Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Grim as far as the eye can see
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* The House debated gun control for several long hours yesterday. They approved a few amendments…
Though all votes are preliminary, the proposals would require owners to register their guns, report lost or stolen firearms to state police within 72 hours and lock up their guns if they live with someone who is mentally ill.
* Comity wasn’t always in evidence during debate…
The hours of discussion took place as part of House Speaker Michael Madigan’s (D-Chicago) “weekly order of business,” which he has used the last three weeks in search for a concealed-carry framework. And for the third straight week, Republicans decided not to vote on the measures due to what many of them consider a fruitless, political process.
“So what are you really after?” House Republican leader Tom Cross (R-Oswego) asked Democrats. “Are you after solving problems? Do you really want to [solve Chicago’s violence problem] or do you want to play these sick, senseless games week in and week out?”
* Other amendments weren’t so lucky…
Lawmakers debated for more than two hours whether to ban ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The amendment ultimately failed 57-59.
Opponents asked the sponsor, Rep. Mike Zalewski, D-Chicago, to add some type of grandfather clause to allow law-abiding citizens to keep high-capacity magazines they already own, but Zalewski refused.
“I just watched a debate last two hours where members on our side of the aisle have pleaded with you and said, in a legitimate way, ‘I will support your bill if you make a change,’” said Minority Leader Tom Cross, R-Oswego.
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 8:50 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Grim as far as the eye can see
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Hard to believe that Todd would let any of “his” members vote for Zalewski’s amendment, even with a grandfather clause.
Comment by Chitownhv Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 9:12 am
I had a chance to listen to a bunch of this yesterday afternoon. It was silly. None of these have a chance at passing a whole bill. Creating a solution for the CCW issue by adding dozens of amendments to shell bills that many have nothing to do with the others or with CCW is simply a Madigan game. Maybe its politcal cover, or something else. But its sad.
Most “anti-ccw” folks aware that they must deal with the situation have some must have’s:
NCIS/FBI background check
training (legal and safe handling)
Live fire training
a live fire test
REstrictions on places like Stadiums, schools, gov buildings, bars, etc
All things that are in the 997 bill already…
Instead we get a shell bill with amendments for $50 dollar foid cars, magazine capacity limits that even impact shotguns, Assualt weapons bans, Mental health checks (mandatory), reporting to the state police if anyone in your family has a mental health issue, trigger locks in the home (wont pass const. muster btw), and on and on…
Trying to build a CCW bill where almost all the amendments has nothing to do with CCW… GREAT IDEA MJM!
Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 9:16 am
–Lawmakers debated for more than two hours whether to ban ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The amendment ultimately failed 57-59.–
I guess the GOP voted on that one.
–“I just watched a debate last two hours where members on our side of the aisle have pleaded with you and said, in a legitimate way, ‘I will support your bill if you make a change,’” said Minority Leader Tom Cross, R-Oswego. –
If that’s the case, Zalewski should take it in a second. Given the closeness of the vote, maybe he thought he had it without a grandfather clause.
A grandfather clause is just the right thing to do, anyway.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 9:17 am
Can’t see registering the guns going anywhere. Most gun owners see that as the first step to confiscation. The FOID was the compromise specifically to avoid registration by serial number.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 9:24 am
I don’t want Tom Cross voting to ban standard capacity magazines, regardless of whether I get to keep the ones that I have now, “if I register them”.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 9:30 am
RNUG,
Thanks, that is the one I forgot about.. Maybe my mind was playing a trick, but yeah a “amendment” to have every FOID holder register every handgun, make model and serial number they now own….
So, that helps CCW how? Oh it doesnt, its just registration of all handguns by legal gun owners as the Supreme court has ruled that criminals cannot be charged with failing to register a weapon they cannot own… because it goes against their 5th amendment rights!
Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 9:35 am
I Anti’s acting as if this is building a CCW bill….
here is some of the amendments for a CCW bill debated and voted on over the last couple of these mosh pits.
HA-6 firearms must be broken down into inoperable when in a vehicle
HA-7 requires training at an ISP State run facility (not private certified training)
HA 8 allows individual counties and towns to create greater restrictions on guns/carry
HA 38 - registration of guns
HA39 Must go for a metnal evaluation
HA 40 requries your lock up the gun (unconstitutional see heller, this was part of the question in DC)
HA 41 must report to the state police if any family members or acquaintances have mental health issues
HA 43 Mental health again and increase in fees
there is complete Bill with required training, with live fire testing, with FBI / NICS background checks, With restrictions on locations like Bars, Amusement parcks, stadiums, government buildings, etc….
Instead of talking about that they find all these little individual amendments written poorly, some having nothign to do with CCW…. its all a show.
Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 9:46 am
==And for the third straight week, Republicans decided not to vote on the measures due to what many of them consider a fruitless, political process.==
Sorry, Rich, but you are flat out wrong here. Republicans voted on all 7 floor amendments that were voted on from HB 1155 and 1156.
Yes, there were some who did not, but the vast majority did, especially compared to the previous two weeks.
