144 replies to this topic

[Gray Peterson]

mstrat, on 19 January 2011 - 02:38 PM, said:

vezpa, on 19 January 2011 - 02:18 PM, said:

Hatchet, on 17 January 2011 - 08:17 AM, said:

We need the foot in the door. Yes, the courts are ruling, but that could take years still. How long did it take Heller and Mcdonald?

You guys keep talking about winning in the courts. WAKE UP!  We were 1 vote away from losing McDonald.  If we were to lose one of the 5 judges we would be completely ****ED as the rest don't seem to be pro-second amendment whatsoever.  That is why we can't wait years if this has to go to the Supreme Court.  The longer we wait the better the chances of a Dem President replacing another pro-2nd amendment judge who retires...passes etc....  

If that were to happen goodbye to every chance of getting CCW.

I still don't understand why we can't pressure the ISRA and SAF to press a case against IL.  Why do we have "wait for the right case" ? Why can't we just be the plaintiff?

"I want to protect myself and my loved ones from death at the hands of these gang banger thugs when I walk to the bus, but IL is stomping on the US Constitution and preventing me. The state of IL is violating my right to bear arms, and my pursuit of sustained life."  Sounds like a pretty strong argument to me.

It's pretty simple, no?

Wisconsin Carry v. Doyle

[BigJim]

Everyone better pray Dead Fish does not become mayor of Chicago.  If he does instead of worrying about RTC we'll be busy defending our right to keep firearms.

[Ashrak]

Open conversation is rock throwing?
Pointing out that having to beg for permission to exercise a right, and then pay for it too (poll tax), is abhorrent and patently UnAmerican is somehow wrong?

Noting that other states are doing away with the very kind of permit system being begged for here is somehow unjust or untoward? This at the same time noticing that we "should" be doing what other states are doing.....which is it?

If lack of carry in Illinois (the only state) isn't a priority #1 at the national level, then how is it shameful, again at the same time, to take a position to leave preemption aside and let Chicago fend for itself? Seems like the same thing to me yet one is somehow proper and the other is shameful. Which is it? (I argue that McDonald itself is preemption where the Second is concerned! So don't take that last bit as if I support that angle, I don't, I am just posing the obvious dichotomy that exists.)

Many poll questions are phrased in such a way as to skew the issue to a desired political agenda. Folks are being conned into supporting a license to carry because they are being convinced it is the only way we will be able to carry. Honestly, how many folks actually support the licensing itself on its merits? How many understand that supporting a license to carry is the same thing as supporting a license to pray or a license to associate or even seek redress of grievance?  How many are contemplating seriously the ramifications of creating a license structure where there isn't one?

No, that isn't better than what we have now. It only ensures that this fight continues endlessly. Get mad at me if you want, but it sure looks to me like there is some protecting the butter for the bread going on.

Heller clearly defines the right to bear as meaning the right to carry and sometimes use in cases of confrontation. McDonald clearly applies that to Illinois.

We are not in the position that so many other states were all along, as they meandered through legislation for years and decades. There is no reason to travel that path in light of Heller and McDonald. They are like a "move ten spaces ahead" card. Gun Controllers lost their staple arguments over the last three years, all of them. They are reduced to arguing "within the home" and Buzz defeated that argument with a simple question - "How then does a homeless person exercise their Individual, Fundamental, pre-existing, Creator Endowed, inalienable, incorporated right to keep and bear arms? On that note - the opposition just experienced an epic fail in their search for a new position to support denying Citizens their rights.

For a long time we had .22 long ammunition up against up-armored M1 A1s. Now, with Heller and McDonald, we have an almost bottomless ammo can of .50 cals, a spare barrel or two and the target is not only stripped of its longstanding up-armor defense called "Milita only" and "collective right" and "doesn't apply to the states", but indeed we have a retiring emperor who wears no cloths and stands there with only the position of denying what is a set of rights that is as fully recognized in their own case law game as it likely will ever be.

We should not be in beg mode. We should not be in the same old same old mode. We should be in "NO, you Can't!" mode. We should be in "Enough is Enough" mode. We should not be in concession mode, we should be in "You (gun grabbers) have no choice but to concede" mode.  

