Concealed-carry moves closer to passage in state House

Concealed-carry moves closer to passage in state House

SPRINGFIELD -- State representatives Tuesday approved a number of amendments to a concealed-carry law (HB 1155) that would allow Illinoisans to carry weapons in public, although they would have to meet certain requirements and many locations would be off-limits.

The bill remains on second reading on the House floor. More amendments could be considered.

The historic 67-48 vote came after more than nine hours of debate on legislation that became a necessity after a federal appeals court ordered Illinois to pass a concealed-carry law by early June.

All area representatives voted for the bill except Rep.Naomi Jakobsson, D-Urbana.

Illinois is the only state that currently does not allow some form of concealed-carry. Past attempts to approve a concealed-carry law in Illinois were defeated mainly by Chicago area Democrats.

Under the legislation, Illinois would be a "shall-issue" state, meaning that larger numbers of citizens would be able to acquire permits. Permit holders also would have to go through eight hours of training including live fire training, and would have to undergo a criminal history background check. They would have to pay an $80 fee for a 5-year permit.

As written, there would be no limitation on the number of weapons a permit-holder could carry, said Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg, whose amendment became, in large part, the final bill. Still, he said the bill "is more restrictive than we ever wanted it to be."

Weapons could not be carried in schools and child care facilities, libraries, local government buildings, stadiums, places of worship, casinos and on mass transit.

Phelps' amendment also would allow colleges and universities to prohibit the carrying of a firearm on campus.

An earlier amendment giving college and universities the power to regulate weapons on their campuses -- a measure sponsored by state Rep. Naomi Jakobsson, D-Urbana -- was the first one to be rejected Tuesday. It failed by a 50-56 margin, with five lawmakers voting present.

Another Jakobsson amendment, restricting firearms in hospitals and in mental health facilities, was approved by the House.

That amendment was approved 64-45, but her amendment addressing guns on university and college campuses was a different story.

Members of her own party attacked it for being confusing and for allegedly violating an agreement between Phelps and representatives of colleges and universities.

Rep. Monique Davis, D-Chicago, said allowing each institution to write its own regulations would be confusing to gun owners.

"I think it's expecting too much for someone to have to look up each location in Illinois and see if it's safe to carry a gun there," said Davis.

Phelps asked Jakobsson to pull the amendment from the record because the language was different from what had been agreed to and included in his legislation.

"We had a deal," said Phelps. "A deal is a deal, especially in the General Assembly."

Comments

News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

mark taylor's ghost wrote on March 01, 2013 at 10:03 am

Yes!!!!

That way the roving bands of Rick Santorum's 'blah people' that hold the 'liberal cities' hostage on a daily basis will be better able to.....

Oh, never mind.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on March 01, 2013 at 10:03 am

As the totally totally normal and not at all paranoid loony toons sociopaths say:

An armed society is a polite society!!!!!!!!11!

Bulldogmojo wrote on March 01, 2013 at 11:03 am

Highspeed, Did you have a loaded firearm inside your vehicle? I'm pretty sure you just admitted to a crime of improper firearm transport. Maybe the NG should report your true identitiy to the police for investigation.

SaintClarence27 wrote on March 01, 2013 at 11:03 am

I would certainly feel safer if they did.

Sid Saltfork wrote on March 01, 2013 at 11:03 am

No, the News Gazette should not report him!  Let him express his opinion along with the others.  People need to know the mindset of the "guns for everyone" people.  This needs exposure.  People need to know the problems that conceal and carry will bring to racism, bigotry, and ignorance.

Plus if the newspapers reported this stuff, it would only be fodder for the conspiracy loons. 

Bulldogmojo wrote on March 01, 2013 at 12:03 pm

I don't think he was expressing an opinion or philosophy, he was describing how he broke laws related to gun ownership in an actual incident at an actual location. I'm pretty sure if you confess to criminal acts in the NG posting thread you should be reported for it.

Laws related to guns in a vehicle are pretty specific and apparently this guy has no regard for them and doesn't care who knows it.

Three statutory codes regulate the possession, transfer,

and transportation of fi rearms - the Criminal Code, the

Wildlife Code, and the Firearm Owner’s Identifi cation Act.

In order to comply with those statutes when transporting

a fi rearm, it must be:

1. broken down in a non-functioning state; or

2. not immediately accessible; or

3. unloaded and enclosed in a case, fi rearm

carrying box, shipping box, or other container

by a person who has been issued a currently

valid Firearm Owner’s Identifi cation Card.

