SPRINGFIELD -- For the second time in a week, a House panel dominated by downstate lawmakers signaled its approval of a law allowing Illinoisans to carry concealed weapons.

The House Agriculture Committee voted 11-2 to endorse the proposed law, which is sponsored by state Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg.

Chicago-area lawmakers are likely to push back if the measure comes up for debate in the full House. The committee has approved similar measures at least five times in previous years, but the concept has not advanced in the full House.

Action on the legislation came a day before gun rights advocates are scheduled to descend on the Capitol for their annual lobby day. Illinois and Wisconsin are the only states that bar nearly all residents from carrying concealed weapons.

While the committee heard testimony on a similar concealed carry measure last week, the focus of the conversation was different Tuesday because of provisions in Phelps' proposal that are absent in the other measure, which is being pushed by John Bradley, D-Marion.

One of the proposals upset retailers and manufactures. It states that if a business prohibits people from carrying guns on their establishment, they are liable for injuries in armed robberies to gun owners who were disarmed.

"If they take my right to self defense.because of their company policy, we're going to make it explicit that they going to be civilly liable for that," said Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. "There is going to be a price tag that comes along with that if I'm injured or killed."

Mark Denzler, vice president for the Illinois Manufacturers' Association, objected to the provision, stating it is bad for the business community.

"I think businesses have the right to set rules for their individual business, if they don't want a concealed carry gun on their premises," he said.

State Rep. Donald Moffitt, R-Gilson, is a strong proponent for concealed carry but agreed the liability provision was unfriendly to businesses.

"I think you're making a big mistake to potentially muddy the waters," he said.

Moffitt voted in favor of the measure, with the hopes that the provision would be taken out before it reaches the House floor.

State Rep. Julie Hamos, D- Evanston, voted against the proposal like she did last week. State Rep. Mary Flowers, D- Chicago, also voted against Phelp's bill.

The legislation is House Bill 5221.
 

In a case that drew attention from the Gun Owners Action League and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the Supreme Judicial Court yesterday upheld a state law requiring trigger locks on guns kept in people’s homes.

 In what was seen by some as a victory for law enforcement and advocates of gun control, the state’s highest court ruled that the Second Amendment does not restrict the right of Massachusetts to impose its own rules on gun ownership.

“We conclude that the legal obligation safely to secure firearms in [state law] is not unconstitutional,’’ Justice Ralph Gants wrote for the unanimous court.

The gunlock case involved Richard Runyan, a Billerica man facing prosecution for keeping a rifle under his bed without a trigger lock. Police in 2007 discovered the firearm as they investigated complaints that Runyan’s then-18-year-old developmentally disabled son was shooting a BB gun at a neighbor’s house.

A Lowell District Court judge threw out the case. Middlesex District Attorney Gerard T. Leone Jr.’s office appealed in 2009.

Leone said in a telephone interview yesterday that the SJC had struck the proper balance between the right to self defense and the right of society to prevent tragedies — such as a child mishandling a loaded firearm.

“What they did for us as a state is they allowed us to continue to engage a balance between how we provide for our own self-defense and how we . . . avoid tragedy, especially when guns are in the hands of those who shouldn’t have them,’’ Leone said.

Runyan’s attorney, Brenden J. McMahon said he had hoped the SJC would have brought the prosecution to an end. Now the case will limp along, he said.

“It doesn’t really give closure to my guy,’’ McMahon said.

In a companion ruling yesterday, the SJC upheld the conviction of a New Bedford man who had argued that the Second Amendment right to bear arms trumped state law making it a crime for an unlicensed person to have a handgun.

Nathaniel DePina was arrested by gang officers after a .22-caliber revolver fell out of his clothing. Gants said the Second Amendment does not apply in DePina’s case because the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights has never meant that an individual is free to own firearms.

Gregg Miliote, spokesman for Bristol District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter, said the court was right to uphold DePina’s convictions and to leave state firearms laws intact.

The unanimous decisions by the SJC flow from a landmark ruling by the US Supreme Court in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller.

The Supreme Court said for the first time that the US Constitution’s Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own a firearm for self-defense, but the court limited the reach of its ruling to “federal enclaves’’ like the District of Columbia.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a gun ownership case in Illinois in which, legal specialists say, the court is likely to determine whether the Second Amendment will now be explicitly extended to the states — and state laws and regulations set up to control the use, sale, and storage of firearms.

In yesterday’s SJC cases, Justice Gants wrote that an 1875 US Supreme Court ruling (called Cruikshank) remains in force and gives Massachusetts the authority to chart its own course when it comes to regulating firearms and ammunition.