Comment by MontgomeryCo Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 9:50 am
@MontgomeryCo:
Rich didn’t say that. It’s a snippet from a Sunt Times story. Your beef is with the Sun Times.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 9:53 am
I listed to part of the debate yesterday waiting (and waiting, and waiting, and waiting) for a committee hearing to start. It was like listening to fingernails on a chalkboard and the scratching wouldn’t end.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 9:55 am
“listened”
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 9:55 am
I am trying to figure how the Mental Evaluation will work.. Also if ISP is administering the class good luck trying to get into the class or having many due to ISP budget
Comment by Docnoyes Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 11:25 am
@Docnoyes
===I am trying to figure how the Mental Evaluation will work.. Also if ISP is administering the class good luck trying to get into the class or having many due to ISP budget ===
Yup, thats the reason for it. They also mandated that it be a 40 hour 1 week class at the ISP facility…
Price it out of reach of normal people. Take a week off of work, pay the state for 40 hours of training (average is about $25 an hour for training) and get ont he waiting list for the class because we know they funded the FOID card system so well there is a 70,000 backlog and 90 day wait.
Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 11:29 am
There are really three things that would serve to reduce gun violence, and the GOP opposes them all”
1. Mandatory reporting of thefts;
2. Registration of all guns; and
3. Limits on the size of magazines.
Any reasonable person should back those three. The failure of the GOP to support them just shows that the GOP does not care about gun violance.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 11:31 am
Skeeter
After 60 some years on this planet, I consider myself reasonable and the only item on your list I support is #1.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 11:46 am
Skeeter,
This is why we wont agree. You start by saying “ANY REASONABLE PERSON” which immediately puts you on a negative footing with anyone that disagrees with you about your 3 things… because
1. Mandatory reporting of thefts;
This may or may not help crime. It will help with straw purchasers in some cases (but not all). If you think the crime we see is about guns you ignore the poverty, and drugs. Most ‘gun crime” in illinois is south and west side chicago black on black gang crime…
2. Registration of all guns; and
How does this help? again only maybe straw purchasing. Canada tried this. They are now DUMPING it because it never solved a gun crime (or I think maybe 2) and cost millions and millions. also, this also leads to confiscation, ask canadians or those in the UK/Australia.
3. Limits on the size of magazines.
I would like you to pshow where / how this will reduce crime? FBI shooting stats show that the average is less than 3 shots per incident, from withint 3 feet in most case in less than 5 seconds.
We also ahd a 10 round limit on magazines from 1994-2004 and the justices department said it didnt change the crime numbers. Yes it is all the rage to think that limiting mag size would have reduced carnage at Sandyhook… Cho at Virginia Tech had almost all 10 round magazines…. he changed mags 18 or 19 times… How will this reduce crime?
I can be reasonable. I believe in Universal BG checks… But not the way the Fed wants to do them (with a federal dealer I have to pay. Why cant I just do the check with NICS system and get the print out to say I sold to a good guy? Why do I have to goto a dealer to have a federal 4473 transfer paper signed? registrtion?
I believe in safe storage laws. If your weapon is accessed by someone unlawfully you should be punished.
I believe in training.
I believe in stiff penalities for gun crime (use a gun in a crime, go to jail for a long time). But dont call me a criminal if my FOID is expired and the state is taking 3 months to rpocess them.
There are lots of reasonable people on this side. Generally we are VERY educated on the topic and try to act on logic.
your partisanship is showing.
Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 11:53 am
Skeeter, if the assumption is that it is the otherwise law-abiding citizen that is doing all the gun violence, then I agree that those could help as the gun could be easily traced back to the offendor. But law breakers will not register guns, can easily find large capacity magazines and a gun can easily be made untraceable by removing the serial number. So how will any of those three be effective against a non-law-abiding citizen?
Comment by 332bill Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 11:56 am
Skeeter
Your idea of Reasonableness leaves a lot to be desired. I won’t repeat what RO said because he summed it up very well. If you want to talk Reasonableness how about a mandatory Death penalty For any one who kills someone with a firearm during the commision of a crime. Pretty sure all REASONABLE people can agree with that. It’d do a lot more than what you listed.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 11:59 am
I understand the gunners are trying to get a good deal now, but why not just try the litigation strategy that’s been tried so many times before? A large part of the Heller decision was the fact that DC’s gun restrictions rendered people’s rights under the 2nd Amendment null. If CCW passes as to be virtually impossible in actuality, then surely the gun crowd would be willing to support and defend their cause in front of the courts through litigation, right?
Comment by Precinct Captain Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 12:02 pm
Precinct Captain?
What do you mean? this entire scenario is because we have come through the courts… First Heller, then Mc Donald, now locally Ezell and Moore/Shepard.
If we had lost the in the 7th we would have appealed to SCOTUS. We didnt. The state is the one with the onus to appeal if they think they can win. but blanket bans are often losers there and if they lost the blanket ban loss could put Hawaii, NY, california NJ etc at risk… The Anti side is making the decision to NOT go to SCOTUS, not us.
Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 12:06 pm
RO,
You claim magazine limits won’t help.
