of the USA.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 11:46 am
Nothin’ like a post on guns to bring out the “thoughts and prayers” brigade.
Comment by Flyin'Elvis'-Utah Chapter Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 11:58 am
“ To the best of my knowledge there is not an insurance product that can be purchased to insure a firearm.” You can get an umbrella plan now, I doubt it would be in cover an event where the insured purposefully broke the law, though.
“But once again, are criminals, who cause all the destruction in society, going to insure their illegally acquired firearms.”
You assume criminals are born that way. You can’t buy insurance after the fact. All insurance has to be bought before the insured event, in this case a tragic shooting, and thus before the criminal became a criminal.
And even so, I’m sure the insurance company wouldn’t pay out if a law was purposefully premeditated violated. It might pay out for accidents and manslaughter and self defense.
Comment by Betty Draper’s cigarette Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 12:03 pm
While I do not support mandatory insurance, it is part of keeping yourself protected.
Both USCCA and NRA offer good plans.
Comment by SOIL M Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 12:04 pm
I’d love to read an explanation by an attorney as to why insurance for guns wouldn’t work. I’ll admit that I don’t know the legal terrain. But I’d love to understand the arguments.
I have to have insurance for my car and home.
Why can’t the state mandate that I have to have insurance for guns? I think it’s only responsible.
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 12:12 pm
I think he’s drastically over estimating the laws chances IF it makes it to SCOTUS. Most of the States arguments were addressed and discarded in Heller, and these firearms are in common use by any measure. I don’t think the sleight of hand of limiting common use to only “common use for defense” will work.
Insurance, I think the Governor was talking off the cuff because his comments don’t make sense. Insurance isn’t going to cover criminal use. It’s only practical use in this instance is to attempt to dissuade people from obtaining firearms by adding cost to ownership. Since homeowners/renters insurance would cover liability this would seem to primarily effect the poor.
As for a bullet tax I’d imagine that’s DOA, much like you can’t target the press by adding extra taxes to printing ink.
As for safe storage, I don’t know who is loaning guns out willy nilly he’s referring to. Most people I know loan guns to only people they know extremely well. Friends/family. UNless we’re talking about on a range or something where the owner is present, which shouldn’t be an issue for anyone.
As for locking them up, yes if you aren’t keeping it under your control lock it up.
I think, just my 2c, the Gov would like to adopt as many policies as he could to dissuade gun ownership. I think he does a good job of avoiding saying exactly that.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 12:15 pm
Pritzker likes to incentivize EV because it’s good for the public. Do the same with safes. Unless you have a concealed carry permit, you have an item you’re not declaring as something you take into the public square. I don’t think insurances makes a lot of sense in that scenario unless you want to insure a bunch of other things. I’d rather do something concrete than open up a defense for people who want the status quo just for the sake of applause.
Comment by Torco Sign Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 12:22 pm
There was a study out of Ohio State about the effectiveness of a short gun safety video on the likelihood of children to mishandle firearms. It’s rather interesting and makes me wonder if it wouldn’t be beneficial to offer some basic safety training in schools. Short with a refresher not to take much away from course work. Make it possible to opt your child out of course. Even with universal compliance by FOID owners with a Storage law, we’d still have illegal firearms floating around. Be good to answer some of the children’s curiosity and ease them towards don’t touch & tell an adult. Just my 2c.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 12:52 pm
JB’s opinions about ammo tax, insurance, and the laughable requirement to have guns locked up in a private residence are efforts that in his mind “reduce gun violence”. They also just so happen to be clearly unconstitutional so I would say they are symbolic political actions, as he knows that if they pass in Illinois they are 100% doomed in federal courts/SCOTUS. From an article in Isabel’s morning briefing
“They know it’s not going anywhere, really, and whatever momentum they appear to have in (a) press release or a story is an impossible dream,” he said. “None of that’s going to happen, but … they get some grassroots support that gets supporters to rally to their side.”
Comment by Donnie Elgin Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 1:20 pm
“Very arrogant and paternalistic”
As a gun owner I don’t mind a little state paternalism toward the gun owners who leave their guns out so their kids can kill themselves/a friend with it. Never heard an explanation from a parent after this happens that was anything less than breathtakingly negligent. I’d like to see more parents arrested in these situations. Maybe that would send the appropriate message, because children dying preventable deaths simply does not matter to the “my guns uber alles” crowd.
Comment by Larry Bowa Jr. Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 1:44 pm
=in common use=
In Heller the court also applied the historical test. Current sssault weapons do not pass that test.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 1:53 pm
The main thing I like about Pritzker?…He doesn’t appear to believe he is King of the USA…that’s another dude..
Comment by Dotnonymous x Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 1:56 pm
JS
Personally I’d prefer that we don’t limit civil rights to only technology available at the founding.
Also Caetano, decided after Heller dealing with Stun guns, dealt with that idea. Ruling that Stun Guns were in common use despite not being technologically available at the founding.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 2:27 pm
Re: Insurance for gun owners, background checks, etc.
The “shall not be abridged” part of the 2nd amendment has been taken to extremes.
I’d like to see us all lean a bit more heavily on the “well-regulated militia” part.
Comment by Teacher Lady Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 2:57 pm
I think people should be able to own firearms, but it should be very hard to qualify any they should be registered.
We’ve developed this incredibly uncanny obsession with making it easy to own a device designed to kill. If you’re not responsible enough to store a weapon correctly or to get it registered, why do I want you walking around with a device that could let you kill in a moment?
Prove you can be trusted with it. Then you should own it.
Comment by Shibboleth Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 3:36 pm
Homeowners have about 20 seconds or less to respond to a home invasion. Leaving a loaded gun around little kids invites tragic accidents. If there are kids in the house, they should lock up the gun, and put in a panic button with lights going on, alarms going off that announce “police are on the way”. That might make the intruder run off or hesitate long enough for the homeowner to get their gun unlocked.
Comment by DuPage Tuesday, Aug 1, 23 @ 4:35 pm