“Under Cruikshank, the Second Amendment imposes no limitations on the ability of the Massachusetts Legislature to regulate the possession of firearms and ammunition,’’ Gants wrote. “These cases are the law of the land until the Supreme Court decides otherwise, and we are therefore bound by them.’’

In a statement on the trigger lock case, Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center, applauded the SJC. “Courts must continue to reject efforts by the gun lobby and gun criminals to strike down common-sense gun laws that save lives,’’ he said.

But Edward F. George Jr., attorney for the Gun Owners Action League, faulted the SJC, saying they left intact a confusing law and should have waited for the US Supreme Court to clarify the muddy legal waters later this summer.

“They jumped the gun,’’ he said of the SJC.

Attorney General Martha Coakley, whose office sided with Leone as did county prosecutors, said she approved of the SJC’s findings.

The court is protecting “the public, especially our children, from the risks of unsafe firearm storage practices while also recognizing a gun owner’s right to use a firearm for self-defense in his or her home,’’ she said.
 

Elm Grove, near Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Other customers stare as Nik Clark and Kim Garny do their weekly shop at a large upscale supermarket. It's hardy a surprise as a TV camera is trailing behind their trolley. But people would do a double-take even if the BBC weren't in tow. In some ways Nick wants them to look.

There's a revolver amid the ravioli, an automatic among the avocados.

Like cowboys out of Westerns, the couple carry handguns on holsters on their hips. She has a Smith and Wesson .38 special with a cute pink grip that makes it look almost like a toy. He has a rather more chunky Glock.

Wisconsin Open Carry. Groups like this have been springing up all over the States in the last year and they've been making an impact in the last week or so, getting Starbucks in California to agree people should be allowed into their coffee shops carrying guns. The groups are made up of people who want to make a point about the Second Amendment right in the Constitution to bear arms, by bearing them openly. Some want to make a point and test whether or not private firms like shops and restaurants recognise that right.

The movement is slightly different in the state of Wisconsin where concealed guns are banned. Nick says wearing a gun in a visible holster is the only way he can carry a weapon legally and he wants others to be aware of their rights: he doesn't want to confront but to convert.

"You have a right to self defence and open carry is a great deterrent. It's about personal protection," he says.

He's a beefy guy, with bulging muscles, so I ask: Isn't he rather intimidating when he's armed as well?

"I've been open carrying for about a year and most people don't notice, or some might make a comment. It's a demonstration I am a law-abiding citizen, you have nothing to hide. Criminals never open carry."

He says that his group respects property rights and if a shop doesn't want their custom and they are asked to leave they are happy to do so: they don't want to patronise that business. But he says most big companies know the law and have a policy that allows them to shop armed.

Kim says for her it is all about self protection: "I can guarantee if I am going to my car late at night and someone sees me carrying a gun they won't make me a victim."

But Nick says he is also making a point: "I want people to see me and have a level of comfort, to know that if they are out walking their dog it is OK to carry a gun, if they are walking to their car after work it is legal to carry a firearm."

When Obama was elected many gun enthusiasts expected the tightening of laws. Many of those in favour of controls expected Obama to increase regulation. As a senator he had always been in favour of restrictions on guns. But it seems thing are rather going the other way.

Last year a ban on carrying concealed weapons in national parks was lifted. In Virginia politicians are likely to change the law and allow people to buy more than one hand gun a month.

The supreme court is pondering whether to declare the 28-year ban on handguns in Chicago unconstitutional. They will take months before coming to a decision but observers who've watched the case carefully believe they will rule against the ban, with huge implications all around the states.

In Wisconsin, Open Carry is taking legal action against the rule that bans handguns within a quarter of a mile of schools. The supreme court judgement could have a bearing on that.

Still, when I meet around 30 people from Wisconsin Open Carry over lunch at a big restaurant there is a feeling that their rights need protecting. There are grandparents and mums and little children, and all the adults are armed.

Most tell me that this is mainly about protection but what they refer to as civil rights comes a close second. A couple of people tell me it is the other way around: the politics comes first. One man, whose name I don't catch, says he doesn't feel very threatened in suburban Wisconsin but it is about resisting the encroachment of the last two administrations, it's about not giving in to big government.

Matt Slavic, sitting next to his little granddaughter, observes that outside the United Nations is a sculpture of a gun, its barrel twisted in a knot. "The Second Amendment gives teeth to the rest of the constitution, it keeps tyranny at bay. I do feel it is under threat, not just from within the USA but from the UN - their small arms treaty would restrict hand gun ownership in the United States."

