Gun-rights advocates claimed a major victory on Tuesday when a federal appeals court in Illinois struck down the state's ban on carrying concealed firearms, in a ruling that may have national repercussions if appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Before the 2-1 ruling, Illinois stood as the last state in the country maintaining an absolute prohibition on the carrying of concealed firearms by private citizens. The majority opinion, by Richard A. Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, found the ban on concealed weapons was unconstitutional under a 2008 Supreme Court decision overturning a sweeping handgun ban by the District of Columbia.
The Supreme Court's decision in 2008 firmly established a constitutional right to armed self-defense under the Second Amendment, Posner wrote.
"A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home," he wrote.
Illinois House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, who supports stricter gun control measures, said she hoped the ruling would be stayed until the Supreme Court had a chance to rule on an appeal. But if the state is forced to implement a concealed carry law, it should be severely restrictive, she said.
Democratic Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn commented Monday that he'd like to see the state legislature pass a marriage equality bill and get it to his desk in January.
Quinn urged state lawmakers to study the matter carefully before they return to Springfield for the lame duck session beginning Jan. 2.
The governor's comments arrived following the release of a Public Policy Polling poll that found that 47 percent of Illinois voters support same-sex marriage and support increased among both younger voters and voters of color, including Latino voters, who were 70 percent in support, the Windy City Times reports.
The Chicago area broke an 18-year-old record on Tuesday as it entered its 282nd day without measurable snow. If the lack of snow continues, Chicago could soon break an even oldest record: The latest date that the city has ever seen its first measurable snowfall of the season is Dec. 16, 1965.
House member Lou Lang (D-Skokie) has been pushing two controversial bills in recent years: the expansion of Illinois gaming and the legalization of medical marijuana. Whenever asked about the possibility of Illinois becoming the nineteenth state to legalize the green leafy substance, Lang is always optimistic. Two years ago, he told Skokie Patch he only needed to secure "two or three" votes to pass the bill. Obviously, that never came to fruition.
However, other states have recently passed similar bills and Lang is hoping Illinois can become the next state to ride the green wave and help those who can seriously benefit from the drug.
"Nobody should fear the bill," Lang told Skokie Patch. "This is about quality of life for people."
This works well in other States, there's no reason why it can't work here. Requiring all persons to become unarmed merely turns those areas into victim zones if some criminal decides to commit a criminal act. Unfortunately, as we've seen many times across the Nation, criminals don't respect "Gun Free Zone" signs. I seem to recall a shooting at a restaurant in Texas. The restaurant had a "no guns" sign posted so the law-abiding were unarmed and "easy pickin's" for the criminal that came into the restaurant and started shooting patrons. One woman who was a CC holder, left her firearm in the car. She was unable to defend her father from the criminal when the criminal shot her dad in the head - pretty much right in front of her. So make it simple - ZERO BAC while CC.
As for the passing a few tests - forget it. Once you let that camel get its nose under the tent, it'll wreck it because the tests will become so onerous that even RoboCop wouldn't be able to pass them. All you need is a background check - make sure they're not a felon or adjudged mentally incompetent/insane by a Court of competent jurisdiction, and make sure they've completed a training class with a certified firearms instructor. Don't mandate the content of the class - simply that a certified instructor has signed off on their application. If the government wants people to regularly attend a range and fire off a certain number of rounds to "stay sharp" - then the Government should give them the ammunition for free to do so, otherwise it'd be tantamount to an illegal taking of property under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. Remember: The criminals aren't going to do any of this. They don't care. You want to make it as easy as possible on the LAW ABIDING so they can protect themselves when seconds count.
We've heard a lot about these victim zones, but isn't arming everyone a band aid to solving the initial problem? If the problem is people bringing in guns to shoot others, shouldn't we focus on stopping that from happening? Just allowing more guns to the party seems like a very short sighted fix. I know the world, especially our country, is an imperfect place where there will always be bad people. It's just hard for me to get past the mentality of "if they try and wrong/harm/shoot me, i get to pull a gun/shoot them." We always have these long discussions and we never really address the fact that guns are readily available for everyone. It's a weapon that can be used to defend, threaten, and ultimately kill. It shouldn't be so easy to obtain one...especially illegally.
A background check won't tell you anything about someones ability to fire a gun at another person in a pressure situation. It won't tell you if the CC holder will just pull the trigger on someone without some warning or identifying themselves. That's how people end up shooting a relative out of quick reaction. (see recent stories of the step son shot late at night and the young girl shot because her uncle thought she was a skunk.) I had mentioned classes before, but I see your point about ammunition costing a lot....especially over time. But if you say most of these people practice a lot, then just passing a test shouldn't be hard without classes...even forgetting the practical section thereof. If it's a constitutional right to carry a weapon for the reason of defense, intended to instill the threat of death on other citizens, how is it a bad thing to ask that people be educated in the matter in order to own one?
Sometimes a weapons ban does work = e.g. Evanston's ban on Nuclear Weapons. At least the EPD has not found any fission or fusion bombs here.
Let's talk about the form of a test for a minute. Let's assume that a "good shot" is someone who can hit the target within the bullseye, or the two/three rings outside of it. Their groupings are good too (meaning that they're all in basically the same area - not all over the place). We consider them a "good shot" today. Then we go along in time and decide we have to tighten up the requirements for whatever reason. At what point is it too onerous? What about when we get to the point that all you're allowed to hit are bullseyes, all in the same hole (vis a vis "William Tell") - arguably that leaves out people who are good shots but aren't sniper-quality (and most snipers aren't able to make that kind of shot either). What about the elderly person who can't get out of the wheelchair, but arms himself to protect against neighborhood thugs? Do we then make exceptions? For whom? How does one qualify for them? How is one excluded from those exceptions? There's too much vagueness in letting the Government set the terms and conditions of a test. And then there's the whole concept of having to take a test to exercise a creator-endowed right to consider...
Unfortunately focusing on keeping the guns out of an area is a nice idea, but ultimately unworkable. As we saw in the Colorado theater shooting - the criminal just went out the back door and came back in. There's also other kinds of weapons that one can commit mayhem with that wouldn't show up on a metal detector. There was a theater where some patron stabbed another patron in the neck with a meat thermometer (it could have easily have been a pencil). The only thing you can do is accept that bad things happen on occasion, and be prepared to deal with it as best you can. If you're in fear for your life, you should be able to defend yourself. That's the way it's been for millenia, and that's the way it should be because it puts the criminals on notice that they can be harmed during their attacks, and that may just give them pause. As for getting one illegally - criminals will always do that. And it shouldn't prevent the law-abiding from obtaining weapons if they wish.
I also never said I had a problem with background checks and waiting periods. I was merely stating that they won't always find the problems and won't educate gun owners in any way. Now please...don't get fired up and cause this go off the rails like a freight train again. Just responding to your accusations on what you believe I think.
I understand your concerns but it is just a slippery slope concept that you are worrying about. Every single instance of any law or requirement can always be countered with a what if statement. We would have no laws or regulations on anything if the only reason to not pass them is "what will happen when we change the laws to be more strict?" Yes, there may be more strict tests down the road, but on the same token, there may not be. Things may stay status quo. We have had testing to be able to drive for a long time now, and I can't think of harm that it has caused. People may not pay attention to laws and just pass the tests and forget everything they learned (in either gun or auto classes/tests) but if one out of ten becomes safer, it' a good thing. If you have that many problems, then maybe we start with it not being mandatory to take the safety classes (like getting your Motorcycle or car license) but offer an incentive to take the class instead. Scrap any practical test, just make it written. Lower costs for a Concealed Carry permit if you pass the safety class first. Something along those lines.
So in all here, I'm saying that whenever a gun is brought somewhere (by a criminal or CC permit holder) the threat ends up the same but for different reasons. The criminal wants you to be scared of dying so you will give him your wallet, succumb to rape....any reason, while you want him to be scared of dying for wanting to do those. Your intention is obviously more noble and right, but we're still saying the gun is a tool to impose a threat of pain or death.
I don't think conceal carry holders will kill us all. By no means do I think that. I just don't feel that this is the proper way to curb violence and more specifically, gun violence. If two guns happen to be pulled, someone has a chance to die by gun shot. Yes, if the assailant dies he may have deserved it. I just don't feel that either of you should be shot in the street.
Keep in mind this quote "The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people". -- President Bill Clinton
It's precisely the "your mentalities" that established this country and made it the the single most successful, generous, most free society with the highest standard of living in the shortest period of time on the face of the planet. It's sad that you think that somehow needs to change. The problem is that the culture is changing for the worse with the liberal indoctrination of kids in society through public education and political correctness run amuck. Culture rot and the lack of respect for human life is what we need to be concerned with going forward.