Illinois the last to Fall! Enacts Nation's final Concealed-Gun Law

[Feuer Frei!]

The Illinois Legislature was forced to enact this law, by the court.

Good news...

The last holdout on allowing the public possession of concealed guns, Illinois joined the rest of the nation Tuesday as lawmakers raced to beat a federal court deadline in adopting a carry law over Gov. Pat Quinn's objections.

SOURCE

[Skybird]

Having conducted a nice u-turn myself over this issue in the past years, I fail to see the opportunity for applause here. Because one can imagine what comes next: the demand to ban privately owned firearms in general.

[Red October1984]

Illinois? Now to work on your hunting regulations.

Now what they say about Illinois "joining the rest of the country"? I'm not convinced


EDIT: Okay. Now that I've researched a bit more....this is good...but it's not perfect. It's progress.....

Having conducted a nice u-turn myself over this issue in the past years, I fail to see the opportunity for applause here. Because one can imagine what comes next: the demand to ban privately owned firearms in general.

So your logic is that because they are going to let people legally walk into a pub with a concealed firearm the next stage is to say farmer giles is not allowed a shotgun at all.
That really makes sense.

[MH]

Open carry is one of those laws that don't make sense at all with responsible owners.
So good for you and happy shooting.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

The Illinois Legislature was forced to enact this law, by the court.

Good news...



SOURCE

The anti-crowd's usual argument that concealed carry will make it like Hollywoods fictional version of the old west, or Shootout's at the OK corral and all that. The opposite has proved true, and what's more, Police Officers from all over support Concealed Carry, and firearm ownership in general. Their opinion does not correlate with the Anti Second Amendment crowd's position.

PoliceOne's Gun Control Survey: 11 key lessons from officers' perspectives
Never before has such a comprehensive survey of law enforcement officers’ opinions on gun control, gun violence, and gun rights been conducted

Originally Posted by MH

Open carry is one of those laws that don't make sense at all with responsible owners.
So good for you and happy shooting.

I'm Bi-polar when it comes to open carry. I firmly believe in our rights to be able to do so, however I also feel that because you can, doesn't necessarily mean you should. For example, at one time in my life, I had to wear a tool belt and Hard Hat every day. On this tool belt I had things like a hammer, a phillips screw driver, a flat head screwdriver, speed square, keyhole saw, rasp, straight cutting aviation snips, a couple of fixed blade utility knives, linemans pliers, tape measure, and a chaulk line. (bonus points for anyone who can figure out what I did a lot of )

Now, yeah, I wore all that on a daily basis. But anytime I left the job site for lunch or for the day, I took the tool belt and Hard hat off and put it in a truck. For one, it was a relief taking the crap off, but for two, I'd feel like an idiot walking into a store wearing all this crap. There's a time and a place for it. That's how I feel about open carry. There's a time and a place for it. Just as I didn't go walking into a store wearing my tool belt (though I could have if i wanted to), I don't go walking around open carrying any gun when it's not the time and place for it. The only time one might see me open carry is if im hunting, hiking, or camping. (edit: Oh yeah, and the target range, obviously)

[Spiced_Rum]

Question:
How do you tell the difference between a British Police Officer, an Australian Police Officer and an American Police Officer?

Answer:
First - Lets pose the following question:

You're on duty by yourself walking on a deserted street late at night.
Suddenly, an armed man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and lunges at you.
You are carrying a Glock .40, and you are an expert shot, however you have only a split second to react before he reaches you.

What do you do?


BRITISH POLICE OFFICER:

Firstly the officer must consider the man's Human Rights.
1) Does the man look poor or oppressed?
2) Is he newly arrived in this country and does not yet understand the law?
3) Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
4) Am I dressed provocatively?
5) Could I run away?
6) Could I possibly swing my gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
7) Should I try and negotiate with him to discuss his wrong doings?
8) Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?
9) Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society?
10) Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
11) If I were to grab his knees and hold on, would he still want to stab and kill me?
12) If I raise my gun and he turns and runs away, do I get blamed if he falls over, knocks his head and kills himself? .
13) If I shoot and wound him, and lose the subsequent court case, does he have the opportunity to sue me, cost me my job, my credibility and the loss of my family home?

AUSTRALIAN POLICE OFFICER:

BANG!


AMERICAN POLICE OFFICER:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! 'click'...
(Sergeant arrives at scene later and remarks: 'Nice grouping!')

I could not resist posting the above. A new amendment for the Second Amendment "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed but does not give the right to own ammunition which will only be issued when the Militia is called to arms."

[Onkel Neal]

Concealed carry allowed or not, my strategy would be to relocate. If crime and shootings are that bad, I would remove myself from the scene. Let Chicago turn itself into Detroit.

[TarJak]

Article on that: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/whats-...710-2pqc0.html

Statistically soldiers in Afghanistan are safer. Food for thought.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by TarJak

Article on that: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/whats-...710-2pqc0.html

Statistically soldiers in Afghanistan are safer. Food for thought.

From the article:

It would not be sporadic, it would be deafening, if the mayhem in Chicago was race-related. If African-Americans were being gunned down in their hundreds by white Americans that would be a global story and receive blanket coverage in America.

But the violence in Chicago is overwhelmingly non-racial. The victims are mostly African-American. The shooters are mostly African-American. The rate of inter-racial murder in the US is low given the huge number of guns in the country and the amount of crime.

With black-on-black violence the media tend to avert their gaze and instead fret about poverty and inequality.

The Chicago story can't be about gun laws, because Chicago is not an easy place to obtain handguns or rifles. Its gun laws are among the most strict in the nation. Chicago shows that culture is more important than law. It also supports the adage that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. And Chicago has plenty of outlaws, via a robust gang culture in poor neighbourhoods.

I know it's old, and I know it's politics', but it still nails it.