Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Schadenfreude.

The utter bafflement so plainly evident between the lines of this BBC piece warms the cockles of the place my heart would be if I had one:
Illinois has become the last state in the US to allow residents to carry concealed handguns, after lawmakers overrode the governor's veto.
I especially like this bit of strange fantasy speculation: "[O]pponents of the concealed carry law feared it would allow virtually unregulated possession of handguns in the city of Chicago, which is grappling with a severe gun violence epidemic."

I don't know where they're getting that idea, but I can tell you this: Chicago's current gun restrictions don't seem to be keeping people from dying like Tommies at the Somme, so why not try something different instead of more of the same, Marshal Haig?

28 comments:

  1. So if they passed a CCW law there, does that mean you're finally allowed to own a handgun in Chicago?

    ReplyDelete
  2. No, I would think it should be latest, not last state. Carrying in California, New Jersey, or New York is still almost impossible.

    Till this law passed the only way to get a permit in Chicago was to be politically connected.

    Much the way anything works in Chicago.

    I could be wrong, so I anticipate being corrected.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unregulated? So in what used to be Great Britain, passing a Law means something is Unregulated?

    And THEY say we are screwing up the English Language!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Handguns have been allowed in Chicago for a few years (for the law abiding) due to the Otis McDonald case.

    Time line predicted for issued Illinois permits is about april 2014 the way the law is written and judging the typical speed of Il bureaucracy.
    ISP has 60 days to finalize training requirements.
    Sept 7, 2013
    ISP has 180 days to start accepting permits
    Jan 4, 2014
    They have 90 days to issue a permit
    April 5, 2014
    If you choose not to submit fingerprints they have an extra 30 days
    May 5, 2014

    If your an out of state person, wishing the ability to carry in Il, you will have to go thru the 8 hours of classroom, and 8 hours of range. As well as paying $150 over the instate resident fee of$150.

    We have our foot in the door and will have to work on onerous restrictions as we progress. But its a start.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The law passed as Shall issue with provisions for a revue board if denied.

    The NRA fought may issue tooth and nail. The only way this ever passed thru the Chicago caucus was due to the 7th districts court order deeming no carry was unconstitutional. (Shepard / Moore vs Illinois) The senate was still trying to add on stipulations up until the last minute.

    ReplyDelete
  6. " and allow people to carry virtual arsenals on their persons."

    Up until now, virtual is the only arsenal that could be carried in Chicago.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "current gun restrictions don't seem to be keeping people from dying like Tommies at the Somme, so why not try something different instead of more of the same, Marshal Haig?"

    I will construe this as ordering a hurricane bombardment of Chicago. It's about bloody time!

    Shootin' Buddy, First Devonshire-on-the-Sea-Just-by-Cornwall Rifles Fusiliers Lancers

    ReplyDelete
  8. Nope, Fix Bayonets, whistle, over the top into the Maxims and Spandaus

    ReplyDelete
  9. As for the law-abiding, wholesome folk that aren't part of the Illinois armpit, you have my sympathy.
    I thank God Gary, IN doesn't drive the laws and politics of this state. (although I'm sure some aggrandizing do-gooder is salivating over the "crisis opportunity" of the roving bands of teen hoodlums killing each other in Indy lately)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nope Part II
    Mustard and phosgene!

    Gerry

    ReplyDelete
  11. The law is pretty restrictive. It started out as decent, incorporating the good points of the 49 preceding laws, and trying to avoid the bad. The Mordor by the Lake grabbers got ahold of it and seriously damaged it. Then it got caught in a cross fire between the Gov and the Atty Gen, who both want to be the Gov next term. It is better than a poke in the eye with a stick, but not a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  12. leaddog,

    A lot of states CCW laws started out pretty "meh".

