Concealed Carry Amendatory Veto Likely, Lisa Madigan Says.....

[MMC]

I was referring to your rant about women.

Your article says that Madigan doesn't have a deadline to file an appeal.

"...Asked what she meant by telling an audience she would decide "sooner rather than later," the attorney general replied, "That's all it means. That's my sense of things. I don't have a deadline."

As attorney general, Madigan has successfully sought to put a hold on a federal appeals court ruling that tossed out the state's ban on carrying a concealed firearm. She has held off on appealing the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court as she waits to see whether a compromise bill enacted in the closing days of the spring session last month is signed into law....."

This doesn't change the fact that the SCOTUS gave her a deadline. I doubt anyone cares what her thoughts are on her own deadlines. As to the rant.....you mistake it for what it is. Madigan is trying to play on the issue of Women not being tuff. Which is an outright deceit.

As women in politics have led the way these last few years. Being tuff and aggressive. Course then there is Hillary.....that Madigan just cannot compare with. See one thing Illinois and Chicago Democrats do well.....is Lie, cheat and steal. The Madigans have been doing it for over 30years.

"Oh" and as to Madigans Deadline.....hers gets to take a backseat at the rear of the Bus!

The U.S. Supreme Court is giving Illinois’ attorney general more time to decide whether to appeal a ruling that the state’s ban on the public possession of firearms is unconstitutional.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan now has until June 24 to ask the high court to hear the case.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found Illinois’ prohibition on the carrying of concealed firearms unconstitutional in December. It ordered lawmakers to pass legislation to legalize concealed carry by June 9.

The 30-day extension granted by the court Friday does not affect that deadline.....snip~

Supreme Court Gives Madigan More Time For Concealed Carry Appeal « CBS Chicago

Its those damn Ethics, huh.....always getting in the way of what Democrats really want to do.

 

[blaxshep]

The point is why do gun rights advocates think their rights more important than everyone elses?

The NRA puts a lot of peoples right to life in jeapardy by preventing common sense gun regulations such as UBC that majority of the public seem to want. So where is the public's rights to decide what they want?

First of all guns rights are EVERYONE'S rights.

Second, 99.995% of guns are never used is crimes so "a lot" of people's lives are NOT in jeopardy, in fact far less than those in jeopardy from electricity, cars and swimming pools.

Third, the majority has no authority over rights, that is the very point and concept of a right.

 

[TurtleDude]

First of all guns rights are EVERYONE'S rights.

Second, 99.995% of guns are never used is crimes so "a lot" of people's lives are NOT in jeopardy, in fact far less than those in jeopardy from electricity, cars and swimming pools.

Third, the majority has no authority over rights, that is the very point and concept of a right.

moot seems to think that her rights are somehow diminished if we exercise our rights to keep and bear arms

that sort of assumption is beyond idiotic

 

[TurtleDude]

The point is why do gun rights advocates think their rights more important than everyone elses?

The NRA puts a lot of peoples right to life in jeapardy by preventing common sense gun regulations such as UBC that majority of the public seem to want. So where is the public's rights to decide what they want?

the rights the NRA protects hurt you not in the least.

for you to make your moronic claim you have to prove that the stuff you want is common sense (dubious given your arguments are nonsensical) and will actually increase public safety

NO study (even those commissioned to help the anti gun scumbags) was able to find that the brady bill increased public safety so there is no real belief that UBC will do something the brady bill failed to do

the purpose of UBC is twofold

pandering pimps can claim they DID SOMETHING even though UBC have no relevance to LANZA

and two, when they fail to work those pimps and their ass kissing toadies will claim we need registration to enforce those stupid UBCs

 

[SMTA]

80% of homicides are committed outdoors which is where most people carry concealed weapons. So we will probably continue to see more shootings...outdoors.

Actually, gun laws in Chicago have significantly reduced the number of illegal and underground gun sales......

http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/EJ_gun_markets_2007.pdf


The NRA plays on the issue of women and voting, too....

NRA seeks to highlight its 'armed and fabulous' women



Why Chicago will be one of the world's 'most economically competitive cities'

More worthless hyperbole.

When OH began CCW in 2004, the 'blood would run in the streets' according to opponents.

Of course, that never happened.

Same with every state that has enacted CCW.

You lose - again.

 

[SMTA]

First of all guns rights are EVERYONE'S rights.

Second, 99.995% of guns are never used is crimes so "a lot" of people's lives are NOT in jeopardy, in fact far less than those in jeopardy from electricity, cars and swimming pools.

