Ranger

I think our best chance is with SCOTUS. I'm not as confident with SCOTUS as I'd like to be; but I'm not sure how realistic the chances are that we'll get a pro 2nd amendment Governor and legislature are during my lifetime. I think we can likely get a pro 2nd amendment Governor if we have the right candidate and organization. I'm not sure who that is yet; but fairly certain it will have to be someone who is very well spoken, pretty well connected, and extremely wealthy in order to compete. Best guess so far might be Gary Rabine. Darren Bailey is solidly pro 2nd amendment and wealthy by most of our standards; but not like it will likely take to get the seat. Remember that Pritzker donated somewhere around $176 million for his last campaign. He's probably more vulnerable now; but his opponent will need the financial resources to not only compete for Governor; but also help support pro 2nd amendment candidates so he can actually accomplish something if he gets elected.

Folks... I know this isn't popular; but I've been involved in a lot of legislative discussions over a lot of years and there are definitely times you have to choose how to use what political capital you have - especially when your perspective is not in the clear majority. There have been times, in my discussions, where the groups I participate in have remained neutral on legislation we were very opposed to. Usually, there is either a consideration on something else of higher priority to us or we know in advance that there is simply no way to kill it and public opposition will hurt us with support on other issues. To assume that ISRA's statement isn't accurate may be a bit naïve. When there is a supermajority of gun rights supporters and the governor is a staunch ally of the 2nd amendment cause, we can dictate the terms. Unfortunately, we have the opposite and sometimes have to negotiate for the least, worst legislation we can get. Elections are important and we need to try to get a pro second amendment Governor elected who would veto such bills instead of applying pressure to ensure they pass.

I had hoped the disparity pro/con of witness slips might make some moderates think twice about supporting. Unfortunately, I think the ISRA being neutral probably provided them some cover and the antis had some heavy hitters on their side who may contribute or withhold significant campaign contributions based upon their votes. It doesn't bode well for future interactions in Illinois. As I've said for a long time, I think our best chance still lies with SCOTUS rulings. Cross your fingers on those...

Patrick https://www.theillinoize.com/website sent an email saying the following.. "FOID VOTE WEDNESDAY Rep. Jay Hoffman (D-Swansea) confirmed to me last night he’s going to call the Senate version of the “Fix the FOID” bill Wednesday. The Senate and the House passed separate Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) bills before adjournment. The House version was seen as more restrictive, as it would have required anyone who wants a permit to own a gun to get fingerprinted. (Which, by the way, isn’t even required to get a concealed carry license.) The Senate bill makes it optional to get fingerprinted, but it would make the approval process faster. The Illinois State Rifle Association is neutral on the bill, so gun owners aren’t freaking out about it. In fact, State ISRA President Richard Pearson told me last week there are some things in the bill he thinks will speed up approval of the long-delayed cards. Our lovely friend Amanda Vinicky from WTTW has more here. The House bill only got exactly 60 votes at the end of May, but would require 71 to pass now. The less restrictive language may keep some downstate Democrats on board, but may peel off some more progressive Democrats from Chicago and the suburbs. I asked Hoffman if he thinks he has the votes and he wrote back simply “I don’t predict roll calls.”

I have absolutely no insight into what happened here; but a little insight into what sometimes happens with legislative deals. My guess is that the democrats had the votes to pass a Fix the FOID; but it would have put some moderate democrats in hot water with enough of their constituents they weren't really comfortable doing it so a deal was probably reached where ISRA would not take a position on some legislation to prevent other legislation from moving forward.

"Should have said 6-3". :-) Good grief. Saw 6-4 & thought the court packing had already began while i was away from the internet! ;-)

I suspect the money might have been better spent trying to keep the weasels out of the chicken house instead of trying to convince the weasels not to hurt the chickens once they're in.

