Although there have been states that were effectively "Shall Issue" for decades, like Washington and Indiana, the modern Shall Issue movement got its start with the passage of Florida's CCW law in 1987.
"There'll be blood in the streets!" cried the media, "Shootouts over parking spaces!" Of course, the predicted carnage failed to materialize and Floridians went about their business as usual, albeit packing a gat now, if they felt so inclined.
And so, year by year and state by state, the CCW reform movement spread across this fair land. And each and every time, the local media would chant the same old litany, almost as if they were reading from a common script: "There'll be blood in the streets! Shootouts over parking spaces!" And it kept not happening.
And so we come to Wisconsin, one of only two remaining states to have no provision whatever for a law-abiding citizen to go heeled concealed. Now that Wisconsin looks like they're finally going to get their CCW law, how is the media reacting? Take a guess.
[D]etractors worry that it could escalate tense situations in public.Seriously? Seriously?
Look, I thought that you hip, urbane liberal media types were supposed to be the sophisticated, cosmopolitan ones. Have you been living with your head in a sack since 1987 or something? Do you never travel beyond your own city limits, or read about the events in far-off, exotic places like Michigan or Indiana?
I know that you're worried about blood flowing in the mean streets of Mayber... er, Madison, but trust me: Real, actual great big cities (not the imaginary ones you see in your TV) have had legal CCW since back when Herblock was making fun of Reagan and nobody is shooting each other over parking spaces. Relax; breathe in and out. If the hicks and rubes in tiny, backwards hamlets like Seattle, Atlanta, and Houston can handle themselves with guns, I'm sure that you modern folk up there in America's dairy products aisle will do just fine.
Now, about Illinois...
Bingo!
ReplyDeleteCCW is available in the Peoples Republic of Illinois. You just have to be an elected official.
ReplyDeletehttp://reason.com/archives/2009/11/23/gun-control-chicago-style
Some animals are just more equal than others.
"tense situations in public."
ReplyDeleteLike a union mob taking over the state capital???
(did you see the email?)
Perhaps they are concerned that when 100,000 Thugs hit the streets of Madison and start to beat some Counter-Protestors to the ground, said Counter-Protestors may shoot at them?
ReplyDeleteRe-Illinois: Still can't understand why a lot of Gun Manufacturers around Genesco, Illinois keep their Manufactories there, paying their State Taxes to a Corrupt Regime that won't allow them to sell more of their Legal Products to the citizens of the Land of Lincoln. If Ronnie Barret and Family can move to Tennessee because of Kalifornia's Insane Gun Laws.... same goes for S+W, Kahr, Kimber, Henry...I just don't get it.
And, of course, it's always that same crowd that assures us that they're the only smart people in the political debate, that everyone on the opposition is a gap-toothed, cousin-humping redneck. Which makes you wonder how smart someone can be when they're completely incapable of learning from previous errors.
ReplyDelete"This hasn't been true the last forty eight times you said it. What makes you think it will be now?"
That was a beautiful piece right there, and should be required reading for every politico and media type in the country...and dare them to refute the facts. But...
ReplyDelete"Now, about Illinois..."
I dunno. I've said it before...that place is just Ill.
AT
Some people's powers of analysis simply suck.
ReplyDeleteI mean, if I maintained 50 cat scanners and I had upgraded the software on say, 37 of them, and they all had continued to operate just as well, if not better, I'd suffer great ridicule if I predicted that upgrading the next 13 systems would result in disaster.
Or it could be, despite their noble rhetoric, those opposed to CCW truly do not trust "the people."
Or it could be, despite their noble rhetoric, those opposed to CCW truly do not trust "the people."
ReplyDeleteI think a big part of it is that deep down, where they don't like to look, they don't trust themselves. A comparable phenomenon would be Mayor Bloomberg's "do as I say, not as I do" campaign against salt and trans-fats and the like. Instead of quietly minding his own store, he turns his gaze outward and attempts to mind everyone else's.
Don't squeeze the Charmin and don't mess with the MSM's narrative.
