Justice denied in Illinois

[itsa pain]

why has the 2nd amendment which was passed to keep a govt from taking freedoms which they are doing to the obsession with CC. guys want to carry at a wedding baptism on the couch in the shower. there is even a video with that clown ayoob showing how to get your gun out while sitting on a toilet. it makes gun owner look a little paranoid to carry a gun when there is a one in a billion chance you will get carjacked

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I live in IL. and the thought of some people carrying concealed is scary. criminals will get their girls to buy and get permit to carry for them.Not to mention our problem le, people! All in all it is not a good idea! Im sorry if this upsets, but we have gone without it until now.

Criminals don't already carry and use guns in Chicago (and other gun ban utopias in the USA)? Chicago has one of the highest gun violence rates in the country. "..we have gone without it until now..." Without what? Criminals facing the prospect that victims might be legally armed?

Don B. Kates, "Restricting Handguns: the Liberal Skeptics Speak Out", 1979 details testimony by the Chicago gun court judge on trying people caught carrying illegally. Maybe you would not carry a gun if you could not get a permit, but lack of permits has not deterred Chicago criminals, and ordinary citizens afraid of street crime, from acquiring and carrying guns in Chicago.

Since the Memphis Commercial Appeal made a point of putting up a searchable handgun carry permit database on their website of all permit holders in the state: "If we know who these people are who carry concealed weapons, we can give them wide berth and/or keep their actions under close scrutiny." -- "Greg" from Colliersville. When the local papers have run the name and age of persons committing crimes or reckless acts with handguns, I have run their names through the CommAppe permit database with no hits yet. Permit holders by and large don't commit crimes, and people who commit crimes with guns don't get permits to carry.

 

[tyeo098]

Don't feed the trolls guys.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

I wonder if the real reason for the extension was so that communities could enact new home rule gun laws before the new carry law takes effect.


The reason being, once the carry law passes too cannot create new gun laws, however, any gun laws made prior to the new carry laws effect is valid.
.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

One of the attacks on the Nazi gun control argument is in Bernard E. Harcourt, "On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars", 73 Forham Law Review 658, 2004.

Sometimes the opinion commentary contains an infamous
statement by Adolf Hitler himself, where he praises Germany's gun
registration system in these chilling terms:

This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized
nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police
more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future![20]

The quote has been published more than a hundred times in papers
across the country. In fact, a Lexis search of the news library returns
115 references to Hitler's statement.

20. This quote usually runs with some variant of the following attribution:
Adolph Hitler, 'Abschied vom Hessenland!' ['Farewell to Hessia!'], ['Berlin Daily'
(loose English translation)], Apr. 15, 1935, at 3, Einleitung Von Eberhard Beckmann
[Introduction by Eberhard Beckmann]. For an example of this attribution see ARMS,
Bearing of, at http://users.mstar2.net/brucewrites/d %20arms.htm (last visited Sept. 28,
2004). For examples of letters to the editors that include this infamous statement,
see, for example, Seth Kleinbeck, Wanted: Guns and Morals, Arkansas Democrat-
Gazette (Little Rock, Ark.), Sept. 27, 1998, at J5; Michael Paul Williams, Flag Salute's
Context is Revealing, Richmond Times Dispatch (Va.), Feb. 11, 2002, at B1.

The pro-gun folks at the talk.politics.guns web site,[77]
for instance, debunk the infamous Hitler quote.[78] They rely
primarily on the research of Clayton Cramer, a pro-gunner,[79] in his
book, Firing Back, which refutes the Hitler reference, and they tend,
to a certain extent-at least Cramer does-to minimize the
connection between gun registration and the Holocaust.'[80]

77. http://www.faqs.org/faqs/talk-politics-guns/pro-gun-faq/partl/ (last visited
Sept. 20, 2004).
78. See supra note 20.
79. Did Hitler Ban Gun Ownership? (June 16, 2000), at
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlergun.html.
80. Clayton E. Cramer, Firing Back (1994).

I think Harcourt further goes overboard to "debunk" the Nazi gun control argument by quoting (get this) William Pierce (author of "The Turner Diaries" and bigwig at the National Alliance & National Vanguard, a neonazi organisation) on how wonderful Nazi gun laws really were...for loyal nazis. I would not quote William Pierce ("Andrew MacDonald") saying the sky is blue. Gun politics does make strange bed fellows.


http://www.faqs.org/faqs/talk-politics-guns/pro-gun-faq/part1/
actually includes this:

Registration lists, in other countries, while produced with perhaps
the best intentions, have later been used by tyrannical governments to
disarm political opponents or targeted minorities, such as happened with
registration lists generated by the Weimar Republic when the Nazis came
to power in Germany. Anti-semitic laws were passed requiring that Jews
turn in their weapons, which most Jews dutifully did, unaware of the
horror of the Shoah which awaited. "Gun control" schemes, such as
these, have contributed to aiding and abetting genocides throughout this
century ....

It does not support the "infamous quote" attributed to Hitler, but it does not contradict the "Nazis used gun control to implement tyranny" either.

Following WWI and in complying with the Versailles restrictions, the Weimar Republic passed gun control laws to try to rein in the Freikorps, National Socialist, and Communist radicals who kept postwar Germany under a reign of terror. When the Nazis came to power, they modified these pre-existing laws to (a) assure arms to loyal Nazis and (b) deny arms to Jews and non-Nazis.