1. Why do you need a 30 round mag to hunt?
2. Do you really expect 30 people to burst through your door?
3. When is a weapon most likely to jam? When changing a mag, or at some other time?
Tell us why your desire to play with a 30 round mag is more important than my safety.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 12:12 pm
@Ron:
I would be careful about throwing rocks at glass houses when you refer to somebody’s partisanship. First of all the gun issue isn’t a partisan issue. Second, just because somebody disagrees with you doesn’t make them “anti” anything. You need to take a chill pill or something because I can almost see the vein on your head popping out on this subject. I can assure you it will all work out in the end and I’m sure neither side will be completely happy with the outcome. But for me that’s good. It means everybody won. This entire thing going on now is a charade that will pass.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 12:13 pm
Skeeter, lets address each of these:
You claim magazine limits won’t help.
1. Why do you need a 30 round mag to hunt?
I dont hunt. Is that enough for you? Guess not but then again you are not banning 30 round mags, you are talking 11 or 12 or 15… Every standard pistol short of micros or a .45 come with 13, 14 15 round mags… Standard. not about hunting.
2. Do you really expect 30 people to burst through your door?
No, but ever been in a gun fight? I have . Its not 1 shot 1 hit. hell police miss 90% of shots or something crazy. And if you have 2 intruders or attackers what then.
3. When is a weapon most likely to jam? When changing a mag, or at some other time?
When the mag is loaded improperly or of poor quality. weapon jams happen almost never during mag change. Jams are often a function of one of a couple of things Bad ammo, improperly maintained weapon, cheap/manfunctioning mag. As far as a jam the more rounds in a mag the more likely they are to jam (Such is the case with the Giffords shooter).
i dont play with 30 round mags. I have a few that came with my rifle. But I do have a lot of 12 and 15 round mags for my pistols.
Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 12:20 pm
–If you want to talk Reasonableness how about a mandatory Death penalty For any one who kills someone with a firearm during the commision of a crime.–
Problem is, in Illinois, we kept charging, trying, convicting and sending to Death Row people that later DNA evidence found could not possibly have committed their crimes.
A bunch of college kids could figure it out, the Illinois justice system could not.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 12:22 pm
Demoralized
You sir are incorrect. I called partisianship because Skeeter attempted to pointed out that the (and I quote here): “GOP does not care about gun violence” after he asserts that anyone that does not agree with his 3 cures is unreasonable.
I said he was being partisan. I see people like Phelps (A Dem) standing up against the mage bans. You’re right its not partisan in this state, plenty of R’s are voting for this junk…
You say I am throwing rocks sir? please point out where I have be partisan.
Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 12:24 pm
Ron,
That last one was a good point.
I should have written “The entire GOP and certain Dems.”
I stand corrected on that one.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 12:25 pm
@Ron:
It’s impossible to discuss anything with the hysterically irrational. I’ll just leave it at that. Best wishes.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 12:45 pm
The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting. Since the topic is CCW, I can honestly say that a handgun with 30 round magazines wouldn’t really be concealable on your person anyway. Perhaps in a backpack, but then you can fill the backpack with many lower capacity magazines anyway.
Thirty people may not burst through the door, but you might find yourself outgunned if two or three did. Most home invasions I’ve read about involve multiple invaders.
Finally, weapons can jam at anytime. When they do racking the slide and changing a magazine is a way to unjam them. So in reality, a bad guy with a jammed 100 round magazine is out of the fight while the one who brought a bunch can still cause carnage. If you really want to stop carnage you would be in favor of keeping larger magazines.
Comment by benji Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 12:49 pm
Demoralized.
Thats funny. I answer every question and point and you say its hysterical. You say I am casting stones and partisan yet wont point it out. Easier to cop out than to discuss the situation at hand.
Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 12:52 pm
Word
We can argue all day about the process in IL being Screwed. My point is lets get some serious teeth to criminal use of a firearm. Let’s get these Gangbangers out of circulation when they are caught. Prison isn’t much of a detterent anymore for many Gangs. Of course if i have you on tape robbing a liqour store and a bystander gets shot in the process DNA isn’t much of a factor.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 12:55 pm
I will sign off for today as there is work to do. But remember… this isnt about 30 round mags its about 11 or more and anything that can even be modified to hold 11 or more.
CCW bill 997 is available and does most of what both sides want, but under MJM will get no disucssion.
Adding 40 or more gun ammendments to shell bills that have NOTHING to do with CCW under the guise of building a CCW law is again just theater.
Its sad. gun safety folks could take a lot of credit for the 997 bill for out of bounds locations, training, etc, but instead feel the need to do this stuff.
Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 12:57 pm
Skeeter
I think you are being Unfair when you say Repubs and Some Dems don’t care about gun violence. Just because someones solution is different than yours doesn’t mean they don’t care just means they disagree. I believe repubs were pushing for more severe penalties for straw buyers.
In fact you and i are a good example. I disagree with all three of the items you list. Yet i care very much about the people caught in the crossfire of the gang war there in Chi town. You want to limit guns i want to put needles in the arms of the Bangers. I can’t say you don’t care since you disagree with me. How do you assume I don’t care because i disagree with you??
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 1:00 pm
Mason,
Although I disagree on the death penalty, I do agree that we are too easy on people who commit gun crimes and violent crimes generally.
