CHICAGO, Aug. 10 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following was released today by the ISRA Political Victory Fund (ISRA-PVF):
Law-abiding Illinois firearm owners are under a renewed attack by Gov. Pat Quinn's re-election campaign. After receiving the endorsement of a radical gun control group last week, Quinn's campaign is now the apparent mastermind of a plan to place a referendum on the November ballot that would call for the banning of a wide variety of popular hunting and target firearms.
Petition documents filed with the Illinois State Board of Elections show the title of the proposed referendum as being "Petition to Ban the Sale on Semi-Automatic and Assault Weapons." Notarized signatures on over 100 pages of petitions show one "Maz Jackson" as being the petition circulator. Maz Jackson is a top field operative for the Quinn gubernatorial re-election campaign.
"It appears that Pat Quinn plans to attack hunters and sportsmen from every angle," commented ISRA-PVF spokesman, Richard Pearson. "First he throws in with the likes of gun control extremists Jim and Sarah Brady, and now his campaign staff is circulating petitions seeking to ban most of the privately owned firearms in the state. Once again, Pat Quinn has shown himself to be more in step with Mayor Daley and the Chicago power structure than he is with the vast majority of Illinois citizens."
The ISRA-PVF is a political action committee affiliated with the Illinois State Rifle Association. Donations to the ISRA-PVF are not tax deductible. A copy of our report is available for a fee from the Illinois State Board of Elections, Springfield, IL
Edgar, Douglas, Vermillion, Champaign Co. Right To Carry Educational Town Hall Meeting Monday July 12, 2010 7:00-9:00 pm Hawthorn Suite, 101 Trade Centre Dr, Champaign, IL
McLean County Right to Carry Town Hall Meeting The New Lafayette Club, Bloomington, IL.:
Friday, July 9 - Second Amendment Freedom Rally in Chicago
Friday July 9, 2010 from 11:00am - 1:00 pm at the James R. Thompson Center 100 W. Randolph St. in Chicago
The rally that celebrates the restoration of the right to keep and bear arms! Don’t miss this event at the Thompson Center commemorating the Supreme Court Victory in McDonald v Chicago!
Second Amendment Freedom Rally sponsors, Illinois State Rifle Association and IllinoisCarry.com, welcome the plaintiffs from the case! Other special guests include WVON's Charles Butler & several local activists! Cisco Cotto from WLS-AM will MC this event!
Event Details
It is important that we put our best foot forward and present the best image of Illinois firearm owners - friendly, courteous, and respectful of the other attendees and our surroundings. Suggested attire is casual/business casual. The rally is outside on the plaza, bring sunscreen if you are so inclined. There is a food court in the downstairs portion of the Thompson Center if you need to grab a quick bite before or after the event. We have been instructed to keep the entrances to the Thompson Center clear and also that we stay out of the street and not cause a traffic hazard.
There are many ways to get to the Thompson Center via public transportation: CTA Trains and buses, Metra, Amtrak. Go to ChicagoRally.isra.org for more details.
Volunteers
Additional volunteers are needed for ground crew at the event, and will meet at 10:00 at the stage on the plaza. Contact Don Gwinn if you can help out, send mail to: dongwinn@thefiringline.com.
More Info
Go to ChicagoRally.isra.org for more details. Email questions to ChicagoRally@isra.org.
U.S. Supreme Court Rules Chicago Handgun Ban Unconstitutional! The U.S. Supreme Court announced its 5-4 decision today overturning the decades old Chicago ban on handguns! Following on the heels of the Heller vs DC decision two years ago which ruled DC's ban unconstitutional, the landmark case of McDonald vs Chicago finally brings the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms to the states.
This decision is a huge win for the entire nation but especially for Chicago residents who have for decades been denied the right to possess a handgun in their home. Increasing opposition to the ban has been fueled by residents of the city demanding the right to protect themselves from the horrendous number of violent crimes in their neighborhoods.
The ruling is also a tremendous win for Illinois citizens whose state constitution holds that the right to keep and bear arms is "subject to police power". The Court ruled the 14th Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment to the states meaning " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is a right protected even from local and state governments. While this decision does not immediately change state law it does throw open the door to re-examination of current law and a whole new era of defining the words "shall not be infringed".
What does it all mean in our efforts to see a Right to Carry law passed in Illinois? It means a great deal in the IL General Assembly where some fence-sitters on the issue have been waiting to see "if" the Second Amendment truly does apply to the states. It will almost assuredly add votes to our side of the tally board and will make it increasingly more difficult to pass new laws restricting the right of a law abiding citizen's to keep and bear arms.
Mayor Daley has vowed, regardless of the Supreme Court decision, to continue do everything he can to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of the people of Chicago - but he can't do it alone - he must have the votes of the aldermen on the city council. If you are a resident of Chicago, contact your alderman TODAY and demand they support your constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Demand they put an end to Mayor Daley's fanatical attack on their right to protect themselves and their families.
