Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Subscribers Only - Supplement to today’s edition and more items
Next Post: Better management, please
Posted in:
* Last night on CBS 2…
Busloads of people were getting ready Tuesday night to head to the Illinois State Capitol this week.
They want to urge lawmakers to take action on a bill that would ban semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines. But those fighting against that bill are already promising legal action.
As CBS 2 Political Investigator Dana Kozlov reported, this is the latest version of a bill that went nowhere for years. Another bill banning so-called assault-style weapons languished in the Rules Committee for a year.
But the Highland Park July 4th parade massacre renewed a push to pass the law. And now, hundreds of doctors from hospitals, including Northwestern Memorial Hospital, are involved in the fight.
“We don’t want to see this anymore,” said Dr. Selwyn Rogers.
Dr. Rogers is the leading trauma surgeon at the University of Chicago Medical Center emergency room. He is one of more than 300 Chicago area doctors who have signed a letter urging state lawmakers to pass the Protect Illinois Communities Act. […]
“I think the fact that physicians are actually willing to sign this letter is a strong testament to the fact that we’ve had enough as physicians,” Rogers said.
Politico claimed another scoop credit this morning…
— FIRST IN PLAYBOOK: Physicians and faith leaders are calling on Illinois legislators to pass the Protect Illinois Communities Act, which would ban assault weapons. “We have witnessed firsthand the trauma that gun violence inflicts on communities and families across our state,” some 350 doctors said in a signed letter to lawmakers who are meeting this week in Springfield for a lame duck session addressing the assault weapons legislation. “We do not have to live like this,” the letter continues.
Sigh.
* Anyway, from a press release…
Today, dozens of multi-denominational faith leaders congregated at the Good Hope Free Will Baptist Church to express their support for a ban on both assault weapons and high capacity magazines and urge legislators to vote yes on the Protect Illinois Communities Act. The Good Hope Free Will Baptist Church, located in East Garfield Park, is just a few blocks from where a mass shooting took place in October 2022, when 14 people were wounded and one died.
“Bright futures and innocent lives are continuously being gunned down,” said Reverend Ira Acree, pastor of Greater St. John Bible Church in Austin. “Rifles, AK-47s and combat weapons should not be in the hands of ordinary citizens.”
At the press conference, Pastor Cornelius Parks of the Good Hope Free Will Baptist Church, Reverend Ira Acree of Greater St. John Bible Church, Reverend Marshall Hatch of New Mount Pilgrim Church, Reverend Janette Wilson of Rainbow PUSH, Rabbi Ike Serotta of Lakeside Congregation of Reform Judaism, Pastor John Edgerton of the First United Church of Oak Park, Bishop Simon Gordon of the Triedstone Church of Chicago, Imam Abdullah Madhyun of Masjid Al Ihsan, and Father Michael Pfleger of St. Sabina Catholic Church all spoke about the urgency of passing the Protect Illinois Communities Act to save lives.
“High capacity magazines have no use but as weapons of war—they make our streets a battleground and have no place in our state,” stated Pastor John Edgerton, the president of the Community of Congregation and Pastor of First United Church of Oak Park.
Additionally today, over 75 faith leaders released a letter calling on legislators to pass the Protect Illinois Communities Act. In the letter, they write, “While we may practice different faiths, we are united in keeping our communities free and safe from weapons of war that have no place in our schools, houses of worship, movie theaters, playgrounds, or streets.” […]
A poll released by Everytown for Gun Safety last month demonstrated that these gun safety measures have widespread support across the state. Overall, 52% of Illinoisans believe gun laws in Illinois should be stronger, including nearly three quarters of Black voters and 56% of Hispanic voters. A ban on assault weapons has the support of 58% of Illinoisans.
That letter is here.
* Meanwhile, from Center Square…
Todd Vandermyde, a long time gun-owner rights advocate, said on his YouTube channel opponents of the measure don’t plan to negotiate on what kinds of guns to ban.
