U.S. Seventh Circuit Court concealed carry ruling upheld

The Patriot Post reported today that the Second Amendment Foundation reports that “the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals let stand a December ruling by a three-judge panel of the court that forces Illinois to adopt a concealed carry law, thus affirming that the right to bear arms exists outside the home.”

In December, Judge Richard Posner gave the Illinois legislature 180 days to “craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment … on the carrying of guns in public.”


Unfortunately, Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan showed his contempt for constitutional Liberty by crafting and introducing a repugnant concealed carry bill.

In Madigan’s world, before obtaining a permit, gun owners would have to purchase $1 million in liability insurance coverage, undergo 40 hours of police-conducted training including 20 hours of range time (just imagine the cost of ammunition), and submit to a mandatory psychological evaluation.

Remember citizens of Illinois, you voted for these dictators. Madigan’s daughter Lisa, Attorney General of Illinois, was the one who appealed to the U.S Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit en banc asking the entire court to review and overturn the three-judge panel’s ruling in December.  Being against the 2nd Amendment or more specifically, concealed carry, must run in the Madigan family and for that matter, all Chicago politicians.



  1. This asinine law should be treated by the courts as no different than a “poll tax”, designed to prevent all except the wealthy from making use of their rights. I would also hope that punitive sanctions would be meted out by the courts for this flagrant attempt to make an end-run around their previous ruling.

  2. On a related note, old Joe “get a shotgun” Biden has suggested TWO felony crimes as his brilliant methods of “self-defense” strategy: Shooting a shotgun off a balcony, and now, shooting a shotgun through a closed door. A Virginia man has just been arrested for the latter action.

    Vice President Joe Biden told Field & Stream magazine in an interview published Monday, “[if] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.”

    Coincidentally, a 22-year-old man in Virginia Beach, Va., was charged Monday with reckless handling of a firearm after doing just that a couple days earlier.

    Local TV station WAVY 10 reports that the man observed two masked men leaning into his bedroom window. The men allegedly had weapons and told him to close his bedroom door. He stepped outside of his bedroom and did as instructed, then fired his shotgun through the closed door and then several more times at the window.
    Read more at: http://www.portcityunderground.com/2013/03/01/virginia-man-arrested-for-shooting-shotgun-through-door/

    Biden’s gaffes are usually amusing, in a moronic sort of way, You could compare him to the town drunk, who, after a night of spewing booze-inspired stories at the bar, gets in his car, and causes traffic accidents that damage or destroy the lives of countless others.

    You can’t yell “fire!” in a crowded theater, so a person, especially one in a position of power, shouldn’t be allowed to promote felonious behaviors, without any penalty.

  3. As to Biden’s “get a shotgun” spiel, claiming that they are the perfect self-defense weapon for women, the following video proves that he (still) has no idea what he is talking about:


  4. Ever notice any gun regulations liberals recommend always favors the criminal ganstas? $1M insurance? Oh yea, to pay for the holes we put in in them, and if they live it will pay punitive damages of course for violating their human or civil rights.

  5. I have to believe the judge would follow through on his “reasonable limitations” instructions and this is just “chest pounding” from the MadAgains to please their paranoid base. Paying $2-3k a year for insurance is not reasonable.

  6. Sen. Graham calls out Co. States Atty. and Police chief that don’t enforce background checks


  7. How about that Ted now you can take your gun to church and pray for peace.

  8. Another example of Leftist idiocy, about guns:

    A Florida high school student wrestled a loaded gun away from another teen on the bus ride home this week and was slapped with a suspension in return.

    The 16-year-old Cypress Lake High student in Fort Myers, Fla. told WFTX-TV there was “no doubt” he saved a life after grappling for the loaded .22 caliber revolver being aimed point-blank at another student on Tuesday.

    “I think he was really going to shoot him right then and there,” said the suspended student, not identified by WFTX because of safety concerns. “Not taking no pity.”

    The student said the suspect, a football player, threatened to shoot a teammate because he had been arguing with his friend.

    Authorities confirmed to WFTX the weapon was indeed loaded, and the arrest report stated the suspect, identified by WVZN-TV as Quadryle Davis, was “pointing the gun directly” at the other student and “threatening to shoot him.”

    That’s when, the teen told the station, he and two others tackled the suspect and wrestled the gun away. The next day, all three were suspended.

    “How they going to suspend me for doing the right thing?” he asked.