This is a great day in the history of this nation, the state of Illinois, and for the people of Chicago!! IllinoisCarry extends our heartfelt gratitude and respect to the courageous plaintiffs who stood before the courts on behalf of all Americans - Adam Orlov, David and Colleen Lawson, and lead plaintiff Otis McDonald. Thank you to the Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, lead attorney Alan Gura, and Chicago attorney David Sigale for making it happen!
A copy of the ruling can be downloaded at SCOTUSblog.com.
Mayor Daley doesn't get it about firearms and personal safety. After the highly publicized self-defense shooting in East Garfield Park on the West Side on Wednesday, he should fold his tent, shut his mouth and go away.
The U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to nullify Chicago's draconian handgun ban, and nothing clarifies Daley's dilemma with guns more dramatically than the slaying of home invader Anthony "Big Ant" Nelson, a 29-year-old career thug who has, according to the Chicago Tribune, a "13-page rap sheet that includes a number of drug and weapons convictions dating to 1998, according to police and court records." This neighborhood predator made what nationally recognized self-defense expert Massad Ayoob calls "a fatal error in the victim selection process."
Nelson reportedly fired a shot from a handgun -- you know, they're banned in Chicago, and convicted felons like "Big Ant" aren't supposed to have them anyway; yet another failure of gun control -- through the bedroom window of an 80-year-old Army veteran who served in the Korean War.
Most likely to Nelson's great, and terminal, surprise, the older man fired back, with his own handgun that almost certainly was not registered in the city. Had he followed the law, this gentleman, his wife, and possibly their 12-year-old grandson, who was in the next room, might all be dead right now.
Fortunately, thanks to the Illinois Legislature's override of Rod Blagojevich's veto of SB 2165 in November 2004, the older gentleman will not face prosecution. That was the "Hale DeMar" act, which protects homeowners who shoot in self-defense even if there is a local ordinance against handgun possession.
DeMar shot a burglar in his Wilmette home and was initially charged with violating that community's handgun ban, but public outrage forced the Cook County prosecutor to drop the charge.
The question remains in this case whether the old gentleman will get his gun back from the police when the investigation is completed.
Daley wants his citizens, including elderly people, to remain disarmed while only someone living in monumental denial would believe that creeps like Nelson might be deterred from packing guns illegally.
Daley has practiced anti-gun demagoguery for years, but that may soon come to a screeching halt, not only because of an affirmative high court ruling in the case of McDonald vs. City of Chicago -- the Second Amendment Foundation's case before the U.S. Supreme Court -- but also because public reaction to the Nelson shooting is decidedly in support of the man who shot him.
Chicago residents have grown weary of living in dangerous neighborhoods where, because of Daley's anti-gun policies that defend the city's ban, they have been stripped of the tools to fight back. It is their plight against armed criminals like Nelson that compelled the Second Amendment Foundation to join with the Illinois State Rifle Association and four Chicago residents to sue the city.
Reaction among Chicago residents to Wednesday's fatal shooting clearly demonstrates that the public supports this lawsuit.
While Daley appears at a press event and suggests he might like to poke a gun barrel into the rump of a reporter and fire a round, neighbors of the Army veteran who killed Nelson in self-defense, along with Chicago Sun-Times columnist Stella Foster, are telling the mayor that he needs to "come up with a better solution [to crime] than just saying 'turn in your guns.' "
Daley's stubborn defense of his city's handgun ban shows him to be so out of touch with the public, and with the reality of his city's crime problem, that he may not even be jolted to good sense by a Supreme Court loss.
Well, here is the reality: Richard Daley's policies are directly responsible for people like Nelson, because the Chicago gun ban has emboldened Windy City thugs to prey on good people they know will be disarmed. Tough luck for Nelson that one courageous older man -- a man who had been robbed at gunpoint last year in his own home for $150 -- had the fortitude and good sense to arm himself in spite of Daley's ban, and now his neighborhood is "one short" of the kind of scum that the Chicago ban has essentially protected for more than a quarter-century.
Alan Gottlieb is executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation. Dave Workman is senior editor of Gun Week. They are co-authors of 'America Fights Back: Armed Self-Defense in a Violent Age.'
One of the keys to securing a Right to Carry law in the state of Illinois is informing and educating the public about the Right to Carry and how successful it is in the 49 states where concealed or open carry is recognized as lawful. IllinoisCarry working together with the Illinois State Rifle Association and Second Amendment Sisters is leading that effort by sponsoring town hall meetings all over the state.
Many residents of Illinois do not know Illinois is the last and only state which prohibits carrying a firearm for personal protection. With the media bias against the Right to Carry we cannot rely on the mainstream media to get the word out - we must take the message to the public.
Recent town hall meetings in McHenry, DuPage, Kane Counties and in the city of Chicago have been very successful and we are expanding our efforts all over the state and deeper into Chicago! Find a town hall meeting near you and invite your friends and family who have questions or concerns about the issue. Bring them to the meetings where those questions can be answered and their concerns can be addressed.
Please come join IllinoisCarry.com, ISRA, Second Amendment Sisters and many local featured speakers. Show your support for the right to carry and join in the effort to see a right to carry law passed in the state of Illinois! Don't see a meeting in your area and would like to help organize one? Contact IllinoisCarry and let us know!
Will County Right To Carry Town Hall Meeting Tuesday May 25, 2010 7:00 - 9:00 pm Lincolnway High School Auditorium 1801 East Lincoln Highway New Lenox, IL
Winnebago County Right To Carry Town Hall Meeting Wednesday May 26, 2010 7:00 - 9:00 pm Giovanni's Convention Center 610 North Bell School Road Rockford, IL
Cook County Right to Carry Town Hall Meeting Thursday May 27, 2010 7:00 - 9:00 pm Serbian Social Center 18550 Stony Island Ave Lansing, Illinois 60438
Rock Island County Right to Carry Town Hall Meeting Saturday June 12, 2010 9:00 am - 11:00 am The Rock 302 First Street Coal Valley, IL 61240
La Salle County Right To Carry Town Hall Meeting Sunday June 13, 2010 1:00 – 3:00 pm The Pitstick 3401 N State Route 23 Ottawa, Illinois
St. Clair County Right to Carry Town Hall Meeting Friday June 18, 2010 7 :00 - 9:00 pm VFW 5325 North Illinois Street Fairview Heights, IL
Wayne-Jefferson-Richland-Effingham-Clay County Right to Carry Meeting Saturday June 26, 2010 7:00 - 9:00 pm Cumberland Presbyterian Church Outer West Delaware Fairfield, IL
Illinois Gun Owner Lobby Day - Huge Success! Thousands of Illinois Second Amendment supporters marched to the State Capitol in Springfield last week to demand a Right to Carry law in Illinois. An estimated 7,000 turned out for the largest Second Amendment march in Illinois history. The crowd enthusiastically called for "Concealed Carry, NOW". The huge turnout signals a real surge in public support for a carry law similar to laws in 49 other states. Illinois is the last and only state that still denies its law-abiding citizens the right to carry a firearm for personal protection.
The big event began with a rally at the Prairie Capitol Convention Center. Attendees were treated to a surprise address by Mr. Otis McDonald, key plaintiff in the McDonald vs Chicago lawsuit challenging the Chicago handgun ban. Oral arguments in that case were heard recently in the U.S. Supreme Court. A final ruling by the SCOTUS will have far reaching effects on firearm restrictions all across the nation. Mr. McDonald's soft spoken and heartfelt address to the crowd was met with thunderous applause and numerous standing ovations - a fitting tribute to Mr. Donald's patriotic stand to regain a Constitutional right for us all.
The march to the Capitol, led by the women of IGOLD, was punctuated by choruses of "Hey, Governor, leave our guns along", a response to Gov. Quinn's vow to veto a Right to Carry bill if it made it to his desk. After another brief rally on the Lincoln Steps attendees entered the Capitol Complex to lobby their legislators, Speaker of the House Michael Madigan, and President of the Senate John Cullerton in person.
After the lobbying was over, the huge crowd returned to the PCCC to meet with legislators and a special address by Sen. Bill Brady, gubernatorial candidate and strong Second Amendment supporter . Photos and videos of the event are available at IllinoisCarry.com.
Women of IGOLD Deliver Message to Governor's Office - No Right to Carry - No Vote for Pat Quinn! After entering the Capitol building, the women of IGOLD gathered in the rotunda for an address by Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno and Rep. Brandon Phelps. Both legislators believe it is time for Illinois to join the rest of the nation by passing a Right to Carry law. As has become the annual tradtion at IGOLD, each woman present then delivered a letter to the Governor's office demanding that he support their constitutional right to carry a firearm for personal protection. And once again, in traditional fashion, the Governor was "unavailable" to speak with the women. However, the Governor's Intergovernmental Affairs Liaison did meet with the women and vowed she would relay the women's message and letters to the Governor.
Women all over the state are encouraged to send their own letter to the Governor which states very clearly that if he does not support a woman's right to self-defense then the women of Illinois will not support him with their vote in the fall election. The letter is available for downloading and printing at IllinoisCarry.com. Print a copy for your female friends and family members, urge them to send a clear message to the Governor!
* Hi, SCC. My name is Colleen Lawson, and I am one of the plaintiffs in McDonald v Chicago.
I'm writing you to share an incident that occurred yesterday, and in hope that you might allow me to publicly thank and acknowledge those involved.
Yesterday, two Chicago cops pulled up next to me while I was parked at a gas station. I was standing by my car. They got out of their squad car, walked up to me, and thanked me.
I would like those officers to know that their words, and their handshakes, mean more to me than anyone else's have.
I was deeply, deeply touched by the fact that these officers, who place their lives on the line every day for citizens like me and my fellow plaintiffs and every single Chicagoan and visitor, these officers who never can be quite sure where they'll be at the end of the day ... that they had come over to speak to me, and to voice their support.