If you stick a gun in somebody’s back you should be locked up for a very long time.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 1:03 pm
===Let’s get these Gangbangers out of circulation when they are caught.===
Mason born, with respect, that’s like closing the barn door after the horse gets out. We can keep filling prisons, if we can afford it, or we can do a better job controlling who can get firearms.
Remember, every gun starts out being sold legally. Help us find ways to end the illegal sales and we can get to common ground pretty quickly. I think those of us in the middle, who don’t support bans, would welcome your ideas.
How can we prevent illegal gun sales and transfers without placing unreasonable burdens on law abiding citizens? I think a federal gun registry can do that by tracking where the breakdowns occur.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 1:05 pm
Mason,
I have yet to hear any reasonable explanation for opposing the first two items on my list. For the third (size of mag) I admit that there is room to debate some of the details.
But for the first two? Opposing them simply helps criminals and people who profit from criminals.
I have yet to read any other compelling reason to opposing mandatory reporting or licensing.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 1:07 pm
Ron’ please don’t call gun grabbers the “gun safety” people. They don’t know anything about gun safety. Heck, did you see Zelewski sweating bullets (heh) when Durkin asked him what a 22 lever action with a tube magazine is, or if he or his lawyer ever held one in the heir hands? Hilarious!
I consider the NRA and ISRA and the rest of us lawful gun owners to be the gun safety people, not the grabbers like Madigan and Zelewski. How many gun safety classes have they taught? If you really wanted to learn about gun safety, are these the first names that would come to mind?
Let’s not get caught up in their word twist games and call hem what they really are, gun grabbers.
Comment by benji Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 1:09 pm
@ Skeeter - as to your Item #2, were you around for the 1968 Chicago Riots? Did you perhaps see video of the Watts Riots?
I remember them pretty well. The meyhem creators were prety numerous, and not standing still.
Comment by titan Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 1:14 pm
Titan,
Could you explain why registration is a bad idea due to riots? That’s not clear.
Were you discussing the third item?
OK, for an event that happens once or twice in the entire history of Chicago, a large magazine may be helpful.
Is it reasonable to put us all in greater danger on a daily basis due to events that occur twice in 150 years?
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 1:21 pm
Awesome approach, Benji.
And I’m sure you won’t mind when I start calling you “criminal lover” since your policies put guns in the hands of the bad guys.
Heck, if we are going to follow your lead and toss around names, let’s go all the way.
For what it is worth, I generally think tossing around names is a bad idea. I may question the other side and the other side’s motives, but tossing names? I would prefer to be above that, but if you do want to go down that route, so will I, “Criminal Lover Benji.”
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 1:26 pm
Once again, Skeeter speaks in absolutes. In the past, he has asserted that anyone who disagrees with his point of view is not fit to own firearms.
How in the world will registration of all guns reduce gun violence? What are the mechanics of that tortured logic?
When asked to address how banning large capacity magazines could reduce gun violence, Skeeter answers by asking why you need one. The target keeps moving until Skeeter then states that you aren’t fit to own a firearm. There is no debating someone who doesn’t play by his own rules.
Your assertion that the GOP doesn’t care about gun violence is beneath contempt. Again, asserting an absolute without knowing, or caring, about the facts. But then, Skeeter, you don’t seem too concerned about the facts, especially if they don’t fit your narrative.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 1:28 pm
Initially DuPage, I hope to run into some time. Maybe I can give you $10 to buy a sense of humor. Anybody who disagrees with me should be barred from owning a gun? Lighten up, dude.
But you asked “How in the world will registration of all guns reduce gun violence? What are the mechanics of that tortured logic?”
Let me explain. If you have registration, then we will know who legally has a gun. If next year, you no longer have that gun, we would need to know where it went. If you can’t explain where it went, we can assume you provided it to somebody not legally able to own one.
As others have noted, every gun was legally purchased at one time. Most bad guys cannot legally own a gun so they find “legal gun owners” willing to provide them with guns. Registration prevents people from making those sales.
Glad I can clear than up.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 1:33 pm
===What are the mechanics of that tortured logic?===
Registration traces ownership to specific firearms, detailing the legal chain of custody so that, if a weapon is used in a crime, police can trace it back to its lawful owner, who then may or may not have some splaining to do.
You know, it’s sort of like how we track car ownership by VIN number. In this case, the manufacturers have been helpful by stamping unique serial numbers onto each firearm. The only “burden” is for gun owners to file the serial numbers on the firearms they own and update the registry when they transfer or lose any of their registered firearms.
This would protect law abiding gun owners and the public. I still can’t believe it isn’t mandatory by now. Remember, every gun used in a crime was purchased legally at some point. How is it that so many guns are falling into the wrong hands? Don’t responsible gun owners want to eliminate this problem too?
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 1:35 pm
I’m curious if there are statistics on how often a gun is recovered at a murder scene but no shape t is found. Does anyone have the numbers with a source?
Comment by benji Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 1:40 pm
Skeeter,
you said “If next year, you no longer have that gun, we would need to know where it went.”
Exactly how are you going to check on whether or not the owner still has that gun? Random warrent-less searches? Forcing us to store all guns with the bobbies at the police station?
Do you have to plan to verify current ownership without infringing on some other constitutional right?