"you'll know you're about to meet your creator unless you do something" I like this standard except for reaction time. Action beats reaction almost every time. I've watched enough active self protection videos to know that whole process takes time. I also had enough experience with timers in martial arts to know that reaction times vary dramatically between individuals and even within individuals under different circumstances. An example. At one point in my life, I was young, fit, and very active in martial arts. From a fighting position, I could hear the buzzer go off (randomly; but knew it would happen at some point), react, and strike a striking pad within 18/100ths of a second with a jab or 28/100th with a kick. Some very fit individuals couldn't do even the jab in less than 1/2 second. Now several years older and not fit nor active in martial arts, I probably couldn't start / stop a stopwatch in that time. Take your average person, add in age, disabilities, cover garments, lack of practice, other focus / distraction, lack of sleep, etc. and it could easily take someone two seconds to respond appropriately. A lot can happen in one second. A lot more can happen in two... In short, that standard may be sufficient for one person and woefully inadequate for another. I don't think one could or should apply it to all. We shouldn't encourage people to pull their firearm and shoot at someone stealing their bicycle or wave their firearm around needlessly; but we also shouldn't make someone so afraid of pulling their firearm that they are unable to defend themselves.

My fear is that "Upon further consultation with the Department of Justice and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, ATF is withdrawing, pending further Department of Justice review, the notice and request for comments entitled “Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with `Stabilizing Braces',” that was published on December 18, 2020." translates to Trump's appointee did not approve so we'll have to wait until Biden's does.

FWIW: At one time, for some bills, the witness slips have made a difference. Not so much on many though... :-( My first reaction to this was mixed. Did the ATF withdraw to ensure it is less of an issue in the Georgia Senate elections? Did the ATF withdraw because Biden's group will push something even more severe?

President-elect Joe Biden embraced sweeping gun reform as a candidate, including promises to implement universal background checks, ban the sale of assault-style weapons, and incentivize red flag laws and state licensing programs. But how expansive Democrats and violence prevention groups can be in enacting that agenda hinges on the dual Senate runoffs in Georgia. If Republicans win just one of those races, they’ll retain control of the Senate — and with it, the ability to stymie Democratic legislation. There’s a blueprint for what the Biden administration may do if faced with a Senate that refuses to act on gun reform: Biden’s own experience as vice president under Barack Obama. After the Sandy Hook school shooting, Biden led the administration’s effort to pass background check legislation and an assault weapons ban. When the Republican-controlled Senate blocked those bills, Biden’s office led the effort to address gun violence via executive actions. But many gun safety advocates viewed the measures Obama took back in 2013 and 2016 as too narrow, with negligible impact on the country’s elevated rates of gun homicides, assaults, and suicides. It’s possible that Biden will confront a similar situation in his first term, pushed to act on a range of policy issues by going it alone. And as it turns out, there are quite a few paths forward. “We know even more now about the potential opportunities that exist for non-legislative approaches to addressing different aspects of gun violence,” Chelsea Parsons, vice president for gun violence prevention at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, told me. Some of those options are straightforward: Biden could create an interagency task force, coordinating from the White House the efforts of different agencies to address the causes and consequences of gun violence. Others would be a heavier lift, like using the ATF’s rulemaking authority to more heavily regulate or prohibit the sale of certain firearm models, accessories, or components under the National Firearms Act. The agency could also make rules to address the threat of “ghost guns,” unmarked DIY firearms that can elude background checks and are difficult to track in criminal investigations. You can read a full breakdown in my latest for The Trace. —Chip Brownlee, investigative fellow WHAT TO KNOW THIS WEEK Support for stricter gun laws dipped to the lowest level — 57 percent — since 2016, a new Gallup poll found. Just 22 percent of Republicans favor stricter regulations — the lowest percentage since the poll began. A three-day Virginia gun show expected to attract 25,000 people was canceled after a judge ruled against organizers’ request to be exempt from pandemic restrictions on public gatherings. There were 51 hate crime murders in 2019, the highest number since the FBI began collecting that data in the early 1990s. The total includes a racially fueled mass shooting at an El Paso Walmart that left 23 people dead. 69 percent of pandemic gun buyers have thought about ending their life, compared to 37 percent for the rest of the firearm community, a new study found. New research refutes the notion that bail reforms have contributed to rising gun violence in Chicago. Police data in New York City debunked a similar argument there. In his first public interview, the 17-year-old Kenosha protest shooter said he was justified in bringing an assault-style rifle to racial justice protests. Related: Ahead of the shooting, Facebook failed to enforce an internal policy that barred event pages from encouraging people to bring weapons for the purposes of intimidation or harassment. The NRA has so far spent $1.7 million supporting the Republican candidates in Georgia’s Senate run-offs — all of it within the last week. During the regular 2020 election cycle, the gun group spent about $7 million on Congressional races overall. The gun group will spend a separate seven-figure sum to resolve one of its many legal problems: The organization has agreed to pay a $2.5 million settlement following civil charges brought by the State of New York regarding its controversial self-defense-shooting insurance. The NRA also agreed not to sell insurance in the state for five years. Missouri parents who lost their son to gun violence were awarded $4 million in damages from a former firefighter who trafficked the handgun. The parents also sued the handgun’s manufacturer, Jimenez Arms, but that suit is on hold because the company has filed for bankruptcy.

