Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

What impact will Second Amendment ruling have on Illinois?

Posted in:

Illinois

[Posted by Kevin Fanning]

* Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision on Washington’s ban on handguns struck a nerve in Chicago. In fact, Justice Stephen Breyer even wrote that “Chicago has a law very similar to the District’s” in his dissenting opinion.

Hours after the decision Mayor Daley condemed the decision:

“I think we’re very disappointed in the Supreme Court decision. Why? If you really live in the real world and you see what handguns are doing to America, it doesn’t matter what age of the moment, young people and all ages are being killed in serious danger.

Then shortly after, gun advocate groups jumped into the mix:

Hours after the Supreme Court ruling came down, two groups sued Chicago over its handgun ban, which is similar to the District of Columbia law the high court struck down. In addition, the NRA said it would file a lawsuit against Chicago today and would also sue surrounding cities that ban handguns.

“We are currently going over statutes at the local, state and federal level,” NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox said. “I am certain there will be challenges to all sorts of statutes as we move forward.”

You can read the Illinois State Rifle Asscociation’s complaint here.

* City officials came out today confident that they could defend Chicago’s ban:

Benna Solomon, deputy corporation counsel, asserted that the Supreme Court decision applies only to the federal government—which Washington is part of, but not Chicago.

“The court notes that it [was] not required to consider whether the 2nd Amendment also applies to state and local government, and therefore it does not consider that question,” Solomon said.

But such confidence may ultimately be tempered by the court’s affirmative embrace of an expansive view of the 2nd Amendment, which suggested without equivocation that any attempt to deny individuals access to a working handgun in a home would be unlawful.

* How exactly will this decision affect Illinois? Many state lawmakers said Thursday that the Supreme Court opinion on gun control is likely to prompt a slew of legislation in Springfield, but at the same time will make it more difficult for any new restrictions to pass:

“It’s not going to persuade me one way or the other not to push forward with a ban on assault weapons, but… it’s going to be a tougher sell,” said Rep., Edward Acevedo (D-Chicago).

And..

“There’s going to be a lot of rethinking of state and local gun-control laws and ordinances,” predicted Lawrence Solum of the University of Illinois School of Law. “One thing that seems likely is that some of the more extreme ordinances like Chicago and San Francisco may well be modified without litigation. They may come up with a less-restrictive version that they could successfully defend.”

* Some are even saying that Chicago’s ordinance is merely symbolic, and hasn’t done much in the way of preventing crime:

The Chicago Police Department seized more than 13,000 guns last year, but only a handful of people were arrested for violating the city’s handgun ban, records show.

Chicago Police spokeswoman Monique Bond said 74 people were arrested in 2007 and 83 people in 2006 for failing to register their handguns, an ordinance violation.

Thousands of people were arrested on more serious charges of unlawful use of a weapon — a state offense that is not jeopardized by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Thursday to overturn Washington D.C.’s handgun ban.

* Honestly, I think that the law is even more vague now after this ruling. There were lots of discussions about the constitutional merits of the ruling and as well as other general debates over the Second Amendment on the blog yesterday. Lets try to keep comments focused around the ruling’s potential impact for Illinois.

* Related…

* Supreme Court strikes down D.C. handgun ban

* Repeal the 2nd Amendment

* Gun ruling helps only criminals

posted by Kevin Fanning
Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 10:14 am

Comments

Bear with me.

Most big cities are controlled by Democratic machines which keep control through use of patronage armies.

Large chunks of these same big cities are overrun by criminals who use guns to terrorize the citizens.

Even the most simple minded know that criminals are not going to worry about gun laws.

So why is it that the ingrained power structure, aided and abetted by the liberal elites, want to deprive the law abiding from being able to protect themselves?

The idea that a gun in the hands of the average law abiding person turns him from a Dr. Jekyll to a Mr. Hyde is so preposterous as to not merit discussion.

So, back to why do the Big City Democrats want to outlaw guns?

In most cities, the citizens are at the mercy of the power structure. They continue to support the crooked politicians because they are afraid of what may follow.

This was the reason that Richard J. Daley, the famed Chicago Mayor, garnered more support from Republicans than Democrats.

So, what changes if the law abiding citizens are able to have guns to protect themselves.

Possession of a gun does more than just give you the ability to protect yourself physically from those whom might want to harm you or your loved ones.

It gives you an inner confidence. The psychology changes.

