State Police began mailing the first 5,000 concealed carry licenses today, marking the beginning of a new era in the Prairie State.
SAF’s Moore v. Madigan, and a similar case filed by the National Rifle Association known as Shepard v. Madigan, forced the Illinois Legislature, over the objections of anti-gun Gov. Pat Quinn, to adopt a carry statute. Illinois was the last state in the nation to deny its citizens the right to bear arms in self-defense outside the home and had to be compelled by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
“While politicians had to be dragged kicking and screaming into compliance with the Second Amendment,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said in a statement just released to the press, “the good citizens are rushing to enjoy their newly-restored firearms freedom. State officials said today they have received more than 50,000 permit applications.”
The Chicago Sun-Times reported that about 400 applications are coming in daily, which is down from the initial surge of 1,000 daily applications. Still, this is a strong indication that “the die-hard anti-gun politicians who opposed this new law are horribly out of touch with their constituents,” Gottlieb said.
What will be interesting to watch are the violent crime rates. Many concealed carry advocates contend that states with higher concentrations of legally armed citizens have lower violent crime rates, while anti-gunners say the opposite is true. More important, however, is whether they rise. Many gun prohibitionists have insisted for years that more guns in the hands of private citizens leads to more violent crime, but FBI crime data tends to belie that claim. Murder rates have declined over the past few years as gun sales have climbed dramatically along with the number of concealed carry permits and licenses across the country.
I don't know if what's happening in Illinois indicates that the gun-control politicians had been "horribly out of touch with their constituents." Do the numbers really show that?
Oh no. I'm sure it means that the people wanted the gun control regime and only are getting permits now to keep up with the Joneses.
ReplyDelete"I don't know if what's happening in Illinois indicates that the gun-control politicians had been "horribly out of touch with their constituents."
ReplyDeleteI suspect that what happens in Illinois will closely mimic what happened in many other stated that went to a shall issue permit system. Before it goes into effect, gun control advocates will lament the near future of wild west shoot outs and people being shot over parking spots. Then reality will set in and not much will happen.
While there might be some immediate affect due to the publicity, keep in mind that with the current population of Illinois being just under thirteen million and about 75 percent being over 21, 5,000 permits comes to .05%. I think it will likely take several years to determine what the long term affect is on the state, be it good, or ill.
"be it good, or ill." What do you mean? Are you not sure which it'll be?
DeleteIllinois is sort of a unique animal when politics are involved. After all, how many states can make this claim to fame?
Delete"Illinois Governors In Prison: 4 Of State's Last 7 Governors Were Convicted, Imprisoned"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/illinois-governors-in-pri_n_2581182.html
I don't believe that the permit holders themselves will be a reason for any issues, but I prefer to wait and see what happens before I claim success.
For example, the head of the Second Amendment Foundation has made the claim that the mere fear of upcoming permits being issued has resulted in the drop in violent crime in Chicago.
http://saf.org/?p=2765
I personally find this pretty hard to believe.
Keep in mind that Illinois' new concealed carry law is the most draconian "shall issue" law in the country. The extent of training required, the cost, the number of places prohibited for concealed carry, lack of reciprocity with other states--in every way that the legislature's Chicago-area Democrat cabal could make getting a license more difficult or less attractive, they did, and that will undoubtedly work as intended to depress the numbers of applicants.
ReplyDeleteFixing the numerous problems with the law will be the hard fought work of years, and until that work is done, many people who would apply under a less oppressive regulatory structure will continue to either be denied their Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to bear arms, or to simply engage in the practice of Constitutional (but "illegal") carry.
"or to simply engage in the practice of Constitutional (but "illegal") carry."
DeleteI'm glad you said that. Those would be your hidden criminals.
Those would be your hidden criminals.
DeleteOne of a myriad varieties, it would seem.
Anyway, being a "criminal" (hidden or otherwise) by virtue of breaking an immoral law is, of course a courageous and moral act, as Thoreau, Gandhi, and King have taught us.
If you think I aspire to be a "law abiding gun owner," that's just one more aspect on which you are utterly clueless. I'm proud of the many "gun crimes," both state and federal, I've committed, and will continue to commit.
DeleteMikeb, as we've discussed before, we who support gun rights are committed to the cause. Your side suffers from laziness. But enough Americans do insist that gun rights are important that Gottlieb is correct here.
ReplyDeleteMikeB, a wanna be Piers Morgan. This site should also be cancelled.
ReplyDeleteThere is a difference. CNN depends on ratings, while Mikeb has no obligation to be popular. And it's good for these festering gun control beliefs to be aired so we can show what's wrong with them.
Delete