Posts Tagged With: McDonald

Illinois Turning Even More Hostile to Gun Owners

I am not sure whether I should laugh or cry. Actually, laughter is winning out right now since I am also a believer in the adage that a people get the government they deserve. The City of Chicago, with its entrenched and horribly corrupt Democrat Machine, controls most of Illinois politics these days. So, while I do feel sorry for the Down-staters who can’t seem to free themselves from Chicago’s death grip, those in Chicago who dutifully and mindlessly vote for continued Democrat control deserve what they get in terms of taxes, crime, corruption, and violence.

Since the reign of Jane Byrne back in the 1980s, Chicago developed an increasing—and increasingly irrational—hatred of guns, gun owners, gun dealers, and the like. She instituted the City’s famous handgun ban, which was struck down by the Supreme Court in their McDonald decision. When Richard M. Daley later took over as Mayor, he ran the gun shops out of town and shut down the Lincoln Park Gun Club, which had offered skeet shooting on the shore of Lake Michigan since about 1900. During the same period, Chicago democrats spread into State government, bringing with them their corruption, Machiavellian attitudes, and hatred for guns and gun owners. Now, in addition to Illinois’ gun owner licensing and registration schemes, the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action reports that Illinois gun owners will now have to contend with this:

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn

This past summer, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn (D) vetoed the NRA-backed ammunition purchase reform bill, Senate Bill 681, after this common sense legislation had passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the Illinois General Assembly (previously reported on here).   In a crass attempt to exploit the tragedy in Colorado and seek media attention, Quinn used his Amendatory Veto powers in a brazen attempt to impose more draconian gun control in Illinois.  Quinn rewrote the entire bill as an amendment to the Illinois Criminal Code that includes an onerous ban on the manufacture, possession, delivery or sale of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms (inaccurately referred to as “assault weapons”), .50 caliber rifles and cartridges and “high capacity” magazines in Illinois.  Quinn’s amendment additionally tramples on the rights of Illinois citizens by creating a de facto statewide registration scheme for firearms and magazines currently owned.

If this amendment is accepted by the state legislature, law-abiding citizens in Illinois will be subjected to restrictions far beyond the scope of even the misguided Clinton “Assault Weapons“ Ban that expired in 2004 and any other similar gun ban in existence today.  The repercussions of such a gun ban would be disastrous.   As demonstrated by the failure of the federal “assault weapons” ban of 1994-2004 to produce the crime reduction that its proponents claimed it would, Quinn’s ban would do nothing to increase safety in Illinois and would only further restrict the rights of already law-abiding citizens throughout the state.

Using the favorite anti-gun tactic of confusion, by conflating certain popular semi-automatic firearms with machine guns by using the term “assault weapon,” this legislation would now target many of the most popular guns used for hunting and competition, as well as many models and magazines (those that hold more than ten rounds) used for self-defense.  If enacted, banned items would include many familiar and popular firearms, such as:

· Turkey hunting shotguns with pistol grips, like the Benelli Super Black Eagle II;

· Plinking and target rifles with thumbhole stocks, as often seen on customized Ruger 10/22s;

· High-power target rifles — even including the 1994-2004 versions of rifles like the M1A and AR-15 that were made to comply with the now-expired federal ban — because all of those rifles had handguards that “encircle” the barrel;

· Any detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle with even a partial handguard, potentially including common hunting rifles like the popular Remington 740/7400 series, Browning BAR, and many more like them.

The Quinn gun ban would even apply to the individual parts themselves (stocks, pistol grips, handguards, folding or telescoping stocks, etc.).  Possession, manufacture, delivery or sale of any of these items would be a felony.

This amended bill would impose a massive statewide gun registration scheme.  Anyone who already possesses one of the banned guns or parts would have to provide proof of ownership and register each one with the State Police within ninety days of the effective date after enactment.  This registration requirement spans from the firearm itself to individual parts and magazines that fall under the ban.

Governor Quinn and his band of anti-gun Chicago politicians would like to see their vicious attack on the Second Amendment play out across Illinois, even as Chicago—with the state’s most restrictive gun laws—is on track to tally more than 500 murders this year.

The repercussions of such a gun ban would actually be just the opposite of what proponents claim and the results would be disastrous.  Firearms manufacturing is estimated to be a $250 million dollar industry in Illinois.  Not only would this gun ban be devastating to law-abiding citizens in Illinois, it also would wreak havoc on an entire industry, killing jobs and driving a healthy contributor to the Illinois economy out of state.  This legislation in no way promotes the safety or well-being of Illinois citizens, but is merely another attempt by gun-hating Chicago politicians to use misinformation to push draconian gun bans that will only affect gun owners, sportsmen and law-abiding citizens concerned about self-defense.

If you live in Illinois, or you have family there, then I join the NRA is calling you to action. Contact your state Senator TODAY and demand that he or she vote to override the Governor’s amendatory veto and put a stop to this anti-gun madness! Contact information for all state legislators can be found by clicking here.