I apologize for my quick exit -- I was kind of stunned as they continued speaking and probably just mumbled my thanks back to them, then got back into my car and just cried as I drove home. I completely forgot to go into the store and make my purchases; but then, no one has ever flustered me to that extent before.
Truly. Not high-up, celebrity, mucky-muck or thug. Yesterday's cops trump them all, and that one moment with them is my highest treasure.
I am humbled and intensely grateful. You, all of you, have my thanks.
* It's just occurred to me that this is the only letter i've written publicly since this case began. That's how honored I feel by the words of your officers :)
Well, for our part, we'd just like to add our thanks to those of our fellow officers. Standing up for your fellow citizens and saying, "Enough!" may not seem like a big deal, but in some countries around the world, it lands you a term in prison, a session with the torturers or even death. Inaction is one of the worst sins any civilized society can commit because it makes it that much easier for the next bad act to occur. It is our hope that by your action, you have inspired countless others to step up when necessary.
We and literally million of others are in your debt.
It's been two years since five women were terrorized then brutally murdered in a Lane Bryant store in Tinley Park, IL. Even though the policeman answering the 911 call was just minutes away in the parking lot of the shopping center where the store was located, the murderer was able to brutally kill the women and leave the scene undetected.
It has been two more years that women in Illinois have been denied the right to protect themselves against such violence.
Two more years and how many more women have been beaten, robbed, sexually assaulted or murdered? Two more years from now - what will that number be?
Valinda Rowe, spokespeson for IllinoisCarry.com, says those questions should haunt every elected office holder, every law enforcement officer, and every law-abiding citizen in the state of Illinois.
Illinois is the last and only state that prohibits the carrying of firearms for self-defense. Forty-eight states have some form of law recognizing the carrying of concealed firearms. Wisconsin, does not have a law concerning the carrying of concealed firearms, but does recognize
openly carrying a firearm for self-defense as legal.
An attempt to pass a carry law in the Illinois General Assembly was narrowly defeated several decades ago and has since been thwarted by the leadership in both chambers who maintain, in spite of the Tinley Park massacre and Chicago's horrific homicide numbers, that the issue is largely a downstate concern.
Ms. Rowe blasts the Illinois General Assembly leadership for not bringing the issue of personal self-defense for IL citizens to the floor for consideration. Ms. Rowe says, "I want every woman and man in this state to be outraged by what happened to those women in that store. I want the good citizens of IL to join me in Springfield to demand that not another two years go by before legislators pass a Right to Carry law.
Last March nearly 5,000 IL citizens attending Illinois Gun Owner Lobby Day, known statewide as IGOLD, marched in Springfield to the State Capitol and called for immediate consideration of a carry law. That outcry has gone unheeded. Ms. Rowe, one of the organizers of the event,
vows supporters of a carry law will return in even greater numbers this coming March 10th to demand legislators uphold the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families. More information about the event can be found at IGOLD.isra.org.
Meanwhile, the Tinley Park murderer remains at large, free to commit other atrocities against a society that Ms. Rowe contends is rendered defenseless by politicians.
(Ms. Rowe is a certified firearms instructor and spokesperson for IllinoisCarry.com which is an online
discussion and action forum dedicated to securing a Right to Carry law in Illinois).
Pundits say the issue of carrying a firearm for personal protection is a geographical issue - a downstate issue. Some upstate legislators deny right to carry is a statewide issue and argue lllinois citizens north of I-80 have no interest in the right to carry a firearm for self-defense.
Without a doubt, they were proven wrong this past week when a standing room only crowd of 500+ citizens from all over McHenry County turned out in support of Right to Carry in Illinois!
Women and men crowded into the packed Lakemoor Banquet Hall, in Lakemoor, IL to show their support for the right to carry and to learn what they can do to push the Illinois legislators to pass a right carry law in Illinois. Those in attendance voiced their displeasure with being denied the same rights that law-abiding citizens have in 49 other states. 48 states have some form of concealed carry law and open carry is recognized in the state of Wisconsin, leaving Illinois as the last and only state with no provision at all for the carrying of a defensive firearm and considers it a felony to do so.
The hugely successful town hall meeting was the kick off event for the newly formed McHenry County Right to Carry Association. The MCR2CA is a non-partisan group dedicated to advancing the right to carry for citizens of Illinois. To learn more about this group and to add your support go to MCR2CA.com.
The group partnered with IllinoisCarry.com to bring the issue of Right to Carry to the people of McHenry County. Speakers for the event included Pres. of the new organization, Lou Rofrano; Lee Lexow, Vice-President McHenry County Sportsman Association; Valinda Rowe, IllinoisCarry.com spokesperson; Mike Weisman, First Vice President Illinois State Rifle Association; Julie Chiabe, President McHenry IPSIC Sport Shooters; Nick Provenzano, candidate for McHenry County Board Dist. 3; Joe Walsh, candidate for U.S. Congress 8th District; and McHernry County Sheriff Keith Nygren.
The idea for the town hall meeting began when one man decided to get involved - Lou Rofrano contacted Valinda Rowe of IllinoisCarry and asked what he could do to advance Right to Carry in Illinois. Having conducted many successful Right to Carry town hall meetings, IllinoisCarry worked with the group throughout the planning process.