“You’re just educating them on how to build a better mousetrap,” Vandermyde said. “The broader it is, the more heinous it is, the more all-encompassing it is, the easier it’s going to be to kill in court.”
The bill is gonna be changed regardless.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:29 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Subscribers Only - Supplement to today’s edition and more items
Next Post: Better management, please
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“the easier it’s going to be to kill.” Good word choice, Todd.
Comment by Sonny Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:35 am
Please, pass the bill today and make me a felon tomorrow, so that we can get this into federal court as soon as possible.
Comment by We've never had one before Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:42 am
Hate to say it but “we’ve never had” at 1142am is right. The Constitution, as viewed by the Supreme Court, is unfettered access to guns.
Comment by Jerry Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:49 am
I possess a FOID and a CCL and have an extensive gun collection. And this bill will have zero impact on me. I will not have to register anything or get rid of anything. I suspect that a lot of gun owners are in the same position and thus not crying wolf.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:51 am
===make me a felon tomorrow, so that we can get this into federal court as soon as possible.===
That is one creepy comment to have a gun… it’s a family blog.
To the post,
Run the bill, sign it, let’s see where the courts fall as what we have now, as the argument stands, isn’t working to an idea of trying to find (a) better way(s)
The zealot thinking of not looking for any constitutional way to find a solution is the reminder… zealots ate about the feelings they have for their want, not the understanding of thinking of others.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 11:54 am
OW-
Not your finest post. The first part about Never Had’s “creepy” response makes no sense, especially the family blog comment.
The second statement you wrote:
== zealots ate about the feelings they have for their want, not the understanding of thinking of others ==
is exactly the same verbiage that 2A supporters say about gun control advocates and their feelings. “Want” and “feelings” are not the deciding factor anymore. SCOTUS has spoken. Ther may be answers, but the proposed AWB and LCM mag are overreach based on Heller and NYSRPA v. Bruen.
Comment by CJA Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 12:08 pm
Call me old fashioned, but I prefer legislative strategies that don’t require the President of the United States of America to pack the Supreme Court of the United States of America for them to be successful.
I certainly hope that Joe Biden does pack the Supreme Court.
===let’s see where the courts fall as what we have now===
Despite the above, I agree with OW. This bill is a political necessity for many of the members of the legislature and a political albatross for others.
Even if it’s not constitutional, at least they can say they tried.
Comment by Candy Dogood Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 12:08 pm
==Run the bill, sign it, let’s see where the courts fall==
Yup. I don’t recall the second amendment clearly delineating magazine limits.
Comment by Jocko Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 12:13 pm
= The Constitution, as viewed by the Supreme Court, is unfettered access to guns.=
@Jerry- your statement is factually wrong. Let me know when you have “unfettered” access to full auto weapons, cannons, stinger missiles, etc.
The court has always stated that rights have limits. This court has been what republicans have always hated, activist, and upended decades of jurisprudence and moved us backward.
I find it interesting that so many “law and order” people keep siding with guns over people.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 12:17 pm
===Not your finest post===
Don’t worry, worse ones always are a mere comment away.
:)
===is exactly the same verbiage===
Yeah. It’s not. Sorry.
The unfettered idea of zealots that can’t grasp the idea that something is absolute and evolution of a constitution that first needed 10 amendments as an existing document…
I’m very much a 2A advocate, I’m also understanding that the responses necessary going forward can’t be “nothing” either.
Run the bill, sign it, let’s find out, which is far different than this martyrdom that is oddly… I’ll leave it there.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 12:18 pm
If a bill does not pass for gun control with the Democrats with super majorities then no gun control bill will ever pass. It would be my hope that some Republican would support a bill but a foolish hope. I would remind Republicans that Henry Hyde voted for gun control stating how could he be pro life and not vote for gun control. And Pollyanna that I am I believe US Supreme Court has said reasonable restrictions are permitted no guns in court government buildings no guns for felons so there is hope
Comment by DuPage Saint Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 12:21 pm
@jsmills: not sure I understand where you’re going.
