Second Amendment Opponents Regroup as Dust Settles Following Illinois Concealed Carry Ruling

truther 6

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars

Gun rights opponents in Illinois on Wednesday said they will continue their fight to rollback the Second Amendment after the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ruled that a ban on concealed carry is unconstitutional.

YouTube Preview Image

Gun-grabbers in Chicago demanded state Attorney General Lisa Madigan appeal the ruling. Gov. Pat Quinn and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said they will work closely with legislators to come up with a new law that will “protect the public” against citizens exercising their constitutional right to own and carry firearms.

“I think it’s important that we stress that public safety comes first,” Quinn told the Associated Press.

In November, Quinn attempted to sneak through legislation banning so-called assault weapons, but was frustrated by the Illinois Senate. “The Governor overstepped his reach when he decided to rewrite this Senate bill and impose an assault weapons ban without the measure first being heard by the legislature,” said Sen. Dave Luechtefeld.

Despite efforts by the legislature to uphold the Second Amendment, Quinn claimed the public supports his efforts to deny them access to firearms.

“I think that’s where the people of Illinois are on this issue and anything having to do with guns and assault weapons and things like that. We cannot have those sorts of people eligible to carry loaded weapons on their person in public places, whether it be malls or churches or schools,” he said.

Quinn also said he will continue his push to outlaw “military-style assault weapons.”

“An assault rifle is, by definition, a medium caliber rifle capable of firing more than one round when the trigger is pulled,” Eric Nirschel wrote following actor Jason Alexander’s tirade against the Second Amendment earlier this year.

The firearms Quinn and the gun-grabbers in Illinois want to outlaw are not assault weapons, but semi-automatic rifles and handguns. The term “assault weapon” is used to demonize any firearm that is not a single shot or bolt-action weapon.

Gov. Quinn and Second Amendment opponents in the state will attempt to include restrictions in the new legislation that will be drafted within the next 180 days.

“I expect a battle,” House Majority Leader and gun-grabber Barbara Flynn Currie said. “The proponents of concealed carry have not yet carried the day.”

Gun control advocates cited Chicago’s street violence as an excuse to limit the Second Amendment.

Judge Richard Posner, however, wrote in the majority appellate opinion that Illinois doesn’t have “some unique characteristic of criminal activity” providing an excuse for outlawing concealed weapons. “A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home,” he said.

“A Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of Park Tower,” Posner added. “To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense.”

Prior to the ruling, Illinois was the last remaining state to outlaw concealed weapons. The ban was challenged in 2009 by Second Amendment advocates suing on behalf of an Illinois woman violently attacked while volunteering at her church.


Please Donate Now

Please note that if you wish to make any amount of contribution to us, you can send it to us using Paypal ID info@pakalertpress.com.

Support Pakalert to keep alive

 

Related Articles:

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Enter Your Mail Address

Share

Add To The Conversation Using Facebook Comments

6 Comments »

  1. iki January 19, 2013 at 5:01 am - Reply

    If, as some may argue, that the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning, is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms. The only way to describe one’s right as a private individual, is not as a “militia” but as a “person” (“The individual personality of a human being: self.”). “Person” or “persons“” is mentioned in the Constitution 49 times, to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a Constitutional legal standing as to a “person”, his or her Constitutional rights. Whereas in the Second Amendment, reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there are reason?. The obvious question arises, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey same legal standard in defining an individual’s right to bear arms as a “person”?
    Merriam Webster “militia”, “a body of citizens organized for military service : a whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.
    =

    Article 2, Section 2 “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States;…”
    =

    In the whole of the U.S. Constitution, “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references there is no mention of person or persons. One reference to “people“ in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons, in describing a “militia”. “People” is mentioned a total 9 times.
    =

    It’s not enough to just say that “person(s)” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times. But to see it for yourself, and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every “person” be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that “person”.

    “..No Person shall be a Representative..”
    “..whole Number of free Persons,..”
    “..three fifths of all other Persons…”
    “..No person shall be a Senator…”
    “..And no Person shall be convicted…”
    “..no Person holding any Office…”
    “..Names of the Persons voting for…”
    “…of such Persons as any of the States…”
    “…not exceeding ten dollars for each Person…”
    “…And no Person holding any…”
    “…or Person holding an Office of Trust o…“
    “…and vote by Ballot for two persons,…”
    “…List of all the Persons voted for,…”
    “…The Person having the greatest Number of Votes…”
    “…and if no Person have a Majority,…”
    “…the Person having the greatest Number…”
    “…No person except a natural born Citizen,…”
    “…Any Person be eligible to that ….”
    “…No Person shall be convicted of …”
    “…except during the Life of the Person attainted….”.
    “…A Person charged in any State…”
    “…No Person held to Service…”
    “…The right of the people to be secure in their persons,…”
    “…and the persons or things to be seized….”
    “..No person shall be held to answer…”
    “..nor shall any person be subject for the same offense….”
    “…they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President,…”
    “…the person voted for as Vice-President,…”
    “…all persons voted for as President,….”
    “…all persons voted for as Vice-President…”
    “…The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, …”
    “…and if no person have such majority,…”
    “..the persons having the highest numbers …”
    “… The person having the greatest number of votes…”
    “..and if no person have a majority,…”
    “…But no person constitutionally ineligible…”
    “…All persons born or naturalized …”
    “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,…”
    “…nor deny to any person within …”
    “…number of persons in each State,….”
    “…No person shall be a Senator or …”
    “..and such person shall act accordingly….”
    “…of the death of any of the persons from…”
    “…death of any of the persons from…”
    “…No person shall be elected to the office…”
    “…and no person who has held the office of President,…”
    “..to which some other person was elected…”
    “…shall not apply to any person holding the office…”
    “..prevent any person who may be holding…”
    =