ReplyDeleteThey had a fit over CCW in Michigan complete with "Wild West" and "Blood in the Streets" handwringing.
Its the only song they know when it comes to CCW. We can't confuse them with the facts.
WV: tacyti - there's a tacyti agreement among the MSM to always report guns as icky and any move towards CCW as leading to blood in the streets.
"Now, about Illinois... "
ReplyDeleteGive businesses a 120 day period to move. Many states would be glad to have them.
Build a wall around the state, with no openings. Four feet thick and about twelve feet tall should do, and coat the inside with broken glass. The wall should extend into lake Michigan about 400 yards. The USS Wisconson, a destroyer now doing museum duty, could be recommissioned and parked off the shore about a half mile.
Anyone who gets life for a federal crime would be tossed over the wall. All the remaining agriculture and industry will be required to keep the inmates fed, and if they manage to mess that up, they die.
Overflights and etc. would have to be carefully rerouted, but I don't see major difficulties here.
CCW in Illinois? Right. The way things are run here, you have to get a veto-proof majority (71 in the House, 37 in the Senate, 75 and 40 for a better safety cushion) for things like this before you even debate the issue. Why? It's because elected officials will be told their funding will dry up. They'll face competition in the primary. Committee seats can be kissed goodbye, thus ensuring the official's district will end up at the bottom of the list of spending priorities. The ward committeemen and aldermen in Chicago will be told to direct their fundraising efforts to a new guy. Most of the representatives and senators from Cook and its collar counties can be controlled in this manner. Why? It's simple. Parties don't select a candidate who is willing to risk his career on something difficult. That could lose elections for the party. Then the party wouldn't have power.
ReplyDeleteGetting rid of the parties wouldn't solve anything, either. The same people would still be spreading the same money around. Lovely, isn't it?
It a football team with one play.
ReplyDeleteBlue 16, End run left on 2, Break!
You don't need much defense to stuff that team when that's all they know.
Gerry
Well remember, these people are on the wrong side of history, and are supporting a bad cause that while may FEEL right in the proper spin, doesn't play out in the numbers that aren't paid for by the Joyce Foundation.
ReplyDeleteThese people HATE the truth. They HATE reality. Seriously, Reality to them is like the High school that we all dreaded bumping into in the hall.
Reality makes fun of them and takes their lunch money.
Best part is, Chicago is still a target rich environment for criminals, so the unwashed are unprotected, while Ed Burke has had six bodyguards (COPS!) since Harold Washington.
ReplyDeleteIndiana, while it had a license procedure since 1935 (a copy of the Uniform Firearms Act floating around since the 20s), became "shall issue" via a Court of Appeals decision in 1983. However, in most of the 92 counties it was "shall issue" in practice since inception.
ReplyDeleteWe now have Wisconsin. We are winning by even a cynic's scorecard.
Illinois will be a fight requiring help from all over the nation. Mordor (Chicago) is their keep and will require a national effort.
This is difficult for our side as gun owners are used to covering their square but are not "joiners" in fighting outside their backyard. However, if Illinois is not free, no one is free.
Shootin' Buddy
USS Wisconsin is an Iowa-class battleship (BB-64) currently moored at Nauticus in Virginia.
ReplyDeleteLocation issues aside, recommissioning her to do NGFS against downtown Chi-town is an idea with some merit - as are the construction of walls around the "Ill state" and gun manufacturers moving their operations.
Boat Guy: Not just gun mfrs, but all mfrs.
ReplyDeleteThose who have not escaped already. lol.
Let's not forget that people in Maryland cannot get CCWs either. I don't live there, but I know and feel sorry for those who do.
ReplyDelete"Have you been living with your head in a sack since 1987 or something? Do you never travel beyond your own city limits, or read about the events in far-off, exotic places like Michigan or Indiana?"
ReplyDeleteThe Liberals I know would answer yes (if honest) to all of the above. They might visit Boston, LA, or New York - but certainly not some red-state hell-hole like Houston or Atlanta. Those are places you change planes if you have to, or just sneer out the window at as you fly over.
And lets not forget the residents of Rhode Island. One blogger recently became the 20th Concealed carry license holder in the city of Providence. They have a population of 172,000+ and only 20 people have succesfully applied for CCW permits?
ReplyDeleteI suppose that is better than Hawaii. Didn't the Chief of Police in Honolulu brag that no CCW permits had been issued in 20 years?
There are still a lot of unfree places out there.
Bram,
ReplyDeleteSeattle, Miami, Philadelphia...
It's surprising how many of the nation's largest cities are in CCW-friendly states. (And don't tell them that when they're in LA, there's no actual fence keeping Orange Countians out.)
Murphy's Law,
Maryland does have some civilian CCW holder but, like New Jersey, they're so scarce as to be practically non-existent. (I know one person with a Maryland permit, and I used to know a guy who'd had a permit in Jersey.)
Right. Tense situations could escalate.
ReplyDeleteIf concealed carry had been permissible at Virginia Tech, the media sensation of 33 people murdered by one gunman could have "escalated" all the way to a self-defense case in which the only rounds fired were by a CCW holder who didn't feel like becoming a statistic.
Imagine the media impact of an "escalation" of that magnitude! It would barely rate a paragraph on page 5.
Marylanders can too get CCWs. All it takes is reams of paperwork and a 4 digit donation to the Democratic candidate of your choice. A 5 digit donation will expedite the process.
ReplyDeleteThe Liberal thought process is a closed loop. Facts can not enter the loop.
I know of 2 non-cop people in MD with a CCW in the state. One owns a gunstore and sells machine guns, one owns machine guns and trains police officers in their use and often travels to places transporting same.
ReplyDeleteI guess the MD cops don't like the idea of badguys maybe getting a chance to easily steal machine guns.
Seattle people, and by reflection our politicians, are as CCW unfriendly as NYC or Chicago. Unlike the cops in those cities, at least ours understand the laws and don't try to enforce much beyond the state laws (pre-emption) regardless of what their political overlords order them to do.
ReplyDeleteIt's just that the state Dems know that if they push too hard on the gun-control agenda that they'll lose their usually-tenuous control on the Legislature and Governer's chair. So the local Dems never get any traction on wagging the dog, and their pre-empted gun control ordinances eventually get thrown out.
And really, most folks don't actually "leave the city". They fly into other big cities and call that "Traveling", and would rather fly halfway around the world than drive an hour out from the suburbs.
My own experience with those who oppose CCW etc bears out the idea that many, if not most, of those who oppose CCW and firearms in general usually do so because they are primarily afraid of what THEY might do if THEY had a firearm. I have had a number of anti-gun friends over the years and eventually each has come to terms with the idea of trusting me with a firearm. Some have gotten so comfortable with the idea that they will actively argue for my right to carry when the subject is argued by another anti. Some become pro-gun. Those that don't, often end up admitting that they are more afraid of themselves.
ReplyDeletes
Blood is much more likely to flow in segregated (and gated) affluent Palo Alto than Mayberry, when the residents of East Palo Alto who are poor, illegal, and on welfare and service the needs of the wealthy and uber-wealthy Democrat-hypocrites by being under-the-table nannies and gardeners and contractors, finally come across the freeway to begin the promised Hope&Changey wealth re-distribution.
ReplyDeleteThat's what all the anti-gun laws are about and what the Haves worry about behind their fences and gates and alarm systems: the Have-nots living across the street who they hire for pennies on the dollar.
I don't know about Wisconsin. Between the tea party, the "campaign to defeat Obama" and imported labor and teacher union thugs, there might be a setting for a major media event. You could see brandishing of weapons, vile accusations, all played out for the broadcast media.
ReplyDeleteAnd having nothing to do with the people of Wisconsin.
A bully and thug remains a bully and thug. And will keep to their ways as long as the boss approves and the audience is cowed.
Good luck to Wisconsin.
Did anyone else notice that the one guy they got to speak out against the bill was a felon?
ReplyDeleteNext thing you know he'll be filing an OSHA complaint.
Of the literal dozens of reasons to leave NJ and move to TX, high among them was the Draconian firearms laws. Living in NJ for the vast majority of my adult life, I never met anyone that had a carry permit though they were readily available. To friends of the Governor, NBA/NFL players living in the state and the like, of course.
ReplyDeleteTX is like living in another country. Have yet to see any gunfights, over a parking space or anything else. Then again, I live far north of the southern border.
CHL, here I come!
ordnancecorner,
ReplyDeleteYes, I noticed that. I just wonder why a felon would want everyone to be disarmed. Hmmm... could it be "Criminals prefer unarmed victums" as the bumper sticker on my Jeep claims? Hmmm???
s
God, I get so sick of all the bedwetters in this state. But, then again, most of them are in Madison.
ReplyDelete[D]etractors worry that it could escalate tense situations in public.
ReplyDeleteI am reminded of the feminist shibboleth years ago that "all men are potential rapists": while it is more-or-less true in a very technical sense, it's such an extreme statement as to be laughable. Yes, somebody with a gun COULD lose his cool and "escalate" a tense situation... just as somebody with male wedding tackle COULD lose his cool and assault the first female who comes into view. Oddly enough, the vast majority of us XY types manage to control ourselves, and the evidence is overwhelming that the vast majority of lawful gun owners do, too.
Interesting, ain't it, how you can tar some groups with a very broad brush at will, while you can't say anything about other groups?
We had much of the same here in Florida back in '87. Media said bodies would be stacked like cord wood. Hell, I haven't shot a media type in days.
ReplyDeleteDon't lump downstate Illinois in with Cook County. Below I-80 we're just about as red as anyone else.
ReplyDeleteBuild the wall around Chicago.
Here in Florida, I got my CCW and my .38 in '93 and I ain't shot anybody yet. I shot a monitor lizard in the yard that escaped from a rich person's estate nearby, though. I thought it was a7-8 foot gator from the canal.
ReplyDeleteCounty patrol said not a problem.
Illinois' carry bill was not killed when it didn't pass.
ReplyDeleteThe costs of the new pending lawsuit are being used as a stick to try and get the handful of remaining votes ("too expensive to fight" gives political cover) necessary to overcome Chicago's home rule power.
Mordor is already under seige with an active resistance and is a lot closer to falling than a lot of people (who aren't addicted to gun blogs) might be aware.
Mordor under siege. What a beautiful thought.
ReplyDeleteIllinois is actually a fairly nice state with a metastasizing cancer on it's neck. The state needs to have Chicago removed.
ReplyDeleteWell Said Tam!!! :-)
ReplyDeleteOne does not simply walk into Mordor.
ReplyDeleteOne brings Alan Gura and the SAF with them...
Jay. Wins.
ReplyDeleteThat would be a wonderful thing if Illinois could rid itself of Chicago. I might even move back home, though Indiana's a much nicer proposition for a motorcyclist.
ReplyDeleteSo, when we get down to no states without legal civilian concealed carry, are we going to start talking about US territories or shall we shift focus to those remaining states that aren't "shall issue"?
ReplyDelete"Now, about Illinois..."
ReplyDeleteThe Last Bastion of safety and sanity in these United States, I'll tell ya!
;)
49 states now have laws authorizing the issue of a concealed carry permit (by any other name...) to law abiding citizens.
ReplyDeleteNot all of them are "shall issue", though.
Anonymous @1154: Seattle people, and by reflection our politicians, are as CCW unfriendly as NYC or Chicago.
This is why an Initiative on the ballot to make Seattle secede from the state would pass overwhelmingly.
Those jackasses in Olympia would ignore it, like all the other really important initiatives, but it would pass. Maybe unanimously.
There is nothing wrong with Chicago which Curtis LeMay couldn't fix. I speak as the son of a 20th Air Force guy who helped hoick drums of gasoline into the bomb bays of B-29s when they were running out of fire bombs, in April of '45.
ReplyDeleteCCW spreads to another state, David Hardy links to a graph showing the rate of violent crime continues to fall.
ReplyDeleteWhy does it seem that the only demographics showing an increase in violent crime is Cop on Dog Crime and Cop on Citizen During Botched Raid Crime?
Dirtcrashr, word.
ReplyDeleteJustthisguy, I don't think it's funny at all to talk about burning our fellow citizens to death.
Nor to talk about imprisoning/exiling them.
It's wrong, playground childish, and it does not help our cause.
A n undecided is not going to be brought over by this sort of talk, it feeds every prejudice about us that our enemies try to sell.
Standard,
ReplyDeleteThere's a pro right to carry ruling out of Puerto Rico. Carry in the territories, I'm guessing, will be easier as a Fed Court issue.
Absent a district court ruling covering the particular state, or a Supreme Court ruling, I'd assume the "may-issue" states will be fixed with due process and/or equal protection lawsuits or the threat thereof, like the ones ongoing in CA and NJ to name two.
If we can get one of those to fold,
Justthisguy,
ReplyDeleteApparently you are not "qualified" to render hyperbole and dark humor.
But I and others know that you were speaking not of the Real People of Mordor who would be guaranteed safe passage out, but of the Organizers, those they serve, and that serve them.
And most lawyers of course. But I repeat myself. ;)
AT
Keep your eyes on Illinois. It's going to take longer, but it's coming. Both the NRA and SAF are sponsoring separate lawsuits in Illinois, neither in a Chicago district, asking to have the ban on carry struck down. The NRA actually probably has the stronger case this time--more sympathetic defendant, a little stronger brief and better in-state connections--but either case could be a winner and, as it has been explained to me, they can't be combined this time.
ReplyDeleteThere are also persistent rumors that the votes are there for a super-majority in the House if Cook County is exempted somehow, or may-issue is adopted (almost the same thing after what the Sheriff's Association found out when it polled sheriffs.) Personally, I don't want to see that happen, but I can imagine scenarios in which it becomes almost inevitable--and if it happens, Cook/Chicago's days are numbered from that moment on.
In the meantime, congratulations, Sausage-Eating Cheeseheads!
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI dunno, it might be better than that (looking as an outsider).
Lawsuits, two of them, are spendy. The example of the cost to Chicago on its ban loss won't be ignored, especially if the IL carry movement starts trumpeting it.
There were what, only a handful of votes needed to get to 71 on the last shall-issue vote and it took a lot of Daley arm-twisting to keep them "nay"?
The argument for going shall-issue almost writes itself, use money as the lead, not "rights" (which can open up arguments). Point out that more or less copying Wisconsin is the cheapest bet.
Not doing anything keeps the expensive NRA and SAF lawsuits, with their potential to go far beyond "acceptable lines" for the anti-gunners, on the table.
Try for "may-issue" and inevitably face more lawsuits, like those going on in California and NJ, almost immediately on equal protection grounds. Which again could be devastating to "gun control" in IL if lost.
Anyway, you just needed 8 votes or so, the money issue, played right, might push them into the "yea" camp.
Ummm... here in the People's Republic of Illinois we don't cotton to none of that stuff based on, you know... facts. We believe (I'm told) that one gun fatality by a CCW holder resulting in a Goblins' demise would be worse than ANY number of violent crimes being perpetrated on the citizens of this great state. Why, we'd ban baseball bats if it wouldn't put the Cubbies out of business! ...waitaminit...would that be a bad thing...?
ReplyDeleteTam, a friend of my forwarded this blog. Me being from Madison Wisconsin (now in Minnesota) it was great entertainment. See, the ultra leftists in Madison are the minority but they control the media & politics, so you wouldn't know the vast majority of Wisconsinites are gun owners & outdoor enthusiasts. Check out this stat - 1 of every 4 people (including babies) is a deer hunter.
ReplyDelete