Several people tell me the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, underpins the first, freedom of speech. One of those eating with a gun at their side, John Laimon, goes further: "It's not about guns, it's about civil rights. It's growing because of the plain fear about inadequate politicians. They cut down guns but they've got bodyguards. Our rights are under fire."

If you're in the UK, you can see more in my report on BBC News at Ten on Thursday evening.

• Hi, SCC. My name is Colleen Lawson, and I am one of the plaintiffs in McDonald v Chicago.
  
  I'm writing you to share an incident that occurred yesterday, and in hope that you might allow me to publicly thank and acknowledge those involved.
  
  Yesterday, two Chicago cops pulled up next to me while I was parked at a gas station. I was standing by my car. They got out of their squad car, walked up to me, and thanked me.
  
  I would like those officers to know that their words, and their handshakes, meant more to me than anyone else's have.
  
  I was deeply, deeply touched by the fact that these officers, who place their lives on the line every day for citizens like me and my fellow plaintiffs and every single Chicagoan and visitor, these officers who never can be quite sure where they'll be at the end of the day ... that they had come over to speak to me, and to voice their support.
  
  I apologize for my quick exit -- I was kind of stunned as they continued speaking and probably just mumbled my thanks back to them, then got back into my car and just cried as I drove home. I completely forgot to go into the store and make my purchases; but then, no one has ever flustered me to that extent before.
  
  Truly. Not high-up, celebrity, mucky-muck or thug. Yesterday's cops trump them all, and that one moment with them is my highest treasure.
  
  I am humbled and intensely grateful. You, all of you, have my thanks.
  
  
• It's just occurred to me that this is the only letter I've written publicly since this case began. That's how honored I feel by the words of your officers :)

Well, for our part, we'd just like to add our thanks to those of our fellow officers. Standing up for your fellow citizens and saying, "Enough!" may not seem like a big deal, but in some countries around the world, it lands you a term in prison, a session with the torturers or even death. Inaction is one of the worst sins any civilized society can commit because it makes it that much easier for the next bad act to occur. It is our hope that by your action, you have inspired countless others to step up when necessary.

We and literally million of others are in your debt.

Note from Shaun from ICarry.org:

I was driving my old car in downtown Chicago one night, in a left-hand turn lane.  My car had no fewer than 7 PRO-GUN bumper stickers on it at that time.  A cop cruiser was behind me, stuck at a red light, and I could feel them reading my stickers and I was thinking, "oh, no."  Light turns green, I start driving in the left lane after the turn, and the cop pulls up right next to me.  I ignore him at first, then he's waving at me with his arms so I roll down the passenger window.  He goes "hey man, right on!!!" and gives me the thumbs-up sign.  This is a true story and after having been wrongfully arrested a couple times already for lawfully exercising my rights, what a relief it was.  I kept on driving thinking "that's awesome!"

Chicago politicians, and the politicians-with-badges who are appointed in charge of the police at the highest levels oppose law-abiding citizens having guns.  But the cops don't!!  That's right - the average cop on the streets of Chicago is supportive of gun rights because they see what happens to people who can't defend themselves.  They're sick of the blood and guts on the streets because people don't defend themselves and are outlawed from doing so.  They know the gang-bangers have guns anyways and the handgun ban has been a miserable, utter failure!!!  They support US and not these boneheaded elitist politicians.

Springfield, Illinois --(AmmoLand.com)- HB6249 A Right to Carry bill sponsored by Rep. John Bradley passed out of the House Agriculture & Conservation committee this past week with a vote of 11-1.

It is now placed on the House calendar for Second Reading. HB462, another Right to Carry bill sponsored by Rep. Brandon Phelps is scheduled to be heard by the same committee on March 9, 2010 and is expected to pass out of committee with the same support.

Click on the bill numbers above to see if your Representative is one of the co-sponsors of these bills. If their name is not listed as a sponsor, call them and urge them to support your right to protect your self and your family. Urge them to show their support by signing on as co-sponsors of these bills.

If your representative does not support your right to carry, be sure to inform him/her they will not have your support in the next election!

Lobby in person for the Right to Carry, March to the State Capitol, and make your voice heard! Don’t miss an important opportunity to show your support for the Right to Carry!

Join the largest group of Second Amendment supporters IL has ever seen.

IGOLD participants will present their message to their state representative, state senator, the Speaker of the House, and the President of the Senate!

Illinois Gun Owner Lobby Day – IGOLD
Wed. March 10, 2010
Prairie Capitol Convention Center, Springfield, IL

Doors open at 10:30, Concessions open all day,
Pre-rally 11:45, Legislative Briefing Noon,
March to Capitol 1:15 pm!