Comment by Jerry Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 12:28 pm
OW-
I never said the answer was to “do nothing.” But to continue down the same track now that the rules have changed isn’t the way either. Gun control supporters complain that the 2A crowd has not changed their thinking, but the latest AWB HB5855 doubles down on the same restrictions and even expands the definition to make an even more all encompassing ban. Todd V is right, the more egregious it is, the easier it will be to defeat.
Surely the answer cannot be as Candy said at 12:08 to try anything even if it means to attempt to pass something that is very likely unconstitutional. While that may be a “necessity” for some, it could also be a political liability to those in the middlegeound. No one likes to see their lawmakers knowingly try to infringe on constitutional rights.
Comment by CJA Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 12:30 pm
If your argument boils down only to “the Supreme Court has spoken; deal” then it doesn’t deserve intellectual respect.
The Supreme Court makes mistakes that need to be corrected, especially where they involve taking away power from elected legislatures and their constituents. As I recall conservatives were outspoken on this point throughout 2022.
Comment by ZC Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 12:37 pm
I do worry that this bill could actually move things the other way. If the Supreme Court (which may be even more pro gun than the one that ruled in Heller) is looking for a bill to tee off on and make a broad decision firmly establishing gun rights, then this bill (if passed and signed) might make a good candidate. To my eyes, the confiscatory language on magazines and the absolute ban on gun ownership for those under 21 seem likely to not withstand judicial scrutiny.
Comment by Wonky Kong Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 12:38 pm
=== I never said the answer was to “do nothing.”===
Why you chose to comment at me, lol
So, you take umbrage to my initial comment, not it’s “against you”?
Friend, you inserted yourself into my comment, if you take it as an affront against you, that’s on you.
=== the more egregious it is, the easier it will be to defeat.===
Then it will be, but doing nothing at this point and counting noses to this bill is also important to constituents who are concerned they might not want 2A advocates come the fall of 2024
=== No one likes to see their lawmakers knowingly try to infringe on constitutional rights.===
We don’t know that as a fact until a ruling happens.
Voters might not like legislators whom are choosing against looking at solutions?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 12:46 pm
–and make me a felon tomorrow–
This is such interesting behavior. Do you not have any self-determination? because that seems to be the other thing people hyper-focused on firearms claim to be.
If a law passes, and YOU take action to either ignore the law or break it, it isn’t the law that has made you a felon. It is your own actions. Nobody is responsible for that except you.
If you do in fact feel that strongly, then why do you care if it is legal or not?
This dynamic has always been fascinating to me. Being pulled on one side by the perception of independence, and pulled in the opposite direction by a perception of being law-abiding.
—
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 12:48 pm
I watched most of the 3 hearings - the pro-2A folks had a few panelists that expressed their opposition, although they were vastly outnumbered by folks in favor of gun control. Having said that -the Dems are determined to pass this. I say so be it, political overreach has both legal and electoral consequences. Scotus will eventually clarify stronger 2A rights nationally.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 12:55 pm
“If a law passes, and YOU take action to either ignore the law or break it, it isn’t the law that has made you a felon. It is your own actions. Nobody is responsible for that except you.”
If it passes - the folks arrested for possession of a 15 or 17-round mag will help establish standing for the eventual SCOTUS challenge.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:02 pm
hope the Ds have had some super good lawyers working on this because to give an easy victory to the assault weapons toters would not be good. that said, ban those guns.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:04 pm
Retired now for 15 years from the ISP after 29 years in law enforcement. I purchased my service weapon, a Glock 22 and the three Department issued fifteen round magazines.
I am having a hard time understanding why I have to transfer, alter or destroy the magazines that I have had for decades.
Comment by Rigby 416 Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:04 pm
=Scotus will eventually clarify stronger 2A rights nationally.=
And like the recent Dobbs decision that might be chock full of consequences. Be careful what you wish for.
