Illinois House passes shall-issue bill, 85-30

[Tyeraxus]

Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I don't see this thing sailing through the Senate without hitting some speed bumps. I feel like some of the senator's heads will explode when they argue about this.

I'm actually hoping the IL Senate does do something stupid and runs out the clock. At that point, I'd expect them to throw in behind the cert petition that the IL AG asked for a stay extension to file a few weeks ago. If the Heller Five wanted a case to definitely rule that the 2A applies outside the home, I don't think it gets any more slam-dunk on that point than Moore. It also might be an opportunity to smack down lower courts for their "rational-basis-in-intermediate-scrutiny clothing" approach, if they wanted to go down that road.

 

[randian]

How can a ban on public transportation pass even a rational basis test, when those same individuals are not too dangerous on the a crowded sidewalk?

The same could be said of almost everything on that list, and most of them appear in at least one shall-issue state's no-carry list.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

The same could be said of almost everything on that list, and most of them appear in at least one shall-issue state's no-carry list.

True. But the right to move about freely is a core right as well. Must we choose among fundamental rights that may only exercise one at a time?

 

[Tyeraxus]

True. But the right to move about freely is a core right as well. Must we choose among fundamental rights that may only exercise one at a time?

Counter-argument is that public transit is an option among many - the poor could choose to exercise both rights by walking, biking, etc; or they can choose convenience in exchange for the imposition of the "no weapons" rule. It's a poor counter, IMO (especially since mass transit is normally run by governments), but one I've heard a few times on the topic.

 

[pilotguy]

Madigan, who is in the IL house has said he has enough votes to pass in both House and Senate. If we take him at face value it is veto proof. But he is a polotician..,

 

[AntiGun]

Hey... We'll take it where we can!

In Maryland we often take it in the can.

I somehow don't see this happening in Chicago. I could be wrong and would happily be so, but it is just contradiction on so may levels.

I would be awesome to have some lower crime numbers after a few years.

 

[MDFF2008]

In Maryland we often take it in the can.

I somehow don't see this happening in Chicago. I could be wrong and would happily be so, but it is just contradiction on so may levels.

I would be awesome to have some lower crime numbers after a few years.

IL is so much bigger than Chicago.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

Counter-argument is that public transit is an option among many - the poor could choose to exercise both rights by walking, biking, etc; or they can choose convenience in exchange for the imposition of the "no weapons" rule. It's a poor counter, IMO (especially since mass transit is normally run by governments), but one I've heard a few times on the topic.

Ezell and Heller logic say otherwise. When dealing with civil rights, it's no argument to say that because you can attend a range (church, library, etc) somewhere else, that the right can be denied.

Once the right is codified outside the home (and I still wince that there is even a debate about it) then anyone who can carry on a sidewalk will have to be able to take public transportation while armed.

If the stars line up, and carry is widely implemented, chicago is going to be the perfect laboratory for how lawful CCW deters crime, IMO. If they have "gun-free" public transportation, then THAT is where the assaults will occur.

 

[randian]

If the stars line up, and carry is widely implemented, chicago is going to be the perfect laboratory for how lawful CCW deters crime, IMO.

One might imagine that the purpose of having so many prohibited places is to prove otherwise. "See that shooting in the park, CCW is useless!"

 

[Biggfoot44]

Duh , the purpose of all the restricted places to make enough of a hassle of constantly arming/ disarming to cause many permit holders to not carry on a regular basis.

 

[Mr H]

IL is so much bigger than Chicago.

This.

The downstate and northwestern populations far outnumber Chicagoland.

The reason we have a problem here, is that the Leftist Triangle covers a much greater percentage of land (and votes) in MD than Chicago does in IL.

 

[zoostation]

The problem we have is in MD as opposed to Illinois where they could actually get stuff like this done is that you have almost half the state's total population located in Montgomery, PG, and Baltimore City alone (add in the illegals and other sources of Democratic Party voter fraud and you probably have over half). That's not even counting some of the other heavily democratic-leaning localities like Howard and Baltimore Counties. We have the same problem here as they do in New York State. So much of the population is concentrated in extremely democratic urban areas.

 

[AntiGun]

IL is so much bigger than Chicago.

