More crazy legislation in Illinois.

Bills that ban "Assault Weapons" and .50 calibers.

Sen. Antonio Muñoz (D) Chicago - Jacqueline Y. Collins (D) Chicago introduced SB 3036 that would ban manufacture, sale, possesion of "assault weapons", "assault weapon" attachments, .50 caliber rifles, and .50 caliber cartridges.

Rep. Edward J. Acevedo (D) Chicago - Maria Antonia Berrios (D) Chicago introduced HB 5751 that would  do the same as the above bill.

Sen. Antonio Muñoz (D) Chicago introduced SB 1721 that would do the same as the abovc bills.

Legislation that Requires Micro Stamping

Sen. Dan Kotowski (D) Park Ridge(Chicago) - Jacqueline Y. Collins (D) Chicago introduced SB 3425 - Provides that it is a Class 3 felony for a person to knowingly sell, manufacture, purchase, possess, or carry any semiautomatic handgun manufactured on or after January 1, 2011 that is not microstamp-ready, or any semiautomatic handgun manufactured on or after that date if the person knows that a microstamping mechanism has been unlawfully removed from that handgun. Provides that any person who shall knowingly or intentionally change, alter, remove or obliterate the importer's or manufacturer's microstamping mechanism is guilty of a Class 2 felony.

Legislation to make something that is already illegal more illegal?

Sen. Kwame Raoul (D) Chicago introduced SB0323

Amends the Criminal Code of 1961 and the Unified Code of Corrections. Creates the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a street gang member. Provides that a person commits the offense if he or she

(1) possesses, carries, or conceals on or about his or her person a firearm and firearm ammunition while on any street, road, alley, gangway, sidewalk, or any other lands, except when inside his or her own abode or inside his or her fixed place of business, and has not been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card and is a member of a street gang; or

(2) possesses or carries in any vehicle a firearm and firearm ammunition which are both immediately accessible at the time of the offense while on any street, road, alley, or any other lands, except when inside his or her own abode or garage, and has not been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card and is a member of a street gang. Provides that unlawful possession of a firearm by a street gang member is a Class 2 felony for which the person, if sentenced to a term of imprisonment, shall be sentenced to no less than 3 years and no more than 10 years. Provides that a period of probation, a term of periodic imprisonment or conditional discharge shall not be imposed for the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a street gang member when the firearm was loaded or contained firearm ammunition and the court shall sentence the offender to not less than the minimum term of imprisonment authorized for the Class 2 felony. Effective immediately.

My comments on SB0323:

It seems to make being a criminal illegal?

The bill modifies 720 ILCS 5/12‑6.2, (c)For the purposes of this Section, "streetgang", "streetgang member", and "organized gang" have the meanings ascribed to them in Section 10 of the Illinois Streetgang Terrorism Omnibus Prevention Act.(740 ILCS 147/). That act defines what a gang member is, 740 ILCS 147/10 "Streetgang member" or "gang member" means any person who actually and in fact belongs to a gang, and any person who knowingly acts in the capacity of an agent for or accessory to, or is legally accountable for, or voluntarily associates himself with a course or pattern of gang‑related criminal activity, whether in a preparatory, executory, or cover‑up phase of any activity, or who knowingly performs, aids, or abets any such activity.

It makes being a gang related criminal more of a crime. Why don't we just pass a bill that makes commission of a felony with a firearm by ANYONE a class 4 felony with a mandatory sentence.  I believe this has been done in other states, they call it Project Exile. This program actually shifts the prosecution to the Federal circuit, but I think it could be done at a State level.

Mixed-gender dorm rooms are gaining acceptance - latimes.com

Mixed-gender dorm rooms are gaining acceptance - latimes.com

Posted using ShareThis

This is further evidence of gender blurring.   Gay, lesbian, straight, bi-sexual, it doesn't matter there is no difference between a man and a woman.  Yeah, RIGHT!

After healthcare vote, Democrats turn to damage control - latimes.com

Have the democrats signed their poitical death warrants?

Sounds to me like the democrat strategy is to keep the people in the dark on government, what happened to transparency?

"The American people got too close a look at how Congress actually legislates and that's an ugly thing," said Jim Jordan, a Democratic campaign strategist.

After healthcare vote, Democrats turn to damage control - latimes.com

The Vote on Obamacare

	Ayes	Noes	PRES	NV
Democratic	219	34
Republican		178
Independent
TOTALS	219	212

Yeah's
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Luján
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
OberstarObey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth


The Noe's

Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Arcuri
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hoekstra
Holden
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kissell
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

Obamacare Debacle

As I watch the debate on CSPAN, I shall post rants and thoughts.

So far it looks like a partisan split.

I think I have it already, it is a plan to bankrupt the insurance companies so the government can bail them out and take control.

Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) mentions 2/3 of the States have warned of suits against the bill, and mentions that is enough States to amend the Constitution.  Could that be what the liberal commies are after in the long run?  They want us to open the Constitution?  I strongly caution against it, once a convention is opened, they can modify any part of the Constitution they want.

Rep. Cynthia Lummins (R_WY) says the bill will create 20 new taxes.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) "...the founders got it right...", we derived our rights from nature and natures God.  I wonder if he just got put on the right wing terrorist list?

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) "...this is not the president's house, this is not the Democrat's house...this is the peoples' house and they don't want a government takeover of health care..."

The common thread I am hearing is a logical stand against the bill, the liberal commies don't give a rats butt about logical debate they want control.

So far, as best as I can count, it is an even split on yeah's and nay's.

Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, "This is the wrong bill at the wrong time."


Libacommies keep playing the same broken record....blah. blah, blah.....

What the hell is this doughnut hole thing about?  Have these guys been here so long they are getting hungry?

Rep. Eric Cantor Minorty Whip (R-VA), "The only bipartisanship we have seen on this bill is in opposition to it....I have a message to the American people, We hear you, We hear you loud and clear.  We believe this government must stop spending money it doesn't have."

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), "Just think, we will be joining those who established social security, medicare, and now tonight healthcare for all Americans."

Yeah, and those are the models of financial wisdom, aren't we trying to figure out how to make those last long enough to see the end of Obamassiah?

So, Pelosi was yield 1 minute and babbled for over 8 minutes......figures, she can't do the math on the bill, why would we expect her to tell time.

What's with all the thank you's, is she getting an academy award?

Come on November, I don't think I can stand that voice much longer.


And the vote on HR 3590.......

Yeah  219
Nay   212

It's official, we are now under communist rule.

I expected to see Pelosi and Obama having a ceremony raising a new flag with some kind of O symbol on it.

Excuse me while I puke...

Thoughts on McDonald v. Chicago

I have been reading and thinking about what the McDonald v. Chicago case would mean to this country and particularly to my State, Illinois.

First let's look at what the Heller decision states as the opinion of the U. S. Supreme Court.  In the definition of the 2nd Amendment, Justice Scalia wrote:

Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 19
Opinion of the Court
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely understood
that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
“shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right
granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner
dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed
. . . .”

This is the first time the U.S. Supremem Court has visited and given an opinion, and therefore a definition, of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.  The court clearly states the Amendment protects an idividual right to posses and carry arms for the purpose of self protection and protection of others.  The court will no doubt agree that reasonable restriction is allowed.  I can't imagine any rational person would see restricting the right to carry a firearm in a prison or jail as excessive restriction.

Would the court hold that the total ban on the carrying of arms in public is reasonable?  I am inclined to believe they would not.  Just as they did not hold a total ban on a functional firearm reasonable in the Heller case:

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun
possession in the home violates the Second Amendment,
as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm
in the home operable for the purpose of immediate
self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified
from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District
must permit him to register his handgun and must
issue him a license to carry it in the home. -D.C.v. Heller

If the court holds that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated as against the States the previous opinion in Heller would apply.  This would not allow the States to restrict the carry of arms by the people beyond what would be held as reasonable.  Now what is reasonable would of course be another question likely to come before the courts.  Many States with carry laws prohibit the carry of arms in establishments that sell intoxicating beverages, court rooms, places of religious worship, sports arenas, and places of public debate by government bodies.

I can understand those restrictions for the most part.  There are obvious reasons to restrict carry at court proceedings and government meetings where people would likely have very strong opinions and perhaps strong emotional reaction.

I suspect the method used to carry would come into question as well.  Some States currently recognize a right to carry openly while restricting the carry of arms that are concealed to those with a permit.  Some require a permit to carry either way and some recognize both methods of carry.

A decision that the 2nd is incorporated as against the States would not support a cart blanch right to  keep and carry arms anywhere in any manner.  Those who are prohibited from possessing arms because of criminal action have been denied that right through due process and would not regain it because of a decision to incorporate the 2nd Amendment.  I feel the courts would probably hold requiring a permit issued by the State to be reasonable.

I think the incorporation of the 2nd would, in effect, be a national right to carry.

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. -D.C. v. Heller

I don't think the States would be allowed total prohibition of carrying arms.  The opinion clearly states the protection of the right to not only possess, but also to carry arms for protection.

The finding of the U.S. Supreme Court is only a affirmation of the natural instinct to defend yourself and family from harm.  This is not a privilege given, but a right reinforced by our Constitution.  The court said that in no uncertain terms in Cruikshank.

“[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .” -Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876)

A decision in McDonald v. Chicago to incorporate the 2nd as against the States will come very welcome to freedom loving Americans and would certainly be smiled upon by the founders of this United States of America.

The transcript of the oral arguments can be found here.

Harry Reid signs Dem's Death Warrant

"We plan to use the regular budget reconciliation process that the Republican caucus has used many times."-Harry Reid

Thank you Harry Reid, you have signed the political death warrants of so many Democrat politicians.

"Keep in mind that reconciliation will not exclude Republicans from the legislative process."-Harry Reid

No, reconciliation will not exclude them, the up yours we don't give a rats ass what you think, bi-partisan Democrats will.  Let's face it, the Democrat party thinks bi-partisan means no one opposes them and the Republican party sits quietly and nods yes to whatever stupid socialist lies are pushed forth.

The only good that seems to be coming from the Obama occupation of the Oval Office is the awakening of many to what the true nature of liberalism is.

Obama shows disrespect to Supreme Court Justices - go figure.

AP Story
"With all due deference to the separation of powers the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama

I wonder if this was really a slap at the Court for the ruling or a call for fund raising to his foreign supporters?

Rasmussen Shows Brady with Strong Edge.

In this article from Rasmussen, Republican Bill Brady is shown with a marked edge over Democrat incumbent Pat Quinn.

Thousands March on Illinois State Capital to Support the 2nd Amendment.

This will make some liberals start crying..........check out this article.

McDonald v. Chicago - Supreme Court Blog

For those of you keeping up with this case, I believe you will find this a good read.

Analysis: 2d Amendment extension likely

"An attempt by an attorney for the cities of Chicago and Oak Park, Ill., defending local bans on handguns in those communities, to prevent any application of the constitutional gun right to states, counties and cities looked forlorn and even doomed."-McDonald v. Chicago, 08-1521, Argument recap by Lyle Denniston

I don't know how any reasonable person could conclude the Second Amendment does not apply to the States. For that matter, I don't see how a reasonable person could conclude that the Second Amendment doesn't give a citizen the right to lawfully carry a firearm, concealed or not, for any legal purpose.