Posted on 07/04/2013 6:12:31 AM PDT by rellimpank
So a man packing 10 guns, some peeking out of his jacket, goes into a restaurant and gets drunk and boisterous. Good idea?
Only as a set-up in a Quentin Tarantino movie.
Using the power of his amendatory veto, Gov. Pat Quinn on Tuesday deleted the provisions that would allow for such a scenario from a bill that passed the Legislature in May to legalize the concealed carrying of guns. He also edited out other troubling measures.
Quinn wants to limit the number of concealed guns to one — and require that one be fully concealed. He would limit the amount of ammunition to 10 rounds. He doesn’t want guns in businesses that serve liquor, and thinks hidden guns shouldn’t be permitted on private property without the owner’s prior consent, or at work. The governor also crossed out a provision that the National Rifle Association always tries to sneak into legislation — stripping local governments of the power to write their own gun laws. This bill would ban local governments from banning assault rifles, for example, something that has nothing to do with concealed carrying. In all, Quinn asked for nine changes.
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
boy that article wasn’t biased
Of course it’s biased, it’s an editorial.
and if the legislators decline to swallow Quinn’s poison pills? what then?
Why does anyone in such nanny states as IL celebrate “Independence”? They haven’t practiced that quaint concept in years.
Hey, only 3 people murdered in Chicago last night.....those laws are working swell.
The governor is simply trying to mess things up. There are many, many states which have CCW rights, and they do not find that people need to be told not to carry 10 guns at once, which would weight one down considerably. On the other hand, police (including plain-clothes police) almost always carry two guns, in addition to mace or something similar.
The governor is merely playing politics with this. He is not serious. Even his allies say that he did not ask for changes before the bill was passed, but that he needs a pose for campaign purposes. You don’t get credit in politics for workable compromise, but only for taking a position as loudly as possible.
It’s better downstate than in Cook etc. And I am proud to say we have one of the best pro-2A grassroots operations in the country. The local talk shows here in Springfiled, even those on the left, are generally supportive of the new CC law (imperfect as it is). So its not all gloom and doom here. Just sayin ...
Actually, it would probably be constitutional to prohibit drinking alcohol and carrying firearms. The Constitution does not prohibit restrictions on drinking, and after all, drinking throws off your aim. It certainly impairs judgment.
--Wisconsin does however still have a "murder" problem , however , it is confined to a certain ethnic group , centered in parts of Milwaukee---
If we can’t build a fence on the Mexico-US border, how about we encircle IL so this type of stupidity cannot escape to propagate outside the captivity of their special kind of Hell called Chi-town?
One of the changes he made with his amendatory veto was making it illegal to carry a second magazine. Idiocy.
ISRA Thursday Bulletin
7/4/2013
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE
On behalf of myself along with the officers and directors of the Illinois State Rifle Association, I would like to wish each of you and your families a happy Independence Day.
With all that’s been going on both at home and abroad lately, it’s easy to wonder at times whether July 4th remains as a celebration of our independence or whether the day now serves as a memorial to the independence we once had.
Those who nurtured this nation from concept to reality just over two centuries ago firmly believed that the natural state of man was to be free. Today, those who “lead” our nation believe that the natural state of man is to conform to a standard of behavior concocted by the culturally elite. Today’s leaders assert that freedom is an overwhelming burden on the common man. Thus, the citizen’s daily life must be subject to the benevolent guiding hand of government as he labors under the threat of chastisement for failure to conform.
I hate to say it ladies and gentlemen, but our nation has turned nearly 180 degrees in the past decade and we are quickly becoming that from which we declared independence 237 years ago. Here in Illinois, the sad state of personal liberty has been starkly illustrated in the long-running battle to make concealed carry a reality.
Let’s stop for a moment here and examine what concealed carry is really all about. In essence, all that is being asked is for the state to establish a framework within which law-abiding citizens may be deemed qualified to carry a defensive weapon. Within that context, the state of being “qualified” provides society with reasonable assurance that defensive weapons may be carried lawfully with no adverse impact on daily life.
In all honesty, seeking to establish that framework wouldn’t require a major cultural shift or a sea change in public policy. After all, humans are born with the right to defend themselves, even through the application of deadly force. All proponents of concealed carry have been asking for is an extension of those innate rights through the deployment of handguns – which are the most effective self defense tools available.
Concealed carry has some very powerful opponents here in Illinois. These people do not believe that average citizens may be trusted to exercise their basic right to self defense. The premise is that the state is best qualified to determine who is worth defending and who is not worth defending. In turn, the state will apply resources necessary to protect those people who are believed worthy of defense. If you are not part of that special class of people, chances are you will have to either live life as a hermit, or rely on your ability to run away from danger to keep yourself alive. As you may suspect, that special class of people includes politicians, government bigwigs, and celebrities – all of whom are provided with armed security guards, often at the expense of those deemed unworthy of defense.
As you know, the only way we could bring concealed carry to the forefront was through a lawsuit. The success of that lawsuit forced Illinois to pass and enact a suitable concealed carry law. As it stands, a fairly good bill has been passed, but is now subject to major revisions by the governor through his amendatory veto handed down earlier this week.
It’s important to note that the effort to comply with the court order provided great insight into how opponents of concealed carry view the rights of the individual and the social worth of the average citizens. As you may know, our side brought only two concealed carry bills forward whereas the other side brought forth several. Based on the content of the opposition’s bills, it became very clear that the other side finds it more important to maintain their twisted view of social order than it is to preserve and protect the lives and safety of individual citizens. It goes without saying that this viewpoint held by opponents of self defense conflicts deeply with the course plotted for this country by the Founding Fathers.