    The school’s referral slip said he was given an “emergency suspension” for being involved in an “incident” with a weapon. Lee County School District spokesman Alberto Rodriguez said in a statement that “If there is a potentially dangerous situation, Florida law allows the principal to suspend a student immediately pending a hearing.”

    Read more at:

  9. On a related note: Since DHS doesn’t do “overseas contingency operations”, what (and to whom) are they going to do with 2700 of THESE?

    Obama DHS Purchases 2,700 Light-Armored Tanks to Go With Their 1.6 Billion Bullet Stockpile

    The Department of Homeland Security (through the U.S. Army Forces Command) recently retrofitted 2,717 of these ‘Mine Resistant Protected’ vehicles for service on the streets of the United States.

    Read, see more at: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/03/obama-dhs-purchases-2700-light-armored-tanks-to-go-with-their-1-6-billion-bullet-stockpile/

    Actually, they aren’t “tanks”, they are Mine Resistant Armor Protected Vehicles. (MRAPs)

    The question remains, who is going to be the intended target of this military equipment?
    And does it have anything to do with this statement by Obama?

    “As I have said before: We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

  10. I wonder if that money could have saved some jobs he’s been whining about losing from the Sequester he signed? I wonder why responsible “journalists” can’t find these stories?

  11. Even more Liberal idiocy exposed!

    Children at Park Elementary School went home with a letter today explaining there was a disruption in school. Seven year old Josh Welch, and his father, say the disruption lead to a two day suspension for the second grader in Brooklyn Park. Academics are hard for Josh, who suffers from ADHD, but he excels in art class. It is Josh’s own creativity that may have gotten him into trouble. At Park Elementary school, Josh was enjoying his breakfast pastry when he decided to try and shape it into a mountain. Josh said, “It was already a rectangle and I just kept on biting it and biting it and tore off the top and it kinda looked like a gun but it wasn’t.” Josh takes full responsibly for trying to shape his breakfast pastry, but admits it was in innocent fun. He told FOX45, “All I was trying to do was turn it into a mountain but, it didn’t look like a mountain really and it turned out to be a gun kinda.” When his teacher saw the strawberry tart he knew he was in trouble, he recalls, “She was pretty mad…and I think I was in big trouble.”

    Read More at: http://foxbaltimore.com/news/features/featured/stories/7yearold-suspended-teacher-says-he-shaped-pastry-into-gun-635.shtml#.UTTaYzdcO5h

  12. This is how out of touch liberals are on guns and protection ones self, especially a woman. Where is the outrage from N.O.W.??


  13. Forget black helicopters, look out for the drones!

    Attorney General Eric Holder can imagine a scenario in which it would be constitutional to carry out a drone strike against an American on American soil, he wrote in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

    “It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder replied in a letter yesterday to Paul’s question about whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”

    Read more at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703313304576132170181013248.html#articleTabs=article

    Will these be military drones, or Homeland Security drones?

  14. JRM_CommonSense

    So, let’s pretend that there is an American citizen who has become a member of Al Qaeda.

    So, let’s pretend that that individual has acquired a nuclear missle and set it up in the Santa Monica mountains in CA.

    So, let’s pretend that he has issued an ultimatum that he is going to drop it into the middle of Anaheim stadium during a mjor league baseball game that very evening.

    So, let’s pretend that he is unreachable by conventional police/army intervention in a reasonable timeframe to prevent this terrorist attack.

    Should we also pretend that most people would not support that a drone strike is acceptable to stop this threat?

  15. …..or when the MadAgains comes knockin’ for your pump shotgun and Glock handgun.

  16. That isn’t the premise. The scenario is that this U.S. citizen is NOT engaged in an active threat, but just sitting in a house, a car, or wherever, and a drone launches a missile to kill them (and anyone else in the area). Can the President, or one of his minions, initiate such an act unilaterally, per the Constitution? Or do they have to initiate a legal process to justify such an act? THAT is the question.

  17. JRM_CommonSense

    SNussy, read the response again. You quoted it.

    ““It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,”

    He qualified usage to and “extraordinary circumstance” in answer to a question that was phrased as follows: “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”

    There was nothing in the question that made the distinction of “NOT engaged in an active threat, but just sitting in a house, a car, or wherever”.

    Just another one of you “boogie” man conversions.

    If you had read Holder’s second letter to Paul, the day after his filibuster and tweet:

    “It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no.”

    you may not have sounded like such an idiot.

    Looks like another of your “boogie” man attempts has bit you in your assets.