If you would like to help organize a Right to Carry town hall meeting in your community contact Valinda Rowe at IllinoisCarry.
The Heartland Training Team offers a comprehensive package of firearms training courses designed to help both the beginning and experienced shooter improve and maintain their skills. Whether your interest is in target shooting, recreational or defensive shooting, there’s something for you in our course offerings. Click on above headline for more info.
Mark your calendars! Schedule the day off from work!
You won't want to miss the largest turn out of Second Amendment supporters IL has ever seen!
Illinois Gun Owner Lobby Day
IGOLD
Wed. March 10, 2010 Prairie Captiol Convention Center, Springfield, IL
Doors open at 10:30, Concessions open at 11:00, Pre-rally 11:45, Legislative Briefing Noon, March to Capitol 1:15 pm!
Reserve a seat on one of the many charter buses headed to Springfield and watch for details as they develop at IGOLD.isra.org.
IGOLD t-shirts will be available for purchase prior to the event and at the PCCC. Monies raised from selling the t-shirts goes to help fund the event. We encourage you to support IGOLD by purchasing the official IGOLD t-shirts.
IGOLD has gained statewide and national recognition as a well organized and highly respected event. Each year, as the event has grown larger and larger we have gained the respect of City and Capitol police/security for the professional and orderly manner in which we conduct ourselves - as well as for our cooperation in helping to make the security screening process as expedient as possible.
To expedite security procedures it is best to enter the Capitol with the least number of items that must be opened, searched or screened. If you can narrow that down to a wallet that can be tossed on the scanner bed all the better!
We thank you for your cooperation - and so will Capitol security!
By The Associated Press 12:24 p.m. CST, December 12, 2009
The Associated Press recently asked candidates for Illinois governor questions about gun-control legislation.
Here are highlights of their answers:
QUESTION: "Would you sign or veto legislation banning the sale and possession of semiautomatic assault-style weapons in Illinois?"
REPUBLICANS
-- Adam Andrzejewski: "Would veto a ban on semiautomatic 'assault weapons' in most circumstances. It comes down (to) law abiding citizens having the right to defend their life, liberty and property."
-- Bill Brady: "I am opposed to any further restrictions to the ownership of firearms as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and would veto legislation banning the sale and possession of semiautomatic weapons."
-- Kirk Dillard: "Without having more sufficient detail, including the definition of an "assault-style weapon," and for what circumstances the use of these weapons would be approved, this question is difficult to answer."
-- Andy McKenna: "I believe in the Second Amendment and law abiding citizen's right to own firearms to protect their families and for sporting purposes.
-- Dan Proft: "I would veto such legislation. ... I believe arbitrary gun bans are unconstitutional and would oppose such bans."
-- Jim Ryan: "I would sign it provided it was narrowly drawn and did not violate our 2nd Amendment rights."
-- Bob Schillerstrom: "I would sign constitutionally sound legislation banning assault weapons in Illinois."
DEMOCRATS
-- Dan Hynes: "I would sign legislation banning the sale and possession of semiautomatic assault-style weapons in Illinois.
-- Pat Quinn: "I would sign legislation banning the sale and possession of semiautomatic assault-style weapons."
-- William "Dock" Walls: "I would sign such legislation."
GREEN
-- Rich Whitney: "If it truly and accurately defines assault weapons in a manner that does not impair the rights of lawful gun owners to possess firearms for defensive purposes, and respects the rights of legitimate gun collectors, then yes, I would sign it."
---
QUESTION: "Would you sign or veto legislation allowing concealed-carry for handguns?"
REPUBLICANS -- Adam Andrzejewski: "I would sign it. ... Law abiding citizens have this right."
-- Bill Brady: "Constitutional rights should be afforded to eligible, law-abiding Illinois citizens, and therefore concealed carry should be legalized.
-- Kirk Dillard: "With proper training and thorough background checks, and dependent upon the exact language drafted in the legislation, I could support allowing concealed-carry for handguns as almost every other state in the nation has done."
-- Andy McKenna: "I am opposed to concealed-carry legislation."
-- Dan Proft: "I would sign right to carry legislation."
-- Jim Ryan: "I would veto. I believe reasonable people can differ on this issue but on balance, drawing from my experience as a law enforcement official, I believe we are better off without concealed-carry."
-- Bob Schillerstrom: "I would veto legislation allowing concealed carry for handguns. I am a supporter of the Second Amendment; however, I do not believe that concealed carry is a solution for reducing crime in the State of Illinois."
DEMOCRATS
-- Dan Hynes: Hynes didn't take a position on concealed carry in general but did say he opposes a new law letting people bring concealed guns into someone else's home if they have permission.
-- Pat Quinn: "I would veto legislation allowing concealed-carry for handguns."
-- William "Dock" Walls: "I would veto conceal and carry legislation."
