Friday, July 12, 2013

Illinois Enacts Nation's Final Concealed-gun Law

Bloomberg Businessweek

The last holdout on allowing the public possession of concealed guns, Illinois joined the rest of the nation Tuesday as lawmakers raced to beat a federal court deadline in adopting a carry law over Gov. Pat Quinn's objections.

Massive majorities in the House and Senate voted to override changes the Democratic governor made just a week ago in an amendatory veto.

Some lawmakers feared failure to pass something would mean virtually unregulated weapons in Chicago, which has endured severe gun violence in recent months — including more than 70 shootings, at least 12 of them fatal, during the Independence Day weekend.

"This is a historic, significant day for law-abiding gun owners," said Rep. Brandon Phelps, a southern Illinois Democrat who, in 10 years in the House, has continued work on concealed carry begun by his uncle, ex-Rep. David Phelps, who began serving in the mid-1980s. "They finally get to exercise their Second Amendment rights."

For one thing, carrying concealed is not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Recent Supreme Court rulings made it clear the 2A only covers guns in the home. At least that's how the law stands now.

For another thing,  this new law in Illinois will have absolutely no effect on the violence in Chicago.  Almost all of that headline-grabbing activity is gang and drug related.  Both perpetrators and victims are involved in drugs and crime.

The law will however make the rest of the state much less safe. Contrary to what the gun-rights fanatics keep saying, more guns means more violence, not less.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

25 comments:

  1. Except that the trend is for more guns and less violence. And except that the Second Amendment does protect carry outside the home. Read the text. Also except that good citizens get caught up in the violence between thugs. If Capone were right and they were only killing each other, that would be one thing, but the violence spills over.

    Other than that, you're correct. Illinois just jumped past slave states like California and New Jersey into the world of freedom--albeit somewhat limited still.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CA and NJ already have concealed carry. What are you crying about now, that they don't allow just any asshole to carry? Is that why they're slave states?

      Delete
    2. I'm "crying" about nothing. I'm stating facts. New Jersey is de facto no issue, and California issues only to celebrities and the politically connected.

      Delete
    3. Those are both false statements, Greg, which you keep repeating because you have no relationship with the truth when it comes to arguing gun rights. You're in a war and all's fair.

      Delete
    4. Greg is not the liar in this discussion, Mikeb.

      Delete
    5. If you live in the State of Jefferson--in other words, the sane part of California--you do have a better chance of getting a license, but in San Francisco or Los Angeles, nothing doing without being a celebrity. New Jersey doesn't issue these days. So what, exactly, is false about that?

      Delete
    6. Now, you've qualified the shit out of your original false claim about California but still you're wrong. Show me some proof that "only celebrities" can get a concealed carry license in Los Angeles.

      And, what the fuck does "New Jersey doesn't issue THESE DAYS mean, anyway?

      Delete
    7. "New Jersey is a "may-issue" state for concealed carry. Permit applicants must "specify in detail the urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun." As a result of this tough standard, New Jersey is effectively a "no issue" state unless one is a retired law enforcement officer."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_Jersey

      Delete
    8. Quoting a Wikipedia article penned by a gun nut containing his personal opinion of what NJ may issue means. That's really convincing.

      Delete
    9. "Current state law only gives carry permits to those who demonstrate a "justifiable need" to their local police chief and then a Superior Court judge — a nearly impossible hurdle, Van Drew says."

      http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/09/nj_senator_pushes_law_allowing.html

      Delete
  2. "For one thing, carrying concealed is not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Recent Supreme Court rulings made it clear the 2A only covers guns in the home. At least that's how the law stands now."

    That's strange, I was under the impression that the Federal Courts found that Illinois's lack of a carry law was unconstitutional.

    "In a 2-1 decision (Williams dissenting), the Court reversed both District Courts' decisions and orders. Judge Posner, writing for the majority, notes that while the Heller and McDonald decisions did say that the need for self-defense is most acute inside the home, that doesn't mean it is not also acute outside the home. "Confrontations are not limited to the home".[4] The distinct use of the words "keep" and "bear" in the text of the Second Amendment, the Court reasoned, implied the right to carry outside one's home, as in historical context, the meaning of the word did not limit it to the home and it would be awkward to attempt to assign that connotation to documents of the time period."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Madigan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe by the time the Supreme Court gets a chance to rule on that one or two of those best-judges-that-money-can-buy will be replaced. Then we'll see what's what.

