llinois House votes down plan to take away Chicago gun restrictions

[jpak]

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2011/04/illinois-house-votes-down-plan-to-take-away-chicago-gun-restrictions.html

House lawmakers today defeated a measure that would have taken away Chicago’s ability to regulate how people store guns, a prelude to an expected spring showdown over a push to allow people to carry concealed weapons.

The debate put on display the Capitol's traditional regional fight over gun rights and gun control, with conservative suburbanites and downstate lawmakers wanting to expand rights and Chicago-area Democrats wanting to restrict access to weapons.

A new dynamic is in place this year because gun rights advocates are reinvigorated following U.S. Supreme Court decisions that struck down some gun-control laws, including Mayor Richard Daley’s ban in Chicago. City Hall responded with a law that, among other things, allows guns to be kept only in the home and restricting each permit holder in the home to having only one handgun in readily operable condition at a time.

The state legislation, sponsored by freshman Rep. Wayne Rosenthal, R (edit: moran) -Morrisonville, have specifically given the state exclusive power to regulate firearms and disallow Chicago and other larger cities with home-rule power from establishing their own restrictions. Rosenthal maintained there should be a “consistent standard” statewide.

<more>

:D

[jaxx]

1. Good for IL.

They need to defeat concealed carry too.

[armueller2001]

2. Any specific reason?

Concealed carry hasn't shown to be a problem in the 48 states that allow it. Do you consider Illinois citizens as a whole to be less trustworthy than those of other states?

[jaxx]

3. Yes. I do not support concealed carry.

I don't want to be around the guns. Rights....everyone has them. The 2nd amendment doesn't say carry them around, it says you can own them.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mojorabbit]

7. I have a major problem

with the state deciding how many firearms one can have.

[petronius]

8. The 2nd does say "keep and bear", which equals own and carry, right? (nt)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

9. +1

some people need to brush up on their reading comprehension skills.

[Hoyt]

15. If you are in a "well regulated militia." Most here aren't.

[rrneck]

17. How does one form a militia? nt

[petronius]

19. It's only ~30 words; "if" isn't one of them. And the opening clause is clearly not a limit,

but rather a non-exclusive justification.

Try this: "Childhood nutrition being the foundation of a healthy adulthood, the right of the people to plant and tend backyard gardens shall not be infringed." Would you take that to mean that only kids, or people with kids, are guaranteed the freedom to garden?

[Hoyt]

20. It's clear to me what they meant. Just as it was clear what your "Childhood nutrition" meant.

Besides, if your hypothetical had been written then, one might now -- in 2011 -- question whether everyone should have a garden in a crowded city and grow any noxious weed or plant in it.

[petronius]

42. Good, I'm glad we got that cleared up, and that you won't be repeating the

'only in a militia' nonsense anymore...

[beevul]

69. Its clear to you what they meant...

Its clear to you what they meant, based on your own personal biases - or "baser instincts".

Its most certainly NOT based on a complete reading of the bill of rights itself.


"if your hypothetical had been written then, one might now -- in 2011 -- question whether everyone should have a garden in a crowded city and grow any noxious weed or plant in it."


If One DID question such a thing, AND one were honest, one would try to change that restriction on the governmental exercise of power which generally prohibits interference with such a thing, rather than pretending it both doesn't say what it says AND says something it clearly doesn't.


If one were honest.

[RSillsbee]

26. You are really grasping aren't you

C'mon man the "well regulated militia" thing has been done to death. The second amendment states the right of the people not the militia

[gejohnston]

29. In 18th century English

regulated meant equipped. In modern language we would say "A well equipped militia is necessary for a free state."

[GreenStormCloud]

39. You can give up beating that dead horse. It won't get up and gallop.

The supreme court has already decided, twice, that militia membership is not required to be able to own guns. That is now settled law. Your side lost.

[rl6214]

65. You still can't understand what "Well regulated militia" means

Get up to date.

[krispos42]

68. True

Only males between the ages of 17 and 45 are in the militia. So why don't you want women to own guns?

[TheWraith]

10. So you have a right not to be around anything which bothers you in public?

How does that work out when a right-winger wants to exercise their "right" not to be around any public examples of anything that offends them?

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. It would seem we have another believer in 'moral harm' n/t

[Hoyt]

21. So, I walk toward you with spear gun with barbed tips? You gonna say, thank god I have my gun.

Or are you going to just totally ignore it.

[PavePusher]

44. Depends on how you appear to be carrying it.

Context... you seem to be missing it.

[oneshooter]

48. He seems to miss a lot of things. n/t

[RSillsbee]

52. It's easy to miss when you refuse to look NT

[spin]

13. The second amendment says "to keep and BEAR arms" ...

Does the right to 'bear arms' imply the right to carry arms? Supreme Court seems to have said yes
Tuesday, March 15, 2011

From a portion of the 2008 Heller decision regarding handgun bans in Washington D.C. by Justice Antonin Scalia:

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.”... When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “(s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate(s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)).

***snip***

By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. See Malcolm 122–134. Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999) , cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen. See 1 Blackstone 136, 139–140 (1765). His description of it cannot possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service. It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” id., at 139, and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence,” id., at 140; see also 3 id., at 2–4 (1768). Other contemporary authorities concurred. See G. Sharp, Tracts, Concerning the Ancient and Only True Legal Means of National Defence, by a Free Militia 17–18, 27 (3d ed. 1782); 2 J. de Lolme, The Rise and Progress of the English Constitution 886–887 (1784) (A. Stephens ed. 1838); W. Blizard, Desultory Reflections on Police 59–60 (1785). Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2011/03/bear.html

[Hoyt]

23. Anything Scalia says on this matter is questionable. He probably has large cache kiddy-porn-weapons.

[gejohnston]

30. as the cliche goes

a broken clock is right twice a day. About the only thing he got right. Besides if you read between the lines, individual right theory is 9-0, Heller itself was 5-4.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RSillsbee]

14. bear

to carry; bring: to bear gifts.

[S_B_Jackson]

18. Actually, the 2nd Amendment does indeed say you can carry them around....

as well as own them; hence the use of the term "keep and bear arms".

bear verb \ˈber\
bore \ˈbȯr\ borne also born \ˈbȯrn\ bear·ing

Definition of BEAR

transitive verb
1a : to move while holding up and supporting (something)
b : to be equipped or furnished with (something)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bear

[Hoyt]

22. "Well regulated militia" -- What most 2A-gunpackers aren't in.

[rrneck]

24. how does one form a militia. nt

[gejohnston]

31. in 18th century word usage

regulated=equipped. Also there is John Locke and Tom Paine natural right to self defense to contend with.

[Hoyt]

37. Fine, carry a muzzle loader, which were primary weapons in 18th century.

[PavePusher]

46. Print your words with a quill pen...

and deliver them on horse-back.

If you have the spine.

[oneshooter]

50. He doesn't, there is no spine in a bag of hot air. n/t

[Hoyt]

53. Talk about "spine," have you found the courage to walk out of your house without a gun? Bet not.

[PavePusher]

57. I do it every day.

The government prefers me to be defenseless, just like my comrades at Ft. Hood were, just as you prefer us to be.

[oneshooter]

63. Many times. Have you found the courage to back up your wild accusations? n/t

[spin]

35. Obviously you are unfamiliar with recent Supreme Court rulings ...

or you simply choose to ignore them and to use your own outdated definition of "well regulated militia".

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia<1><2> and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession that it found were consistent with the Second Amendment.<3> In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits State and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.<4>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[Hoyt]

36. Fine, leave your guns at home per S Court. Decisions also supported reasonable restrictions.

Finally, SC decisions are based on context of case and are not absolute.

BTW -- just because something is legal, doesn't mean you or anyone else has to do it.

Leave guns at home.

[spin]

38. The Supreme Court did not rule on concealed handguns ...

I have no problems with you not getting a concealed weapons permit and carrying. I also see no reason to follow your suggestion ... but thanks for your concern anyway.

[rrneck]

41. I have a better idea

YOU stay home.