GREEN
-- Rich Whitney: "I would sign legislation allowing concealed-carry or open carry -- although ... I would prefer that any such legislation allow individual counties to opt out if they so chose."
The last time Illinois gun owners heard from former Attorney General Jim Ryan, Illinois government was in turmoil and Ryan wanted to be Governor. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Yesterday, Ryan announced that he still wants to be Governor of Illinois. Like Mark Kirk, Ryan is a Republican--and like Mark Kirk, Ryan has a history of antagonizing gun owners in order to court anti-gun "moderates" in Illinois. In 2002, Ryan won the Republican primary and faced Rod Blagojevich in the general election, leaving gun owners with no "viable" choice who would represent them--or even listen to their concerns. Ryan faced other obstacles, beginning with his last name--he was running to succeed another Governor Ryan who currently resides in federal prison in Indiana, and polling showed repeatedly that voters not only didn't realize that the two were not related, but that many, especially in Chicagoland, actually thought Governor George Ryan was running again. (Even now, 19 percent of respondents to Ryan's own polling reportedly believe he's either George Ryan or a close relative . . . it's probably best not to dwell on what that says about the electorate.) And of course, Blagojevich was the first Democrat for Governor to get real support from the Chicago machine in some time; before him, the famous Illinois political combine had always been content to keep a balance with Republican office holders in statewide office and Democrats running Chicago, especially when, as with George Ryan, the Chicago Machine had the advantage of holding federal investigations over the state-level Republicans' heads.
But the big hit Jim Ryan took in 2002, the one very few "mainstream media" sources mentioned, began in 2000. Ryan was eager to position himself for a run at the Governor's Mansion, and he was convinced as many politicians were in those days that there was only one correct side on the gun issue: moderate to anti-gun. But what could he do to establish his anti-gun bona fides without alienating the deer hunters? He settled on a dramatic sting operation to catch people selling "assault weapons." Unfortunately, there was no practical way to crack down on such weapons using his jurisdiction as Illinois Attorney General, so he set his investigators the task of buying as many "assault weapons" as they could, as illegally as they could. In the end, the only way they could accomplish their task was to find people who wanted to sell their firearms legally in interstate commerce, then convince them that it would be legal to circumvent federal law in some specific way.
This should have been the end of the investigation for several reasons; first, Ryan had set out to find traffickers, and he'd found none. From the transcripts, it appears that all the sellers his people targeted were private individuals selling one or two of their own guns for personal reasons. Second, the people they'd found were actually trying to follow the law, not break it--in other words, they'd found no criminals. Third, and most importantly, the method the investigators settled upon to create illegal activity is itself illegal. At the time, John O'Connor of the Associated Press did an excellent (if widely ignored) job of covering the story, even including quotes from the transcripts of investigators' conversations with their victims:
Seller: "I'm not a dealer, just an honest citizen. I am however, aware that federal regulations require that if I transfer a firearm across state lines it must be transferred to a federal firearms license holder in the state of receipt. ... I can't take the risk of (ticking) off the Feds. I simply have to much to lose, wife, kids, job, house, etc. I'm sure the (federal authorities) would lock me up or at the very least fine the (deleted) out of me." Investigator: "I spoke to a FFL that works in the same building as I do. He said in Illinois, as long as neither of us is a FFL gun dealer all I need is a valid Fire Arms Owner Identification Card. ... I would really like to avoid the hassle and expense of going through a dealer. Why should we put money in his pocket for doing nothing but having a piece of paper?" Seller: "Thanks for your reply to my concerns about interstate firearms transfers. I must admit that I have never done this before and don't want to be liable for doing anything illegal."
Notice that the investigator actually claims to have consulted a licensed firearms dealer to find out what the law says. The seller in this case would have been held liable for a criminal act (shipping a firearm interstate to someone other than an FFL) after being told that a legal expert advised that it would be legal to do so, if public outrage hadn't halted Ryan's grandstanding.
Seller: "It will have to be shipped through a licensed dealer to a licensed dealer." (Exactly as the law requires--CGRE) AG: "If you are not a dealer, I believe you can ship the AK directly to me. This would cut out the expense of both of us having to pay dealers." Seller, after reading about the federal dealer rule: "I believe it means that at least I must use a fire arms dealer from my end. Do you know the laws on this?" (Not quite--the law is that the firearm must be shipped to an FFL, not that it must be shipped from one. But is this person showing clear criminal intent, or is he trying to find out what a confusing law says?) AG: "We are both private citizens so you can sell to me directly."
Was the seller foolish to take legal advice from an anonymous buyer on the internet? Undoubtedly, especially in a legal climate where the Attorney General of one of the largest states in the union had nothing better to do than run elaborate "stings" on gun owners who were attempting to follow the law.
Seller: "In checking with the local gun shop here in town the only way to sell a firearm is that it has to be sent from one FFL licensed party to another. ... I am not sure if it also applies to parts." AG: "I do not believe parts have to go through a FFL, otherwise mail order places would be out of business." Seller: "I just wanted to be legal about the transaction. ... I will ship as parts. Like you say, no FFL required on the parts."