      Delete
    2. Maybe by the time the Supreme Court gets a chance to rule on that . . .

      Actually, the Supreme Court could choose to rule on that right away.

      And are you actually implying that one or more justices is receiving monetary compensation for decisions? I guess I should know better than to ask for evidence, given your strong moral objections to evidence.

      Delete
    3. "On July 9, 2013 the IL General Assembly voted to override Governor Quinn's veto of the bill passed in early June, now giving IL a legal framework for issuing concealed carry permits. A spokesperson for Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office stated that an appeal to SCOTUS was now "moot" as the state has complied with the 7th Circuit court's ruling."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Madigan

      Unless Madigan is lying, (something not unheard of with Illinois politicians) there won't be an appeal to SCOTUS. As for bought judges, what side are you referring to? It cold apply to either.

      Delete
    4. Kurt, I suppose you've never heard of the shenanigans of Justice Clarence? Is that what you're saying?

      Delete
    5. I know he's been accused (credibly or not) of making decisions that benefit him financially. I've never seen an accusation that he was accepting bribes.

      Delete
  3. I live in one of the Illinois counties in which even before the new law was passed, the State's Attorney said he would not prosecute concealed carry cases, since Illinois' prohibition of armed self-defense is unconstitutional.

    When Gov. Quinn ridiculously tried to limit it to one gun, with a reduced-capacity magazine, and no spare magazine, I just couldn't resist upping my game a bit. Two guns--one of which is loaded with a 20-round magazine, and four spare mags, two of which are 30-rounders.

    I obviously don't expect to need 106 rounds--this is just my own little one-finger salute to Quinn.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where exactly do you carry all that protest material? Do you have special pockets built into your wheelchair? What else do you carry? A couple knives, for sure, a flashlight, first aid equipment a tourniquet?

      I know, you're not a paranoid nut, you're just protesting.

      Delete
    2. Mikeb, your bigotry is showing again.

      Delete
    3. Where exactly do you carry all that protest material?

      Some of it is on me, rather than the chair. For the rest, it's not "pockets," and they're not "built in"--think of it as aftermarket "saddlebags" (well, the wheelchair equivalent) mounted to the chair. If you ever have occasion to browse a website dedicated to catering to the needs of the wheelchair-bound, you'll see various products offered to help carry stuff.

      As for other stuff, yeah--a couple blades, a couple lights (one mounted on one of the guns), pepper spray, a collapsible baton (a cheap knockoff of the ASP batons, but I really don't know what an ASP can do any better than this one can), a couple bottle openers (including one that says "GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS... ESPECIALLY OUR SNIPERS!"). You know--the usual.

      I know, you're not a paranoid nut . . .

      As far as I know, it has never occurred to anyone to think of me as such. Kinda hard to imagine why anyone would.

      Delete
    4. I think you're being a bit facetious with that last bit, but just in case it's true, let me be the first. You are a paranoid nut.

      I do think you should add a bullet-resistant vest to protect the torso and tourniquet clothing, you know, in case you take a bullet in an artery.

      Delete
  4. Texas Colt carryJuly 12, 2013 at 7:01 PM

    It should be mentioned that the majority that voted for this law, and overrode Quinn's amendatory veto were mostly Democrats. They were following the will of the people that they represent.
    Removing some of the infringements of the peoples civil rights.

    It has long been understood now that abdicating your civil right to a paid public servant did not work out as well as expected. Restoring those civil rights in a peaceful manner is happening everywhere in this country and since 1986, large meaningful strides towards full restoration of the 2nd civil right has gotten much better. The fight for full restoration of that 2nd civil right is now in five states and growing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some gun nuts do happen to be Democratic. They are in a minority, though.

      Delete
    2. There you go again, Mikeb, using terms that make no sense. Gun nut? As far as I can tell, to you, that's anyone who doesn't oppose gun ownership.

      Delete
  5. A sad day. Otis McDonald lost his battle with cancer today. Illinois--and indeed all of America--will forever owe him a debt of gratitude.

    ReplyDelete