Gun control advocate Thomas Mannard, executive director of the Illinois Council on Handgun Violence, said he won’t be surprised if the decision is used to rally support for a concealed carry law.An alternative view on the passage of a concealed carry bill in Illinois:
“You kind of grasp at anything you can to try and get some momentum,” Mannard said. “But it’s a little bit of a stretch.”
State Rep. Bill Mitchell, R-Forsyth, said the high court decision could alter the number of votes needed in the House and Senate to approve a concealed carry proposal.The current governor wanted to poor water on that idea:
Currently, parliamentary rules mean a concealed carry proposal needs 71 votes to be sent to the governor. Mitchell said the ruling could result in a simple majority of lawmakers — 60 in the House — being needed for passage.
“I think that’s achievable,” said Mitchell, who is sponsoring a concealed weapons measure in the House.
Gov. Pat Quinn expressed doubt Monday that concealed carry will move forward in the General Assembly anytime soon.Quinn neglected to read the bearing part of the the 2nd Amendment, apparently.
“I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s embedded in the constitutional right,” Quinn told reporters in Springfield.
And the supreme dictator of Chicago, Richard (I've got my armed detail) Daley was also sad:
Sad that the Supreme Court recognized citizens' rights:
Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley speaks during a news conference, Monday, June 28, 2010, in Chicago. Daley said he's disappointed by Monday's widely expected Supreme Court decision that Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere but promised to soon push for a new ordinance regulating handguns in the city. He stressed that while the city's 28-year-old ban remains in place until a federal appeals court reconsiders its ruling, it's clear it will be overturned. (AP Photo)I'm disappointed that Chicago can't boot his sorry ass out on the street. But that's Chicago.
Gun ruling could trigger changes in Illinois Get it? "Trigger". Aren't journalists clever?
2 comments:
Evidently Alito also forgot to read the "bearing" part of the Second Amendment also. Nowhere is the right to bear arms affirmed, either in McDonald nor Heller, which basically is the same damn decision rife with all sorts of signposts pointing to "acceptable" infringements of that which "....shall not be infringed".
As expected Daley has already announced regulatory dismantling of any real right to arms.
You're right, SA. And that is one of the risks with relying on the courts to define what a right entails.
Bill Salier in the radio this afternoon asked why this case was even argued in the first place.
We have surely fallen as a nation to where we once were and what we could have become.
Post a Comment