The black skies of this century-old postcard will match the Statehouse mood of those legislators next spring who will have to negotiate a "concealed carry" deal against their better judgment. |
Because
once the newly-elected General Assembly takes over, there’s the likelihood that
firearms are going to be an ever-so-dominant issue.
A
FEDERAL APPELLATE court on Tuesday issued an order interpreted as striking down
this state’s attempts to have sense toward public safety with regards to
restricting a person’s ability to pack a pistol in a shoulder holster, or a
purse.
Concealed
carry. It’s back.
The
appeals court for northern Illinois said that it felt compelled to go along
with the Supreme Court of the United States, which in cases involving other parts
of the country has decided that an expansive right to bear arms (which really
doesn’t exist in the letter of the law written into the Bill of Rights) is
important to maintaining personal self-defense.
But
before any of those insecure types whose manhood feels threatened if they can’t
carry a pistol start carrying on, the appeals court stayed its own order for
180 days.
THAT
IS SO the General Assembly can come up with a state law regulating the carrying
of firearms in public.
The
Bill of Rights may say the federal government will not impose such laws. But
the state can.
Of
course, the premise of these legislative negotiations is going to have to be
that people do have some right to have their pistols in public under most
conditions – rather than the premise of restricting such firearms use.
One
of the National Rifle Association’s lobbyists told the Chicago Tribune that
many of the “compromises” that his group was willing to make in the past are no
more. They’re feeling the moral high-ground!
A
PART OF me wonders if this is the real “damage” caused by the recent arrest of
state Sen. Donne Trotter, D-Chicago, in getting caught with a pistol and
ammunition at O’Hare International Airport.
Trotter,
who has been among those who tried to restrict firearms because of their
potential for getting into the wrong hands, is going to get all the cheap-shot
rhetoric of being some sort of “hypocrite.”
Although
I’m more curious to see the outcome of the Legislature’s efforts. There may
well now be veto-proof majorities in the Democratic Party caucuses of both the
Illinois House and state Senate. But this has always been an issue that turned
more into Chicago, the city, versus the rest of the state.
Will
this get further tangled up in legal appeals (no word as of when I’m writing
this commentary from the Illinois attorney general)? Is this going to get
tangled up into some sort of “minority rules” attempt at passing legislation?
OR
WHAT HAPPENS if the 180 days passes and our Legislature finds itself incapable
of coming up with anything? Which when you consider their track record on so
many other issues is a very real possibility.
Illinois
in contempt of court on concealed carry? Somehow, I think there will be
millions of state residents who wouldn’t mind seeing that outcome fall into
play.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment