That
ruling by a three-member appeals court panel (by a 2-1 vote) had given aid and
comfort to the people who have long sought to shoot down the stringent laws
that Chicago has against firearms possession within the city – and those
suburbs that also view a person’s firearms with suspicion.
THEY
SAW THAT ruling and its 180-day time period for the state Legislature to impose
a “concealed carry” measure for all of Illinois as something wondrous – the bulk
of the state was going to be forced to go along with their minority viewpoint.
Which
is how this crowd usually likes to get things done – by force and against the
will of the masses.
But
then, in following weeks, we have had yet another public shooting incident (the
school in Newtown, Conn.) that has caused people to question the easy access to
firearms and the lack of restrictions that exist in some cases as to who can
obtain one.
There
is a strong feeling across the nation to impose more restrictions –
particularly against the kind of weapons that are capable of firing hundreds of
rounds of ammunition in minutes and that have those large magazines that reduce
the need to constantly re-load one’s weapon.
IN
SHORT, THERE’S a social war at stake here (and I suspect the firearms
proponents wish they could use their weapons to turn it into a heated battle). Two
philosophies are crashing head-on.
I’m
not about to predict how this battle will turn out.
But
seeing that the state attorney general’s office is putting up a legal fight to
the demand that “concealed carry” be forced upon us is something encouraging.
Madigan’s
office issued a statement saying they want the Seventh Circuit U.S. District
Court of Appeals (which covers Chicago and the surrounding Midwestern U.S.) to
have a hearing “en banc.”
IT
MEANS THAT instead of being merely considered by a three-judge panel (one of
whom disagreed with the outcome), it will now involve all 20-something judges
who serve in the Seventh Circuit Court.
They’ll
all be asked to get involved. And they would have the authority to overturn the
three-member panel, if a majority of all the appeals judges believe that is
appropriate.
If
that were to happen, the demand for any change toward “concealed carry” would
go away – and the burden of any legal battle would shift back to the firearms
proponents.
They
would have to go back to making legal arguments to justify why people must be
armed while walking to the supermarket, or must be allowed to own some of the
most powerful weapons designed for military use.
FOR
THE RECORD, I once had a gun owner tell me that his desire to own an AK-47 and
an M-16 assault rifle were similar to those people who like automobiles and want
to own the most sophisticated cars on the market. That was how he felt about
weapons.
I
don’t know if I buy into that argument (then again, I have always thought of
cars as merely a transportation device and never wanted to spend too much money
on one).
As
to whether the entire appeals court will be willing to overturn their
colleagues on that three-member panel? I don’t know that either.
In
fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the justices go into this rather
skeptical and inclined to want to back the legal opinion already crafted. Then
again, this is one of those hot issues that might well inspire the
more-outspoken of the appeals justices to express a view of their own.
PLUS,
I CAN say with some certainty that the masses who were disgusted with that “concealed
carry” ruling were getting sick and tired of hearing how an appeal to the
Supreme Court of the United States was a long-shot that could take down all
firearms restrictions across the nation. Madigan doing nothing would have been
the most harmful thing she could have done to herself.
As for those people who are now going about saying that she has committed political
suicide in the rural parts of the state, I question how many votes she would
have got there to begin with.
This
is an issue that needs to work all the way through the legal process. Because
the way things are now, all this talk of forcing “concealed carry” onto all of
Illinois has the feel of something being done solely because a pistol is being
pointed at one’s temple.
That
doesn’t sound like anything even remotely resembling Democracy to me!
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment