Welcome to Magazine Premium

You can change this text in the options panel in the admin

There are tons of ways to configure Magazine Premium... The possibilities are endless!

Member Login
Lost your password?

Illinois House Democrats have a come to Jesus moment on guns yesterday

February 21, 2013

 

Gun control supporters in the Illinois Democratic party talked a pretty good game for the most part at the Illinois House Judiciary hearing earlier this week on guns, but in a closed door meeting yesterday, they were set straight as to the reality of things.

Here’s what was said publicly Tuesday, as reported by Rich Miller’s Capitol Fax:

Prosecutors in Chicago are telling state lawmakers they can essentially ignore a federal court ruling and not legalize concealed carry in Illinois.

The Illinois House on Tuesday held the first of two statewide hearings on how to legally allow people to carry a gun in the state. Illinois is the only state in the nation that bars anyone from carrying a pistol outside their home. In December, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said Illinois must change that.

But Paul Castiglione, policy director for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office, told lawmakers there is no need for a new law.

“Only the Illinois Supreme Court can declare a statue from (the legislature) unconstitutional,” Castiglione told lawmakers Tuesday. “I heard (someone) say that after 180 days our UUW (unlawful use of weapon) statute is unconstitutional. Not so.”

Illinois Issues Blog went on to report Alvarez’s office vowing to ignore the Federal Appellate Court order:

“After 180 days, anyone who decided, for example, to walk down Michigan Avenue in Chicago carrying an AK-15 would be subject to arrest and prosecution for violating the [Unlawful Use of Weapons Act,]” said Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney Paul Castiglione. He said the Cook County state’s attorney’s office intends to enforce the Illinois Unlawful Use of Weapons statute, which outlaws carrying guns in public, after the deadline, unless lawmakers change it or the Illinois Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional. “The lower federal courts, either the district courts or the courts of appeal, cannot tell the Illinois Supreme court how to rule or whether or not that law is constitutional. The only court that can resolve that split is the U.S. Supreme Court.”

 

Of course, Chicago is a place for unicorns, mermaids and make-believe.

House Democrats were given a lesson in the real-world consequences of ignoring the Seventh Circuit ruling when the 180-day stay expires on June 8th.

The technical review staff (legal beagles) told the Democrats that Alvarez was all wet in her office’s pronouncement and that inaction on passing a carry bill would have dire consequences for gun control in Illinois.

Specifically, House Democrats were told that Illinois would effectively have “Constitutional Carry” where anyone who was eligible to own guns could carry them freely in public without training, licensing, qualification and precious little in the way of restriction.

After a lot of back and forth, one Chicago Representative asked if someone could carry a loaded rifle into the Statehouse. He was told “Yes”.

It was reported that you could hear a pin drop for an uncomfortably long time after that as a stunned silence came over the room.

The bottom line is that non-ideologues on the gun issue have seen the wisdom of voting for a carry bill that affords the state at least some control in the time, place and manner in which Illinois residents, and indeed non-residents, can carry firearms in Illinois.

Of course, there are a handful of die-hards who will never vote for a bill that would allow Illinoisans any firearm rights.  But then again, there were no shortage of politicians who opposed Civil Rights legislation of fifty years ago to their dying day.  And there were no shortage of politicians who opposed women’s suffrage, either.

Today, we recognize how foolish and bigoted those politicians were in opposing these basic civil rights.

 

 

 

 

37 comments on “Illinois House Democrats have a come to Jesus moment on guns yesterday

  1. Now lets see some seriousness on the pro RIGHTS side if things and back off the onerous aspects that shouldn’t pertain to RIGHTS.

    They would never give an inch and to give a mile now is idiocy.
    No to hundreds if dollars. No to any dollars cuz poll taxes aren’t acceptable.
    No to fingerprinting – that’s for the arrested not for simple exercise if rights.
    No to rifle and shotgun exemptions. ALL guns carry able.
    Real teeth in thirty day turnaround with real penalty for every day past 31.
    Training offered not prerequisite or NO EXEMPTIONS training for EVERYONE not just carriers. All owners and non owners too. Training is such a good idea then make it apply to EVERYONE! Equally!

    We have bowed and begged for so long. It’s time the antis pay a price and do some grove lung if their own. And then feel the agony of defeat in the end anyway.

    It’s time for them to explain why constitutional speaking would be bad.
    Why constitutional worship would be a bad thing.

    Constitutional carry does not have to mean loaded rifles in the statehouse. Let THOSE kind of time place restrictions be what they beg to get.

    Do not give away the farm now snatching defeat from the mouth of victory.
    Onerous permission slips is giving away far too much we don’t have to give.

    • I tend to agree. I think we are giving up way too much in HB997. For instance, this is not a concealed weapons law. It is a concealed handgun law. While that is better than what we have, it makes no sense to make the carrying of lethal weapons legal but still maintaining the prohibition on less than lethal devices.
      While we are at it, what is this with not including long guns. This is a distinction that is very likely to land an otherwise law abiding citizen in hot water because he threw his unloaded shotgun on or behind the seat of his pick-up. While that would be a safe way of transporting it, since it was not in a case, it would still be very illegal.

  2. Josh M. on said:

    I’d just like to say this to our anti friends…

    http://www.hark.com/clips/qmywbbvrlk-for-once-just-listen

  3. Huck Finn on said:

    I’ve long suspected that gun control grabbers are haters, biogots, racists, and sexists.

    • Dan Hull on said:

      Seeing the comments on here you wonder why the rest of us are afraid of idiots carrying concealed weapons? There will never be a chance for reasonable discourse on guns so long as the gun side demonizes anybody who has a different opinion. You all follow in lockstep with whatever the nra says. The last time this went on was in the 30′s and 40′s in Germany and you saw how that worked out! So doing a little cliche pandering of my own, SIEG HEIL, Wayne

  4. chicago guy on said:

    Cook county, and Chicago are the most disgustingly corrupt gov. organizations in the country. They have been getting away with far too much for far too long. The arrogance of those people is mind boggling, and they fully expect to do what they want, and to hell with anyone who disagrees. Why the FBI doesn’t use the rico statutes against them is a crime in it’s self. the Chicago board of elections makes sure only machine candidates get on the ballots, the cook county judges are all beholden to the pols, and Anita hands out probation to repeat offenders to not offend the likely dem voters. The malfeasance is unbelievable and conflict of interest is everywhere. How about it,FBI?

  5. Macoupin Patriot on said:

    Chicago and Cook County have had a stranglehold on this entire state for way too long. It’s not the capitol, but it may as well be. I for one have had enough of their corruption, and their iron fisted thoughts on firearms. I know it will never happen, but I’d like to see Chicago recede from IL and become another DC. Of course it will never happen because there aren’t enough tax-paying employed people in the county to support such corruption, Cook County needs the entire state to oppress.

  6. “carrying an AK-15 would be subject to arrest and prosecution”

    So would having 3 heads, or arms made out of saltwater taffy.

    There is no such animal. The quoted person has confused AR-15s and AK-47s. They all just run together into “scary”. Which just goes to show, these people are voting on subjects they literally do not know the first thing about.

  7. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. HB0997 is a good bill, we’ll never get a perfect bill to pass.

    • PapaSmurf on said:

      The right thing to do is obstruct any bill that isn’t Constitutional Carry. Time is on our side here. June 10 is the goal line. There is no such thing as a “good bill” that infringes on fundamental rights. May your chains rest lightly upon you.

      • Soon as someone takes your advice, they will get cuffed and stuffed, if not shot.

        Cook County State’s Attorney is on record that it could give a crap less what the U.S. 7th Circuit said.

        • PavePusher on said:

          Can you spell “Civil Rights Law Suit”? Can you spell “Bankrupt Chicago”? Can you say “I now own the city”?

    • Perfect (constitutional) carry is already in place if NO bill is passed. It’s a DONE DEAL. Why give any of it back?. No permission needed from the servants unless you re-delegate the authority to them. Just say NO, NO. You already won!!

  8. One wonders what an ‘ak-15′ is.

  9. Mech teacher on said:

    My letter to my state Reps.

    Support House Bill 997.
    Any restrictive gun laws will only restrict law abiding citizens. Criminals DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS! That is what makes them criminals. I cannot say it as well as our founding fathers.
    “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
    –Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
    “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good” (George Washington)

  10. AntiCitizenOne on said:

    arrest Alvarez for violation of 18 USC 241.

  11. Does the average Illinois resident realize that the rest of the country views their state government as somewhere below Mississippi and Alabama on the “smarts” chart? And only slightly less corrupt than Boss Tweed.

  12. Why dont we gride lock the issue and force constitutional carry down their throats.

    That means everyone with a valide FOID card 21 and over can conceal carry

    • Absolutely! Get rid of all other restrictions!

    • William Harrison on said:

      Is it possible that you are not aware that the passage of HB997 and SB1284 would accomplish MORE that Constitutional Carry? These bills would OVERRIDE home rule! We don’t choose Constitutional Carry as the best option, but it definitely is better than we hav right now. Law abiding citizens in Chicago have the right to own and bear arms fo self defense just like downstaters, and it is more than obvious that they NEED if FAR more than anywhere else in IL. 532 gun related deaths last year? Chicago is the Murder Capitol of America! HB 997 and SB 1284 are better than Constitutional Carry, and, of course, WAY BETTER than whatever Madigan has up his sleeve in HB 1155 which he is going to puke up on Tue.
      Be sure and contact YOUR Rep and tell him that if he wants your support, vote NO on HB 1155.

      • 997 accomplishes more gun control.

        If Chicago and others put in place more restrictions on home rule grounds then let’s have the avalanche of lawsuits begin.

        The second amendment incorporation IS preemption of home rule! The doctrine of selective incorporation is clear about that.