Wisconsin is on the doorstep of concealed carry because they forced open carry, as a RIGHT, out into the open. They did so by relentless pressure on the State's AG. When confronted with open carry, all of a sudden concealed carry was suddenly desirable on the legislative agenda. So too is that the case in Illinois. The Chicago dominated ILGA views the begging for permission as a sign of weakness and parliamentarian skulduggery will continue unabated as a result.          

We should not be begging for structured permission slips lest we send the message to government that we want permission slips for the First as well. Our own base, the Heller McDonald combination will come back to bite us on that front if we do so. Remember, the Second is no different than the First!  We should be demanding government relent before what is our right - just like the Constitution commands. Shall Not Be Infringed.

/rant of my own

[THE KING]

Ashrak

VERY WELL SAID

[Mac]

I totally agree with ashrak. We will never get concealed carry as long as we  beg for that Constitutional right. Chicago is not going to allow for this as long as the people wait until they have a ruling from some court. Chicago rules the courts so what kind of a ruling are you expecting? This is not going to change in the court system. Look at the Supreme Court ruling handed down in Heller and McDonald. What did Chicago do, they immediately ignored the ruling and told YOU what the ruling said.

We need to start exercising our Constitutional rights. We need to stop begging and start taking control of this pathetic state. Chicago has had too much authority for too long. How long did it take for the Illinois Supreme Court to rule on Emanuel's mayorial bid? How long would it take for anyone else to have their 2A right heard? You will be waiting this time  next year. Chicago has three supreme justices from thair back yard. Is there any reason why Chicago don't worry about what it does? Time to get out from under this stacked deck and start dealing our oun hands.

[vezpa]

Ashrak, on 06 February 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

Open conversation is rock throwing?
Pointing out that having to beg for permission to exercise a right, and then pay for it too (poll tax), is abhorrent and patently UnAmerican is somehow wrong?

Noting that other states are doing away with the very kind of permit system being begged for here is somehow unjust or untoward? This at the same time noticing that we "should" be doing what other states are doing.....which is it?

If lack of carry in Illinois (the only state) isn't a priority #1 at the national level, then how is it shameful, again at the same time, to take a position to leave preemption aside and let Chicago fend for itself? Seems like the same thing to me yet one is somehow proper and the other is shameful. Which is it? (I argue that McDonald itself is preemption where the Second is concerned! So don't take that last bit as if I support that angle, I don't, I am just posing the obvious dichotomy that exists.)

Many poll questions are phrased in such a way as to skew the issue to a desired political agenda. Folks are being conned into supporting a license to carry because they are being convinced it is the only way we will be able to carry. Honestly, how many folks actually support the licensing itself on its merits? How many understand that supporting a license to carry is the same thing as supporting a license to pray or a license to associate or even seek redress of grievance?  How many are contemplating seriously the ramifications of creating a license structure where there isn't one?

No, that isn't better than what we have now. It only ensures that this fight continues endlessly. Get mad at me if you want, but it sure looks to me like there is some protecting the butter for the bread going on.

Heller clearly defines the right to bear as meaning the right to carry and sometimes use in cases of confrontation. McDonald clearly applies that to Illinois.

We are not in the position that so many other states were all along, as they meandered through legislation for years and decades. There is no reason to travel that path in light of Heller and McDonald. They are like a "move ten spaces ahead" card. Gun Controllers lost their staple arguments over the last three years, all of them. They are reduced to arguing "within the home" and Buzz defeated that argument with a simple question - "How then does a homeless person exercise their Individual, Fundamental, pre-existing, Creator Endowed, inalienable, incorporated right to keep and bear arms? On that note - the opposition just experienced an epic fail in their search for a new position to support denying Citizens their rights.

For a long time we had .22 long ammunition up against up-armored M1 A1s. Now, with Heller and McDonald, we have an almost bottomless ammo can of .50 cals, a spare barrel or two and the target is not only stripped of its longstanding up-armor defense called "Milita only" and "collective right" and "doesn't apply to the states", but indeed we have a retiring emperor who wears no cloths and stands there with only the position of denying what is a set of rights that is as fully recognized in their own case law game as it likely will ever be.

We should not be in beg mode. We should not be in the same old same old mode. We should be in "NO, you Can't!" mode. We should be in "Enough is Enough" mode. We should not be in concession mode, we should be in "You (gun grabbers) have no choice but to concede" mode.  