    It's a foot in the door. Learn from the anti's playbook: Take your half a loaf this legislative session and come back for more the next and the next and the next...


    https://www.swatmag.com/articles/hardcore_activism

    ReplyDelete
  13. I assume the law is in effect today, such that the limited reciprocity provision, such as it is, is now the law? From what I read in the text of the bill last night, if you can legally carry in your home jurisdiction, you can keep your gun in your car. That's good enough for me for the moment.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Rob K.,

    I'd seek actual legal advice on that before I commended my fate to the tender mercies of Land o' Lincoln judicial system.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm not rushing to Chicago, that's for sure! But I will be a lot more comfortable driving through there now, on my way to somewhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It's certainly quite possible to CCW in various parts of California - it depends on your county Sheriff - and we're moving to one area where it's not only possible but the Sheriff is in favor of CCW and even has stripped the US Forest Service from its ability to enforce anti-gun State Laws...

    ReplyDelete
  17. it is certainly less restrictive than I feared, and I look forward to taking the class and spending my money to be one of the first.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Son of Sam Adams3:09 PM, July 10, 2013

    "Illinois has become the last state in the US to allow residents to carry concealed handguns" I wonder when the other 49 states repealed their CCW laws.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Nope Part III
    Blast No Man's Land into a quagmire, then send the boys over the top.

    ReplyDelete
  20. As for other states with crappy CCW laws, quite possibly the worst is Hawaii. technically "may issue", in practice, one person in the entire state, a county DA, has a permit, and it has been stated that that is the last one that will ever be issued.
    Until Alan Gura gets a-hold of them, that is...

    ReplyDelete
  21. The Illinois Carry folks are already on the time delay issues.

    Per Sebastian's blog basically the claim is that since IL did not repeal their no carry statutes the infringement of the right to carry continues until permits are actually issued (per the state in at least 270 days). They note that constitutes the state giving themselves -another- delay of the ruling after the court told them no more would be forthcoming and point out that if the state had complied immediately after the ruling instead of dicking around they wouldn't be in this position.

    So, they are seeking an injunction of enforcement of the concealed weapons bans, essentially giving FOID carry with the same time/place /manner restrictions until permits are available.

    Holding the state's feet to the fire.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Drang,

    Baker v Kealoha is in the 9th Circuit with the Peruta and Richards challenges to California's May Issue law. Should be hearing something later this month or in August I think.

    Be nice to have Cali and Hawaii join the rest of the free West. Then work on reciprocity in those two and Oregon.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Nope part IV:

    Starve them with a blockade and hope their response gets the Americans to declare war.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Um...did anyone point out to the person concerned about "virtually unregulated possession of handguns" that the folks doing the shooting in Chicago aren't going to apply for permits? And they are going to keep on shooting as long as there's no chance anyone can shoot back?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Shhhhh! Don't go confusing this issue with anything as mundane as facts and logical reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Rob, you should be right, but lemme take a look and get back to you. There's no reciprocity on permits at all, and non-resident permits require the same training as residents (for twice the fee--I know. Not our idea.)

    Meanwhile, the BBC piece is interesting. One glaring fact they got wrong was that the Supreme Court did not deny cert. Illinois AG Lisa Madigan wants to be Governor soon and maybe President someday, and she doesn't want to be the one who made shall-issue the national law of the land by losing this case at the Supreme Court. So she made a lot of noise about keeping her option to appeal open, but she never appealed to the Supreme Court. It's true that NOW, with the new law in place, they'd probably decline to hear the case, but that's not what happened. I couldn't find a way to comment or even send in feedback, though, and I imagine that was written in London or at best New York by someone who skimmed the AP reports; it would have been asking a lot for someone like that to understand the Illinois Game of Thrones.

    ReplyDelete
  27. OMG Don, please don't tell me that there's ANOTHER Illinois pol vying for the WH, hasn't Obama done enough damage?

    ReplyDelete
  28. "Chicago's current gun restrictions don't seem to be keeping people from dying like Tommies at the Somme, so why not try something different instead of more of the same, Marshal Haig?"

    Careful Tam! You'll have the Limeys calling on the UN to come up with Weapons Grade Snark Non-Proliferation Treaty....

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.