How long until Illinois allows its citizens their Constitutional right to conceal carry firearms?

[caelin]

Illinois is now the only state in the country that denies it's citizen's their Second Amendment right to defend themselves with the best tool available which is a handgun. The real insanity is that politicians against concealed carry don't acknowledge that restrictive gun laws only disarm law abiding citizens and turn them into victims. Criminals have never had any regard for gun laws and continue to conceal carry guns illegally and always will no matter how many gun laws are passed.

[bocley]

They will remain without this right just as long as there is an oppressive power demanding government running that state which is afraid of it's citizens.

[jabarl]

They will remain without this right just as long as there is an oppressive power demanding government running that state which is afraid of it's citizens.

It happened in Wisconsin...hope springs eternal.

One problem is the voting public: if they don't understand or care about their own self-defense, then it won't happen.
The crooks will continue to do as they always have - they don't need no stinkin' laws .

Tom is still preaching in the wilderness...and still wrong. :-)

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=definition+of+%27bear%27&pbx=1&oq=definition+of+%27bear%27&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1828l10391l0l10726l20l16l0l4l4l2l1182l8608l2-2.3.3.3.2.2l19l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=c8fa5d99f487df35&biw=1280&bih=675

[mace]

Only as long as the people allow the anti-gunners to run their lives.

I have to agree with you about mister cool, he gave a three word answer and the rest of his answer was bragging about himself.

[breasal]

Never, with Marxist Pat Quinn

[oz]

Only until the people of Illinois get tired of the liberal gun control bigots withholding their constitutional protected right to keep and bear arms, and vote the bums out.
Yes, you are correct about the other 49 states, plus 44 of the 50 states have in their own Constitution that the people have the right to keep and bear arms for their own protection.



@ tom. I see you are another uneducated liberal. It is not a right to be in the militia, it is mandatory as anyone except a brain dead liberal would know. Besides the Second Amendment does not say the right of the people to keep arms shall not be infringed, but only the militia has a right to bear arms, it says in very plain English "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". You liberal gun control bigots will try anything, but I can understand that be cause your leader say thing like:

Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. -Sarah Brady.

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." -Janet Reno

Oh, your challenge is an easy challenge to defeat, the definition of "bear" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is,
1 a : to move while holding up and supporting (something). Intelligent people know that something also means firearms. Your challenge has been easily defeated.

[bachir93]

Never gonna happen.

[barraq]

There is no constitutional right to carry concealed firearms.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html

This is what the founding fathers had to say about "bear arms"

"...but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Seems quite clear. But then again George Washington said in SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 280 (1897)

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

But then again I post all these quotes, and all I get is shouted down. I ask people to provide evidence to back up their position and I never, ever get anything. I wonder why!! People like to believe what they want and ignore the reality.

Edit: Actually the quotes you will be able to use will merely say there is a right to bear arms and NOT saying what bear arms means! Seriously, I've asked the questions and got NOTHING that can hold water.

As for Sir Bobby, I've spoken by PM with him and he has been able to present all of about no evidence that I am supposedly wrong. I wonder why that is! Oh, there is plenty more evidence where this came from by the way.

But here's the challenge, anyone think they can present water tight quotes that "bear arms" means "carry arms", because seriously the Bush attorney general couldn't.