    Excerpts in reading Emerson v. United States (1999), or Miller v. United States (1939), one can be struck with the many thoughts, interpretations of what the second amendment means, but more important how it came about and ended. However, even still, I am left with the thought if the Framers had treated Amendment 2 with the same obedience, and reverence to explain the 49 Constitutional references to “person”, there would be no controversy in what is perceived as a right to bear arms.
    =

    MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
    United States v Emerson
    “The American colonists exercised their right to bear arms under the English Bill of Rights. Indeed, the English government’s success in luring Englishmen to America was due in part to pledges that the immigrants and their children would continue to possess “all the rights of natural subjects, as if born and abiding in England.”
    =
    “A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny.”
    =
    “The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included “the right to keep and bear arms” in a list of basic “human rights” which he proposed to be added to the Constitution. HALBROOK, supra at 223 n. 145 (citing James Monroe Papers, New York Public Library (Miscellaneous Papers of James Monroe)).”
    =

    307 U.S. 174 United States v. Miller
    Structural Analysis
    “Furthermore, the very inclusion of the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights shows that the framers of the Constitution considered it an individual right. “After all, the Bill of Rights is not a bill of states’ rights, but the bill of rights retained by the people.” David Harmer, Securing a Free State: Why The Second Amendment Matters, 1998 BYU L. REV. 55, 60 (1998). Of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, only the Tenth concerns itself with the rights of the states, and refers to such rights in addition to, not instead of, individual rights. Id. Thus the structure of the Second Amendment, viewed in the context of the entire Bill of Rights, evinces an intent to recognize an individual right retained by the people.”
    =

    After debating by the Framers on the proposed right to bear arms, from these few references, some credence is given to the “intent” to “to bear arms”. Analysis of structural statutory construction, “..viewed in the context of the entire Bill of Rights,..” individual citizens, a person, to “bear arms“ however proposed and debated, there is reference to “person” mentioned 49 times, is this not to be considered when looking at the context of the entire Bill Of Rights? Right to bear arms was debated and proposed, but the Second Amendment remains silent.
    =

    Jones v Smart [1785} 1 Term Rep.44,52 (per Buller, J.) “[W]e are bound to take the act of parliament, as they made it: a casus omissus can in no case be supplied by a Court of Law, for that would be to makes laws.” (Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts) Antonin Scalia/ Bryan A. Gardner .West.
    =

    What am I missing?

  2. freelancer December 15, 2012 at 1:29 pm - Reply

    Again a heinous plan for gun control, A well orchestrated false flag…but there are too many loop holes though…some thing really does nt go well with the story..As described by the media nancy lanza does nt even seem be like a person who can handle assault knife properly and how can she own automatic weapons..best part both of them dead..end of the story….most evil government on this planet

  3. Dan December 15, 2012 at 6:16 am - Reply

    I expect the Connecticut School massacre to be another false flag for gun control.

    • David Powell December 15, 2012 at 11:36 am - Reply

      Stan tells it like it is……the so called legislators of this country are the ones to blame for innocents being slaughtered. Gun Free Zones…..equals happy hunting as no one to shoot back at you! Just ask Susanna Gratia Huff whose parents were killed in a restaurant shooting in Texas and got to witness all that while her handgun was barred from her carrying it just weeks prior by Texas legislators. Had she had it in her possession not one person would have been killed outside of the gunman and by her! Go figure!

  4. Stan Sikorski December 14, 2012 at 9:29 pm - Reply

    Nigras in the streets of Shitcago can run around with guns, no problem. But law abiding citizens have to jump thru hoops to do so. Hmmm. Jew Bloomboig runs Jew York city, Jew Rahm Emanuel runs Shitcago. They hate guns for rightful folks but let the riffraff run free. What does that tell you about the jew rulers?

    • Patriot December 14, 2012 at 10:19 pm - Reply

      I agree fully Stan. I’m in Tulsa & so far we havent had any trouble with our recent open carry law as long as one gets a permitt for conceiled. No problems what so ever & the dignaterries know they have no facts to base their demands on. Give up one right & looseing more is right around the block. Have a safe & blessed holiday & we Okies still believe in MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

Leave A Response »