The experience of successfully guiding a concealed carry bill through both chambers of the general assembly confirmed my belief that opponents of concealed carry, and gun controllers in general, believe that the perceived “rights” of the state trump individual liberty. The fact that these extremists are in control of Illinois constitutes a very sad state of affairs.
In the end, we expect that we will prevail over the governor’s amendatory veto. But, if we are to be successful, there are a few things we need you to do.
First, take some time this holiday weekend to ponder what America is supposed to be all about. Reacquaint yourself with the pure concepts of individual freedom and self determination. Recommit yourself to the ideals that the framers laid out in our Constitution. Once you get back in touch with the ideals upon which this nation was founded, go out and preach about the blessings of freedom to all who will listen.
Second, we need you to get on your phones and call your State Senators and State Representatives. Tell them that you expect them to vote to override Governor Quinn’s amendatory veto of HB0183. Continue to call until the override vote is recorded next week. If you do not know who your legislators are, click here.
Third, we must ask that you help the ISRA out financially. We are running low on cash as a result of this protracted battle to develop and pass a workable concealed carry bill. To make a donation, you may either mail us a check at the address below, or go on line at the ISRA Store (click here).
Fourth, and most importantly, do not give up hope for a better day for America. There has been a lot of rough sledding the past two centuries, but Americans always toughed it out and came away much the better for all the adversity they suffered.
God Bless America,
Richard Pearson
Executive Director
Illinois State Rifle Association
Illinois: Governor Quinn Issues an Amendatory Veto on Concealed Carry Legislation
Yesterday, with the federal court deadline for enactment of concealed carry legislation fast approaching, Governor Pat Quinn (D) issued an amendatory veto on House Bill 183. This legislation was introduced and passed by the state legislature last month in an attempt to comply with a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on December 11, 2012, that invalidated Illinois’ total ban on carrying firearms for self-defense. Governor Quinn’s irresponsible amendatory veto, if allowed to stand, would impose some of the strictest concealed carry laws in the nation and make a mockery of the serious issue of self-defense in Illinois. The Illinois Legislature is set to return for a special session on Monday, July 8 and will consider overriding Governor Quinn’s Amendatory Veto.
As it stands now, Governor Quinn’s Amendatory Veto makes the following changes to HB 183:
Limits individuals to carrying a single handgun with a single magazine and no more than ten rounds of ammunition.
Changes the definition of “concealed” to specify a handgun must be completely concealed as opposed to concealed or mostly concealed.
Bans carry in any place that serves alcohol – except private clubs and residences – and therefore nullifying the “restaurant carry” provisions in the bill.
Inverts the “no carry” posting, meaning that carry will only be permissible in places that post it is OK to carry a concealed firearm.
Allows employers to ban firearms on their property and negate the safe harbor provisions.
Removes the ability of individuals to get out of their vehicle and store their handguns safely in the trunk of their vehicle.
An override has been filed by House Bill 183’s sponsor, Representative Brandon Phelps (D-118). With an overwhelming majority voting to pass House Bill 183 at the beginning of June, the override that would reject Governor Quinn’s Amendatory Veto is expected to pass.
Your NRA-ILA will continue to update you as more information becomes available.
People don’t realize just how normal 85% of Illinois is. 6 counties elected this idiot Governor. Proud to say mine wasn’t one of them.
You are so correct. I cringe every time I have to admit. I am from Illinois and people automatically say “Oh, Chicago?” I have to quickly say that I am from the state capital although Chicago refuses to accept the fact that it is not the capital. I F’n hate Chicago.
This is a recipe for harassment.
Removes the ability of individuals to get out of their vehicle and store their handguns safely in the trunk of their vehicle.
Which you really shouldn't have to do ever anyways except that he is clearly attempting to ensure that the only place you can carry your firearm is while in your car or walking down a street as he'll use his influence to make sure that "no firearms" signs go up on the front door of every establishment in Chicago.
He obviously intends to use the law and his power to make life difficult for anyone who chooses to exercise his/her RKBA. Democrats never change.
Alright, but then I suppose we shouldn’t drink and vote, either. Because while drinking is not specifically protected by the Constitution, as you say, but voting is, so by your logic its OK to preempt a fundamental right like voting if there is some risk our judgment would be impaired. After all, elections have consequences.
But the counter, of course, is that gun usage, unlike voting, can be physically dangerous, and the state has the police power, often framed as public safety, and you see Quinn relying on this heavily because it is his best constitutional cover for attacking the 2A. But even public safety does not trump fundamental constitutionally guaranteed rights.
So while I agree that most courts would probably allow some restrictions on carrying weapons in alcohol-serving contexts, to me that doesn’t mean they are right. It only means that law schools produce monolithic beliefs that can be easily predicted, but are systematically incorrect in how they process the hierarchy of legal principles that should govern such decisions.
For example, in the law a distinction is made between prudential and retributive justice. It has been a cornerstone of constitutional freedom that we base our justice system, not on the attempt to preempt all possible evils, but on letting people act with maximum freedom until they affirmatively demonstrate their unwillingness or inability to honor the fundamental rights of others (such as the right of others to live, to own property, etc).
In other words, we don’t have a “Minority Report” styled prediction and prevention form of justice. We default to retributive justice, at least theoretically, because this maximizes personal freedom, though it does introduce some risk of harm. We accept that risk as a natural byproduct of freedom, and on the whole we believe we are all better off just living with that risk, because the alternative, tyranny, always ends up being more costly in the long run.
oorrection to first paragraph:
Alright, but then I suppose we shouldn’t drink and vote, either, because while drinking is not specifically protected by the Constitution, as you say, voting is. So by your logic its OK to preempt a fundamental right like voting if there is some risk our judgment would be impaired. After all, elections have consequences.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.