[PavePusher]

47. The Supreme Court stated nothing that restricted guns to the home.

Unless you can cite otherwise...?

[oneshooter]

51. He can't . n/t

[Hoyt]

54. Read what the poster above quoted. Seemed clear to me, if shocking to you.

[PavePusher]

58. Support your claim with evidence....

historical, grammatical and contextual.

[beevul]

70. How about you leave your filthy disgusting biases at home instead. N/T

[rl6214]

66. Ignorant

what most anti 2a/RKBA are.

[PavePusher]

43. Perhaps you missed the words....

"...keep and bear..."

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/bear_5

[Hoyt]

55. Yep, "bear arms" when the well regulated militia calls.

[PavePusher]

60. Not restricted to that, unless you can cite to evidence.....

something you have notably and consistently failed to do. Pound sand.

[aikoaiko]

5. This type of law will happen someday in the near future.

As long as Chicago keeps being unreasonable, the more likely state level preemption will become the law of the land.

[DonP]

6. Based on the caliber of their attorney, I wouldn't bet the farm on that

Anybody that took the time to listen to that recording posted here of Chicago versus the gun ranges, represented by Alan Gura, heard a blithering idiot for Chicago stumbling and desperately tap dancing before the appellate court questions versus a well prepared attorney making and winning his case ... again.

When CCW passes here there will be another flurry of lawsuits to try and claim preemption and the only people that will lose will be the taxpayers.

Now some folks here think that every dollar, taken from school budgets and infrastructure rebuilding for Daleys deranged tilting at windmills is well spent. But the majority, not so much. Thankfully we only have to put up with his peculiar brand of mental state for another 6 weeks, then he retires to his vacation home - in a concealed carry state - with his armed guards for life.

[lawodevolution]

11. It will happen. Every new gun owner in Chicago is a new pro gun activist and

With the gun ban lifted there, gun ownership rate will be on the rise.

[Hoyt]

16. Most of them are TBaggers.

[RSillsbee]

25. And you can cite this right? NT

[DonP]

27. Yeah, sure they are, in a city with no GOP aldermen or elected officials

Yeah, like Otis McDonald is a T Bagger according to you, right?

You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here, accusing lifelong Democrats of being T Baggers.

Did you get spanked for using other slurs and that's the best you have left, accuse anybody you disagree with of being T baggers? That's really sad and pathetic.

Maybe you should focus all your vitriol and efforts on repealing concealed carry in Georgia. If it's so evil in Illinois to want it, why do you allow it to exist in your own state?

Of course you're not the first hypocrite down here to tell every other state what they should do and ignore their own backyard.

[aikoaiko]

28. You clearly dont know anything about Chicago.

[Hoyt]

56. I actually know several Tbaggers from Chicago. They have weapons cache that would excite most here.

[DonP]

59. I asked everyone here - no one knows you or wants to.

[Hoyt]

62. Good.

[gejohnston]

32. says who

the same corporate media that sucks up to every Republican and Reported every absurd Clinton conspiracy theory as fact? The same corporate media that blindly steno graphed Bush's war in Iraq? Seriously, their stupidity cuts both ways.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. Yet another assumptive claim without a shred of proof

[spin]

34. Sure, Chicago is known to be a home base for TBaggars ...

nice try.

edited for typo

[Hoyt]

61. Actually, TBers are quite strong in Chicago. Look it up. Then, look up TBers and guns.

They seem to go together.

[spin]

67. A high percentage of Democrats also own firearms ...

Tea baggers and Republicans do not have a monopoly on firearm ownership - fortunately.

[GreenStormCloud]

40. The form 4473 does not ask for political affliation. N/T

[PavePusher]

49. Biggoted opinion, unsupported by evidence.

Why do you expect to be taken seriously?

[Katya Mullethov]

64. Dig it

Another venom spewing chi-town tea bagger .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td2YfcRjuj0
Money shot at 3:20 and 4:20

[WatsonT]

71. That was a close one

if that had passed Chicago might find itself having to deal with murders for the first time in it's long and peaceful history.