Sid Saltfork wrote on March 01, 2013 at 12:03 pm

Bulldogmojo;  I think that he made it up to sound tough.  Even if he is busted, he will just say that he was trying to impress people on how cool he was with a gun.  There are no witnesses.  There never were any witnesses.  He was only verbalizing his fantasies.  The problem will be when the John Wayne wantabees act out their fantasies.  We are going to see a lot of showoffs inadvertingly showing their hidden guns. 

The best way for people to show the absudity of hidden guns is to boycott businesses that allow guns in their establishments.  Let the restaurants, stores, shops, and other establishments know that they need to post signs indicating either "No Guns", or "Guns Welcome".  People can choose where to spend their money safely that way.

Bulldogmojo wrote on March 01, 2013 at 12:03 pm

and if he didn't make it up? What then the next time?

I think just based on the usual postings on the CC subject odds are excellent he wasn't kidding just dumb enough to admit it.

SaintClarence27 wrote on March 01, 2013 at 12:03 pm

I'm all for that, but not so I can patronize certain establishments that don't allow guns, but so I don't unknowingly walk into the middle of a Mexican standoff at Wal Mart.

mattd149 wrote on March 01, 2013 at 1:03 pm

had he been a real thug he would have probably shot you out of principle.  showing someone your gun is likely to escelate the situation than deter it when dealing with someone looking for trouble. pretty sad you needed to pull out your gun to someone coming up to you to ask for change for a 20.  I bet its hard to sleep at night afraid someone will come get you. heaven help the boy scouts or girl scouts coming to your door trying to sell something.  Maybe you should stick to washing your car at home.

Donwayne wrote on March 01, 2013 at 1:03 pm

You are right likely a junkie looking for a few bucks for a fix I see them at car washes as well as other places. It is a sad thing but so many sheltered people would never be able to really know what they are looking at. Not all people should be able to carry and all of us could all do with a bit of training before we do so. Just hope this dumb state allows ex military and good police officers to give us this training and not some idiot or student's tex book I read about it somewhere test.

Bulldogmojo wrote on March 01, 2013 at 2:03 pm

If you have time to prepare an illegally stored weapon in your car you have time to call 911 after you drive off. All you really want is to take the law into your own hands and kill someone. Armed escalation is just that and stop pretending that Champaign Urbana is like Syria. It's not

The guy put in his post... "I laid the pistol on the seat, and when the guy walked up to the drivers side i pointed to the seat. He saw the pistol and turned and walked away"

How big of a threat could he honestly think this stranger was?? He had time to prepare and load an illegally stored weapon and casually waited for the guy to get in arms reach before he showed him the weapon. He was looking for an altercation.

Just a patriot looking to defend his homeland I guess.

LocalTownie wrote on March 01, 2013 at 2:03 pm

Do all of you live in an alternate universe?? Gun control doesn't work! Look at CHICAGO. The highest murder rate in the country. Hello!?!?!


You sit there behind your little computer, or mobile device and think that if people in Illinois (the only state without conceal carry laws) are allowed to carry then oh my god it's going to be like the wild west and everyone is going to be shooting up the town. Give me a break, get real. Is this wild west murdering madness happening anywhere else?? Oh wait, yes it is. The place with the strictest gun control in the country. Chicago.


What we need are reasonable conceal carry laws, a better court system to deal with criminals, and better care for the mentally ill. Not a bunch of fear mongering liberals shouting "guns are bad!" all over the place, you aren't helping anyone.

Sid Saltfork wrote on March 01, 2013 at 3:03 pm

LocalTownie;  First, this is not Chicago.  Second, what are "reasonable conceal and carry laws"?   Please elaborate.  Third, it is not the "fear mongering liberals" that are shouting for conceal and carry.  It is the "fear mongering" insecure who are shouting for conceal and carry.

I am not even going to address Duwayne's comments, even the "tex book" comment.  I hope he keeps commenting.  He demonstrates who wants to pack a hidden gun.

LocalTownie wrote on March 01, 2013 at 4:03 pm

Sid, you must live in a bubble and never ever think you could be violated by a criminal away from your home. And I didn't say liberals were FOR conceal carry, if you are going to comment maybe read the post you are commenting on a little more thoroughly. I also never said Champaign was Chicago, but if you listen to the politicians out there, they'd have us all believe that the more gun control, the better. That has proven to be false.