Wisconsin is on the doorstep of concealed carry because they forced open carry, as a RIGHT, out into the open. They did so by relentless pressure on the State's AG. When confronted with open carry, all of a sudden concealed carry was suddenly desirable on the legislative agenda. So too is that the case in Illinois. The Chicago dominated ILGA views the begging for permission as a sign of weakness and parliamentarian skulduggery will continue unabated as a result.          

We should not be begging for structured permission slips lest we send the message to government that we want permission slips for the First as well. Our own base, the Heller McDonald combination will come back to bite us on that front if we do so. Remember, the Second is no different than the First!  We should be demanding government relent before what is our right - just like the Constitution commands. Shall Not Be Infringed.

/rant of my own

AMEN !

[bob]

I guess we will have to wait and see.

Based on past history, I am not real enthused about our chances. This is the same generic bill that gets proposed every year and eventually dies.

A lot depends on court cases that are in the works IMO. If one of them says there is some RTC outside the home, the other side might look at this bill as limiting the damages.

I doubt that a fully preempted bill is in the realm of reality under current conditions.

JMNSHO.

[Mac]

When was it that Illinois missed Concealed Carry by one vote? I know that Jim Edgar was the Govna. That is as close as we have come. Since then, thanks to Emil Jones, Mike Madigan, and this new president of the senate, there has not been one carry bill voted on by the General Assy. Correct me if I am wrong on that. In fact, the closest thing to a vote is a third reading then it get re-assigned to the rules committee where it just dies out. This has been going on for the past 15 years since the edgar vote and WE are still begging for the right to defend ourselves.

In the last 15 years, there has been murder after murder in Chicago. Daley and his hand picked government have issued one gun law after the other to stop the killing. The ONLY ones that that hurts is the lawful citizen. The gangbanger and criminal will always be carrying a gun. The police have been taken out of the equassion when the Supreme Court ruled that the Police were not responsible nor obligated to protect you. This is not their job. Police are there after the fact. After the rape, murder, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary etc. AFTER!

It seems to me that since McDonald, more and more states are going to the Constitution and giving their citizens rights without having to have any licenses or permits. This is a Constitutional right. Since these states allow this right for their citizens, Why doesn't Illinois. Are we under a different Constitution or a different 2A right than the other states? Remember during Heller, the justices stated that the 2A allowed for the people to keep meaning to own and to bear meaning to carry on their person or in a pocket. The second amendment allows for the citizens to keep and bear arms. Illinois does not have a choice if WE All start exersizing our 2A Amendment rights. Illinois Supreme Court stated that they rule with the most common definitions of words that people understand. How many Definitions of the phrase Shall not be infringed have. Just one, if you look it up, it means Not to be messed with. Now also that the 2A is incorporated, how many other legal ways can Illinois keep this from happening?

[Gray Peterson]

Without specific reference to the rest of the postings here, here is what I'm basically seeing:

"We need to be able to insist on carry without a license and go "constitutional carry"."

I'm sorry, folks, but that's not how this works.

Silveira: Second Amendment Suicide


Specifically:  I have been involved in litigating AW cases; half a dozen in California and individual cases in Colorado and Connecticut. Every one has been an utter disaster. Unlike California, Colorado, Connecticut, Ohio and Oregon used to have right to arms clauses in their state Constitutions. Unlike the phony controversy about the federal Second Amendment, these state right to arms clauses clearly did guarantee an individual right. But in each of those states AW bans were enacted by state or local law and well-meaning lawyers (including me) challenged those AW bans under the clear state constitutional right clauses. Because the clauses were so clear the judges were faced with a clear choice: they could either hold that AWs are constitutionally protected or they could read the right to arms clauses out of the state constitution. And that is what they did. The people of Colorado, Connecticut, Ohio and Oregon still have their state constitutional right to arms, of course " but only as long as no legislative body seeks to ban and confiscate their guns. If a ban is passed as to any kind of gun in Colorado, Connecticut, Ohio and Oregon the likely result of any constitutional attack on that ban is that it will be upheld on the same false reasoning that was used to uphold the AW bans.