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 1:42 pm
1. Tax the &$^@# out of everything that has to do with gun ownership.
2. Use the money to fund schools. Let’s end the gang violence by giving these guys a chance to do something with their lives beyond sell drugs.
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 1:42 pm
Grr spell checker, that was supposed to say No Suspect is found
Comment by benji Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 1:43 pm
RNUG,
Imagine if I gave my son my car. If he doesn’t transfer the title to his name and goes out and gets a bunch of parking tickets, I get the bill for that. A system modeled on this, title to a firearm, is all that is needed so we can assess whether there is any liability when a firearm is used by a criminal who shouldn’t have it in the first place.
There is no need for searches, no need to store your guns, etc. When a gun is recovered, we know who it was last owned by, and then the authorities can make the determination as to whether it was transferred legally or not.
Right now, Chicago’s streets are flooded with firearms that somebody purchased legally. More than 7,000 were recovered last year alone. Wouldn’t it be nice to put a stop to that?
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 1:49 pm
@ Skeeter - sorry, yes, I got off on the numbered stuff. If the pro-gun folks had a sense that the anti-gun folks weren’t just trying to set the stage for future bans/confiscation, then registration wouldn’t be such a big issue (and comments that keep coming out from those such as Rep Schakowsky and Sen Feinstein don’t put their minds at ease on that point).
Comment by titan Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 1:50 pm
A ccw bill should only be about ccw. Nothing else. In fact I believe all Bills should be only about one issue. Simplifies the issue discussed.
If there is a desire for other gun control measures, debate each as a separate Bill.
Who needs a 30 round magazine? Who cares what they have as long as they are not causing harm to others.
Registering firearms? No. It has lead to confiscation everywhere it has been done. Not only that, it is of no ones concern what you own if you are not causing harm.
A right is not dependent on a need. No other part of the Bill of Rights require a need, so why is the 2nd different?
Comment by FormerParatrooper Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 1:52 pm
Titan,
I can’t help you with your fear of what might be proposed tomorrow. All I can comment on is legislation that is being proposed now.
Paranoia about what might come is no reason to oppose good legislation being offered now.
Mandatory reporting, registration, and capacity limits would make us safer. We shouldn’t block those proposals merely because somebody somewhere has a bad idea for gun control.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 1:56 pm
police should read policy
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 1:59 pm
===It has lead to confiscation everywhere it has been done.===
That’s a red herring and a distraction. It’s also tired, unoriginal and a poor excuse to attempt to get some contol of the carnage going on across the country by illegal guns.
Man up and take some responsibility to go along with your rights.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 2:02 pm
I left out mandatory reporting. I agree. If someone has a firearm stolen by all means regardless of the law report it stolen. Why wouldn’t you report it stolen? If that weapon is used in a crime you are a suspect.
Comment by FormerParatrooper Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 2:02 pm
Skeeter,
Read this about the attempt to register guns in Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry
Comment by reelpro Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 2:05 pm
– If the pro-gun folks had a sense that the anti-gun folks weren’t just trying to set the stage for future bans/confiscation, then registration wouldn’t be such a big issue–
Good Lord, there are 300 million privately owned firearms in the United States — more guns than cars, more guns than television sets.
The idea of confiscation is ludicrous.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 2:09 pm
47th Ward
Man up? I have not committed any crime, I served 21 yrs as a soldier, I take full responsibility for my rights and swore with my life to protect everyone’s rights. I am not causing the carnage, nor or the other responsible gun owners. Your peddling the red herring, sir.
A red herring? What are prominent anti gun politicians saying publicly about the 2A?
Comment by FormerParatrooper Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 2:09 pm
47th,
If the guns were originally sold in IL in the past 10 years, it should not be a problem under current law to trace ownership. The manufacturers know which dealers they shipped which guns to. All guns sales in Illinois, even private face to face sales, have to be recorded by the seller as to make, model, serial number and other identifying information plus the buyer’s FOID card number. If asked, I can still identify the previous owner of every one of my guns, and I’ve had all of them for more than 10 years.
That identification information has to be provided to any law officer who asks for it. The information is out there in the hands of the gun dealers and former owners; it just isn’t in a central database that can be checked in 2 seconds.
Of course, only already law abiding citizens follow the law …
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 2:09 pm
Former
The problem with the reporting requirement is the way the language is worded. I agree as soon as i know something is missing i am calling 911 if for no other reason then so i can claim it on my Insurance. the language in the proposals leaves no room for the law-abiding to make an error.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 2:10 pm
Mason
That is true. When they properly word the Bill, with comment sense dare I say, the go for it.
Comment by FormerParatrooper Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 2:14 pm
Skeeter - I’m not paranoid. I am noting an issue commonly raised by the pro-gun crowd as to why registration is opposed. As noted above, though, the spotty history relating to other place’s registry programs makes a bit of concern somewhat less than paranoia
Comment by titan Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 2:15 pm
Common sense. Sorry for typo
Comment by FormerParatrooper Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 2:16 pm
reelpro,
I think the lesson from that Wikipedia article is that registration should not be handled by Dorothy Brown’s office, but rather it should be handled by some unit of government capable of handling paper.
Was that your point?
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 2:17 pm
Skeeter,
The point is, most gun owners refused to register. The government couldn’t make them do it and gave up.