Comment by Pundent Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:06 pm
Would it be unconstitutional for gun owners be required to purchase some sort of liability insurance? Surely the multi-national for profit insurance companies could handle this.
Comment by Jerry Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:09 pm
Amalia — hope is not a plan, but its about all the dems have. I am underwhelmed by what I have seen in filings by Our AG in gun cases. And check out the link below for the pro-bono anti-gun attorneys representing Naperville If that is the best they got, your side in in trouble.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64952499/34/bevis-v-city-of-naperville-illinois/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64952499/35/bevis-v-city-of-naperville-illinois/
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:10 pm
JS Mill
-I possess a FOID and a CCL and have an extensive gun collection. And this bill will have zero impact on me. I will not have to register anything or get rid of anything. I suspect that a lot of gun owners are in the same position and thus not crying wolf.-
With all due respect, most gun owners will be impacted especially on the magazine front. Most semi automatic handguns have been sold with 10+ magazines for years. I suspect a lot of gun owners not following this don’t realize the pistol they bought in 2020 with a 17rnd magazine is targeted in this.
That said sounds like you have a rather nice old collection. Good for you sounds lovely. I fear you’re in the minority these days.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:10 pm
OW, there was no “affront” taken or felt. My initial comment was to your original comment and how it seemed uncharacteristically “OW” to me. Your first reply to me is where you mentioned “worse are only a comment away.
” Now was that a dig at me? Did you see my point about how your comment might not be perceived with the wit/sarcasm/humor you intended? Was it all of the above. I don’t know because it appeared nebulous. If there was any “affront,” it would come from there.
But there was no offense taken, and none returned. Did I respond to what could have been taken as an insult? Nope. Even if it was a comment about me, I have thicker skin than that. All my subsequent comments focused on issues being discussed by you and others on this post. Why you think I woukd feel affronted, that’s on you.
HB5855 or its equivalent will probably pass, it will immediately go to court, most likely there will be a TRO or injunction in its future while it is being litigated. In the meantime, nothing will change as far as sales or possession go for a long time. At least in IL, both sides have drawn lines in the sand. The gun-control side has committed to creating bills that the 2A side says are unconstitutional and have committed to legal instead of legislative solutions. Neither side is talking with each other. I don’t know what will make that happen.
Comment by CJA Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:18 pm
I have a CC permit, a FOID card, I own two guns, and this bill would make me a felon because one of my guns, without any modifications and magazines that came with it when I initially bought it, can hold more than 10 rounds. I’ve followed every gun law, but that still isn’t good enough.
I wonder what the pastors from churches in rural Illinois would say about this bill.
Comment by Fivegreenleaves Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:22 pm
=== My initial comment was to your original comment and how it seemed uncharacteristically “OW” to me.===
I think you typed
===Not your finest post===
I won’t quibble.
=== Now was that a dig at me?===
Now you’re a victim to my response, again?
=== But there was no offense taken, and none returned. Did I respond to what could have been taken as an insult? Nope. Even if it was a comment about me, I have thicker skin than that. All my subsequent comments focused on issues being discussed by you and others on this post. Why you think I woukd feel affronted, that’s on you.===
Your very first paragraph above this says otherwise, my friend.
You defended and idea that I can see one’s words as “creepy”
Now you’re a victim to defending that?
Here’s the sitch, to the post,
I wrote this, I stand by it;
“ The unfettered idea of zealots that can’t grasp the idea that something is absolute and evolution of a constitution that first needed 10 amendments as an existing document…
I’m very much a 2A advocate, I’m also understanding that the responses necessary going forward can’t be “nothing” either.
Run the bill, sign it, let’s find out, which is far different than this martyrdom that is oddly… I’ll leave it there.”
After that, voters will see who voted what, and elections have consequences to the legislators… or they won’t.
