Federal appeals court overturns Illinois ban on carrying concealed weapons

[bmore_ken]

According to your own quotes he simply wants to stop violent crimes and is open to multiple ideas.

You would think one would read the stories to their own links and get an understanding of the content prior to using it to make a point that it doesn't make

[bmorepunk]

2. The votes for it simply aren't there.

I do find the "We're stopping Obama from taking our guns!" idiocy to be a bit irritating because of the statement you've made here. It's simply not happening because they're not even close to having the votes in the House or Senate to pass any legislation on this.

If I were the NRA I would have poured that roughly $20 million they spent on anti-Obama campaigning on working against states like Maryland and Illinois. There's a lot of legal room to work there to make them look more like Texas or Arizona. Instead they wasted it on a failed campaign, most likely to try to get Romney in office so they could help weapons manufacturers by getting more arms sold to other countries.

Of course the NRA doesn't focus on helping their members, they're more interested in lobbying for their main interest (weapons manufacturers). If they did things for their members they'd put that money into making sure people who are buying firearms aren't being idiots with them (providing training would be a good way to go here).

[Contumacious]

Of course the NRA doesn't focus on helping their members, they're more interested in lobbying for their main interest (weapons manufacturers). If they did things for their members they'd put that money into making sure people who are buying firearms aren't being idiots with them (providing training would be a good way to go here).

So the Founding Fathers and the Courts are wrong. We really don't have a right to defend our lives, right?

.

[The Astute Reader(tm)]

It looks like Contagious is making a play for for the coveted "non sequiter of the year" award.

[Jeebus]

You would think one would read the stories to their own links and get an understanding of the content prior to using it to make a point that it doesn't make

No, Ken, we both read the same article.

The difference is......I understood it.

You? Not so much.

You seemed to focus on the standard leftist talking point of "I support the 2nd Amendment" public statement, while ignoring the "but..." that always seems to follow it.

[Jeebus]

According to your own quotes he simply wants to stop violent crimes and is open to multiple ideas.

Including a meaningless toothless (and knee-jerk) measure like banning "assault" weapons, which has been proven (even acknowledged by Baracka inthe article!) to not make a difference in crime.

[The Eternal White Belt]

So the Founding Fathers and the Courts are wrong. We really don't have a right to defend our lives, right?

.

Really? That's what you got from Bmore Punk's post? Man, no hope at all for this country... no hope at all...

[jtowne-swim]

So the Founding Fathers and the Courts are wrong. We really don't have a right to defend our lives, right?

.

That is not what was said in the quoted post. He was simply saying the NRA, despite claims is not really lobbying in the best interest of the gun owner but the gun manufacturer. In many respects they overlap but in some key areas they are different.

[bmorepunk]

So the Founding Fathers and the Courts are wrong. We really don't have a right to defend our lives, right?

.

I have several points based on your response:

1. I was remarking on the NRA being a lobbying organization for weapons manufacturers instead of representing actual firearms owners and hunters.
2. I like firearms more than you do. And if people want to carry them open, concealed, whatever, I really don't have a problem with it. I do want people to be responsible with firearms, and the NRA could help with that.
3. The "Founding Fathers" were made up heavily of a collection of rich dudes interested in advancing their own political and economic power. I'm happy that their actions resulted in the country we live in today, but I don't idolize people who thought using other humans as slaves was okay.

[Contumacious]

It looks like Contagious is making a play for for the coveted "non sequiter of the year" award.

Non sequitur (play /nɒnˈsɛkwɪtər/) is Latin for "it does not follow." It is most often used as a noun to describe illogical statements.

Originally Posted by bmorepunk View Post
Of course the NRA doesn't focus on helping their members, they're more interested in lobbying for their main interest (weapons manufacturers).

I hope that your New Year's resolution is to pay attention during your English Comprehension class.

.

[Windman]

This is exhibit "A" regarding why people who are pro-gun rights have a bad rap.

Anyway, good news for Illinois. Too bad I can't expect to see the same in MD in my lifetime.

Name one point that isn't true, I'll wait. Liberals have no clue that they will be the first silenced. They are the ones that call for violence, just watch the unions, occupy wall street, ELF, SDS on and on. We want peace, freedom and justice under the Constitution. The left want to destroy America and remake it as a failed European socialist society. How is that giving pro-gun rights a bad rap?

[Windman]

I love the left when they say that the founding fathers were a bunch of rich guys. Question is the current ruling class of America dirt poor and hungry? What a crock! The founding fathers signed their own death warrants when they signed the declaration of independence name one, just one of the current class of rulers that risked that, once more I'll wait. Anyone? Yeah, moving on. Hell with America about to go bankrupt Queen Pelosi whined about going home for Christmas. Washington didn't leave Valley Forge. It is sickening because the left takes your freedom and as long as you get a check you're ok with it. Freedom's currency is blood which the left and unions have vowed to spill but what the hell it can't happen here.

[bmorepunk]

Non sequitur (play /nɒnˈsɛkwɪtər/) is Latin for "it does not follow." It is most often used as a noun to describe illogical statements.

I hope that your New Year's resolution is to pay attention during your English Comprehension class.

.

I wasn't the one commenting on anybody's grammar or writing style, and I've never given anybody trouble about theirs. This is an internet message board, where the posts generally sound more like people talking, not writing.

I love the left when they say that the founding fathers were a bunch of rich guys. Question is the current ruling class of America dirt poor and hungry? What a crock! The founding fathers signed their own death warrants when they signed the declaration of independence name one, just one of the current class of rulers that risked that, once more I'll wait. Anyone? Yeah, moving on. Hell with America about to go bankrupt Queen Pelosi whined about going home for Christmas. Washington didn't leave Valley Forge. It is sickening because the left takes your freedom and as long as you get a check you're ok with it. Freedom's currency is blood which the left and unions have vowed to spill but what the hell it can't happen here.