Just based upon the segment posted, that sounds like an excellent case to bring forward to the new SCOTUS.

I'm glad Amy got confirmed. I really don't know if there'd be time to replace another before election.

soundguy: I'm genuinely intrigued. How do you reconcile within yourself supporting an anti-second amendment radical who will likely attempt to destroy your second amendment rights if you are truly a second amendment supporter? You seem rationale in most of your posts and I imagine your reply will touch on other stuff being more important to you; but gosh. It just doesn't jive. Trump has done more good for the 2nd amendment, the economy, the poor, justice reform, and world peace in four years than O/B did in eight years and he did it while battling a very hostile House for two of those and the main stream media / entrenched establishment for all four. I'm right smack dab in the middle of the covid 19 crap and though I'm not convinced that Trump has handled it well, I'm also not convinced that Clinton nor Biden would have handled it better. I suspect they would have done worse. I also suspect all the rioting / looting / violence in the big Dem cities would have been much worse too. I have relatives and friends that support Biden and I still love / like them; but...

Good article at the following link... https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/10/symposium-barretts-history-first-approach-to-the-second-amendment/#more-297166 Helps illustrate why the antigun folks are so anti-Barrett and gives the rest of us more hope in our rights being fully recognized. She's got to get on SCOTUS first; but that is currently looking pretty good and once on... It is my hope that the new (solid and hopefully long lived) majority will rule that most of the 2nd amendment related restrictions are unconstitutional. FOID, SBR, suppressors, higher capacity magazines, restrictions by village, knife laws, etc... May lead to more individual freedoms than we've been allowed to enjoy for a very long time. All as a result of Trump getting elected and Mitch pushing good judges through. If Hillary had been elected and Democrats had taken the Senate we would have been in a very bad position for the rest of our lives. Elections matter. I hope the older conservative SCOTUS members are leading healthy lives, taking precautions, and being careful. If Trump gets reelected and the Republications keep the Senate, I hope they consider retiring in time for Trump to appoint their replacement to help ensure the court stays strong long into the future.

Lilguy: I remember many of the same sentiments expressed many, many times on this forum about the possibility of concealed carry ever becoming legal in Illinois. I also remember being so dejected with the imminent election of Hillary that I purchased two high end A/R 15s and several dozen 30 round magazines about a month before the last presidential election. I also remember pointedly not listening to election results for some time even after my brother called to say Trump was winning and even later when my wife said he was winning. Only until later in the evening did I tune in and watch the remainder of the results. That was incredible. I'm hoping for a repeat. Ranger

Really like MauserMe's perspective. Agree that Trump has no direct control over Illinois' FOID situation; but would like to say that he does have and has exercised some indirect influence by appointing second amendment friendly judges who may ultimately decree that the FOID is unconstitutional. Appointment of those judges is one of the ways in which a President can exert long term influence and Trump / Mitch have done an excellent overall job with that.