Third, the majority has no authority over rights, that is the very point and concept of a right.

Nice balance of truth, honesty, and common sense.

 

[BretJ]

Most young people just use guns for status symbols.



"...What motivates the demand for guns in the GB/WP area? SV’s younger informants typically seek guns for the status they confer, rather than as inputs into a crime production function. With 'status goods' economists sometimes refer metaphorically to "arms races", but in the market for guns among young people there seems to be a literal arms race at work. As one young gang member notes, in the absence of having a gun: "Who is going to fear me? Who is going to take me seriously? Nobody. I’m a ***** unless I got my gun."

Just showing rather than actually firing guns is usually sufficient for the purposes of achieving the desired result. As one youth noted, You have to let other people see it without letting them see it. See, it’s all about them not messing with you. As another youth noted, "Like them slick flicks [pornographic movies], it’s all about the bulge." It never even gets that far [explicitly showing other people the gun].

Another non-gang affiliated youth notes: Thing is, see, it ain’t really about fighting or nothing, because
even if you have a group of guys and you see a group of guys, lot of times, it’s just you show em you got one, they show you they got one, and you just be on your way. It’s just like signifying that you prepared.

Even for older gang members and professional criminals who are regularly engaged in crime, gun use was typically limited to simply brandishing the weapon. For example of the 57 older gang members SV interviewed, only around 10% admitted to having fired their gun during a robbery....read....

http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/EJ_gun_markets_2007.pdf

Then it appears as if state officials, city elders/legislators, educators, community organizers, entertainers and law enforcement need to do something to change the gangsta "everyone owes me something" culture.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

You made an unsubstantiated claim and you were wrong...people can be hurt by law abiding citizens carrying a concealed weapon.

Yes they can. And if one doesn't want to be injured by someone legally carrying a concealed firearm then don't **** with them. A simple remedy.

 

[BretJ]

You made an unsubstantiated claim and you were wrong...people can be hurt by law abiding citizens carrying a concealed weapon.

You are absolutely correct. No logical flaw in that statment at all. But that could be said of many, many things and does not really support further gun control.

 

[BretJ]

But we do ban many things that can hurt people.

10 beloved banned and recalled products - Yahoo!

CPSC - CPSC Bans Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation (UFFI)

CPSC - CPSC Bans TRIS-Treated Children's Garments

CPSC's ban on drop-side cribs takes effect in June - USATODAY.com

U.S. Federal Bans on Asbestos | Asbestos | US EPA

...and so on.

Those links primarily show substances/chemicals, such as the fire retardent or Urea Formaldehyde, unwittingly being used in a manner that is a health hazard. The bans do not prevent the use of those materials. They only "ban" their use in specific situations where they are shown to be a health hazard. Note that even though there are bans in place, they do not prevent anyone from circumventing them illegally.

The consumer goods that have been "banned" in your links, for the most part, had unforeseen design flaws which directly caused injuries or death through no neglect, misuse or unlawful intent of the end user. Most items were not banned really. CPSC only required the products be modified in a way which would prevent injury when used correctly.

I don't think you could really use the same premise of these "bans" and apply them to firearms. I cannot think of any legally owned firearms that would meet the criteria for the bans you have linked. Normally, I would use alcohol as an example of something which is more of a health hazard than firearms; but even alcohol would not meet your linked criteria.

 

[Moot]

First of all guns rights are EVERYONE'S rights.

I'm glad you see it that way since thats basically my arguement and not that of most gun right advocates as evidenced by their own words and propaganda to exclude the rights of anyone who may or may not disagree with them.

A Minnesota radio host said he would like to tell the families of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims to "go to hell" for infringing on his gun rights.....
Bob Davis, Minnesota Radio Host: Sandy Hook Families Can 'Go To Hell' For Infringing On Gun Rights

What rights of his did the families of Sandy Hook victims infringe on, exactly? Apparently, the victims of gun violence and their families don't have rights...at least not according to some gun rights advocates.

Second, 99.995% of guns are never used is crimes so "a lot" of people's lives are NOT in jeopardy, in fact far less than those in jeopardy from electricity, cars and swimming pools.

Well, if you don't need guns to defend yourself then what are you arguing about if you can use electricity, cars and swimming pools?

48,000 people died from gun violence in the last five months...too bad they didn't have a electricity, cars or a swimming pool handy to defend themselves.

Third, the majority has no authority over rights, that is the very point and concept of a right.