Please read the above link and attempt to understand what Don Kates is trying to say here.  Kates is literally the modern "grandfather" of the gun rights movement, ignore him at your own peril.

Doing things out of turn is a very significant risk to the gun rights legal movement.    If there is a Legislative solution possible that involves full preemption, but requires fees and backgrounds and training (which offends many a purist, like myself), then it should be taken.

Why?  Because you will not be able to litigate the fees/training requirements in either the state court system or the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.  It is a better idea to file something like that in Texas, where the 5th Circuit is and which is friendlier territory to us than the 7th or state court.  You will not be able to challenge the UUW statute in the federal court system in the 7th Circuit.

Todd believes we can get right to carry reform passed or at least have a good chance at it.  Abolt agrees with this contention too.  Let's support them and get the job done, and let me also point out that these bills are "filler" for something better.

Heller and McDonald are not the end all to be all cases for the 2A.   We need further cases, but you should understand that not everything that's badly effecting Illinois gun owners should always be litigated in Illinois.  This is not true, Given Chief Judge Easterbrook's influence....

[junglebob]

Tvandermyde, on 13 January 2011 - 08:17 AM, said:

lockman, on 13 January 2011 - 07:40 AM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 13 January 2011 - 06:31 AM, said:

guys and gals

Some of the legislators that commented are looking at the small picture. they have not beeen involved in all the talks and working on the bill.

I can tell you that just from this week, I am more optimistic about the coming session than I ever have been.

Todd,
       Has the Heller/Mcdonald revelation of keep and carry for self defense as a fudamental right had a significant impact on the opopsition?  And has it yanked the fence sitters off onto the proper side?





/

Guys --

don't pay any attention to the bills filed for content. They are not the final form. We have kept the final form out of public relms for tacttical advantages. the other side will get it at the last minute after we have concluded working on it. All the RTC bills filed are good for is a bill number.

Several newly elected legislatos made a promise to introduce a RTC bill. staff asked me what they could do and I pointed them to HB-462. I'm sure they had seen other versions and grabbed one to copy, draft and file.

memberws of this forum have spent months working on a revised bill. there has been give and take. there has been a lot of thought going into it. it will be very different in some respects from the bills filed in the past.

So please, don't waste your time harping about any of the carry bills filed for their content. Because it is not the langugue we will begin with much less finish with.

I read the bills content and see that again as in every other bill under Xiii the list of "criminal protection zones" is "a church or other place of religious worship" why can't this be left out.  I don't see it being left out of the final version when it is always in the original version.  Why does the place I normally visit for about 5 hours a week have to be a "criminal protection zone"?  How about we not allow lobbyists and everyone else to carry at their work place 5 hours per week.  Can't we at least let churches decide like every other property owner.  Why should my pastor who currently has a non-resident LTC be disarmed where he works when most others including state lobbyists are not? Why have anything on carry in churches or if you think you must just allow them to deny carry if they wish like any other property owner.

[Tvandermyde]

Quote

I read the bills content and see that again as in every other bill under Xiii the list of "criminal protection zones" is "a church or other place of religious worship" why can't this be left out.  I don't see it being left out of the final version when it is always in the original version.  Why does the place I normally visit for about 5 hours a week have to be a "criminal protection zone"?  How about we not allow lobbyists and everyone else to carry at their work place 5 hours per week.  Can't we at least let churches decide like every other property owner.  Why should my pastor who currently has a non-resident LTC be disarmed where he works when most others including state lobbyists are not? Why have anything on carry in churches or if you think you must just allow them to deny carry if they wish like any other property owner.

Why is simple. In order to get the votes necessary to pass a bill we have to negotiate with legislators and other groups. They ask for certain things in order to gain their support. Without those things, there will be fewer votes.

Despite what the feelings of people here on the board are, the general public does not feel quite the same way. Some are still nervous about the "idea" of guns in pubic becuase they have not been use to the concept, or are not informed about the process. Usually once informed about the process, things change, but it takes a lot to get the point accross as opposed to a 15 second sound bite.

This is not Arizona nor Alaska. Just as Florida keeps making progress on their laws, you have to start somewhere. And Illinois is starting in the stone age.