Instead of being psychologically dependent on the big city bosses and their henchmen, you start to feel self-reliant.

People who are self-reliant don’t have to put up with their crooked masters.

Revolutionaries with their muskets didn’t have to abide crooked politicians.

The big city Democratic machines are afraid. Very afraid. So are the liberal elites who have a symbiotic relationship with these crooked politicians.

The politicians only care about enriching themselves. The liberal elites only care about enacting their socialist/Marxist agenda. For both the ends justify the means.

Scalia may have done a lot more than just write an opinion on the 2nd Amendment. Unwittingly, he may have fired the first shot at the big city bosses.

Comment by True Observer Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 10:20 am
John Kass got it right on this one:

Criminals get guns the old fashioned way, by stealing them or buying them illegally. Politicians write the anti-gun laws, and wonder of wonders, they often exempt themselves and call themselves peace officers.

In Chicago, our politicians often go around surrounded by armed bodyguards on the city payroll. Or they walk our streets strapped. Or they know a guy who knows a guy in some suburb, and they become deputized peace officers so they can carry.

Politicians are not violent by disposition. They live in some of the safest neighborhoods, with wrought iron fences, automatic garage doors, cameras on light poles and armed police bodyguards.

Meanwhile, the taxpayers, who live without bodyguards, are told that if they want to protect themselves with a handgun just like the politicians, they themselves will be criminalized.

Comment by A commenter Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 10:25 am
The only potential application is to Chicago’s outright ban, as well as those of the several suburbs with similar laws. It seems to have likely–but not certain–legal application.

The practical effect, however, is near zero. Chicago’s registration process, as well as its myriad rules, will be left intact. I doubt you’ll hear many stories resulting from legal, registered handguns; the process is cumbersome enough that for most people who want a handgun that badly, they are probably willing to ignore the law.

As to Daley’s insurance idea, since the majority is elevating the standard above rationality, I’m not sure the city could justify that restriction sufficiently.

Comment by Greg Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 10:27 am
The question comes down to what weight the States police powers play into the equation. The court achknowledged the ability of the State to deny guns to individuals such as felons etc. Thus they have already found the constitution allows for restricitions.

A municipality may be able to continue the ban in illinois thorugh excercise of its police powers if it can show a compelling govermental interest in the ban. (just like the State can restirct certain types of speech etc)

Daley mentioned somthing about mandatory insruance. it appears their are roadblocks Chicago may try to put into play to act as a defacto ban.

Comment by Ghost Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 10:27 am
how about a tax break for body armor so I can survive all the 2Aers

Comment by DumberThanUThink Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 10:37 am
In the distant past my family farmed, trapped and hunted to feed their family of ten children. Although there were no handguns, I wish that I had kept a couple of the long guns from the time that government actually was the voice of the people. Crooks get all the guns they want but law-abiding citizens must have nearly have FBI clearance to own a gun. I hope this is just the beginning of the people being considered as thinking humans and not a wallet for the pols.

Comment by Chanson Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 10:42 am
But Ghost, there’s a big gap between governmental interest and the 1st amdnt hurdle. The court just moved the 2nd Amdnt hurdle above the former, though presumably below the latter.

Comment by Greg Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 10:43 am
TO’s comment is interesting. TO apparently views people who walk around waving handguns as “confident.” I really have to question whether anyone who needs a gun to feel “confident” should have access to a gun. That should be on the checklist. To own a gun, you should feel confident BEFORE you own the gun.

I also note that, contrary to TO, although I’ve often disgreed with political leadership, I don’t think I’ve ever felt “repressed.” Angry? Sure. But not “repressed.” Of course, I live in a ward where we tossed out a 36 year incumbent who was endorsed by the Mayor. If I was “repressed” that wouldn’t be possible. But who knows. Maybe I’m just some poor serf who doesn’t know his place.
It it an an interesting difference in perpective.

That being said, I do think the responsible thing for Chicago to do would be to pass an ordinance overturning the gun ban. Without taking into consideration the constitutional issues (on which I have no opinion), it is almost impossible to be effective when people can simply go to a neighboring town to buy the gun. While a state-wide gun ban might be effective, a local ordinance is almost by defintion doomed to failure.

The other issue is that defending the ordinance is going to be expensive. While I’m all for more work for lawyers, I don’t think defending an ordinance that is more symbolic than anything else is a responsible use of my money.

By the way — TO should really visit Chicago. If he came here, he would find that most of the City is pretty safe. I’m more concerned about ill-mannered Labrador Retrievers (for some reason, there is a history of Labs attacking my German Shepherd Dog) than about any roving bands of criminals. Contrary to TO’s post, most of the city is similar (although in Lincoln Park is more with Golden’s than with Labs). There are beautiful areas on both the northwest and southwest sides to raise families. I personally like the Streeterville/Gold Coast area, which is a great place to raise kids. TO should come and check it out.

Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 10:47 am
The poor households in the high crime areas have seen the Great Society break up the family structure in the name of welfare, designed to keep individuals in place and under control — beholden to the political structure.

That may not have been the purpose of the programs. That is the reality of the result.

The family structure has been so weakened in many zip codes that children leave for the streets where they know their place within the gangs Remediation in the school system is a joke.

Chicago’s finest cannot keep the peace by themselves. In parallel, Chicago’s teachers can not educate unprepared and un motivated students by themselves. Each needs the family structure in the homes to assist them, to enforce the law, to reinforce the lessons in reading, grammar and arithmetic. The police, the teachers, the mothers with or without fathers need the structure of the churches to reinforce the family’s role in society and not play the blame game.

More money for the police, more funding for education, more welfare in the homes is not going to solve the problems created. The families for now three generations have been deconstructed, the homes downgraded to bunkhouses with food service and people just passing through.

Families must be rebuilt over time. Families must be provided a safe environment behind the front door as well as on the sidewalks, in the cars, at the parks or in the stores. If society can not protect them, then it must provide families with the means and the training to protect themselves.

Comment by Truthful James Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 10:52 am
I believe that the ruling may impact a very ineffective ban on handguns. These laws were used as political figleafs for politicians being hammered by voters over gun crimes and violence.

So without those figleaves, politicians will be exposed to these failures, and will need new coverage. So will demand new laws, some will try to tape the old one together, some will claim that the old one isn’t really gone. We’ll see every option tried because we all know how important it is for our politicians to pretend to solve societal crime issues.

But overall, there seems to be a recognition that certain groups of people safely ensconced in their expensive homes with their electronic security devices far away from people different from them, have deemed handguns to be an unworthy addition to our lives. Since they do not seem to feel there are any needs for them, and they feel that their lifestyles are superior and desirable by all, then there are no reasons for handguns.

As they listen to MSNBC or NPR in the hybrid Prius, they shake their Hairclub for Men-enhanced folicles in disbelief that the peasants have been allowed their vulgur firearms. Today over a venti skinny vanilla latte, they will talk to their fellow office mates about moving further into the exurbs, and how ignorant everyone else is.

Nah. No biggie.

Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 10:59 am
A year or so ago a Chicago/Cook County man defending his home shoots an intruder with a handgun that he should not have been in possession of according to local ordinance. In response the state legislators quickly pass a law that says defending your home with a gun trumps local prohibitions on possessing said gun. Go figure.

If yesterday’s decision by the Supremes said anything it clearly gives Americans a right to have a handgun in their homes for self defense. Last time I checked Chicago and the county of Cook were still part of America.

Comment by Leave a light on George Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 11:00 am
Truthful,

Your solution to the breakdown in family structure is “more guns”?

That’s an interesting perspective.

I personally would go with “more jobs” and “more education” and “drug abuse counseling” and “parenting skills classes”, but who knows, you might be right.

Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 11:01 am
Greg that really is the 64 million dollar question. Where did the Government actually set the hurdle or standard to be utilized? Keep in mind in the supreme court decision striking down on the same day the supremes idnetified the campaign law failed to identify a compelling state interest. Thus on the same day they recognized that we can limit rights granted by the constitution if the government can establish a compelling state interest in doing so. My speculation is the states police powers to protect its citizenry could establish such a compelling interest. Just like limiting felons from having weapons survives as a comeplling interest.

one thing is for sure, there will be lots of litigation to come.

Comment by Ghost Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 11:01 am
I think the challenge to Chicago’s absurd defacto ban will be the case that finally force recognition that the 2nd is incorporated under the 14th.

Comment by Ken in Aurora Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 11:05 am
Ken,

The Supreme Court said the exact opposite yesterday. Foonote 23 is going to be one of those famous footnotes. The Court said that the 2nd Amendment is NOT incorporated under the 14th. Read my comments on the thread from yesterday, where I note that problem with the opinion.

Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 11:07 am
Mayor Daley , Pfleger and Obama
Peas in a pod when it comes to gun control.
In Chicago the only ones with guns are the criminals.
Of course Daley and Obama have 24 hour security but they are special and better than the rest of us pee-ons.
The only reason Pfleger is still around is he marches against suburban gun shops with Daley.
I’m not a gun owner and I don’t know if I would buy one. But I believe citizens should be able to protect their families.
Liberals think the criminals should have all the rights. If they break into your home, rape and kill your wife and children this does not justify your shooting them. No matter what the criminal does you are not allowed to defend yourself and your family. After all killing is a sin.

Of course unless it involves an unborn child. That’s OK.

Comment by Maggie Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 11:22 am
The ban hasn’t been effective anyway, so I do think the council ought to toss it overboard rather than spend money to defend it.

It isn’t the guns by and large anyway that’s leading to a very bloody summer so far in certain neighborhoods (and it’s amazing to me that depending on where you live, there is no problem or a very bloody problem), it’s the drugs gangs. Get rid of them, you’d get rid of a good 60% of the violence.

Comment by cermak_rd Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 11:39 am
Skeet, the way many (most?) analysts are reading that footnote is that this opinion did not address the incorporation issue because it wasn’t in the scope of the case. In addition, (from memory) there is wording proceding the portion quoted that mentioned a “natural right”. My take is that the opinion pointed out additional issues to be decided. I will be extremely surprised if the 2nd isn’t held to be incorporated given the way they emphasized the self-defense aspects.

It will be very interesting to see how this shakes out.

Comment by Ken in Aurora Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 12:28 pm
Skeeter –

A whole plate of logic and you go down to cutting one fingernail. Might I assume that you agree with the rest of what I wrote?

Of course it is not THE solution, nor did I at any point say so. But if a family believes that it is necessary to protect thehomestead they should have the ruight, properly trained, to own handguns and rifles.

Comment by Truthful James Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 12:36 pm
“…you see what handguns are doing to America…” Hate to be the bearer of bad news but 20+ years after gun bans in DC and Chicago, the homicide rates are the highest in the country. But since cars kill far more people in IL and the US, do we expect Hizzoner to bad cars now in Chicago?

Guns don’t kill people, but bad people do. Motorcycles don’t kill their riders, the drivers do. Alcohol doesn’t kill but drivers/drinkers do.

If Barack Obama, Jesse SR and Hizzoner were so correct on assigning blame for crime and on problem-solving, the south side of Chicago would not be the gang/crime-infested stat-generating hole that it is. Gun bans were tried and failed miserably, now go to plan B.

Comment by North of I-80 Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 12:54 pm
And. for the record, I took absolutely *no* pleasure from watching Hizzoner’s meltdown on TV yesterday. Nope, no pleasure at all. None.

Comment by Ken in Aurora Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 1:19 pm
In a perfect world of right and wrong, black and white, right and left, the ruling shouldn’t have any effect on Illinois, because Illinois has a bill of rights too, but apparently the liberal democratic leadership has never read that page in the Illinois Consitution: “Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Comment by naive mw Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 1:26 pm
no fans of the 10th amendment prepared to raise it in defsense of the State?

Comment by Ghost Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 1:52 pm
Truthful

What you did say is: “More money for the police, more funding for education, more welfare in the homes is not going to solve the problems created.”

I thought my note hit that pretty much head on. I said more funding for education IS the answer. I would like to see some of that “welfare” spending used on things like drug rehab and parents skills classes and job training. So, despite the fact that most note was brief, it is fair to say that we don’t agree even remotely.

In addition, you seem to have this notion that guns bring families together. You might be right on that one. A child was shot this week in Chicago. According to the CPD, the intact family [mother had a good job and the father was actaully there at the time of the shooting] was known for having a father with a long criminal record. He was the likely target. Guns sure brought that family together. If only the father had been able to shoot back in time, or identify the drive by guys before they opened fire, he might have prevented his child from getting shot.

Right, Truthful? The father was right there, and he is a known badguy. Of all people, this father should have been able to use a gun to protect his family? Guns are for protection, right? With more guns, more people will be “protected”, right Truthful?

No, Truthful, in fact I found your post ridiculous. More guns is not the answer. It is the exact OPPOSITE of the answer. While I have no opinion as to whether guns should be legal, I can say as a matter of policy that getting guns OFF the street is a good idea. LESS guns is the answer, not more.

Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 1:54 pm
In response to Ken’s comment regarding Daley:

Personally, I laughed my head off. Then I realized that sheep like Fioretti and Lyle and Munoz actually line up to vote with this guy and then I laughed at them until I nearly fell over. My wife and children were very concerned. They’ve suggested that I immediately stop watching the Mayor speak, as it is clearly not good for my health.

Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 2:01 pm
*****************
In a perfect world of right and wrong, black and white, right and left, the ruling shouldn’t have any effect on Illinois, because Illinois has a bill of rights too, but apparently the liberal democratic leadership has never read that page in the Illinois Consitution: “Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
*****************

And now add Article XII, Section 1

“The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law.”

And we cover the “militia” argument..

Comment by Healthcare Worker Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 2:04 pm
Dear Healthcare Worker:
Duh. The whole idea of leaning on the Illinois Constitution is that the Bills of Rights bundled with it has no Militia clause to cloud the RKBA. There’s weasel-words instead: “Subject only to the police power…”

Comment by naive mw Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 2:14 pm
“I can say as a matter of policy that getting guns OFF the street is a good idea.”

And just how effective has Washington DC / Chicago style gun bans / registration schemes / ID cards, etc. been?

I’m pretty certain that there are laws on the books that outlaw or ban drugs and criminal gangs as well. I just can’t seem to understand why these elements don’t take just straighten up and fly right. After all, the government has spoken and put them on notice that their activity will not be tolerated. Yet, despite the pronouncements of the country’s politicians, gang violence, drugs and illegal guns remain rampant in some parts of urban areas.

Outright bans of otherwise legal products are nothing but band-aid activism by hand-wringing politicians that are too gutless to stand up in front of the very vocal gun control minority and say - enough is enough. Obama’s seismic flip-flop yesterday is perfect evidence of how pathetic our elected leaders are on this (and many other) issues. Product bans DO NOT affect anyone who operates (or intends to operate) outside the law. Once a persons steps over that black line all the gun control laws ever conceived aren’t worth the Charmin they are written on.

I have said here before - law abiding citizens such as myself have no problem whatsoever with common sense gun laws. I do not believe, for example, the violent felons or adjudicated mental cases should ever be allowed to possess firearms. The problem with getting my support is that, for at least my entire adult life, gun-owners have been vilified as nut-jobs, separationists, anarchists, etc. It’s kind of hard to make me see the other point of view in the face of such generalization.

What I will not support is the liberal divide-and-conquer strategy that has been employed by gun control activists for years. The sentiment on my side is that, if we allow gun opponents to get their nose under the tent for even the most benign of regulations, we will never stop them. Yesterdays’ ruling, for whatever else can be said, put gun control activists on the defensive for the first time in 40 years and, for me, it is an overdue and very welcome change.

Comment by NRA Endowment Member Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 2:20 pm
Truthful,
I thought your original posting was well done.

You’ll have to excuse Skeeter. Ever since the decision yesterday, Skeeter has been on a tear. Skeeter seems to be afraid of handguns so doesn’t want anyone to have them because - well, just because. So Skeeter is having difficulty accepting that other people have good reasons to support the Supreme Court’s decision, because - well, just because.

However, I find Skeeter’s other input on many other issues very interesting and she can be counted on to add to conversations without usually insulting others - just not now. So you’ll have to excuse Skeeter.

Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 2:27 pm
VM,

What’s with the hostility?

Please read what I’ve actually written, rather merely than what you expect me to say (me being a liberal and all, right? You figured I must think guns should be outlawed, right? No need to read what I wrote).

When you do so, you will find that your continued attacks on me (and why me only — there are actually people posting here who think that the decision was wrong on the merits?) are a bit ridiculous.

Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 2:34 pm
NRA,

Nice post.

Of course, it is not responsive to anything I wrote, since I never advocated a ban.

Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 2:35 pm
Skeeter -

I never said that you did advocate a ban. I was simply responding to your statement about getting guns off the street being a good idea. If you had said ‘getting guns out of the hands of the criminal element while protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens to own the guns the want’ I would not have taken issue.

