Monday, May 16, 2011

The NRA Cannot Tell the Difference Between Truth and Falsity

From the NRA-ILA official site. Notice the extreme language: "complete and total ban on carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home." This kind of talk always makes me suspicious.

Fairfax, Va. -- The National Rifle Association is funding and supporting a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of Illinois’ complete and total ban on carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home. The case, filed today in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, is Shepard v. Madigan. The lead plaintiff is church treasurer Mary Shepard; joining her is the Illinois State Rifle Association, the NRA’s state affiliate.

Nevertheless, it seems there is some sort of concealed carry. NRA member Dan tells us:

I've been doing a good bit of research on this issue over the last couple of weeks. I'm here in IL, where as you know, we are not permitted to concealed carry at all. It appears, however, that a lot of people are carrying their guns in "fanny packs" or other enclosed cases (anything made for gun carry that buckles, zips, etc) due to some seemingly very clear language in the state laws.

The written law states that an individual can carry a firearm "anywhere in their vehicle or on their
person as long as the firearm is unloaded and
enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box,
shipping box, or other container."
Is it any wonder that the gun-rights folks allow themselves such liberty with the truth when their parent organization does stuff like this? I suppose they feel their cause is such a noble one that any and all means of defending it are legitimate. Ironically, the very opposite is true. If their cause was truly a noble one, they wouldn't have to resort to such shabby tricks.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.


  1. Illinois law prohibits carrying a handgun ready at hand open or concealed. The NRA doesn't have to make this up, it is codified in law.

  2. First of all, isn’t this just a loophole that needs closing? Second, wouldn’t you consider a DGU to be highly dubious if the victim had to open a case, load a gun, and then shoot an attacker? I can picture your reaction. Finally, these are people using transportation laws to get as close to carrying for self defense as they can. The laws are specifically designed to have the gun not be available for self defense, though they are not as constricting as CA which also requires said case to be locked. Do you consider that to satisfy concealed carry too?

  3. " Notice the extreme language: "complete and total ban on carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home." "

    There is nothing extreme about the truth.

  4. AztecRed, The point is this is exaggerated to the point of not being true any more.