The Trace is an antigun group. I subscribed to their email just to gain insight into their warped minds. Here is a recent article they sent out that I thought was informative and might be of interest. The Supreme Court fight and the future of gun laws Judge Amy Coney Barrett began meeting with Senators this week ahead of what Republicans hope to be an expedited confirmation process that installs her on the Supreme Court before Election Day. Her appointment would solidify a 6-3 conservative majority and have profound repercussions — potentially within weeks if election lawsuits end up before the high court as some predict. Barrett’s confirmation is also likely to usher in a sea change in how the court approaches the Second Amendment, as Trace contributor Olivia Li has been reporting. Part of that comes from Barrett’s legal philosophy. Even many Republican-appointed judges have considered a local government’s justifications for enacting a gun reform — for instance, public safety concerns — in assessing its constitutionality. But Barrett prefers a “text, history, and tradition” test that calls on courts to restrict themselves to historical precedent in determining whether a regulation is legal. To break it all down for you, I asked Olivia to walk me through what Barrett’s ascension to the court could mean for gun violence prevention. Why would adding Barrett to the Court be so potentially significant for gun laws in the United States? Conservatives already have a majority. Here’s the important math: You need five justices on your side to win a case, but only four to agree to put your case on the docket. Barrett’s confirmation would mean that there are enough justices to put Second Amendment cases on the docket, which the Court has refused to do for a decade. Yes, there are already five conservative Justices, but according to law professors I’ve spoken with, Chief Justice John Roberts is seen as a wild card on guns. The other four conservatives didn’t want to put a Second Amendment case on the docket only to have Roberts side against them in the final opinion. So just how big a challenge would a Justice Barrett pose for the gun reform movement? The gun safety movement is pro-regulation, advocating for restrictions like red flag laws, possession bans for felons, universal background checks, strict permit rules for public carry, bans on high-capacity magazines — the list goes on. The text, history, and tradition analysis that Judge Barrett favors — and which Justices Kavanaugh and Thomas already embrace — could find some of those gun violence prevention laws unconstitutional. It is impossible to predict exactly which policies are vulnerable to a historical test on the Supreme Court. But looking at dissents by judges who have used it in past cases offers pretty strong clues. Justice Kavanaugh would have struck down D.C.’s weapons registration requirements, and its ban on semi-automatic rifles. Justice Thomas would have struck down New Jersey’s “may issue” standard for concealed gun permits. Judge Barrett said that blanket felon dispossession laws are unconstitutional when applied to nonviolent offenders; a judge on the 9th Circuit said something similar about mental illness-related dispossession laws; a 9th Circuit opinion recently declared California’s ban on high-capacity magazines unconstitutional. (Though the judges in that case used the current balancing test, they took a really history-heavy approach.) If Barrett is confirmed and the text, history, and tradition test becomes the Court’s standard for gun cases, could progressive lawmakers craft gun restrictions that still meet that standard? If it replaces the current balancing test — and that’s a big if — government officials would need to be able to defend their laws in historical terms. The pro-gun side has already been doing that for decades. A ton of intellectual capital (and NRA money) went into the project of redefining the right to bear arms as an individual right, and it finally paid off with Heller. With Barrett on the Court, we might see lawyers on the pro-regulation side spending more time researching the history of gun laws and developing scholarship on the history of gun restrictions. –Tom Kutsch, newsletter editor WHAT TO KNOW THIS WEEK During the first presidential debate, President Trump refused to denounce white supremacist and armed militia groups who’ve committed violence during this year’s protests and urged his followers to patrol polling sites. In a Washington Post column, gun scholar Robert Spitzer explained how fears of election intimidation, specifically with guns, long predate the Trump era. On the day