Comment by reelpro Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 2:28 pm
reel,
Whew. I thought it was something significant.
In the U.S., legitimate gun owners are all law abiding folk, so that will not be an issue here.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 2:30 pm
Skeeter,
They are, until the legislature passes laws they know won’t work. This turns law abiding citizens into criminals.
By the way, answer to your 30 round magazine question:
I target shoot with one, it is fun. Question for you. Why do you need a car that can go faster than the speed limit? It is illegal and dangerous to do so.
Comment by reelpro Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 2:40 pm
Banning magazines over a capacity of 10 makes as much sense as banning sodas over 16oz. The “soda safety” people, that don’t drink soda, are really proud of themselves there.
Comment by City Slicker Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 2:44 pm
@reelpro:
Fun isn’t justification. There might be other legitimate reasons but fun isn’t one of them. I too am baffled by the need for large magazines. If you can’t hit something the first 10 times then maybe you need some more training.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think there are legitimate arguments on both sides regarding the gun issue. The risk of gun confiscation isn’t one of them. The “law abiding citizens” argument doesn’t work on me either. There are similar silly arguments on the other side, mostly dealing with limiting guns to water pistols (that was snark, but sometimes I don’t think it’s far from the truth). Get all of the reasonable people together, forget about the hysterical fringes on both sides, and come to some sort of agreement. There are things there are already agreeable. Pass that and move on to the harder stuff later.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 2:56 pm
Awesome Reel!
I feel bank robbery laws will never work. So let’s just make bank robberies legal. You got my back on the one right?
Great logic you have there — “We are very law abiding, because we follow the laws that we like.”
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 2:56 pm
Skeeter,
Bank robbery has always been illegal. Gun ownership is not.
Comment by reelpro Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 3:05 pm
You know that there is an Illinois statue called “15-20-Life” sponsored by Dillard that allows additional sentences when using a firearm in the commission of a felony, right? Prosecutors and judges are not taking advantage of this law, which has been around for quite a while…
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 3:10 pm
And gosh darn it Reel, for that entire time I knew that bank robbery laws can’t work.
So are you with me?
Or are you ready to concede that you can’t call yourself “law abiding” and brag that your side is all about people who follow the law and then object to a law on the basis that your side will never follow it?
By the way, who’s talking about making gun ownership illegal? We are just talking about registration.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 3:11 pm
Demoralized,
I go to a private range, that I am a member of, and target shoot. It is fun. It is legal and doesn’t hurt anyone. By the way, you are right about hunting with a large capacity mag. If you can’t hit in ten shots you need to learn how to shoot. Most of the time only a couple of shots can be fired at game. Then they are gone.
By the way I am 61 years old and have been hunting since 8 years old. Most of the time I use a single shot. I don’t like carrying big heavy guns all day in the woods. I can bag all the game I want to.
Comment by reelpro Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 3:13 pm
Skeeter,
Gun registration will not work. So let’s pass a law that will cost untold millions to implement, knowing it won’t. Just to make gun owners criminals.
My family has guns that have been passed down for about 90 years. No one has ever done anything illegal with them. Why not enforce the laws that are on the books? New ones will not make any difference.
Enjoyed debating with you. Got to go to work now, won’t be back ’til tomorrow AM. Wish I could continue.
Comment by reelpro Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 3:26 pm
I read a lot about stiff prison time. Where are the prisons that have bed space. Where are the tax payers that are willing to pay increased taxes to build and maintain the bed space. Just asking.
Comment by Tobor Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 3:30 pm
Reel,
You insist registration will not work, but you provide nothing other than your opinion. No facts, no logic, no argument.
And then you say that because it will not work, gun owners will not follow the law.
That’s not a compelling argument.
Your argument really is nothing more than saying gun owners only follow laws that they like so we shouldn’t pass laws that they don’t like.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 3:33 pm
Demo
I don’t think saying it is fun was a justification. It was simply a statement i think the statement was i do not need justification to own it.
As far as saying Gun confiscation isn’t part of the conversation you need to talk to Diane Feinstein and Jan Shakowsky as well as chuck Schumer and i believe Mr. Acevedo has brought it up in debate as well. (not sure of the spelling on shakowsky).
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 3:35 pm
=====The failure of the GOP to support them just shows that the GOP does not care about gun violance.====
Skeeter our pesky friend,
The gun debate is more regional than partisan. I’m not sure if either party in the State of Illinois hold their candidates to a litmus test on this issue.
Comment by Endangered Moderate Species Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 3:40 pm
Skeeter
Look at Canada full Long gun registration, effect on crime zilch. Look at the U.K. total hand gun ban with long gun registration and the requirement that the weapons be stored at a club. Effect on crime since inception has been a very steady very steep rise in rape, assault, armed burglary, and homicide. The brits are now considering banning Kitchen Knives and Cricket bats. Crime in the U.S. through the same period has been a steady decline. In fact Chicago is one of the few places in the Country where Crimes against individuals are increasing yet Chicago has some of the most severe gun laws in the country.
I use to think you put thought into your opinions i am begining to think this is more dogma with you.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 3:42 pm
Mason,
It is always amusing when people throw out “facts” but then provide nothing to back them.