  18. JRM_CommonSense

    Why aren’t you guys taking the position that this position is a violation of the government’s right to have concealed carry? Why are you against the government’s support of neighborhood watch programs?

  19. Government is supposed to respect our Constitutional rights It is a violation of those rights to be spied upon, indiscriminately, and to be executed without due process.

    Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    (Being spied upon, without a warrant, qualifies as “unreasonable”)

    Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
    (Note: “without due process of law”)

    Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
    (Blowing someone up with a missile might be considered a “cruel and unusual punishment”, and again “without due process of law”.)

  20. JRM_CommonSense

    So SNussy, you want to protect an American citizen, who has joined the Taliban or Al Qaeda and has a short range nuclear missile aimed at a crowded American city, from having his assets blown off by a drone aircraft missile, the only possible solution available to the organizations chartered with the protection of U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks.

    Why don’t we then prosecute all police officers and/or citizens who shoot and kill another American citizen that they think has a gun and/or who they see as a threat to them. After all, isn’t that “cruel and unusual punishment” “without the due process of law”?

    Or how about those guys that walk into schools, churches, and shopping malls and open fire on and kill innocent bystanders? Isn’t that “cruel and unusual punishment” “without due process of law”?
    And then we have the citizen with concealed carry approval pulling out his weapon and shooting the aforementioned shooters – inflicting cruel and unusual punishment without the due process of law?

    Looking forward to the logic in explaing this!

  21. No, I just want to be certain that our laws, and our Constitutional rights are not abused. No matter how much seeing one of these terrorists being sent off to visit Allah would gladden my heart, I recognize the fact that were are a nation of laws, and the law needs to be respected. Otherwise, some idiot may get elected President, and decide that his opponents are “terrorists”, and start launching Hellfire missiles at them.

    BTW, “due process of law” applies to the government’s treatment of those suspected of committing a crime, not individuals. As to concealed-carry, we have the right to protect ourselves from criminals, and “due process of law” does not apply to individuals, except in how government is supposed to treat them.

    As to officers accused of shooting someone by mistake, that is what shooting review boards are for, to determine fault, if any, and to recommend the appropriate punishment, if any.

    Launching a missile is not a split-second decision, unlike most shootings.

  22. JRM_CommonSense

    Just about what I expected.

  23. So, you expected a clear, concise, and fact-based answer? Glad to oblige.

  24. JRM_CommonSense

    If that’s what you think you did, then you have once again proved how delusional you can be. You did not come close to addressing the questions. SNuff said on this issue!

  25. You trolls whine and gripe a lot, but I don’t see anything resembling a reasoned response. Is that because you lack the analytical and/or social skills to do so?

    So, since you don’t agree with following the rule of law, it appears that you must be an anarchist, like Obama’s (and Stanley Campbell’s) domestic terrorist buddy, Bill Ayres.

  26. JRM_CommonSense

    I gave you a reasoned response, defined a potential “extraordinary” situation, and asked reasonable questions in response to your posts. Just because you cannot resognize any of that or cannot see anything but your own position (usually wrong, half true, or incomplete) because you have failed to read or understood what was being said, asked, or explained doesn’t mean that what was said to you is wrong.

    Just because you choose to distort reality to suit your “unique” way of see things instead of engaging in a reasonable discusssion doesn’t mean that what you failed to read or understand is wrong.

    But, you have to take that appraoch, because it is all you got. Like the far-right-winged Senators and Representatives that you have sent to Washington, you have decided to “prove” your points by obfuscating the truth and dragging out the “boogie” men. Is that because you lack the analytical and/or social skills to come out from under your bridge and carry on a reasoned, truthful discussion?

    I think that is what it is, because in the end, all you can do to deal with a situation you are incapable of understanding or discussing is to call names, shout insults, and claim that the person you cannot respond to is a socialist, communist, anarchist, or has some physical or mental deficiency. To choose that approach confirms just how valuable you are in defining, much less sollving problems.

  27. If believing in upholding the Constitution is “far-right-winged”, so be it.

    The example that you posed had nothing to do with Rand Paul’s filibuster, as I explained to you. The President DOES have the obligation to defend our Country, in the face of imminent attacks, including the use of deadly force.

    He does NOT have any authority to assassinate a U.S. citizen, on U.S. soil, who DOESN’T pose an imminent threat, without due process. Hopefully, even you can make that distinction.

    That is what differentiates our Country from places like Cuba, Venezuela, or other tin-horn dictatorships.

  28. readingmike94

    why doesnt this blog subscribe to the facebook only policy the rest of the paper has instituted?

