Thursday, March 14, 2013

Illinois' Governor Quinn wants Supreme Court to back mandated defenselessness

Attorney General Madigan may or may not comply with Quinn's "suggestion," despite not being any less fervently anti-gun than he is. She seems to be betting on Chicago-area legislators succeeding in forcing through a concealed carry law that only a gun-hater could love. She also notes that in taking the case to the Supreme Court, the state runs the risk of being handed another loss (if the court even agrees to take up the appeal)--this one setting a nationwide precedent that not only does the Second Amendment's right to "keep arms" mean what it says, but so does the amendment's "bear arms." What's an anti-gun cud-muncher to do?

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Am really hoping they keep screwing around and June 10 comes and goes - that's when Constitutional Carry automatically kicks in.

Anonymous said...

"What's an anti-gun cud-muncher to do?"

If they had the sense the Creator gave a paramecium they'd sit tight and wait for Dear Leader to appoint a couple of complete and total leftist idealogues to SCOTUS and let THEM take care of 2A.

I don't see what they're in such a blather about anyhow. Suppose Illinois DOES fail to do something before the Judge's time limit arrives? What then? Can anybody here REALLY imagine Holder's DOJ lifting a pinkie to enFORCE the Judge's order? Really?