It is the gun ownership=bad mentality that I am most sensitive to. Twenty or thirty years ago, it might have been possible to peel away the rhetoric so that both sides could come together sensibly. Forty years after GCA68, there’s just too much bad blood between the sides. Every time an innocent bystander is shot (such as in your ‘intact family’ example), the implication is that LEGAL gun owners are the reason for the tragedy. If your example father was a criminal and ‘in the life’ than he should wear the shirt for being the catalyst. The person who pulled the trigger wears it for the act itself. In no part of this should the seller of the firearm (so long as the transaction was legal) or a unrelated citizen who lives 300 miles away be responsible or culpable. And that, in a nutshell, is why gun control in general fails. It shifts the burden of responsibility from the perpetrator to a third party who ends up paying the bill for someone elses malfeasance.

If you do not advocate bans, then I think we may be able to find common ground.

Comment by NRA Endowment Member Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 2:55 pm
NRA,

You need to read what I wrote. I’m not sure why the pro-gun people have that difficulty. They seem to equate: “Doesn’t want guns on the street: with “make guns illegal.” Those two are not the same.

I’ve repeatedly said that I take no position on the constitutional issue. I’ve posted above that the Chicago ban is ineffective and expensive to defend and as such, should be overturned.

That being said, I will never in a million hears advocate for people to own guns. I continue to believe that the idea of guns as self-defense is a joke. As I posted yesterday — I carry a form of pepper spray to use against certain dogs. It is tough to use the pepper spray (haven’t had to yet) and I’m not sure I could use it effectively unless the attacking dog came at us slowly. The idea that a victim of a mugging is going to spin around and shoot their attacker is laughable. The most likely thing that would happen is either that the victim would be killed and the gun would be stolen, or that the “victim” would shoot some innocent person who happens to be around.

I also view posts such as the one at the top of this thread which discusses the “confidence” that comes with owning a gun to be genuinely frightening.

But there are a lot of things I think people shouldn’t own. I was in Las Vegas recently and saw a 1900 Petrus on a menu. Some gambler who just won $50,000 playing slots SHOULDN’T own the 1900 Petrus, since unless the person really likes and understands wine, it would be a shame to see that wine wasted on that person.

ut just because I believe that people shouldn’t own something, doesn’t mean that I want to make it illegal. Own guns if you want. If you fail to secure them and allow them to be stolen or if you accidently shoot an innocent person while responding to some threat to you I would like to see you locked up and the key thrown away, but go ahead and own them.

Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 3:11 pm
NRA, that’s one of the many things that drives me batty about Hizzoner’s rants. He makes no allowance for legitimate handgun gun ownership. In his twisted world, only criminals possess handguns - and all handguns are inherently evil. His bizzare “stork” comment yesterday was sadly typical.

Comment by Ken in Aurora Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 3:12 pm
[quote]However, I find Skeeters other input on many other issues very interesting and she can be counted on to add to conversations without usually insulting others - just not now. So youll have to excuse Skeeter. [/quote]

Wait a minute - Skeeter’s not a dude?

Comment by Ken in Aurora Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 3:57 pm
Ken,

“Skeeter” is actually a German Shepherd. The person typing under Skeeter’s name is in fact, male.

You would think that my comments concerning wife and kids would tip VMan off. Of course, that would require VMan to read what I wrote. No evidence of that so far.

Or maybe VMan is trying to be insulting. I hear right wingers consider that an insult. Either way, I didn’t think it was worth comment.

Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 4:07 pm
lol, don’t make me separate you two.

Comment by Kevin Fanning Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 4:13 pm
Well, Skeeter –

More money for education is not going to do it. Two things which must be observed.

First, a necessary condition: parents who themselves believe that education is an economic and social good and who were not warehoused and passed through the system and are not equipped to prepare the child for school and aid in the home the material taught in school.

Second necessary condition: teachers who are competent, love their curriculum as well as the students and can communicate that love and respect for knowledge.

Lower class size will not hack it. We are buying the best teachers available. Lower class size means more classrooms with necessarily teachers of lower quality. Further, the best and most senior teachers opt out of the school houses where they are most needed leaving those classrooms to the less senior (meaning less qualified of the present staff.

I am currently tutoring a younger male teacher with five years experience who is going back and taking masters level courses in Education. This person had gone four years to a highly rated public high school, four years plus practice teaching to a well regarded state school of Education. Degreed with a BA certified in math and language arts.

I kid you not. He can not write a simple declarative sentence. Thank god for computers with spell check. His grammar is atrocious. His singular subjects get mixed up with plural verbs.