Be well. Happy New Year.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:25 pm
I was driving down Division St. at 4 in the afternoon a few weeks ago when some idiot decided to start spraying the roadway with automatic weapons fire. A bullet hit my windshield — and a few milliseconds either way and I wouldn’t be posting today. We have to get those damn automatic weapons off the streets. Nobody NEEDS an automatic weapon. (By the way — an idiot friend told me I should keep a gun in the glovebox for these types of encounters. Do you have ANY IDEA how fast those bullets came spitting out? By the time I realized what was happening, it was almost over. 20 rounds - -just like that.
Comment by Soccermom Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:30 pm
==I wonder what the pastors from churches in rural Illinois would say about this bill.==
What about their pro-life congregants who mourn the deaths of mass shooting victims on Sunday…then howl when people make a call to action on Monday?
Comment by Jocko Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 1:39 pm
=@jsmills: not sure I understand where you’re going.=
Not real hard, you made a statement that was false and I called you on it.
=That said sounds like you have a rather nice old collection. Good for you sounds lovely. I fear you’re in the minority these days.=
My oldest gun was purchased in the mid 90’s and my newest was purchased in 2021. Not so old. As much as I enjoy hunting and shooting I have never been a gun fetishist. Never felt the need for a 15 or 20 or more round mag or gun that had that. I am a very competent shot and do need to spray bullets around. The data on accuracy and what happens the more you send rounds down range convinced me a long time ago to work on accuracy versus volume. Even though I have a CCL I have never felt the need to carry. I choose not to live in fear of the world.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 2:06 pm
For the people saying they have to pass the bill regardless of if it is constitutional on not, I kind of get where you are coming from.
They said the same thing about the state employee pension reform bill and the taking away state retiree’s health insurance. It didn’t work. So the State had to find another solution.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 2:07 pm
Js Mill
I’m glad you like what you have. From experience I can tell you accuracy in a gun fight is significantly different than on the range. I sincerely hope that neither you nor anyone else has to experience that fact.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 2:18 pm
Soccermom, very sorry you had that experience. These are the sort of things that responsible gun owners like myself hate to see happen and quite frankly make the rest of us who go out of our way to be safe look bad.
At the same time though you are reinforcing the argument that opponents of AWB are making. Automatic weapons (ie machine guns and sub machine guns) are illegal for private citizens to possess in Illinois. There is no way that firearm was legally purchased in this state and I seriously doubt that the perpetrator went through BATFE to get the necessary license and paid $20k+ to legally purchase it elsewhere. The only ones who will truly be impacted by this legislation are those of us who are following the law already with no intentions of breaking it in the future.
Comment by Notorious JMB Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 2:21 pm
Speaking of being careful what you wish for, and unintended consequences of knee jerk reactions.
I was going to write a long screed, but let’s see if we can keep it short.
Some previous State actions with no expected results:
Closing the State Mental Health hospitals in favor of small group homes, then not properly staffing / funding the group homes. Been plenty of problems even though the State tries to keep a rug over them.
Closing / reducing State orphanages and other state operated child support facilities. Do I really need to document all the DCFS problems since they’ve gone to the whole outsourcing / contracting model? It’s been discussed plenty here.
I’m thinking the Legislature should move on from the gun banning bill that does absolutely nothing to address the root problem(s), and circle back to the above two issues, plus some kind of work programs for at risk youth.
Lastly, have the police forces actually get back to doing their job with actual support from the prosecutors and the court systems. Plus, if the police are adequately staffed (and maybe even if they aren’t), getting back to doing the kind of neighborhood outreach that sometimes makes a difference.
Everything I just suggested will be expensive. It won’t be a bill passed by the GA with no cost to speak of, like the pending gun control bill. Such a bill should (a) have multi-year funding and (b) require well thought out measurable criteria to both obtain and maintain funding.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 2:24 pm
It’s disappointing that instead of trying to pass a bill that is found constitutional (at least under the current SCOTUS), they would rather get political points.
Comment by Chicagonk Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 2:26 pm
=== It’s disappointing that…===
The legislative process exists?
Red or Green, let’s see if it passes, let’s see if it’s signed.