That might be true but rights still have to be recognized.

 

[Moot]

Those links primarily show substances/chemicals, such as the fire retardent or Urea Formaldehyde, unwittingly being used in a manner that is a health hazard. The bans do not prevent the use of those materials. They only "ban" their use in specific situations where they are shown to be a health hazard. Note that even though there are bans in place, they do not prevent anyone from circumventing them illegally.

The consumer goods that have been "banned" in your links, for the most part, had unforeseen design flaws which directly caused injuries or death through no neglect, misuse or unlawful intent of the end user. Most items were not banned really. CPSC only required the products be modified in a way which would prevent injury when used correctly.

I don't think you could really use the same premise of these "bans" and apply them to firearms. I cannot think of any legally owned firearms that would meet the criteria for the bans you have linked. Normally, I would use alcohol as an example of something which is more of a health hazard than firearms; but even alcohol would not meet your linked criteria.

Guns and all those banned items are commodities that can be bought, sold and traded and as such they can be regulated.

 

[CRUE CAB]

The point is why do gun rights advocates think their rights more important than everyone elses?

The NRA puts a lot of peoples right to life in jeapardy by preventing common sense gun regulations such as UBC that majority of the public seem to want. So where is the public's rights to decide what they want?

First of all the only poll showing the public want the UBC is the governments or their mouthpieces.
Do you know that we already have a background check system in place. Back in 1986 and was promoted by the NRA.
Problem with it is, no that fails is investigated.
Oh, and everyone up to Joe Biden says that no laws like that would have prevented Aroura or Newtown.

 

[Master PO]

Guns and all those banned items are commodities that can be bought, sold and traded and as such they can be regulated.

yes they can, but not by the federal government, no matter what you believe the federal government has not authority to regulate inside states, and no authority over firearms.

in your response i know is coming from you, i will provide in the constitution and the federalist papers from Madison himself ,stating the federal government has no authority inside a state to regulate.

and if we want to go further according to the USSC which ruled after the civil was the states must obey the bill of rights, this then gives no authority at all to the states or the federal government, since the bill of rights clause are declaratory and restrictive to governments, stated by madison.

of coarse i know you will dismiss Madison, however the facts are there on paper for everyone to read.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Guns and all those banned items are commodities that can be bought, sold and traded and as such they can be regulated.

Nope, that is bad logic first issued by SCOTUS during the FDR administration. Interstate commerce literally means trade disputes regarding the states, federal, and foreign trading partners(to simplify), it is nothing more than intergovernmental trade equity powers.

 

[BretJ]

Guns and all those banned items are commodities that can be bought, sold and traded and as such they can be regulated.

That is correct, to a point. The criteria used to regulate or "ban" those commodities cannot be used in the same way to ban certain firearms. Firearms are already regulated. Can you demonstrate a compelling argument to further regulate firearms that cannot be applied to any other commodity that can result in death or injuries if misused? Personally, I have no issues with UBC and I have discussed this with many that are anti UBC. Even then, I think it is really a pointless exercise considering the goal is to reduce suicide and inner city violence to a any relevant level. It is a kind of a legislative barometer of the cluelessness of the politicians that want to enact UBC on the premise it will do so.

 

[BretJ]

I'm glad you see it that way since thats basically my arguement and not that of most gun right advocates as evidenced by their own words and propaganda to exclude the rights of anyone who may or may not disagree with them.

A Minnesota radio host said he would like to tell the families of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims to "go to hell" for infringing on his gun rights.....
Bob Davis, Minnesota Radio Host: Sandy Hook Families Can 'Go To Hell' For Infringing On Gun Rights

What rights of his did the families of Sandy Hook victims infringe on, exactly? Apparently, the victims of gun violence and their families don't have rights...at least not according to some gun rights advocates.
They did not infringe on his rights. They were promoting legislation that would directly infringe on his rights and freedoms. The victims had the right to legal recourse against the individuals that illegally violated their rights. The fact that some of these asshats commit suicide after the fact is tragic but that is the limit of reality. The victims do not have the right to infringe upon the rights and freedoms of all gun owners unless they can show that all gun owners are a threat to their rights or freedoms.

Well, if you don't need guns to defend yourself then what are you arguing about if you can use electricity, cars and swimming pools?

48,000 people died from gun violence in the last five months...too bad they didn't have a electricity, cars or a swimming pool handy to defend themselves.

That THC logic is just too weird to try and debate...

That might be true but rights still have to be recognized.