Several times readers have been admonished not to take the current language at it's face as it will be different when amended. substantially different. And we are working to secure a vote on the bills, as well as pasage of the bills. If that is to difficult to understand, let me say it anoter way -- The CURRENT BILL is NOT the FINAL VERSION that will be VOTED ON.

If you don't understand that, and want to continue to complain, fine. You simply show your more interested in complaining than anything else.

Lastly, it is going to be a very long time before the Courts adopt anything close to a "shall not be infringed" attitude towards the 2A. And it will take some time until the even recognise a right to carry in the lower courts. That's just the way it is.

Heller and McDonald were not he final words on the issue. They were the first chapter.

Words from John Wayne may help: Life is tough, it's tougher if your stupid.

[Molly B.]

junglebob, on 07 February 2011 - 08:16 AM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 13 January 2011 - 08:17 AM, said:

Guys --

don't pay any attention to the bills filed for content. They are not the final form. We have kept the final form out of public relms for tacttical advantages. the other side will get it at the last minute after we have concluded working on it. All the RTC bills filed are good for is a bill number.

Several newly elected legislatos made a promise to introduce a RTC bill. staff asked me what they could do and I pointed them to HB-462. I'm sure they had seen other versions and grabbed one to copy, draft and file.

memberws of this forum have spent months working on a revised bill. there has been give and take. there has been a lot of thought going into it. it will be very different in some respects from the bills filed in the past.

So please, don't waste your time harping about any of the carry bills filed for their content. Because it is not the langugue we will begin with much less finish with.

I read the bills content and see that again as in every other bill under Xiii the list of "criminal protection zones" is "a church or other place of religious worship" why can't this be left out.  I don't see it being left out of the final version when it is always in the original version.  Why does the place I normally visit for about 5 hours a week have to be a "criminal protection zone"?  How about we not allow lobbyists and everyone else to carry at their work place 5 hours per week.  Can't we at least let churches decide like every other property owner.  Why should my pastor who currently has a non-resident LTC be disarmed where he works when most others including state lobbyists are not? Why have anything on carry in churches or if you think you must just allow them to deny carry if they wish like any other property owner.

Again and again and again, as Todd keeps reminding everyone.  The current bills only serve as a place holder.
THIS IS NOT THE BILL THAT WILL BE VOTED ON!

[junglebob]

Could we gain the support of more legislators in the Chicago area by adding wording to make  Chicago a no carry "Criminal Protection Zone"?  We could always fix that later. I of course don't go to Chicago much.

[Lou]

junglebob, on 07 February 2011 - 09:35 AM, said:

Could we gain the support of more legislators in the Chicago area by adding wording to make  Chicago a no carry "Criminal Protection Zone"?  We could always fix that later. I of course don't go to Chicago much.

I am committed to passing a Right To Carry bill for ILLINOIS - all of it.
Like any good soldier, we will leave none of our companions behind.

[Tvandermyde]

Jungle -- we have tried that before in various iterations. It's gets us no extra votes. Add to that, I don't htink its right to toss those gun owners or NRA members under the bus because others are more interested in their own interests.

[junglebob]

Tvandermyde, on 07 February 2011 - 09:53 AM, said:

Jungle -- we have tried that before in various iterations. It's gets us no extra votes. Add to that, I don't htink its right to toss those gun owners or NRA members under the bus because others are more interested in their own interests.

O.K. Don't mean to throw others under the bus, though me and some other church goers may feel that way with the wording in the bill.  Don't leave any city or place out if it won't help get a bill passed. Get the best that you can get in a RTC bill and leave as few places as possible "criminal protection zones".  I will urge my legislators to vote for that bill if it has the fewest "criminal protection zones" we can get.

[BigJim]

Tvandermyde, on 07 February 2011 - 09:53 AM, said:

Jungle -- we have tried that before in various iterations. It's gets us no extra votes. Add to that, I don't htink its right to toss those gun owners or NRA members under the bus because others are more interested in their own interests.

We also need RTC on Metra/Pace so people working in the city can carry to and from work.  Otherwise RTC becomes a weekend only right.

[Johnnybgood]

Everyone relax, take a deep breath and let it out slow. We didn't lose our rights overnight and were not going to get them back in one fell swoop. Lets get a RTC bill passed then we can work on improving it. I for one eagerly await the final draft and will be 100% behind it. Once the people of this state realize the old west isn't happening they will likely be more open to improvements.