This is almost correct. The seller could have shipped a box with all the parts except one, and that would have been legal. However, every firearm has one central part that federal law considers a firearm by itself, whether it has any other parts attached or not. For most guns, this is called the "receiver" or the "serial-numbered part." The box with that part in it, as far as the law is concerned, contains a firearm and is subject to all the same laws as a fully-assembled, working weapon. That box would have to go to an FFL, then to be transferred by him to the actual buyer. The investigator's argument is a persuasive one, though, isn't it?
Perhaps that's why they chose to use it more than once:
Seller: "I need to send it to an FFL dealer, right?" AG: "If you are not a dealer and just a private citizen, you can sell directly to me." Seller: "The only way you can send things via the mail over state lines is by sending to a valid FFL dealer. ... Sorry if this makes you change your mind, but I don't want to go to jail!" AG: "How do you feel about breaking the gun down into two parts and sending them to me that way? It is definitely not illegal to send gun parts directly to an individual." Seller: "All right. I'll break it down and send 2 packages."
Gun owners have good reason not to trust Jim Ryan, but they should not be the only ones. Whether you think guns are good or bad, whether you think "assault weapons" should be legal or illegal, the real question to ask yourself about Jim Ryan is whether a man who would willfully entrap citizens outside his jurisdiction--citizens who are trying to follow the law--is fit to hold any elected office at all, much less to be Governor of Illinois.
CHICAGO (CBS) Local gun shop owners say they're seeing an increase in the number of women shoppers right now. The reasons, they say, are many, including the downturn in the economy and violence on the street.
According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, about 48 percent of people taking their first handgun seminars this year happen to be women. CBS 2's Pamela Jones reports on the growing trend.
"It's very dangerous out there. I mean, there's people getting robbed here and there," said Josie Santiago. "It's just for protection."
Santiago says she's always thinking about the danger lurking on the streets of the Chicago area. It's a big reason why she visited Illinois Gun Works in Elmwood Park.
Not only did she shop for a new weapon, but she also wanted to find out about taking firearms training from the pros.
"It's better that you know how to use it," Santiago said. "You know, take the class, take the course, protect yourself."
And she's not alone. A National Shooting Sports Foundation survey found that the top two reasons women seek firearms training are for personal protection and target practice.
At Illinois Gun Works, the owners say they've seen a 40 percent increase recently in the numbers of women looking to take classes, and that the number of women coming in to purchase guns is rising, too.
"A lot more. We purchased this business seven years ago, and I've noticed the increase," said Debbie Mastrianni.
"It's not so much because they're scared. I think they just want to learn about it," said Don Mastrianni.
Josie Santiago says the lessons in personal security are something she wants to pass on to other women in her family, but she wants them to learn the responsibility of being behind the trigger as well.
"If it's in the wrong hands, you know, a lot of damage can be done," Santiago said.
Santiago is taking her interest in public safety a step further now. She's going for a degree in criminal justice and eventually would like to become a police officer.
Both Illinois Gun Works and the National Shooting Sports Foundation offer classes for first-timers.
Legislators Will File Brief In McDonald v. Chicago Case
Friday, October 09, 2009
From NRA Alerts: As we reported in last week's Grassroots Alert, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear the landmark Second Amendment case of McDonald v. Chicago. The case will address the application of the Second Amendment to the states through either the Due Process clause or the Privileges or Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case has major implications for the legality of restrictive gun laws not only in Chicago, but also in other cities and the states across the nation. The decision to hear the case gives hope to Second Amendment advocates across America, that this fundamental freedom will be protected from infringement throughout the nation from impermissible regulation at all levels, state and local, as well as federal.
This week comes the news that U.S. Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.), are joining forces with U.S. Representatives Mark Souder (R-Ind.) and Mike Ross (D-Ark.), in filing a joint, pro-Second Amendment amicus curiae (Friend of the Court) brief before the Supreme Court in the McDonald v. Chicago case.
Last year, the historic case of District of Columbia v. Heller invalidated the District's ban on handguns. However, the Heller case applied only to federal enclaves, such as Washington, D.C. A favorable ruling in the McDonald case would ensure that the individual right affirmed in Heller also applied as against state and local regulation.
Commenting on the brief, Sen. Hutchison said, "With its landmark decision in D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court affirmed an individual's right to bear arms is a fundamental, Constitutionally-guaranteed liberty. The Second Amendment should protect all lawful gun owners, but some courts have not viewed this right as one protected from state infringement. I look forward to the Supreme Court's consideration of McDonald v. City of Chicago so this extremely important Constitutional question regarding a fundamental, individual right can be settled, once and for all."
Sen. Tester, who serves as Vice Chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, said, "The Second Amendment guarantees gun rights for all law-abiding Americans, no matter where they live. I'm glad Republicans and Democrats are working together to tell the Supreme Court we expect it to stand up for our gun rights in this important case."
