| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| A revealing move on concealed carry | |
| 2013-05-17 | |
| [Chicag Tribune] In December, a panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Illinois' ban on carrying concealed weapons in public was unconstitutional. "A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home," Judge Richard Posner wrote in the majority opinion. "A gun is a potential danger to more people if carried in public than just kept in the home," he wrote. "But the other side of this coin is that knowing that many law-abiding citizens are walking the streets armed may make criminals timid." Posner directed Illinois politicians to fashion a law that lifts the complete ban on carrying guns in public. The judge didn't tell them how to do that, but he told them when they had to get it done. He set a deadline: 180 days. More than half that time has passed, but politicians have not found much consensus on a concealed carry bill. Gun rights advocates want a broad, permissive law. Gun control advocates want, well, they don't really want any law. But faced with the order of the court, they're focused on creating a fairly restrictive law. So what law can pass the Legislature and the scrutiny of the courts? The U.S. Supreme Court gave a welcome signal this week. It declined to review a federal appellate court ruling that upheld the constitutionality of New York state's concealed carry law, considered one of the more restrictive in the nation. New York is a "may-issue" state. That is, local law enforcement officials may grant concealed carry permits, but they have broad authority to deny permits to applicants who don't demonstrate that they have a special need for protection. In New York City, most applicants are denied. Business owners who want to carry a loaded weapon or hire armed security guards must furnish, among other things, tax and banking records.
The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't set a precedent for the nation. It doesn't guarantee that a law patterned on New York would survive a court challenge, but it certainly increases the prospects that it would. So, let's go. Illinois could live with a concealed-carry law that recognizes local needs and interests. Gov. Pat Quinn and other Democratic leaders have signaled support for that option. The gun lobby doesn't like the New York template, but it would be interesting to watch pro-gun politicians defend a vote to defeat a bill that for the first time establishes concealed carry in Illinois. | |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #3 Illinois politicians will back up and give the absolute minimum ground. They do not want an armed public, and they will obstruct at every opportunity that they can get away with. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2013-05-17 15:13 |
| #2 If you're going to pass a law only giving a small fraction of the populace the right to use effective self-defense away from their homes, why not go all the way and leave things where noone can? |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2013-05-17 14:15 |
| #1 but it would be interesting to watch pro-gun politicians defend a vote to defeat a bill that for the first time establishes concealed carry in Illinois I wonder if the Tribune ever considered the argument that a lousy concealed carry bill may be worse than no concealed carry bill. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2013-05-17 12:51 |