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."

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by Spiced_Rum

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."

That post....made me literally

Thanks for sharing that one...

[Ducimus]

Yeah, Liberal progressives have been trying THAT one for awhile it seems. Either by Taxing, background checks, or some bogus legistation that is nothing more then backdoor gun control. Something which they appear to might be successful at in the People's Republic of California soon enough. A background check to buy ammo. Seriously? Yeah, that'll work. (seriously, it passed their senate)

Apparently the PRC doesn't like the revenue that ammo purchases can make, because everyone who owns a firearm will then buy ammo in a neighboring state like Arizona or Nevada, or contact a relative who lives in a free state to buy the ammo for them, or they will get into reloading. It's already crappy enough as it is over there with major price gouging for ammo. For my own mother, I bought 500 rounds of .38 special and 250 rounds of .357 magnum, for a helluva lot cheaper then what she could get it for in California. For my uncle, i bought reloading dies that he was unable to find in california because all reloading supplies have been bought up.. He already has enough saved up to reload several thousand rounds, all he needed was the dies. I was happy to help.

You know why there's a nation wide ammo shortage right now? No, it's not DHS buying up millions of rounds. The reality is, everyone and their brother's sisters cousin's ex roommate is buying up the ammo, for fear of the type of legislation mentioned above.

Some are buying up the ammo and reselling it at ridiculous sums for a profit, others are simply stocking up for whatever reason. It is not uncommon for some folks to have upwards of several thousand rounds saved up in their basement. Most I ever heard of was 10,000 rounds or so, give or take. I myself, have 980 rounds of 5.56 NATO saved up for my wife's rifle, and 600 rounds of 7.62 NATO and .308 win saved up for my rifle, with several hundred rounds of 9mm saved up for our handguns. (on the stockpiling scale, I am on the lower, more reasonable end of the spectrum believe it or not) I also, like a lot of people I know, have a reloading bench.

[Feuer Frei!]

Some reading that ties in with this:

A growing number of Americans are getting permission to carry firearms in public—and under their clothes—a development that has sparked concern among some law-enforcement authorities.
Applications for "concealed-carry" permits are soaring in many states, some of which recently eased permit requirements. The numbers are driven in part by concern that renewed gun-control efforts soon could constrain access to weapons, along with heightened interest in self-defense in the wake of mass killings in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo.

Some seem surprised that Concealed carry is so commonplace.
and some plain shocked that no permits are required whatsoever in some States.


SOURCE

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

Some seem surprised that Concealed carry is so commonplace.
and some plain shocked that no permits are required whatsoever in some States.

I had read a while back that Missouri had a state bill in congress to lower CCW age to 19...while making all federal gun legislation illegal.

I haven't checked up on it in a long time...probably should...

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

Some seem surprised that Concealed carry is so commonplace.

I did the math once by looking at the total number on concealed carry licenses issued to the last census's total population count here in utah. I think the number I arrived at was that 1.5 to 2 people out of 10 have a carry permit in Utah.

edit: I should also point out though, that while one could say that there's 2 concealed carry holders for every 10 people in Utah, not everyone who has a CFP carries a gun with them every day. I'll bet that around half of the CFP holders don't carry on a regular basis. I know I don't.

[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.