The poor gun-grabbers in Illinois

Ruling leaves Illinois grappling with concealed carry

These folks in Illinois are so blind, I almost feel sorry for them. This article describes how exasperated they are with today's ruling, trying to figure out how they can still legally keep people from carrying guns.

Here's what they don't understand: What they really WANT is for people to stop shooting each other. The only thing their illegal laws do is keep guns away from the law-abiding, leaving ONLY the criminals with the guns. None of these laws accomplish the desired goal: to stop crime.

At the very end of the article, it appears that ONE legislator actually gets it. He says, "My concern is the gang members will always carry." And he's exactly right.

What could be more evil than denying law-abiding citizens the tools they need to defend themselves from violent criminals? We treat our CATS better than this, nobody would send a de-clawed cat outdoors - that would be considered cruelty. Yet we do the very same thing to these law-abiding citizens in Illinois.

TFred

Here's the SAF announcement on the ruling.

Here's the ruling from the Seventh Circuit.

TFred

What makes you think stopping crime is Obama's goal? I can not find any evidence that is his goal from the proposed legislation that wouldn't do anything to stop crime and if anything would encourage crime.

I like your comparison to declawed cats, I might have to borrow that.

TFred said:

Here's the SAF announcement on the ruling.

Here's the ruling from the Seventh Circuit.

TFred

Click to expand...

The "Ruling" is only the dissenting view....and what garbge that is!!!

GO ILL....go!!!! Congrats....I just hope they don't do anything before June..

zekester said:

The "Ruling" is only the dissenting view....and what garbge that is!!!

GO ILL....go!!!! Congrats....I just hope they don't do anything before June..

Click to expand...

Correct, on both accounts. I read somewhere that the prevailing side did not feel any further comment was necessary beyond the previous ruling, which they upheld.

TFred

The 5-4 ruling by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gave state Attorney General Lisa Madigan the option of appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court - a move that could affect gun laws in other states.

they won't appeal unless they can granted a stay in letting people carry and the judge already said NO if I recall.

5-4 is a good result, the best one could hope for in that venue .... its the 9th dist. that has me puzzled ...


I'll call her office on Monday and say I'm from the court and that an error was made & the wrong decision was published ... and that she won so there is no need to appeal...and that the corrected decision will be published in 28 more days so just sit tight.

Here is the link to all the documents for this case including the majority opinion.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=12-1269&submit=showdkt

I found the argument opposing the denial the rehearing en banc to be humorous.

Their reasoning was essentially, "The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether the individual Right, as settled in Heller and McDonald, extends outside the home. Therefore, it is not up to us to make that extension."

The Hell it isn't!!!

How do you Wise Men think the Nine Wise Men end up hearing a case that will get them to make that (obvious) pronouncement??? An appeals court makes that call, and it is appealed to the Supreme Court. The high court can either affirm the appeals court's call by refusing to hear the case, or they can hear it and make their own call, either affirming or overturning. The only thing I can think to say to those four Unwise Men is, "Duh."

Make no mistake, the dissenters would sleep well at night, feeling no need for guidance from SCOTUS, had the question been answered the way they wanted it answered. That fine legal point is one of those that leftists will argue either way as suits their purposes.