Rep. Souder said, "For years, I have been an outspoken critic of Washington D.C.'s gun ban, and last year I helped lead the efforts in the House of Representatives to overturn it. Now, as the Supreme Court prepares to hear McDonald v. City of Chicago, I am glad to join this brief in support of the Second Amendment. Constitutional rights�guaranteed to all citizens of the United States�cannot be overturned by local legislation or all rights are threatened."
Finally, Rep. Ross said, "Banning guns will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will keep guns out of the hands of those trying to defend themselves against criminals. The Supreme Court's recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller affirmed the right of D.C. residents to own and bear arms and I am optimistic these same rights will be extended to the law-abiding citizens of Chicago and across the United States in McDonald v. City of Chicago. As a pro-gun Democrat, I am a firm believer in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and I will continue to actively support our right to own and bear arms." Sens. Hutchison and Tester, and Reps. Souder and Ross authored a similar amicus brief prior to the U.S. Supreme Court hearing oral arguments in the District of Columbia v. Heller case in 2008. In that brief, the four affirmed the view that individual rights are guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and were able to get a record number of Members of Congress�55 Senators and 250 Representatives�to sign it.
From the ISRA website: In a unanimous opinion by the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Diggins No. 106367, the Court has held: "Section 24-1.6{c}{iii} of the Criminal Code of 1961 provides that a person is not guilty of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon if that weapon is “unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card.' 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6{c}{iii} (West 2006).
In the case at bar, we are asked to determine whether the center console of a vehicle is a 'case' within the meaning of this provision. . .[W]e conclude that it is." An Amicus Brief (Friend of the Court) was filed by ISRA attorney Victor D. Quilici. The principal object of the brief was to thwart the argument by the State regarding legislative intent. Other arguments in the amicus brief addressed matters pertaining to the split decisions in the various districts in Illinois.
Also, ISRA' amicus agreed with the Appellate Court's opinion that the plain meaning of the Statute did not mean a "case" or "other container" had to be portable, as a leading case relied on by the State had held.
The Supreme Court has clearly held that the center console in a motor vehicle is a "case" within the meaning of section 24-1.6(c)(iii). That section contains the exemption language regarding transportation of firearms. The Supreme Court found that the term "case" in the cited statutory section includes any portable or non-portable receptacle and need not be interpreted solely to firearms.
Thus, the Supreme Court also rejected the State's contention that the meaning of the language was to be interpreted in light of the Wildlife code definition of "case" which would limit it to a "firearm case" that is portable. The Court made it clear that it did not need to rely on legislative intent and that the answer was in the plain meaning of the statute. The Court ordered the case to be remanded --that is, in this case sending it back to retry on factual matter. The Supreme Court is asking that a new trial be held to determine the question of whether or not the center console was "enclosed" and by that the Court is sayings the center console must be closed.
The Supreme Court points out that in the initial trial of the case, the Defendant, Diggins, and his passenger alleged that the center console was "closed "(actually testifying it was also locked) and the police officer testified that the console was "ajar." Therefore, that issue of whether or not the center console was closed still would be viable and one to be tried by the jury upon remand of the case for further proceedings.
Regardless of the outcome of the case upon re-trial, the decision of the Supreme Court that a center console is a "case" within the meaning of the statute's exemption language is clear and unequivocal ISRA counsel notes that the major credit should go to Tiffany Ritchie of the Schrier & Ritchie law firm in Peoria, Illinois, that handled the case in the trial court on up, especially attorney Tiffany Ritchie, who delivered a great argument before the Supreme Court ISRA.org
In a huge win for Illinois gun owners, the Illinois Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment, announced this morning that an enclosed center console of a vehicle is indeed considered a legitimate case for transporting a firearm within the meaning of the IL Criminal Code sec. 24 -1.4(c)iii:
(iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case,
firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card; or
The case in question, People vs Diggins, involved the transportation of two unloaded firearms and two loaded magazines in the console of a vehicle driven by an individual in possession of a valid FOID card. In unanimous agreement the justices ruled the trial judge erred in denying defense the right to argue that a console is considered a "case" or "other container" under sec. 24 -1.4(c)iii and for instructing the jury that the console is not considered a "case".
This ruling would also seem to resolve the question as to the legality of transporting unloaded hanguns in the glove box of a vehicle by IL citizens in possession of a valid FOID card.
Because there is a disagreement between the arresting officer, defendant, and a witness at the scene as to whether or not the console was completely closed at the time, the Diggins case has been remanded back to the lower court for further proceedings.
Illinois License to Carry Petition
Please sign this online petition in support of a License to Carry law in Illinois. The petition is the project of Robert Moon. Results will be sent to IL Gov. Pat Quinn and state legislators.
Gun control supporters may expect the worst if the Supreme Court strikes down the Chicago ban on handguns, enacted in 1982. Mayor Daley has even predicted Wild West shootouts. But it's hard to see how scrapping the law would do any harm, since there's no evidence it ever did any good. If easy access to guns spawns violence, tight restrictions ought to curb it. But as the graphic below shows, that's not the Chicago experience.
....
Hosted by: IMS Hosting