SaintClarence27 wrote on March 01, 2013 at 4:03 pm

The less gun control, the better, has proven to be false. Not sure what you mean with your statement, or if that's ACTUALLY proven to be false. Gun control has to be universal - with the ease of transporting guns between cities and states, unless we have federal laws, it's going to be awfully difficult to enforce. So perhaps the phrase would be better stated as "Current state and municipal-level gun control laws have proven less than totally effective in eliminating gun crimes." That would be true. But it also can't be overgeneralized as you did.

Sid Saltfork wrote on March 01, 2013 at 7:03 pm

LocalTownie;  No, you said "the fear mongering liberals" were calling for no guns.  It is the "fear mongering" insecure that are calling for conceal and carry.  You used Chicago as an example of criminals with guns when we are in Champaign County.  Hardly the same gun violence problem.

What are you willing to compromise on for reasonable gun control?  Would you compromise on a national data bank for comprehensive background checks?  Would you compromise on the size of semi-auto magazines?  Would you compromise on required liability insurance for gun owners to cover collateral damage?  What would be reasonable? 

Bulldogmojo wrote on March 01, 2013 at 3:03 pm

699 people murdered with guns in Texas in 2011 that concealed carry couldn't and didn't prevent.

CC is not a panacea for stopping crime.

I also find it impossible to believe that all the so called "law abiding" CC proponents who claim their lives are hanging in the balance everytime they leave the house are refraining from concealed carry until it's officially legal. Not based on the postings under this article by some of these Yosemite Sams

I'm sure these people had permits for their guns too FAIL

Sid Saltfork wrote on March 01, 2013 at 3:03 pm

Donwayne;  I just read the comment you posted earlier regarding your family member.  I am sorry for your loss.  I have felt loss, and anger in my life also.  Prayer helps for some people during times like your going through.  Please remember "What goes around comes around".  You don't have to be the one who punishes him.  His bad will be visited back on him.  The others in you life need you to be strong, and avoid the temptation for vengence.  Sorry if I come across as preachy in this comment.  Again, sorry about your loss.

recshooter wrote on March 01, 2013 at 10:03 pm

Sid, you completely misunderstood his post.  I took it to imply that he believed that had CCW been legal, then the event would have never taken place as the CCW law is a huge deterrent to criminals; secondly, had a CCW citizen been present he/she could have stopped it and prevented this young girl form loosing here life.  Plain and simple.

I also did not take his comments to mean he was a vigilante, but rather that he would not be afraid to step in himself if he were to ever encounter a similar situation.  Your mindset of waiting for the Police is not always a viable life saving option.

You obviously don’t care for guns and think they should all be outlawed.  I don’t care much for golf, but don’t insist that golf clubs be outlawed.  I wouldn’t be surprised if more people have died from being attacked by golf clubs rather than the so called assault rifle you anti-gunner want to outlaw.  If you don’t use or understand guns, you probably don’t have the knowledge to respectfully argue the merits.  If you don’t like guns you should just say so and stop trying to twist facts.  All of the other states have concealed carry and their violent crime numbers have decreased as a result.  They don’t eliminate them, but they have made a huge difference.

Your right this is not Chicago, and I hope it never gets that bad here but our crime rates are rising and I am looking foreword to the CCW law deterring them.

It is perfectly legal in Illinois right now to carry a handgun in the glove compartment or center console of your vehicle as long as it is not loaded.  A loaded clip next to the gun is also legal.  And, no I do not carry one in my vehicle. Kind of stupid as it can’t do me much good locked up at home.  However, I realize that it is much more secure at home from theft.  I also believe that as a gun owner, it is my responsibility to keep my guns secure from theft and out of the hands of criminals.

I can load my gun much quicker that I can dial 911.  If I were in a situation where I needed my gun (if I had one in my vehicle), I would probably load it, then try to get away from the situation and lastly call 911 if I am still convinced that the threat was real and warranted. 

Carrying a hand gun is not for everyone and in my opinion requires training and recurrent training, not only on the ability to properly shoot and hit the intended target, but on making the right decision of when and when not to use it.

I don’t object to background checks either, but we already do that in Illinois in issuing FOID cards.

What we should be doing is enforcing the laws we already have, getting rid of the ones that don’t work and actually protecting the general population from those who do not respect the lives or property of others, regardless of whether or not a gun was used.  Way to often we see that some career criminal gets a minimal sentence and returned back to roam the streets in search of a new victim. 

In my opinion it should not matter if the victim died or not, the fact still remains that the criminal showed he/she could care a less of someone else’s life and should not be returned to the streets where he/she will again threaten society.