Good News! The Illinois Senate today voted to override Quinn’s amendatory veto. Now it goes to the Illinois House, which will, hopefully, kill it once and for all. We’ll keep you posted.

Categories: Gun Control, Guns and Politics, Second Amendment, Weapons | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What a Shock! More Guns Equals Less Crime!

I have maintained for years, as have many others on this side of the gun control debate, that more guns equals less crime and violence. The reason for that is simple: If the target of the criminal is armed, they are dangerous to the criminal, who passes them up for someone else less likely to kill him. We see the reverse in Great Britain, where guns are banned and crimes of violence have shot through the roof. We see it America as well, in places like Chicago, New York, and Washington D.C. where, apparently, only criminals and cops may be armed, with the predictably bloody results among those caught in the crossfire.

Now, the State of Virginia, has offered-up of statistics to go with the argument that more guns equals a safer society. Times-Dispatch.com reports the following:

The total number of firearms purchased in Virginia increased 73 percent from 2006 to 2011. When state population increases are factored in, gun purchases per 100,000 Virginians rose 63 percent.

But the total number of gun-related violent crimes fell 24 percent over that period, and when adjusted for population, gun-related offenses dropped more than 27 percent, from 79 crimes per 100,000 in 2006 to 57 crimes in 2011.

The numbers appear to contradict a long-running popular narrative that more guns cause more violent crime, said Virginia Commonwealth University professor Thomas R. Baker, who compared Virginia crime data for those years with gun-dealer sales estimates obtained by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

“While there is a wealth of academic literature attempting to demonstrate the relationship between guns and crime, a very simple and intuitive demonstration of the numbers seems to point away from the premise that more guns leads to more crime, at least in Virginia,” said Baker, who specializes in research methods and criminology theory and has an interest in gun issues.

So there you have a 63% increase in gun ownership, and a 27% decrease in gun-related crimes. This same dynamic is mirrored on the national level as well, with violent crime dropping 12% as gun ownership and concealed carry licensing shot up. Now, this is not a connection that the Left will ever admit, but if you add in the evidence coming out of Great Britain, Australia, Chicago, New York, Washington, California, and other places under the thumb of Leftist Nanny-statists that show fewer gun owners and higher crime; the correlation is impossible for all but the most ardent kool-aid drinkers to deny.

More Americans are buying guns than ever as the truth of this correlation between guns and violence sinks into the national psyche. The Leftist media, in answer, is ramping up the coverage of so-called gun crimes to try and make the public think that more guns equals more crime. It is a lie, they know it is a lie, but the American media is now driven by ideology rather than a sincerely desire for the truth. The same goes for the gun control movement, which shamelessly manipulates statistics to show how dangerous guns are. Their statistics on children killed by guns, for example, include gangbangers up to the age of 26. These are not children, but they are in there anyway. If their arguments had merit, if they were anything more than the knee-jerk reactions of Leftists and hopolophobes (a fear of weapons), these people would not have to lie.

But they do, and that is proof in and of itself that we are right about an armed society being a polite society; and regardless of the spurious arguments coming from the gun control crowd, it always has been, and it always will be.

Categories: CPL Law, Gun Control, Guns and Politics, Liberty, Second Amendment | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Best is Yet to Come…

Last night, Obama won. Well, it strikes me that Obama did not win as much as Romney lost. Like the sadly genteel Republicans that went before him, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, Romney conceded in spite of the fact that a) a number of states were still being counted; and b) the Democrats would have demanded recounts and filed lawsuits. They do that because they look at these elections as wars that they are determined to win. I am not sure how the Republicans see these contests, but they do not bring the passion and bloodlust of the Democrats, and that is one important reason why they are routinely beaten by the Left. Last night’s election left us in precisely the same governmental situation that we had before, with Obama in the White House, Harry Reid and his democrats running the Senate, and the Republicans running the House of Representatives. What has changed, however, is the fact that Obama cannot run for another term. As a result, he is free to do as he likes, something that the first term showed over and over that he will do regardless of Congress or the Courts.

So, what does this mean for gun owners? First, it means the likely signing and Senate passage of the U.N. Small Arms Treaty; which contains provisions that will force the country to enact highly restrictive gun control laws that will all but eliminate the private ownership of various types of guns from handguns to semi-auto rifles and shotguns. Because treaties are above domestic law, it will take a repudiation by a subsequent President, or a Supreme Court ruling, to get rid of. Speaking of the High Court, Obama has four years to stack the Court with John Paul Stevens type Leftists, who will be itching to overturn both Heller and McDonald, paving the way for the return of gun bans and confiscatory regulations. It also means the return of the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban,” either through the UN treaty or by executive order. Consider the Second Amendment plank in the Democrat Presidential Platform:

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

The language above is vague enough to encompass anything they might want to foist upon the American People, and when coupled with Obama’s statement that “the best is yet to come,” that ought to give all of us serious moment of pause.