And there is the cruxt of the argument and what gun owners have been saying. What rights are you saying gun owners are not recognizing?

 

[Moot]

First of all the only poll showing the public want the UBC is the governments or their mouthpieces.
Do you know that we already have a background check system in place. Back in 1986 and was promoted by the NRA.

Maybe that was before they became political lobbyists for gun manufacturers.

Problem with it is, no that fails is investigated.

Not sure you what you meant but you know what they say....an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Oh, and everyone up to Joe Biden says that no laws like that would have prevented Aroura or Newtown.

Gun rights and limited or no regulation wouldn't have prevented Aurora or Newtown either. But a law preventing the mentally insane from buying, owning and using guns would probably be a good idea and whose to say that it wouldn't have prevented a killing spree in Aurora or Newtown since we seldom ever hear about unsuccessful mass killings.... unless the perp gets caught in the planning. Australia hasn't had a mass killing since passing strict gun control back in the 1990s.

 

[blaxshep]

That might be true but rights still have to be recognized.

Yes the rights of even 1 person to keep and bare arms UN-infringed MUST be recognized by the other 299,999,999 Americans even if every last one of them wants to ban all guns outright. Don't like it then pass an amendment otherwise STFU.

 

[ttwtt78640]

But we do ban many things that can hurt people.

10 beloved banned and recalled products - Yahoo!

CPSC - CPSC Bans Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation (UFFI)

CPSC - CPSC Bans TRIS-Treated Children's Garments

CPSC's ban on drop-side cribs takes effect in June - USATODAY.com

U.S. Federal Bans on Asbestos | Asbestos | US EPA

...and so on.

The things cited in your examples are neither constitutionally protected nor are they banned for only non-gov't employees.

 

[blaxshep]

The things cited in your examples are neither constitutionally protected nor are they banned for only non-gov't employees.

I have no right to keep and install Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation?

 

[Kal'Stang]

A Minnesota radio host said he would like to tell the families of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims to "go to hell" for infringing on his gun rights.....
Bob Davis, Minnesota Radio Host: Sandy Hook Families Can 'Go To Hell' For Infringing On Gun Rights

What rights of his did the families of Sandy Hook victims infringe on, exactly? Apparently, the victims of gun violence and their families don't have rights...at least not according to some gun rights advocates.

They tried to by standing up for a bill which would have infringed rights. Just because they were not successfull does not mean that they didn't try.

48,000 people died from gun violence in the last five months...too bad they didn't have a electricity, cars or a swimming pool handy to defend themselves.

Proof please.

(how much do people want to bet that she'll include suicides and defensive gun use?)

That might be true but rights still have to be recognized.

What do you think the 2nd amendment is? Just some random sentence put into the Bill of Rights for no other reason than the founders being bored so wanted to liven things up with a joke? ....wait...not sure if I want you to actually answer that....

 

[Master PO]

Yes the rights of even 1 person to keep and bare arms UN-infringed MUST be recognized by the other 299,999,999 Americans even if every last one of them wants to ban all guns outright. Don't like it then pass an amendment otherwise STFU.

James Madison--"Here is an express and solemn declaration by the Convention of the State, that they ratified the Constitution in the sense that no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Government of the United States, or any part of it, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution; and in the sense, particularly, "that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and freedom of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States"

Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:48

"[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments:Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws;Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe." --john adams

 

[Moot]

And there is the cruxt of the argument and what gun owners have been saying. What rights are you saying gun owners are not recognizing?

Well, for one, the gun right advocates are denying people their first amendent right to petition the government. Thats what the Newtown victim families are doing....petitioning the government for stricter gun laws and as a result they've been victimized all over again by the same people that allowed the mentally ill to get and use guns that killed their kids in the first place. For another, the NRA lobbied to get a law passed that protected gun manufacturers over the victims so they can't sue for damages. Thats infringing on their right to seek justice...which is one of the founding principles of our government and like the first amendment it too precedes the second amendment. Or is the NRA the only ones allowed to petition for or against gun laws that directly benefit them and infringes on their rights of the majority to live in a civilized society?

Newtown Victims' Legal Options Curbed By NRA-Backed Law

 

[Spartacus FPV]

48,000 people died from gun violence in the last five months...too bad they didn't have a electricity, cars or a swimming pool handy to defend themselves.

Wow, that would be more than four times the total for the entire year of 2012!

Source for that claim? (I already know its a bull**** number btw and that you wont have or provide one)