I do not own my guns for hunting or for personal protection.  The thought of killing an animal or human is not what I enjoy about guns and shooting.  I am perfectly happy with the sport of target shooting and is my intent of owning my guns.  However, if someone was intent on hurting my family, I would have no problem using one of my guns to stop them.

Bulldogmojo wrote on March 01, 2013 at 11:03 pm

A headline you will never see..."Crazed golfer kills 20 children, then himself with club"

I know I shouldn't speak on behalf of Sid but I don't think he is a gun hater who just is reluctant to admit it. Some of us posting on here are alarmed at how some gun owners sit around thinking up scenarios in which they paint themselves into about putting would be criminals down in a gun battle in their living rooms or carwashes or in neighborhoods of different cities where they wouldn't go anyway, or into apocalyptic end of world scenarios usually dreamt up by christian poser, conservative conspiracy nuts who pride themselves on being right only two times a day like a broken clock. This of course validates to themselves that the rest of their over-inflated fears born of self loathing are in some basis of reality. They present no solutions to societal problems other than to identify the type of person they are going to kill in their future fantasy conflicts and with what caliber weapon. Strangely the few times I have called 911 in my life for fire rescue/police they were there johnny on the spot including the time I was the victim of an armed mugging near the Millikin University campus and they caught the guys in minutes. (and no I don't wish I was armed drawing a weapon because he for sure would have killed me over about $50. in cash and some credit cards)

The CC advocates of course demand the right to be armed at all times as a birth right. The police by their estimation just don't measure up in some way although most of them claim to have close family and friends who are cops who must be honored by the slights and now the increased risks of armed resistence. Maybe we should allow guns in courthouses as part of no "infringment" so if by your standards justice was not administered properly you could just shoot the defendant skipping all of the levels of law and order of a democratic society.

I for one would be happy to give my personal support to concealed carry with the stipulation that if at the end of, oh lets say the first three years, the crime rate does not drop by at least 50% that concealed carry gets repealed. We are going to find out aren't we? Who will you blame then if the crime rate doesn't go down? I'm guessing anybody but yourselves and Alex Jones.

I also wonder how many of these concealed carry proponents would want it if only women could conceal carry firearms? It would certainly level the violence against women playing field wouldn't it?

 

Sid Saltfork wrote on March 02, 2013 at 9:03 am

recshooter;  Don't read much.. Uh.   I have a FOID card.  I am a gun owner.  I have been trained on the use of a pistol, rifle, and shotgun.  I have my gun for home defense.  I do have a problem with the John Wayne wantabees claiming it is their right to pack a hidden gun into any place they want.  I do not want them in stores I frequent.  I do not want them in my grandkids schools.  I do not want them in my church.  I do not want them in hospitals, public government offices, libraries, or other places where people gather to be safe.  I do not trust the "good guy" baloney.  I have seen too many "good guys" do something bad either on purpose, or by mistake.

Yes, I feel the police are the ones best to handle things.  I have not seen in my many years the need to carry a hidden gun.  The madness of all of the Rambos out there packing hidden guns is that others feel they need hidden guns.  It is a self fullfilling prophecy.  Go out there and bang away at your sport targets while fantasizing that your shooting "bad guys".  I still do not understand what in the H... heck a "recreational shooter" is other than a day dreamer living out their fantasies.

Citizen1 wrote on March 02, 2013 at 7:03 am

Joe American has it right.  Every other comment on this thread is moot.  A Constitutional right will not be limited or infringed.  Period.  End of discussion.  Not one of you will tell anyone else what we can and can not do.  Thank God.  Think about it.  This one right made us into a country in the first place.  Free and all that freedom means.  This one right may have been responsible for causing Japan to have second thoughts about an attack on US mainland during WW11.  Many of the silent out there agree.  We law abiding citizens will not be disarmed.

Sid Saltfork wrote on March 02, 2013 at 9:03 am

Citizen1;  Guns in the hands of citizens had nothing to do with Japan not attacking the US mainland in WWII.  It was logistics.  You keep reaching really down deep to justify conceal and carry.  "Not one of you will tell anyone else what we can and can not do."  Really.... walk down Green Street while smoking a joint.  Laws tell all of us what we can, and cannot do. 

I am not so sure that you are a "law abiding citizen" either.  With that mindset, you eventually will mess up.  Like shooting coyotes from your vehicle.

Bulldogmojo wrote on March 02, 2013 at 12:03 pm

Too late it already has been infringed. You should do some homework and read some Supreme court rulings (or have someone read them aloud to you) and yes I agree guns made the beginnings of this country when they executed most of the HUMANS THAT WERE ALREADY HERE FIRST!!!

Oh yeah I almost forgot...Period!

bluegrass wrote on March 03, 2013 at 5:03 pm

Perhaps it would be instructive to note, it is widely accepted that the cause of death for most Native Americans who died after European settlers entered into what would become the United States, was from disease/plague, and not from being executed by guns, as Bulldogmojo suggests.  I'm not defending the actions of the U.S. Government, but I think that when making an argument by calling someone out for not doing their homework, the rule should also apply to the writer.

Sid Saltfork wrote on March 04, 2013 at 9:03 am

I wonder how many conceal and carry zealots have been vaccinated for small pox?

Bulldogmojo wrote on March 04, 2013 at 10:03 am

So Indian reservations are/were quarantine facilities? Really? Once again spoon feeding you the meaning. Our so called great country we "founded" was already "found" before. We just conducted a lethal colonization. Why don't you make up a blugrass flag on your sewing machine and plant it in your neighbor's backyard and declare you are "founding" his property and tell him it is now yours...because you have a flag...all you need is a flag...a flag...a flag... a flag and a gun...a gun.

bluegrass wrote on March 04, 2013 at 1:03 pm

Ohhhh.  I finally understand where all the negative energy comes from.  You're expressing your guilt of being an American and living in the greatest nation in the history of the world, with anger towards others who disagree with you politically.  Probably a white male, too?  Maybe aging a bit?  Becoming an old white guy is tough.    

Well, as I said before, I'm here for you.  Despite having seen and enjoyed the Eddie Izzard flag bit, I continue fly an American flag in my yard.  And, as you might expect, I also enjoy exercising my rights under the 2nd Amendment.  I'm sorry that makes you angry.  Can you ever forgive me?  Or, more to the point, can you ever forgive, Yourself?

Sid Saltfork wrote on March 04, 2013 at 5:03 pm

Hey, blue.  I don't have any guilt about it.  I don't have any guilt about anything that happened before I was born.  I fly an American Flag in my yard also.  I don't want your guns taken away any more than I want mine taken away.  I do want some reasonable gun regulations.  I want a national data base with comprehensive background checks.  I want restrictions on gun magazine size.  I want people not to bring hidden guns into public establishments, and governmental establishments.  Do you have problems with that?

bluegrass wrote on March 05, 2013 at 9:03 am

I want, I want, I want.  That's the problem with kids these days Sid.  You remind me of the neighbor in 1984 that turns other people in, and then is surprised when the man comes for him.  Courtesy of his children, I might add, who were only doing what they learned from their father. 


You and others of your mindset accept loss of liberty as an inevitability.  The only resistence I see from you is when the government threatens to take away a promised payment.  Even then, your solution is "shared pain."  The classic liberal solution, equality of misery.

Sid Saltfork wrote on March 05, 2013 at 12:03 pm

bluegrass;  You, and others accept that your government will take away your "liberties".  A democracy which elects it's governing body is going to take away your "liberties"?  No one is taking away your guns, or flag.  In fact if you want to fly a Nazi, or Confederate flag in your yard; your government of elected officials, and the Supreme Court defends your right to do it.  Your mindset is one of conspiracy theory.  Conspiracy theory is either based on insecurity, or ignorance.  We both know that you are not ignorant.  The danger with conspiracy theory is that it breeds traitors.  "1984" was a piece of fiction.  It was made up.  Your right though.  I would have no problem denouncing traitors to my nation's democracy. 

bluegrass wrote on March 05, 2013 at 2:03 pm

So according to you, conspiracy theory breeds traitors, and according to you my mindset is one of conspiracy theory...  So, in a non-so roundabout way, because I do not support your particular brand of 2nd Amendment infringement, I am a traitor to your nation's democracy.


Over the course of our conversations online, I have argued that the current set of laws we have in place with regard to gun control are sufficient.  During this time you have either outright accused me of or inferred that I am a traitor, a conspiracy theorist, and that I have advocated violence against the government.  Funny thing is you use all these terms to make the point that you are NOT the extremist.


Resisting the attempt of the state or federal governments in their quest to outlaw or ban or otherwise increase the limits on the types or number of firearms and/or ammunition I can legally purchase or own, does not make one a conspiracy theorist.  It's just a political battle.  Your side prefers to attempt to solve problems by laying restrictions on the entire citizenry, utilizing the shared pain approach.  My side is resistant to that line of reasoning.  If you can explain to me where the conspiracy theory lies in that, I'd be happy to hear it.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on March 05, 2013 at 5:03 pm

They're trying to STEAL OUR PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!

Wake up sheeple!!!1!

Bluegrass and the other ragin' keyboard commandos on here will PROTECT YOUR LIBERTAH and lead you to FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!11!

Sid Saltfork wrote on March 05, 2013 at 5:03 pm

bluegrass;  How can someone be an extremist if they are NOT advocating guns to protect their fellow citizens from a possible tyranical government?  Your the one crying about not changing any gun regulations because the government elected by the people may become abusive.  Are you a traitor?  No, I do not think that.  I do think that your interpretation of the Second Amendment lends itself to support traitors believing in a government conspiracy.  In all my many years, I have never seen the number of people crying for the need of guns to protect themselves from the U.S. government as there are now.  Look at how feeble their claims are about the "evil government".  If someone is advocating violence against the government elected by the people, they are a traitor.  We have seen enough mass murders, child abductions, and law enforcement personnel murders by loony tunes acting out a conspiracy theory fantasy. 

SaintClarence27 wrote on March 05, 2013 at 5:03 pm

Conspiracy theory doesn't necessarily breed traitors; it breeds dangerous people who THINK they are doing the right thing.

Sid Saltfork wrote on March 05, 2013 at 5:03 pm

and when they do what they THINK is the right thing based on conspiracy theory?  Are they not committing treason when they act out against others based on their perception of an evil government?

bluegrass wrote on March 05, 2013 at 9:03 pm

Yawn.  What the heck are you talking about traitors and treason?  Who is "they?"  Who has acted out against others?  Honestly, you people are hopeless.  An absolute lost cause.  Swallowed up, soup sandwiches.    You got me.  I give up.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on March 06, 2013 at 3:03 pm

Don't you DARE call me a sandwich!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At worst, I'm a pasta dish. Like linguini with a nice seafood medley. Possibly fetuccini marinara with clams.

But I AM NOT A SANDWICH!!!!!!!!!1!

Those are fightin' words and I'm feeling threatened. I'm fingering the trigger of my concealed carry piece and if you call me another food related item it's gonna be BAM BAM BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!11!

Bulldogmojo wrote on March 05, 2013 at 11:03 am

I for one am in complete agreement with sensible infringment of the 2nd amendment and the supreme court is as well...

Scalia; http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/07-290/

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons"

 

I suspect the only flag flying in Bluegrass' yard is the snake with "Don't tread on me" written underneath. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gadsden_flag.svg

 

bluegrass wrote on March 05, 2013 at 2:03 pm

Oh Bulldogmojo, there you go again......  I fly the American flag.  The Gadsden Flag is the one I drape myself in. 

Bulldogmojo wrote on March 05, 2013 at 3:03 pm

Yup, In the very same way you wrap yourself in the literalist version of the 2nd amendment.

Bulldogmojo wrote on March 02, 2013 at 4:03 pm

Well Well Well what have we here...   

"Federal Appeals Court: There Is No Second Amendment Right To A Concealed Firearm"

"A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which included a Reagan and a George W. Bush appointee, held unanimously on Friday that the Second Amendment does not protect a right to carry a concealed firearm: "

Kind of sounds like infringment. Rightfully so.

 

 

Sid Saltfork wrote on March 02, 2013 at 6:03 pm

Sadly, it is too late.  The Illinois Legislature would not wait for the decision.  They opened the door prematurely; or on purpose.  We are stuck with conceal and carry in some form while the legislators cash their checks from the lobbies, and NRA.

Wonder why the court's decision was not reported in the Illinois media?  Well, it will probably be there next week after the legislators have passed a bill.

virtualAnonymity wrote on March 02, 2013 at 9:03 pm

The 10th and 7th are different jurisdictions. The three wise men are slipping.

Bulldogmojo wrote on March 02, 2013 at 11:03 pm

Hardly... U.S. Supreme Court decisions are not made in a vacuum. Legal precedence and actual case decisions matter, unless you now believe there is a separate 10th and 7th district constitution. Two sets of founding fathers were there?

mark taylor's ghost wrote on March 03, 2013 at 6:03 am

Scalia was quoted thusly:

Concealed carry legislation ain't a ding dang thang but racial entitlements for Teabaggish-Americans!!!!!11!

[or words to that effect...]