Given that Washington is, essentially, a lost cause, our only real hope now is in the states, exercising their 10th Amendment rights. Not all of them, mind you, but with Republicans now occupying 30 of the 50 Governor Offices, and more and more states passing laws to nullify what they see as outrageous power-grabbing by Washington over the last four years. If the best is yet to come, imagine how much more nullification laws will be passed by the states.

By the way, the last time the nation was this polarized, the last time states were nullifying federal laws at this level and pace, the year was 1860. The following year, 1861, there was a bit of a dust-up between the States that lasted until 1865, killing a total of about 625,000 Americans. I returning the most divisive, most arrogant, most anti-American president ever to power, what has this nation done to its children and grand-children? Whatever it is, it won’t be good.

Categories: Election 2012, Guns and Politics, Weapons | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Cook County, Illinois: Anything to Flip-off Gun Owners

The municipality of Chicago, Illinois, is hard enough on gun owners. Never friendly to gun owners since the advent of Jane Byrne at City Hall in 1979 (she instituted the ban on handguns that lasted until the recent McDonald decision declared such bans unconstitutional), the Windy City boasts the most draconian—and barely constitutional—gun laws in the nation. Oddly enough, Chicago is also the murder capital of the planet. One has to wonder whether there is a connection.

Given the ink spilled regarding Chicago’s hatred for guns, gun owners, gun enthusiasts—pretty much anything gun-related—it is easy to miss the fact that Cook County, with its mostly Chicago-based Board of Commissioners, is just as bad; and to prove it, they just passed a new tax on gun sales.

According to Reuters, Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle told a news conference that, “It is very important to us to tax guns because we know that guns are the sources of the incredible violence we have in our neighborhoods.” According to Preckwinkle, 29% of guns used in crimes in Chicago were purchased legally in suburban Cook County.

So…imposing a tax on those purchases is the answer?

Think about it: Since when has the government’s collection of money ever reduced violence? Here is another thing to think about: How many of those so called “gun crimes” were actually unlicensed guns being confiscated for one reason or another? How many were used in self-defense in the most violent big city in the nation? In other words, how many were used to actually commit a crime against another person?

These are not questions that Preckwinkle or any of the other creatures that run Cook County or Chicago want to answer. They simply want to punish the legal firearms trade, and they will likely drive it out of the County as customers who have the misfortune to live in the County will simply go out to DuPage or Will County to buy their firearms. That is jobs lost, businesses gone, and these liberals do not care.

They struck a blow against guns, and for them that is all that counts.

Categories: Guns and Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

A Window into the Mind of an Anti-Gun Liberal

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens recently got up in front of an October 15th lunch meeting sponsored by the Brady Campaign and, for lack of a better description, told them what they wanted to hear. “Maybe you have some kind of constitutional right to have a cell phone with a pre-dialed 911 in the number at your bedside,” he told the crowd, “and that might provide you with a little better protection than a gun which you’re not used to using.”

There it is: You have a right to a cell phone that you can use to call for help; but you have no right to defend yourself. This should surprise no one. The Left is always looking to strip power and rights from individuals and bestow them on the State, and the right to self-defense has always been one of their favorite targets. The more dependent they can make the people on government, the more power they can garner for themselves.

Heller applied Second Amendment protection to individuals, which was step forward. However, it only applied to the Federal Government. McDonald saw the Second Amendment incorporated into the rights and protections of the 14th Amendment, thereby applying the Second Amendment to the states. The upshot of all this: As an individual, you have the right to keep and bear arms, free from unreasonable gun bans at either the federal or state level. To make it even more plain: Neither the federal nor the state government can ban the ownership of handguns. As you can imagine, that set the gun grabbers in both Washington D.C. and Chicago (not to mention their comrades and fellow travelers in other places as well) into a frenzy.

Stevens, always a leftist stooge schilling for the liberals every chance he could get, was every bit as exercised as then-Mayor of Chicago Richard M. Daley was when his pet gun ban was struck down. He wrote the dissents in Heller and McDonald; dissents that have drawn biting criticism for their vapid reasoning and ignorance of history. He is right about one thing, though: Heller and McDonald allow the State to restrict or eliminate the right to carry outside the home, ban certain styles of firearm, and require background checks for private gun sales. So does the Second Amendment. The question is, what does someone like Stevens, and the Leftists he speaks for, consider reasonable and properly constitutional regulation of firearms?

Go back to the retired justice’s remark (you have a right to a cell phone that you can use to call for help; but you have no right to defend yourself), and answer the question for yourself. Then answer this one: Is this the kind of person you really want in a position of power, the kind of person you want deciding what rights YOU should have?

As you stand in the voting booth next week, ask yourself those questions and vote accordingly.

Categories: Guns and Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.