IGOLD.isra.org
Deadline to reserve a seat on one of the many charter buses from around the state is Mon. Mar. 8th!

To expedite security procedures it is best to enter the Capitol with the least number of items that must be opened, searched or screened. If you can narrow that down to a wallet that can be tossed on the scanner bed all the better!

We thank you for your cooperation – and so will Capitol security!

IGOLD Marshals Needed!
Like to help others? Familiar with the State Capitol Complex? Volunteers for the IGOLD ground crew are needed. They are the friendly, smiling volunteers who assist at the Prarie Capitol Convention Center and the march to the Capitol. Once inside the Capitol they help direct attendees to their legislators offices.
If you would like to volunteer, please go the IGOLD Volunteer page for more info.
 

Oak Forest police fired two gunshots at a home burglary suspect Saturday after the man pulled out a gun of his own as he fled, police said.

Deshawn Brown, 19, 16794 Hillside Place, Tinley Park, was arrested a short time later without incident and charged with residential burglary, police said.

The burglary took place just before 11 a.m. Saturday in the 15600 block of South Lamon Avenue. Police said neighbors witnessed a man going into a house and called police.

Oak Forest Police Chief Greg Anderson said police had the house surrounded when a man bolted out a side door.

Two police officers gave chase, Anderson said. When they saw the man reach into his pants and pull out a handgun, two officers each fired one shot at him. Nobody was hit, Anderson said.

Brown was arrested about 15 minutes later at an apartment complex about a block away, police said.

Anderson said he will conduct a routine investigation of the shooting.

"Any time an officer fires a weapon at a subject, you have to do a thorough investigation to determine whether use of force was justified. This is the gravest use of force police can use," he said.
 

A Grayslake-area man accused of shooting a dog will not be released from jail so he can see a doctor, a Lake County judge ruled Thursday.

Attorneys for Elvin Dooley, 57, asked Associate Judge Theodore Potkonjak to lower their client's $250,000 bond because he is suffering from complications from diabetes and may have pancreatitis.

Potkonjak refused the request after members of the Lake County jail nursing staff assured him they could provide adequate care for Dooley at the jail.

Dooley is charged with shooting a dog that had run away from the Save-A-Pet No Kill Animal Shelter near his home on the 24000 block of Townline Road on Jan. 26.

An employee of the shelter who was chasing the dog told police she saw Dooley firing at the animal with a rifle that had a scope mounted on it.

When police went to question Dooley, they said they found thousands of rounds of ammunition in his house. Later, he led them to 17 firearms he had stashed at a friend's house.

Dooley is not allowed to have any weapons because of a 1978 burglary conviction in Alabama.

Dooley pleaded not guilty Thursday to charges of animal torture, animal cruelty, possession of a weapon by a felon and possession of a weapon without a state Firearm Owner's Identification card.

Potkonjak scheduled a trial of the case for April 1. He told Dooley he faces a mandatory prison sentence of three to 14 years if convicted of all the charges against him.

Non-FOID card holder commits crimes...big surprise.

(Lake Zurich, Illinois) -  8th District Republican congressional nominee Joe Walsh today called on his liberal Democrat opponent Rep. Melissa Bean to swallow her pride and vote "No" on the Obamacare federal takeover of health care legislation nearing a vote in the House.
 
"For the first time in a long time Melissa Bean needs to listen to her constituents and vote her district,"  said Walsh.  "A government takeover of health care is absolutely the wrong approach to fix what ails with health care in America- and 8th district voters know it.  Melissa Bean was not elected to represent public sector unions and march in lockstep with her party.  She was elected to represent the interests of 8th district families and support policies that speak to their very real economic insecurities.  This legislation will worsen the quality of care we have access to and increase unemployment," Walsh said.
 
The proposed takeover of health care that would cost Illinois 169,000 jobs, $4,418 per person, and shrink Illinois' economy by 5.1 percent, according to a study by the Illinois Policy Institute (http://www.illinoispolicy.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=1924).  This is against the backdrop of a state with 11% unemployment.
 
"A vote for this health care bill is vote against the economic interests of 8th district families, plain and simple," Walsh added.
 

The legislation would also drastically reduce senior citizens' access to the popular (and private) Medicaid Advantage program.
 
"I'm not in the camp that says the president is overly ambitious to take on health care," said Bean, who voted for the federal takeover of health care  late last year that passed the House by a slim 220-215 margin despite a sizable Democrat majority.  (http://www.melissabean.com/news?id=0089) 

Prior to her vote last year, Bean, unlike most members of Congress (Republicans and Democrats), declined to hold any town hall meetings or public forums where residents could weigh in and ask questions about this legislation.
 