He is highly regarded by his principal - -survived the Chicago cuts.

I am sorry, Skeeter, but the money mantra fails to impress me — especially given the closed shop system in the Chicago, in fact all Districts.

Comment by Truthful James Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 4:27 pm
OK, gotta rebut one of Skeeter’s statements. He/She says: “The idea that a victim of a mugging is going to spin around and shoot their attacker is laughable. The most likely thing that would happen is either that the victim would be killed and the gun would be stolen, or that the “victim” would shoot some innocent person who happens to be around.”

According to the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, people in the U.S. use a gun to defend themselves against criminals over 6500 times……every day. That’s right 2,500,000 times a year or once every 13 seconds a person uses a gun to resist a criminal. In 15.6% of those cases, the victim says they “almost certainly” saved their lives. In 83.5% of those 2.5 million times, the attacker either used or threatened force first. In 92% of the times, the defender simply brandished their weapon or fired a warning shot. The defender shot and wounded their attacker only 8% of the time and the attacker was killed in less that 1 in 1000 instances.
A gun, owned and carried by a civilian is a powerful deterrent to crime and a very effective self defense tool.
None of the states with “Shall Issue” RTC laws have moved to make them more restrictive or strike them from the books. Many are becoming less restrictive.
TimB

Comment by TimB Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 6:59 pm
All handgun bans in Illinois will be overturned. Other regulations for handguns will be created. Other regulations on people who
have guns and the types of guns they can have will continue.

At the end of Scalia’s opinion he acknowledges the objections
of those concerned about gun violence. and he gives them some hope. he points them to his text around his note 26 which says that the list of possible regulatory measures is not limited to what Scalia specifically puts out in the text, felons, mental issues as limiting issues. Perhaps license and registration, if applied as in DC, may be ok since Scalia says that Heller can go get a license. Also, Scalia clearly tells America that weapons used in the military are different now than those used long ago, and implies that military weapons may be banned for public use. he specifically mentions m-16 rifles and explains that a ban does not violate the concept of Second Amendment rights.

all states will deal with the scope of regulations including licensing and registration and gun carry laws. more legislative fun. a really great opinion from Scalia.

Comment by Amy Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 9:40 pm
Skeeter
From 3:11pm post
…”They seem to equate: “Doesn’t want guns on the street: with “make guns illegal.” Those two are not the same.”…

…”I will never in a million hears advocate for people to own guns”…

I read the above to statements and have to say that the second quote from your post implies that you really do want them to be illegal.

Comment by Kevin Highland Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 9:41 pm
Skeeter
at 3:11pm you said: …”I carry a form of pepper spray to use against certain dogs. It is tough to use the pepper spray (haven’t had to yet) and I’m not sure I could use it effectively”

I would suggest that you get training with your self defense weapon of choice lest it turn you into a victim. There is a high likelihood you will be impacted by your pepper spray and the dogs you want to disable will be able to attack you while you are under the effects of the spray.

I used to be under the impression that you weren’t willing to take responsibility for your own safety or the safety of those you hold dear. The fact you you have graduated to carrying pepper spray means that you in some way feel safer or feel better able to protect your pets. One may say you have a new level of confidence!

Can’t you see that there are those who are willing to take the gravest measure to protect themselves from all breeds of “dogs”?

Comment by Kevin Highland Friday, Jun 27, 08 @ 9:52 pm
This whole guns vs. no guns is unbelievable to me.

It seems very clear that the only individuals who use guns intentionally for illegal purposes are criminals.

Eliminate the criminals permanently and the problem of illegal use of guns goes away. It is not the gun laws that are broken, it is our judicial system and the weak consequences handed out by the courts for violent criminals.

“I continue to believe that the idea of guns as self-defense is a joke.” Someone earlier said this.

The mother of one of my friends shot and killed an intruder breaking into her home.

So, you would rather have this 60-something year old widow, robbed, beaten, raped, murdered?

Not me. I’m happy there is one less thug on the street.

Comment by GunOwner Saturday, Jun 28, 08 @ 11:30 am
Wait a minute - Skeeter’s not a dude?

That was a typo.

Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Jun 30, 08 @ 8:33 am
Tim,

6500 times a day somebody pulls a gun and points it at somebody in self-defense?

And you believe that?

Wanna buy a bridge?

Comment by Skeeter Monday, Jun 30, 08 @ 9:12 am