I've gotten accused of being liberal or conservative quite a few times here, and it never disappoints. I have no love for the "ruling class" of today you mention.

Can you please tell me the equivalent situation that would have occured in the modern day where something like the Declaration of Independence was signed in the United States? Senator McCain and Senator Webb have extensive combat experience. While they're no Washington, they certainly put more on the line (for even less reason) than REMFs like Franklin, Jay, Jefferson, and Madison.

Nancy Pelosi is awful.

[Contumacious]

I have several points based on your response:

1. I was remarking on the NRA being a lobbying organization for weapons manufacturers instead of representing actual firearms owners and hunters.

1. I have a right to defend my life. I need Smith and Wesson, Colt, and other gun manufacturers to develop reliable firearms. So our symbiotic relationship with gun manufacturers is an appropriate one.
   
   When you and your people finally succeed in making firearms illegal in this country our symbiotic relationship then will be with the Mexican Mafia or similar organizations.
   
   .
   

2. The "Founding Fathers" were made up heavily of a collection of rich dudes interested in advancing their own political and economic power. I'm happy that their actions resulted in the country we live in today, but I don't idolize people who thought using other humans as slaves was okay.

[The Astute Reader(tm)]

Wow! Apparently Gumby isn't the only one who can stretch to incredible lengths.

[Wild Eyed Southern Boy]

Illinois is one of the "home rule" states. I suspect that Chicago and a few of the larger cities will enact a ordinance that prohibits CCW or open carry. This will nullify the ruling with respect to their inhabitants.

In the end, it will be just like now, politically connected, the wealthy and celebrities will continue to be allowed to carry guns, while the peasant class will not.
And the gang members will continue to go armed whenever they want to.

"But Alderman Roberto Maldonado said that while any concealed carry law would not allow gang members with criminal backgrounds to carry guns, the gang members could prey on law abiding citizens and steal their guns."

The above statement shows how much real contempt for individuals the average politician really has. They really do view the average person as nothing more than a sheep.

http://www.charter.net/news/read.php....org%3E&ps=931

[bmorepunk]

I have a right to defend my life. I need Smith and Wesson, Colt, and other gun manufacturers to develop reliable firearms. So our symbiotic relationship with gun manufacturers is an appropriate one.

When you and your people finally succeed in making firearms illegal in this country our symbiotic relationship then will be with the Mexican Mafia or similar organizations.

I respect your priorities of putting corporate interests in front of individual ones. It is far more important to sell firearms to foreign armies than than US citizens.

.


Really?

But now you idolize the rich people who are enslaving us to the welfare/warfare state.

So you do not oppose slavery. You encourage it when you benefit from the same.

.

You are a very special individual.

[SomeIdiot]

I'm relatively pro 2nd Amendment but I'm not sure I agree that it protects the right to a concealed weapon based on the plain language. I've always thought of "bearing" as carrying openly.

I'm also not sure I think this is sensible from a policy perspective. If a police officer sees a person put a handgun in his jacket then walk into a bank will that individual be able to file a Title 18 suit against the state? It seems to be an unnecessarily broad reading of the Bill of Rights with no textual basis that sets up all the wrong incentives.

[bmorepunk]

I'm also not sure that the Second Amendment protects the right to a concealed weapon or where the definition of "arms" should end (why can't I have a M134 Minigun or Mk 19 grenade launcher mounted in the bed of my truck?). From a tactical standpoint concealing is huge, although in many situations having it in the open might work as a deterrent to some people. I don't have a problem with conceal carry if that's what interpretation is. In fact, I wish we could get there so we could cut down on the whining.

In places where conceal carry is shall-issue, it's generally not a big deal. When I lived in Alaska nobody made a big deal out of it. Hardly anybody carried concealed, even when they changed the law so you didn't even need a permit.

In states with shall-issue, the number of eligible people holding conceal permits are small (a little under 10% to well under that) and common sense dictates most of those people aren't carrying most of the time. So it makes me think that the number of possible situations where public policy becomes a question like you mentioned will be rare, but they will be high profile due to the potential for serious injury or death.

I do think that people should be legally liable start or cause a problem that ends in someone getting shot. That famous case in Florida never should have happened, and the fact that Zimmerman pursues and gets out of his car around a perceived dangerous criminal is negligent, regardless of whether it is determined to be murder or not.

I also have seen multiple news stories where people didn't secure their firearms (that they shouldn't be using anyway because the models they had were faulty) and they hit the floor and shot someone. I can remember two of those cases right now (one in a bathroom, one in a restaurant) and in both cases the individual wasn't deemed legally responsible for bad weapon retention that resulted in an injured party. At the very least they've proven they're a danger to others with firearms and I would hope that the rights of others not getting shot should outweigh their right to carry a firearm.

[Contumacious]

I'm relatively pro 2nd Amendment but I'm not sure I agree that it protects the right to a concealed weapon based on the plain language. I've always thought of "bearing" as carrying openly.

I'm also not sure I think this is sensible from a policy perspective. If a police officer sees a person put a handgun in his jacket then walk into a bank will that individual be able to file a Title 18 suit against the state? It seems to be an unnecessarily broad reading of the Bill of Rights with no textual basis that sets up all the wrong incentives.

How about from a RIGHT TO LIFE PERSPECTIVE?

Do I have a right to defend my life inside the bank or not?

When did Patrick Henry state that Americans have a right to bear arms so long as they do so "openly".

The moral of the story is that if you don't want to be surprised then don't be a Pho King criminal.

.