of the debate, an FBI field office issued a warning about the threat of far-right boogaloo extremists, identifying the period between presidential election and inauguration as a “potential flashpoint.” Trump administration officials were directed to make public comments sympathetic to the 17-year-old charged with fatally shooting two protesters in Kenosha, according to internal DHS talking points obtained by NBC News. Chicago released a comprehensive violence reduction plan that leans heavily into treating gun violence as a public health crisis. The blueprint prioritizes community anti-violence organizations, but lacks detail on costs and how the city intends to cover them. A federal judge ruled that former NRA donors have standing to continue a fraud suit against the gun group. Meanwhile, New York regulators delayed a hearing over civil charges brought against the NRA for violating state insurance laws. The California attorney general is suing the ATF to compel the bureau to define ghost gun assembly kits as firearms, which would subject their buyers to background checks. Military suicides have increased by as much as 20 percent this year compared to the same period in 2019. Army officials cite pandemic-related isolation, financial disruptions, remote schooling, and deployments made longer by mandatory quarantines. The storied gunmaker Remington will be broken up and sold following a bankruptcy auction. It’s not clear what the dissolution means for Sandy Hook families in their lawsuit against the company. MORE FROM OUR REPORTERS The case that could topple the gun industry’s special legal protections. For the last 15 years, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act has protected gunmakers and sellers from most liability lawsuits. That special status was put in jeopardy when a Pennsylvania appeals court deemed the law unconstitutional this week. If the ruling stands, gun companies won’t be able to use the law to dismiss a lawsuit in the state. If it’s appealed all the way to the Supreme Court and struck down, the gun industry could be exposed to the kinds of product-liability suits that forced sweeping reforms in the pharmaceutical, tobacco, and automotive industries, legal experts tell Champe Barton. The growing movement to send counselors to some 911 calls instead of cops. A quarter of people shot and killed by cops in the U.S. over the last five years suffered from mental illness, according to The Washington Post’s fatal police shootings database. As part of the nationwide movement to reimagine policing, a handful of cities are experimenting with programs that they say provide a potentially life-saving alternative to traditional law enforcement responses — and save millions of dollars in the process. Advocates told Jennifer Mascia why crisis workers can make better first responders for people with severe mental illness. The Trace is hiring.We’re looking for a managing editor to keep copy flowing, supervise our engagement and community editors, and work with our other editors and our newsroom operations coordinator to ensure our dogged reporters have the support they need. We’re also hiring a story editor to lead a team of our writers as they pursue high-impact articles and projects. The deadline for both positions is October 16, and we’re accepting applications at info@thetrace.org.

cybermgk: Very well stated... It always ticks me off to hear how solid blue Illinois is. I point out that in an electoral map, the vast majority of the counties are red.

I heard a good ad for cates; but saw sign for her in same yard as signs for bide# and other dems. Makes me nervous.

Yeah. Even if Amy gets confirmed, we can't assume that we'll have a solid majority on SCOTUS for long unless Trump is reelected and the Republicans keep the Senate. If Trump is reelected and the Republicans keep the Senate, there is a huge potential to have a great SCOTUS with possible replacement of Stevens and some others.

Not sure who would be the best choice. Barrett is proven. Logoa might help with Florida and hispanic populations. My concern there is if she might feel kinship and side sometimes with Sotamayor. That Rushing is so young might indicate she'd have a greater chance of serving a long time on SCOTUS which is attractive; but I'm not that knowledgeable about her past. I have to assume that all of them are solid or they wouldn't be at the point they are. I'm impressed that Romney is supporting the vote and not the delay. Surprised me.

Ted Cruz did a great job in that interview. I am impressed!

Murkowski, romney, collins... is there a fourth? Hopefully not.

She was certainly tough.