 

[r1derbike]

I live in IL. and the thought of some people carrying concealed is scary. criminals will get their girls to buy and get permit to carry for them.Not to mention our problem le, people! All in all it is not a good idea! Im sorry if this upsets, but we have gone without it until now.

I'm not upset. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and flawed assumption.

However, please do some thorough research on concealed carry statistics. They prove that it is a good idea. A very good idea.

 

[pendennis]

.

I wonder if the real reason for the extension was so that communities could enact new home rule gun laws before the new carry law takes effect.


The reason being, once the carry law passes too cannot create new gun laws, however, any gun laws made prior to the new carry laws effect is valid.
.

I'm not sure this logic would apply. When a superior government, i.e. state vs local, enacts a law which provides preeminence in the statutes, previously-passed local laws are rendered invalid by the state.

The hodgepodge of home rule laws have been over-ridden by a number of states to provide supremacy of state laws, and upheld in the various state courts.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

I'm not sure this logic would apply. When a superior government, i.e. state vs local, enacts a law which provides preeminence in the statutes, previously-passed local laws are rendered invalid by the state.

The hodgepodge of home rule laws have been over-ridden by a number of states to provide supremacy of state laws, and upheld in the various state courts.

But not the case in IL?
.

 

[pendennis]

But not the case in IL?
.

I would imagine that it depends on how "home rule" is defined, either statutorily, or in their state constitution.

As you probably already know, if home rule is statutory, then the Illinois legislature merely has to pass and enact appropriate legislation. If home rule is written into the constitution, then amending it may be the only option.

With the action of the Illinois legislature, it would seem that home rule is legislative in nature.

 

[Trent]

I would imagine that it depends on how "home rule" is defined, either statutorily, or in their state constitution.

As you probably already know, if home rule is statutory, then the Illinois legislature merely has to pass and enact appropriate legislation. If home rule is written into the constitution, then amending it may be the only option.

With the action of the Illinois legislature, it would seem that home rule is legislative in nature.

It's in the State Constitution. Daley made sure Chicago and Cook County were also carved out specifically in the 1970 constitution so he could keep his throne of power intact for generations to come.

E.g. Cook County is specifically named in the IL constitution to be the only home rule county in the state. It can write laws separately from the State of IL, punishable by misdemeanor offenses with up to 12 months of jail time.

And no, you probably do not want to consider spending 12 months in cook county jail, over violating a misdemeanor.

Cities which are home rule have similar powers.

Other counties can pass ordinances that carry fines and penalties, but those can only be petty offenses, with regulatory action. (e.g. zoning violations, permit violations, etc).

 

[pendennis]

It's in the State Constitution. Daley made sure Chicago and Cook County were also carved out specifically in the 1970 constitution so he could keep his throne of power intact for generations to come.

E.g. Cook County is specifically named in the IL constitution to be the only home rule county in the state. It can write laws separately from the State of IL, punishable by misdemeanor offenses with up to 12 months of jail time.

And no, you probably do not want to consider spending 12 months in cook county jail, over violating a misdemeanor.

Cities which are home rule have similar powers.

Other counties can pass ordinances that carry fines and penalties, but those can only be petty offenses, with regulatory action. (e.g. zoning violations, permit violations, etc).

Thanks, Trent, for your input. As you can see, I'm not an Illinois resident, so I don't have a good handle on your constitution.

I'd like to add another dimension here. The Federal bench has entered the fray here. By judicial order, the state had to pass a law. While home rule may be "Illinois constitutional", the input of a Federal judge may take precedence.

There's precedence out there for Federal judges to over-ride state constitutions. The Ninth Judicial District has done a lot of amending to California's constitution, regardless the will of its citizens. The state of Michigan currently has a case on appeal in the Sixth Circuit over a state constitutional amendment banning set asides and race-favorable treatment.

 

[Trent]

Thanks, Trent, for your input. As you can see, I'm not an Illinois resident, so I don't have a good handle on your constitution.

I'd like to add another dimension here. The Federal bench has entered the fray here. By judicial order, the state had to pass a law. While home rule may be "Illinois constitutional", the input of a Federal judge may take precedence.

There's precedence out there for Federal judges to over-ride state constitutions. The Ninth Judicial District has done a lot of amending to California's constitution, regardless the will of its citizens. The state of Michigan currently has a case on appeal in the Sixth Circuit over a state constitutional amendment banning set asides and race-favorable treatment.

The challenge wasn't to IL's constitution (although, there are grounds to do so, since our state Constitution grants the right to bear arms "Subject to police power").

The court didn't demand that Illinois craft a new law, per se, rather, the Federal court said "We're nullifying your unlawful use of weapons code because it's unconstitutional, but we're staying our mandate for 180 days to allow you to craft a new law."

Illinois isn't REQUIRED to craft a new law.

And Illinois's new law doesn't fully address the issue.

The old UUW laws pertaining to punishment for carrying a firearm are being nullified.

Illinois created a NEW system for licensing concealed carry, but OVERLOOKED fixing the old law which is going away.

The way this is going down, we may end up with some weird hybrid of concealed carry and open (constitutional) carry, since the NEW law doesn't address much of what is being struck down in Unlawful Use of Weapons.

I'm still waiting on my lawyer to get back to me - I'm actually paying to have this reviewed by a lawyer, and we're going to then involve our State's Attorney and a Judge, so we can (at least) get a "Tazewell County" opinion on what is, and is not, allowed. At least until people start getting arrested elsewhere, and it's determined by case law.