"Melissa Bean has made it very clear that if she is not interested in the opinions of concerns of those she was elected to represent," said Walsh.
 
In his keynote address to the McHenry Medical Society at their annual meeting, Walsh said there is no way the country can afford the trillion dollar takeover of one-sixth of our nation's economy.
 
"There are other ways to reform health care without sending our children and grandchildren into even greater debt and forever altering the doctor-patient relationship," Walsh said.
 
Walsh said incremental reforms such as allow the sale of insurance plans across state lines increase competition among insurers and passing meaningful tort reform are key to reducing costs while protecting quality of care.

The Brady Bunch folks are having a difficult time coming to grips as to what has been happening lately.  Their world is crumbling around them and they have no answers.

Take for instance what the gun-grabbers have been saying since McDonald v. Chicago was heard this past Tuesday.

They keep bringing up quotes from the Heller ruling and affirmations made in this case of "reasonable regulations" as said by several of the justices.

Now, we don't know what those "reasonable regulations" will be as they have yet to be defined by the court.

But Dennis Hennigan of the Brady Campaign thinks he's figured it out.   Here's his most recent quote:

"The argument in McDonald gives hope that the McDonald majority, even if it strikes down Chicago's handgun ban, will amplify the Heller message that the Second Amendment erects no constitutional barrier to reasonable laws – at any level of government - to make it harder for dangerous people to obtain dangerous weapons. The gun lobby will be displeased, but the American people will have dodged a constitutional bullet."

The gun lobby will be displeased?  I consider myself part of the gun lobby and I didn't hear the part where dangerous people will obtain dangerous weapons.  Did you?  Both Heller and McDonald focused on law-abiding citizens being prevented from owning handguns.  Did I miss something here?  I think not.

What it all boils down is Mr. Hennigan desperately trying to pluck victory out of defeat.  He is, as the entire anti-gun lobby, are running for their lives.  They're trying to figure out what they can do, if anything, since Alan Gura launched a missile in the Heller case.  They throw a little meat to their rabid left-wingers out there to let them know that they're still on top of the situation.  How sad.

About all they can seem to muster is that no matter what happens dangerous people, meaning criminals I presume, will not obtain dangerous weapons, guns most likely.  Well, tell that to the people of Chicago who live in a world where the only people that have dangerous weapons are dangerous people.  Another example, as was Washington D.C. of gun control creating nothing but chaos for law-abiding citizens.

Good luck Mr. Hennigan, because 40 years of partying are over.  The game has changed and now it's your turn to play defense.
 

DeKALB – The official comprehensive report from Northern Illinois University about the February 2008 campus shooting will be released in mid-March, the school’s president said Friday.

John Peters said that the report would be released the week of March 15.

“I don’t want to release it during spring break,” he said during a phone interview, noting that he wanted to ensure that there were counseling services on campus available for students who might need them.

Friday was the last day of classes at NIU before spring break. Classes resume March 15.

When the report is released, hard copies will be made available, and it will be put on the school’s Web site, Peters said.

The report will be on how the entire university reacted, including the police, Student Affairs and Information Technology Services departments.

The report is about the Feb. 14, 2008, shooting at Cole Hall.

Five students were killed and at least 19 others were injured before the lone gunman turned the gun on himself.

In a Dec. 11, 2009, news release, NIU announced that the “final police investigation report of the February 14, 2008, tragedy will be completed and released in February of 2010.”

In a Feb. 9 interview with Peters, the NIU president said he expected to release the report by the end of the month.

But in late February, NIU spokesman Brad Hoey said officials had to push back the report’s release into March due to several unexpected events at NIU during February.

On the morning of Feb. 19, the campus responded to a shooting outside of the Stevenson North residence hall towers.

NIU student Zachary Isaacman has been charged with shooting Brian Mulder, 24, of Marengo, in the leg about 3:30 a.m. that day.

ICarry is planning a demonstration in DeKalb on or near the NIU Campus 30 days after this report is released, assuming the report neglects to point out the students were defenseless and unable to fight back.  The report will assuredly also neglect to mention that DeKalb has a handgun ban and that the campus also is a "gun free zone."  How many years do we keep having to tell them this stuff?  Every one of these shootings is in a "gun free zone" where remarkably the victims can't fight back (coincidence?).  Any wonder why there aren't massacres at shooting ranges, gun stores, gun shows, police offices, etc?  Even a GUN FREE military base became the sight of a massacre this year.  We don't even trust our soldiers on their own military bases, and so they become fish in a barrel for madmen.