        997 is a HUGE mistake and is to be opposed as the GUN CONTROL BILL it is.

        Passage of that bill only serves to cement go ernment control over permission slipping inalienable rights. Ask yourself this-
        Does a person have a right to keep and bear arms or does a person have a right to beg for a permission slip allowing them to keep and bear allowable arms if they “qualify” ??

        Stop begging for permission slips and stand up for RIGHTS! Or at least admit openly you want rights permission slipped.

        • William Harrison on said:

          Ashrak,
          Possibly you missed the portion of HB 997 which overrides home rule? Chicago presently has highly restrictive gun control laws. Passage of HB 997 would vacate all of them. HB 997 is the freedom FROM gun control, other than to establish an orderly process for law abiding citizens to legally carry arms for self defense.
          Permission slips? What are you talking about. No one has to obtain a “Permission Slip” from anyone to qualify for a CCW permit, unless you are considering a certificate from a qualified instructor which verifies that you have passed the standard NRA Basic Pistol (or equivalent) training requirements to be a “Permission Slip”. In that event, your choice of words are inferior.

        • William:

          He’s referring to LTCF/CCW Permit itself as a permission slip.

          I can’t find fault with that assessment; In most states, in order to be able to carry a concealed firearm, one must petition the government for some manner of paperwork in order to be able to exercise his right without fear of harassment from government agents.

          How is that not “begging for a permission slip?”

          Certainly, in some areas, it’s treated in a rather perfunctory manner, but there are other areas where it isn’t.

          For example: In Pennsylvania, LTCF (license to carry firearms) cards are issued by each county sheriff to residents of only that county. Philadelphia is the exception to this, as the PPD are in charge of issuing these cards.

          There are some counties where they issue the card on the spot, there are other counties where they take the application and mail the card out 2-3 weeks later (like Chester County), and then there are other counties that add restrictions (Philadelphia, and Montgomery and/or Delaware counties) and just generally try to game the system as much as possible.

        • Dan Hull on said:

          You legally did not have this right until 2008 when the W Bush idiots on the SC changed hundreds of years of legal precedent by removing the operative phrase of the 2nd ,AS PART OF A WELL REGULATED MILITIA!OOPS YOU FORGOT THAT!

  13. BigCity on said:

    Now if only the anti-gunner clowns in Maryland could see the light.

  14. Twinsonic on said:

    Correct me if I’m wrong – there is a ruling back in 1983 from SCOTUS that if anyone violates a civil right, the general immunities of the police officer, district attorney, village manager or president, mayor, or any individual that signs on to arrest, charge, and indict the individual, these individuals can be sued for personal assets, like pensions, salary, home, car, investments and such plus monetary damages can be levied against the county, state or city…..

  15. Twinsonic on said:

    Correct me if I’m wrong – there is a ruling back in 1983 from SCOTUS that if anyone violates a civil right, the general immunities can be lifted of the police officer, district attorney, village manager or president, mayor, or any individual that signs on to arrest, charge, and indict the individual, these individuals can be sued for personal assets, like pensions, salary, home, car, investments and such plus monetary damages can be levied against the county, state or city…..

    • William Harrison on said:

      The Chicago politicians have probably exempted themselves from prosecution under such regs.

  16. Jim Bell on said:

    RE SCOTUS CASE:

    Could you be referring to Monroe Vs Pape from all places Chicago?
    or
    Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York? The second one is fascinating reading for residents of Chico land or Washed up town.

  17. Silence Dogood on said:

    Wonder what crow tastes like…….

  18. Dan Hull on said:

    It’s amazing to me that all the people who were up in arms about governmental control over insurance now believe that it’s ok to have it to allow guns! How about we drug test, mental test and fingerprint all welfare recipients and gun owners equally under the law and let the chips fall where they may? A positive test in any aspect and you lose welfare and gun ownership rights. Or would that cost to many gun owners their weapons? Newtown, happened with legally owned guns just like Colorado. I realize I will be inundated with nutball responses but it needed to be said. Weapon ownership should always have been just like owning a car every gun should have had a title so they could be tracked and when the bad guys turn up with it you could trace it back to find out who is selling them guns.

  19. William D. Murphy on said:

    The Honorable;
    Lou Lang
    State of Illinois
    109 Capitol Building
    Springfield, Illinois 62706
    Dear Mr. Lang
    First, I am an NRA and ISRA member. I served in the U.S. Army as a
    Military Policeman(1967-1969). Since I fought for you, its time
    you return the favor.
    I have concealed firearm permits in Florida and Utah.
    Will I carry a concealed firearm all of the time? NO, I am not the
    Police. I can tell you from experience, carrying a firearm is not
    comfortable. However, there will be times I will carry a weapon.
    As I understand it, you, as our elected representative, must
    protect our rights under the Constitution, even if you do not agree
    with them. That is my sacred trust in you. How about a little trust
    in me.
    Sincerely, Bill Murphy