[mstrat]

Johnnybgood, on 07 February 2011 - 01:37 PM, said:

Everyone relax, take a deep breath and let it out slow. We didn't lose our rights overnight and were not going to get them back in one fell swoop. Lets get a RTC bill passed then we can work on improving it. I for one eagerly await the final draft and will be 100% behind it. Once the people of this state realize the old west isn't happening they will likely be more open to improvements.

Well said, thank you.

[templar223]

drdoom, on 15 January 2011 - 08:32 PM, said:

The Bill needs a provision that allows cities (like Chicago) to opt out.

We've done that before and picked up no extra votes.

Why should we do this again?!

F-'em.  Let them live with it once we pass it.

Besides, we shouldn't support anything that disenfranchises poor, inner-city African Americans who are eligible for firearm ownership to obtain the means to defend themselves at home and in public.

John

[Gray Peterson]

No throwing Chicago under the bus, folks.  Otis McDonald and the Lawsons deserve the ability to carry as much as you downstate folks do.

[Buzzard]

Johnnybgood, on 07 February 2011 - 01:37 PM, said:

Everyone relax, take a deep breath and let it out slow. We didn't lose our rights overnight and were not going to get them back in one fell swoop. Lets get a RTC bill passed then we can work on improving it. I for one eagerly await the final draft and will be 100% behind it. Once the people of this state realize the old west isn't happening they will likely be more open to improvements.

I Agree! Pour a foundation and build from there.

[ishmo]

Templar223, on 07 February 2011 - 01:56 PM, said:

drdoom, on 15 January 2011 - 08:32 PM, said:

The Bill needs a provision that allows cities (like Chicago) to opt out.

We've done that before and picked up no extra votes.

Why should we do this again?!

F-'em. Let them live with it once we pass it.
You got that right, the longer they fight it the less input they'll end up having in the final bill.
Besides, we shouldn't support anything that disenfranchises poor, inner-city African Americans who are eligible for firearm ownership to obtain the means to defend themselves at home and in public.

John

[TriumphRider]

Chicago is THE REASON why Illinois doesn't have CCW at this time.  WHY do we really care if they opt out or not?  The reality is that as long as Chicago is included, the rest of the State is hosed.  Leave them to their own means, at their expense.  After the rest of the state has CCW, and the resulting drop in crime rate is statisticalized (yeah, I just coined that term) then they will Opt-In.  Until then - They deserve to maintain their status quo.

[mstrat]

TriumphRider, on 07 February 2011 - 10:33 PM, said:

Chicago is THE REASON why Illinois doesn't have CCW at this time.  WHY do we really care if they opt out or not?  The reality is that as long as Chicago is included, the rest of the State is hosed.  Leave them to their own means, at their expense.  After the rest of the state has CCW, and the resulting drop in crime rate is statisticalized (yeah, I just coined that term) then they will Opt-In.  Until then - They deserve to maintain their status quo.

I understand the sentiment.. but a couple of points to consider:

I believe they've tried that before, and it didn't help. Whether or not there's preemption, the bill gets killed.  But more importantly, it's the Chicago democratic machine that's preventing Right To Carry (RTC) in IL... not the everyday people.  Sure, the majority of people can be held indirectly responsible due their (D) votes, but we can't deny a fundamental right to anyone (especially those Chicago residents who aren't supporting the machine).

[TriumphRider]

mstrat, on 07 February 2011 - 10:37 PM, said:

TriumphRider, on 07 February 2011 - 10:33 PM, said:

Chicago is THE REASON why Illinois doesn't have CCW at this time.  WHY do we really care if they opt out or not?  The reality is that as long as Chicago is included, the rest of the State is hosed.  Leave them to their own means, at their expense.  After the rest of the state has CCW, and the resulting drop in crime rate is statisticalized (yeah, I just coined that term) then they will Opt-In.  Until then - They deserve to maintain their status quo.

I understand the sentiment.. but a couple of points to consider:

I believe they've tried that before, and it didn't help. Whether or not there's preemption, the bill gets killed.  But more importantly, it's the Chicago democratic machine that's preventing Right To Carry (RTC) in IL... not the everyday people.  Sure, the majority of people can be held indirectly responsible due their (D) votes, but we can't deny a fundamental right to anyone (especially those Chicago residents who aren't supporting the machine).