How is that disappointing?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 2:28 pm
>> It’s disappointing that instead of trying to pass a bill that is found constitutional (at least under the current SCOTUS), they would rather get political points.
Trying to prevent another massacre like Uvalde or Highland Park - “getting political points.”
Comment by ZC Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 2:43 pm
I have my first (post military/privately owned) pistol a S&W 59 from 1981 that had (from the factory) 14 rounds mags…
I bought that gun 40 years ago. Mag count limits are silly. There are too many and they are everywhere. Have been for decades.
Comment by Ron - In Texas Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 3:14 pm
No actual meaningful change will happen and last until we replace the 2nd Amendment with updated language. It’s too ripe for activist judges to expand and expand.
Comment by Shibboleth Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 3:19 pm
==Mag count limits are silly.==
2nd amendment citation needed
Comment by Jocko Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 3:20 pm
>>>>> until we replace the 2nd Amendment with updated language.
This will take ratification by 35 states.
Comment by We've never had one before Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 3:28 pm
@js: you called me out on nothing, with all due respect.
Comment by Jerry Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 3:34 pm
=== This will take ratification by 35 states.===
Like abortion, nothing could maybe be better politically than to have 2A type ballot initiatives and candidates for voters to vote for or against.
Winning primaries but losing general elections on 2A issues, abortion issues…
… what exactly is winning looking like?
Let’s vote on this.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 3:34 pm
== It’s disappointing that instead of trying to pass a bill that is found constitutional (at least under the current SCOTUS), they would rather get political points. ==
Agreed. There are enough legislative staff with legal backgrounds to craft something viable vs. wasting time and, as you noted, trying to score political points.
Comment by Zoe Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 3:38 pm
How many of these mass shooters were breaking existing laws by just having possession of the weapon(s) they used in these crimes? Soccermom’s experience wasn’t the action of a responsible gun owner. This law wouldn’t have stopped either.
Other than a complete ban and confiscation of firearms, there isn’t a law that can be passed that would have prevented either of these scenarios. Doing something/anything is not the same as accomplishment. Spend this money on mental health treatment/prevention, effective education, and job opportunities. Just more money for lawyers on both sides.
Comment by Papa2008 Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 3:59 pm
=trying to score political points=
Well then it should be easy to run in opposition to what the Dems are doing. But the bellyaching here certainly suggests otherwise.
Comment by Pundent Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 4:06 pm
I’ll tell you what’s disappointing - not that assault weapons ban advocates are making a big effort to make communities safer, but that opponents never ever come up with a solution. Is your solution to make sure every American open carries at AR? That seems to be your solution. Why don’t opponents show some courage and come up with solutions instead of just criticizing every proposal and coming up with excuses for doing nothing.
Comment by This Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 4:07 pm
OW == we are a representative republic. not a mob democracy. rights are not subjected to the vote of masses.
Wednesday == Not our job to come up with THE solution. We’ve offered ideas but the democratic control over the very institutions that cause this, CPS, CHA etc are not problems caused by gun owners. They were created by politicians who then want to find a scapegoat for their failures.
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 5:03 pm
===we are a representative republic. not a mob democracy. rights are not subjected to the vote of masses.===
If it’s a democracy, then how one votes in chambers puts them up to the voters
It may not matter if the passed, signed law stands, but how one votes on the bill might matter to voters in 2024
Two different things being contemplated
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 5:19 pm
omg, Soccermom, I’m so sorry that happened to you. terrifying.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 7:37 pm
@Jerry- you stated this “The Constitution, as viewed by the Supreme Court, is unfettered access to guns.”
I showed you that stateet is in fact incorrect. With all due respect.
=From experience I can tell you accuracy in a gun fight is significantly different than on the range. I sincerely hope that neither you nor anyone else has to experience that fact.=
As a matter of fact I have been shot at. I was not carrying a gun at the time. Not fun.
But in reality you prove my point. I agree, shooting at a range is not he same as returning fire. More rounds inaccurately sent down range is not a good thing.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 8:33 pm