HAVING A GUN, JUST IN "CASE"
I guess the next "case" will have to decide whether this is retroactive in nature. This is a big deal.
news article
Link to decision
posted by UMRBlog @ 15:30
10 comments
UMRBlog
The Upper Mississippi River Basin:Life, Worship, Sports, Transportation, Golf, Politics and other bizarre behaviors in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. The Quincy area has a history of tolerance. We seem to suffer fools gladly.
Friday, October 09, 2009
news article
Link to decision
About Me
- Name: UMRBlog
- Location: Upper Mississippi River Basin, Tri-State, United States
Christian, Father, Husband, Brother, Uncle, Veteran, Threat Assessor, Both Illini and Hawkeye Grad, Democrat, "Sticker", Friend, Neighbor, Cub Fan, Bear Fan, Outside the box thinker, Multitasker, Golfer, Believer in Civility and Good Manners until some butt makes it impossible, Throws Right, Bats Left, Good Power, Good Arm, Good Glove, Bad Speed, Hold Doors and Chairs for women,
Previous Posts
- ILLINOIS ACTUALLY DOES SOMETHING RIGHT!
- IT'S NOT CYANIDE IN THE TYLENOL, BUT IT'S A START
- THE NFL...
- WHAT IF WE HAD SUBTRACTED OPRAH AND ADDED ALI
- NOT "RAPE-RAPE"
- FOLLOW THE MONEY
- EARTH TO MICHAEL CRABTREE!
- COACH T: ALL MAN AT A TOUGH TIME
- HEALTH CARE RATIONING
- AT THE HOSPITAL TODAY
10 Comments:
Most citizens are breaking a couple dozen laws, obscure or otherwise. At least this removes one absurd and trivial reason to lock a good person up for a couple years.
On the other hand, maybe we could fine or imprison a few hundred deer hunters this season, for not carrying their guns in an Illinois approved container ... cha ching.
We need a thousand more laws that only the connected ones can avoid. Lawyers would lobby for that .. right?
Do you really think State or County Gov't makes any money from prosecuting felonies?
For the most part, the Gov't pays for the investigation, the prosecution, the defense and the incarceration.
You can argue that it is too cautious to have a law that keeps easily usable guns out of the wingspan of drivers and passengers but the argument there is any "Ka-Ching" associated with auto UUW charges is without factual basis.
BTW, to fix this, all the legislature has to do is redefine "case" and watch the NRA go batflop.
The interesting thing about this case is that the Defendant articulated his reason for wanting the guns in his wingspan and it wasn't storage and transport.
TYFCB.
I think there is selective prosecution ... which was my first point.
Then I said sarcastically .. "on the other hand ... fine or imprison"
Meaning ... let's just make laws for government "profit".
I guess this new idea of fining people for not purchasing health insurance (expensive full plans, while making catastrophic plans "illegal") got me thinking of how our government is looking to confiscate and redistribute wealth.
Oh .. and if the guy had given a different reason for carrying the gun "within wingspan", that would have been OK, even though he was still breaking the law?
What if it was within a technically approved case, but it was modified for easy "quick draw" access?
Does the right to bear arms for your self defense mean you can only bear arms locked in your trunk in an approved case? It seems that inhibits your ability to use them for defense, and a golf club may not always be adequate ...
... or do golf clubs need to be in an approved case also?
The car is sometimes considered an extension of the home, if I recall correctly .. not sure if it is in Illinois.
Professor Glenn Reynolds linked the QNO link on this . He also added insight to the case . I love you conlaw folks .
Are you telling me that when a law is enacted there is no money made off gun laws? That's a laugh. I wonder how many people are making $70K/year to process FOID applications.
You see, this was why I provided a link to the case...in the vain hope someone would actually read it. Our UUW law has nothing to do with the Illinois FOID program. Moreover, this guy actually HAD a FOID card.
The "Follow the Money" argument in UUW law is mere polemics and has no basis in fact. I'm not defending the law or opposing it, just explaining the resulting negative cash flow.
TYFCB
Negative cash flow for the state does not mean negative cash flow for those pushing a law.
Special interests push all kinds of laws that are incredibly expensive for the state (and are burdensome and have only a veneer of service for the greater good).
But as in your stated case, there are lawyers that make a lot of money ...
With the current huge fight over health care, there are trial lawyers keeping their spot at the table, drug companies bought off Obama to maintain their price structure, insurance companies still don't have to compete across state lines ... the list goes on, all at the expense of the taxpayer and policy holder, and all while bringing us worse health care.
But there are fund raisers by cops, where speed traps or "safety stops" are set up. And where I was before, fixing tickets was a pretty good business as well ... but I'm sure no one ever gets tickets fixed around here.
Interesting theory. It would probably have some traction if ASA's and Public Defenders made any real money.
Automobile UUW just doesn't generate money for any appreciable number of people. Give or take a Sean Combs, these things are almost always defended by public defenders and appellate defenders. Trying to use this very instructive case as an introit to a Health Care discussion is just a bit of a reach.
TYFCB.
I'm not sure this case sings the praises of special interests using gov' as their conduit to profit ... but the more general rule is that we have tons of laws that are either arbitrarily enforced, or enforced as deemed necessary by the powers on hand ... which is fine as long as they are pure ... but your Bible says, all men are less than pure.
Sorry I'm too lazy/distracted to understand your very instructive case points ... my point is that laws are used selectively to prosecute political enemies, while connected mob/criminals dance and skate free.
More gun laws would make us less free. As the cop stated .. criminals will ignore gun laws. Zero tolerance tends to disarm the law abiding, making for a "target rich" environment for the lawless. It is a big deal that our government is tending to want us more defenseless.
Post a Comment
<< Home