The Canada thing? What does that law say? Did they have problems with straw purchasers in Canada? What are there laws regarding background checks and waiting periods? I assume all those are exactly the same as in the U.S., right? And I assume you have something to back your “no impact” claim right?
Regarding GB - why should we care? How is that in any way relevant to what is being proposed in Illinois or what I advocated above? Who is that argument directed against?
You talk about “dogma” Mason. But you’ve got nothing at all to back your claims. That sure sound like dogma (and a bit of paranoia).
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 3:48 pm
Skeeter
If we pass mandatory registration of firearms for Illinois residents, how will this lower the number of illegal guns going into Chicago from other states?
Comment by PM31 Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 4:00 pm
P,
Except to the extent that owning an unlicensed weapon is a crime, it will not.
It also will not mow your lawn.
Or give your dog a bath.
Or pick up the kids from school.
I really don’t think it will solve all of our problems.
But it will solve some and that’s what matters.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 4:03 pm
47th… I corrected the following for you.
From this…
The only “burden” is for gun owners to file the serial numbers on the firearm
to this…
The only burden is for “gang members” to file the serial numbers “off” the firearm
Comment by Logic not emotion Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 4:08 pm
Skeeter
Show me what proof you have that your solutions work? You don’t have any? Canada has a registry which is precisely what you say you want the Canadian Home office the equivalent of the FBI stated it had no appreciable result on crime.
GB went to the logical conclusion of what you espouse full registration and the end result according to the GB Home office is an increase in crime.
The only thing you have proposed which hasn’t been tried and failed is the loss reporting. Get some legitimate language in it i.e. get it written by someone who actually knows something about weapons and the people that have them and maybe we will try it. The reason we aren’t lining up to try it is like the paratrooper said most of us call the cops as soon as we find them missing. What you are espousing are bills that are so poorly written they make criminals of the law-abiding for a common error while having no clear effect on the target i.e. straw buyers.
You hold to the BELIEF that your solutions are going to solve problems yet when they have been tried they have failed. But because you BELIEVE then it must be so. That my friend is Dogma.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 4:10 pm
===But it will solve some and that’s what matters.===
Skeeter,
Let’s have 9 PM to 6 AMcurfews in high crime areas. That will help solve some and that is what matters.
Comment by Endangered Moderate Species Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 4:11 pm
Skeeter
Again provide your proof. Or is Skeeters belief that reasonable people will agree all the proof that is needed.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 4:11 pm
Logic
You do know that Logic cannot be used on this subject only emotion.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 4:12 pm
It is amazing how people with little actual knowledge of something can be so adamant about it.
I recently listened to a trauma nurse in Chicago expound upon adamantly about the evils of fracking in Southern Illinois.
Lots of people who have no knowledge of firearms or crime expound adamantly that the obvious answer to crime and violence is to put restrictions on the law abiding and non-violent.
The experts on the gun issue are the gun owners and law enforcement. Both groups oppose additional restrictions and support concealed carry.
Comment by Logic not emotion Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 4:14 pm
@reel:
Thanks for the response.
@mason:
I didn’t say it wasn’t part of the conversation. I just said I don’t buy into it as a legitimate argument because it isn’t going to happen - ever. Just because somebody talks about it doesn’t make it any less paranoid to believe in it.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 4:14 pm
@mason:
Also, I believe I mentioned the gun banners in my comment with my reference to “water pistols.” The gun ban argument by that side is just as silly.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 4:16 pm
Curfews, “Moderate”?
You gun folk like to scream about the Constitution when it impacts you, but you are not big on the Constitution for anybody else.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 4:17 pm
Mason,
Again, I note that you talk about Canada but provide nothing to back the claim.
How emotional of you.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 4:18 pm
Demo
I woudl agree with you if it wasn’t being espoused by U.S. Senators believe me i truly wish i could believe that it is an Alex Jones type of crap. However when it is Senators and Leading politicians talking about it hard to say it won’t happen.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 4:20 pm
Mason: It seems that the world has changed to where emotion trumps logic and policies / legislation which should be evidence based and determined solely by logic are instead emotion based and determined solely by politics, self interest, and unsupported opinion. I know emotion has a long history in politics; but it seems to be reaching new lows.
Comment by Logic not emotion Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 4:22 pm
–The experts on the gun issue are the gun owners and law enforcement. Both groups oppose additional restrictions and support concealed carry.–
Mr. Spock, I don’t think all gun owners and law enforcement agree with your positions, from my reading and national polls.
It would be illogical to think that such a large and varied sample would be in lockstep on any issue.
Beam me up, Scotty.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 4:23 pm
Skeeter,
That is exactly the response I expected.
You speak about solving a problem that is occurring in the City and your answer is for those of us 150 miles away to surrender our rights, even though we do not have a problem and are not contributing to the cities problem.
Yet, when an idea is mentioned that may suppress the rights of those in the affected neighborhoods, you disagree. Yet, a curfew would help police control the streets and help reduce gun violence and its victims in those neighborhoods.
I don’t like curfews or stricter gun laws. They are both forms of martial law.
Comment by Endangered Moderate Species Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 4:24 pm
Skeeter
I’m not going to waste my time if you can’t Google. Sorry i assume people have the Initiative to Research on their own. If you give me a link i am going to research on my own to confirm. Stop being Lazy.