IMO - Yes, we can.  The same folks you.... consider... are the ones that keep voting for the anti-Constitutionalist Politicians that keep denying the rest of the state it's Constitutional Rights.  The truth is - Chicago Voters are the enemy of the Constitution in Illinois.  THEY are the ones that keep ensuring the rest of the state is hosed, as far as the Constitution is concerned.

  I DO see your point... there are probably 11 folks in Chicago that feel the same as we do...... They need to MOVE.  Chicago has been the KEY player in denying our Constitutional Rights, to HE-Double-Hockey-Sticks with them.  Let them OPT-OUT, and the rest of the state will be able to exercise our CONSTITUTIONALLLY-Enumerated Right to Self-defense.  Chicago will belly-up in a few years.....  Until then - Leave them behind.

[Davey]

Quote

I DO see your point... there are probably 11 folks in Chicago that feel the same as we do...... They need to MOVE.

As much as I wanna pack up my junk and high tail it to West Virginia and live near my fiancee's family I can't afford to just uproot my entire life here.  Not sure I can find a job out there like I have here.  I'm sure it's the same for many others.

[Gray Peterson]

TriumphRider, on 07 February 2011 - 10:33 PM, said:

Chicago is THE REASON why Illinois doesn't have CCW at this time.  WHY do we really care if they opt out or not?  The reality is that as long as Chicago is included, the rest of the State is hosed.  Leave them to their own means, at their expense.  After the rest of the state has CCW, and the resulting drop in crime rate is statisticalized (yeah, I just coined that term) then they will Opt-In.  Until then - They deserve to maintain their status quo.

I DO see your point... there are probably 11 folks in Chicago that feel the same as we do...... They need to MOVE. Chicago has been the KEY player in denying our Constitutional Rights, to HE-Double-Hockey-Sticks with them. Let them OPT-OUT, and the rest of the state will be able to exercise our CONSTITUTIONALLLY-Enumerated Right to Self-defense. Chicago will belly-up in a few years..... Until then - Leave them behind.

There are one hundred THOUSAND FOID card holders in Chicago, not just 11 people.  Unbelievable that we're even having this debate.

Does Otis McDonald deserves to have his head kicked in while walking on the street because he happens to live in house that he owns and has already paid for in Chicago?  What is this "Chicagoans deserve it" crap?  It was Chicagoans who gave you an RKBA right that now applies to the state and local governments now.  You should be more thankful that the 4 residents of Chicago, and now numerous handgun permit applicants, are doing their best with what they have.  What about Rhonda Ezell, who is disabled and can't exactly leave the city very well since she's disabled and she's in a wheelchair?  How about her?  What value do you place on the lives of McDonald, Lawson, Orlov, and Ezell?  Hmm??

I've fought for numerous years for the ideas of what "equal protection" means.   I'm currently fighting for that concept in the state of Colorado right now.    Todd already told you that carving out Chicago doesn't gain us votes.  Chicago anti-gun politicians don't want to deal with carry and be cooped up in just their city without the "stench of legal gun carriers".  They want their concept statewide.  We need to kill anti-carry laws statewide.  The best way to do so at this point is via legislative enactment or that fails one legislative session post-McDonald, I'm sure a court case can be filed.    Remember, Iowa went to shall-issue in 2010 because they knew that if they didn't shape up, the chances were high certain lawyer we're all familiar with here would have likely filed against a hapless sheriff.  You know all know who he is.

Don't be a jerk.  Do not leave our brothers in Chicago behind.  It is our brothers in Chicago who are doing the heavy lifting in terms of the legal war against gun control in the state of Illinois.  

Shame on you, Triumph Rider.  Shame on you for crapping all over equal protection and fundamental liberties where it matters and counts the most.

[bhannah]

It is a long story why we have to include Chicago in the bill, it has little to do with McDonald, granted I agree Chicago should be included, but Madagan called the bluff and said ANY carry bill will need the super majority period.
Now we are stuck and needing the super, so sure why not include Chicago..
This was long before the McDonald case.
We need to be honest here and stop making excuses.

[bhannah]

removed by me, better said in private..
why rehash old stuff..