Of course but the only thing most people know about outside of IL is Chicago, so that's where the media focus will be.

....
If the stars line up, and carry is widely implemented, chicago is going to be the perfect laboratory for how lawful CCW deters crime, IMO. If they have "gun-free" public transportation, then THAT is where the assaults will occur.

This is what I'm hoping to see.

This.

The downstate and northwestern populations far outnumber Chicagoland.

The reason we have a problem here, is that the Leftist Triangle covers a much greater percentage of land (and votes) in MD than Chicago does in IL.

The problem we have is in MD as opposed to Illinois where they could actually get stuff like this done is that you have almost half the state's total population located in Montgomery, PG, and Baltimore City alone (add in the illegals and other sources of Democratic Party voter fraud and you probably have over half). That's not even counting some of the other heavily democratic-leaning localities like Howard and Baltimore Counties. We have the same problem here as they do in New York State. So much of the population is concentrated in extremely democratic urban areas.

Thus the no fire Baltimore metro area and its consequences.
anectode:
I was at WalMart and mentioned her slingshot to my daughter and a couple next to me said "that's what we forgot on the list." A short conversation then proceeded about the inability to shoot a .22 at vermin including potentially rabid racoons. We must resort to slingshots and marbles.

 

[JMangle]

Good news, and surprising. If Illinois can push back against gun-grabbing Chicago, especially in the post-Newtown fallout, that's a good sign.

Very, very true.

Even if they could carry on mass transit, the $150 fee + 2 days of training (more $$$$) will likely remove them from consideration.

I don't think I've ever been on mass transit and didn't want to be carrying -- so I guess I'll pay. It really bugs me that so much of our money goes to mass transit when so few people use it.

How can a ban on public transportation pass even a rational basis test, when those same individuals are not too dangerous on the a crowded sidewalk?

Good point. That said, ask the federal government why I can be trusted with a firearm 1,001 (or however many) feet from a school, but not 999 feet.

 

[abean4187]

I wouldn’t call $300, 16 hours of training, and possible rejection a “Shall issue”. The people who need it most, inner city poor, are being restricted. This will make the rural people in the state happy but I doubt it will do much to dent the crime rate in Chicago.

I am hoping that the shall issue case for MD goes to the Supreme Court eventually but even if it does, I have a feeling MD would just set up some BS law where you have to pay $1000 a year and get 10 days worth of training.

 

[T'Challa]

Yes!!!!!!!!

Can't wait for Smigiel and McDermott speeches next January on this!

Hi,

I like these guys but they are the only one's fighting for shall issue. Too often they come off as odd. We need some delegates who are in the middle to slide right and support shall issue. If not, we will continue to be New York + 3 rounds.

 

[press1280]

I'm curious exactly what happens if the IL legislature does not come up with a new law. We know the existing law will be unenforceable, but what happens if the day after, Crook and others basically dress up the old IL law and incorporate it in their laws? Can the District courts knock this nonsense out quick? Or would this go right back to the same 7th Circuit panel?

 

[Mr H]

As I hear it, it's automatically a case of semi-Constitutional carry.

If you have a FOID, and legally own, there would be nothing LEGALLY preventing you from carrying.

Mind you, Chitcago would likely light up..... briefly.

 

[press1280]

As I hear it, it's automatically a case of semi-Constitutional carry.

If you have a FOID, and legally own, there would be nothing LEGALLY preventing you from carrying.

Mind you, Chitcago would likely light up..... briefly.

Got that part-was more interested how the court works in situations like this. We know if this happens that some may get the idea to ban carry on public sidewalks, exc. Not a total ban but you'd have to think long and hard about exactly where you COULD carry.

 

[john_bud]

I wouldn’t call $300, 16 hours of training, and possible rejection a “Shall issue”. The people who need it most, inner city poor, are being restricted. This will make the rural people in the state happy but I doubt it will do much to dent the crime rate in Chicago.

I am hoping that the shall issue case for MD goes to the Supreme Court eventually but even if it does, I have a feeling MD would just set up some BS law where you have to pay $1000 a year and get 10 days worth of training.

Like all gun laws, it's designed to hamper minorities (typically blacks) from being able to protect themselves. The liberal socialist bias against blacks has been on record since before the civil war.