But hey at least you don’t have to admit your opinions are founded only in your beliefs. BTW what Moderate was pointing out was the irony in your own statement.
===I really don’t think it will solve all of our problems.
But it will solve some and that’s what matters. ===
The same justification you use to Register can be used to enforce a Curfew. That sir is called Irony. You need a nap usually don’t have to explain that kind of thing??
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 4:25 pm
Logic
It isn’t that the world has changed it is a concentrated effort to declare anyone using logic on this issue has to be heartless and uncaring. You see if you use logic then you aren’t Emotional enough.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 4:28 pm
And you gave me the same response I would expect from you.
You people insist that all gun owners are kind and virtuous and law abiding folk. If we listened to you, we would think that the Devil himself must be giving the guns to the bad guys, because no fine and loyal and upstanding legal gun owner would ever do so.
Face reality, Endangered. Some of your buddies in the pro-gun anti-regulation camp make a living funneling guns to bad guys. Unless they are regulated, they will continue to do so.
All illegal guns were once bought in a legal transaction.
Registration is a form of martial law? Frankly, that’s barely worth comment. If you believe that, you have no idea at all what you are talking about. Do some reading. Learn what “martial law” really is.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 4:29 pm
Mason,
I’m not your clerk. If you can back your argument with fact, do it. If not, admit it.
Your choice. But right now, you’ve made a claim that you can’t back and that causes me to think that nothing you claim is actual fact.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 4:31 pm
Word: Most do; but… to make it more specific… The following all came out in support of HB0148 (like HB0997).
• Illinois Sheriffs Association
• IL Association of Chiefs of Police
• Chicago Police Dept. Sergeants Assoc.
• Chicago Police Dept. Lieutenants Assoc.
I’m not Spock or Scotty; but you can certainly consider yourself beamed somewhere.
Comment by Logic not emotion Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 4:36 pm
Guys, registration is just an invasion of privacy, its none of your business what I own. If I don’t do anything criminal with my guns, what i own is again none of your or the states business.
I think even our state consitution cuts against it.
Not to mention Chicago used it to enact a handgun ban. Everytime government tries it, they abuse it. Under the Davis amendment, we now have to pay a tax to keep our guns.
In e words of the host– bite me. I’m not paying a tax to keep my guns. Nor am i registering any of them with the state.
As for 30 rounds mags, lets start With pistol mags over 10. That is whato most current pistols use. And Heller protects modern firearms in common use. No way the 10 round limit stands. Same goes for rifles.
But if you have never been in a gun fight, the only time you have to much ammo is when you can’t get up or walk.
But for Skeeter, i dont have to need anything to justify it. Its the Bill of Rghts, not the bill of needs. The burden is upon you to tell the Courts why they should be contraband.
Comment by Todd Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 4:39 pm
I shouldn’t have added “I’m not Spock or Scotty; but you can certainly consider yourself beamed somewhere.” That didn’t contribute to a reasonable discussion of the issue any more than Word’s Spock and Scotty references did. My apologies.
Comment by Logic not emotion Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 4:40 pm
@Todd:
I think it would do people good for you to remind them of the “restrictions” that you support. That’s not being snarky or accusatory. I just want people to see that there is reasonableness out there. I know you have listed them before. Thanks in advance!
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 4:43 pm
===registration is just an invasion of privacy===
Todd, do you make the same complaint when you register as a lobbyist? How much do you pay for your lobbyist registration in Illinois? $300?
Todd, and I ask this sincerely because I think it’s possible to find common ground on a divisive issue like this, and I respect your opinion very much, is there any law or policy change you can offer that would eliminate straw purchases or illegal transfers?
Somebody is making money selling guns to people who shouldn’t have them. I’d think you would want to stop that too, since law abiding gun owners end up in the legislative cross fire when attempts to solve this problem have unintended consequences.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Mar 14, 13 @ 5:25 pm
D– no snark i get your point
47- yes i do i dont think i should have to pay to petition government or tell them who i represent
Actually its $600 i get dinged twise once for me once or the sub-s
Im all for figuring out how to stop the transfer from a legal sale to a prohibited person. But i dont think its any of the governments business as tonwhat or how many i own
We know that about 50% of the guns is chicago are coming from out of state so what ever you try to do in illinois will only shift the source.
Take lost or stolen as an example, you really think that someone who is making an illleagal transfer– a felony, is gonna worry about a petty offense on reporting an alleged property crime.
Officer: mr skeeter you bought a ruger 357 from johns guns, how did end up in englewood?
Skeeter: what domyou mean? Its in my dresser drawer. Oh no its not there officer someone must have stolen it when i was out of town last week.
Its bunk. It is just another gotcha and wont fix or solve anything neither will registration as you now have pushed a lot of gun owners to the point that they will not comply they dont care.
And i really dont think all these people are running out spending big bucks on ARs to just surrender them or register them with the government.
Two weeks ago i sold an AR for $1800 people are not forking out that kind of $$$ just to tell or give it to the government
Comment by Todd Friday, Mar 15, 13 @ 8:26 am
Thanks Todd.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Mar 15, 13 @ 10:52 am