    • Ted Biondo

      I don’t know readingmike!? Do the other blogs, or only columns and news subscribe to facebook only?

  29. JRM_CommonSense


    Rand’s first question was so broad that a yes or no answer was not possible. His question asked if President Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.” (Notice, no mention of what the citizen may have been doing.) Holder merely said, in his first answer, the one you quoted first: “It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,”

    Rand’s second question added “not engaged in combat on American soil” and was answered in Holder’s second answer: ““It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no.”

    Now, hopefully even you will recognize the distinction that I was making, the one that that you tried to gloss over in your first post on this issue, hoping that you can make the administration look bad again, by not presenting the real factds. Get it! Two different questions, two different answers!

    The example I posed had everything to do with the way you tried to slip one by everyone on the first post. And it was a perfect example of what Holder might have been referring to as an “extraordinary circumstance”.

    Obviously, Rand recognized that his first question did not really present what his real question was. Hence he posed the second question, and got the answer he really wanted. Get it! Two different questions, two different answers!

  30. On a related note, former astronaut, and husband of shooting victim Gabby Giffords, Mark Kelly, may have committed a felony. It was publicized that he bought a used AR-15 at a gun store. When confronted about the purchase, he stated that it was his plan to turn it over to the police. Can you say “straw purchase”?

    Read more at:http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/03/oops-gabby-giffords-husband-mark-kelly-may-have-committed-felony-with-his-ar-15-purchase/#disqus_thread

  31. Turn it over to the police. Yea, sure he was. Can you say LIAR?

  32. On another related note, I thought this was interesting:

    What is a “Three Percenter”?

    See: http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-is-three-percenter.html

  33. More info on the Mark Kelly “straw purchase”.

    According to ATF Form 4473, stating in line 11a that you are the actual buyer (when you are buying it for someone else) is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and possibly State or local law. It says nothing about the person that you are buying it for being legally-able to purchase the gun, or not. It is still a crime.

  34. If important liberals commit a crime while teaching us dumb conservatives right from wrong, that doesn’t count. Just like David Gregory possessing a 30-rd magazine in D.C. Liberals, the police and prosecuters all sleep in the same bed. It is amazing how little they know about gun laws though.

  35. I see Diane, Dick Turbin and Stuart Smalley passed the assault weapon and magazine ban out of commitee, by a party-line vote. No big surprise there. Now, get ready to have it FLUSHED by the democrat Senate on the full vote. What a waste of time!

  36. Interesting poll on Denver Post. Would you vote to overturn the gun/magazine ban? YES 80%. Sounds like a lot of democrat legislators will be flushed next election. Hopefully all thru the nation too. Now you know why the cowards waited until after the elections!


  37. Check out what Schmucky Schumer is proposing as a “background check”:


  38. I found this interesting in a ruling today on Obamacare:

    “The ruling by U.S. District Judge Audrey Fleissig cites a provision in the U.S. Constitution declaring that federal laws take precedence over contradictory state laws. ”

    Assuming Feinkenstein’s gun ban fails in the US Senate, and a more strcit ban passes in Illinois, what happens?

    Maybe one of the highly-educated liberals can answer this..

  39. I may be able to answer that question, even without the benefit of Leftist omnipotence (sarc/off):

    States MAY be able to pass such laws, but whether or not they are Constitutional would be determined in Federal court, just like the concealed-carry ban in Illinois was overturned by a Federal judge.
    Someone first has to file suit against enforcement of the law, to get the ball rolling.

  40. So much for their serious “conviction”. Senate dems yank assault weapons ban from bill so they can let their vulnerable members weasel out and “look good” to pro-gun people by voting AGAINST it. WHAT PHONEY HYPOCRITES!!!! I love it! They see the writing on the wall. All these anti-gun dems are GOING DOWN next election. That is why the cowards waited until after the last election to propose all the nonsense. Don’t mess with bull, Diane! You just got gored!

  41. See what else the Leftist gun-grabbers are doing:

    Family’s Home Raided over Facebook Photo of Child’s Rifle

    New Jersey police and Dept. of Children and Families officials raided the home of a firearms instructor and demanded to see his guns after he posted a Facebook photo of his 11-year-old son holding a rifle.

    “Someone called family services about the photo,” said Evan Nappen, an attorney representing Shawn Moore. “It led to an incredible, heavy-handed raid on his house. They wanted to see his gun safe, his guns and search his house. They even threatened to take his kids.”

    Moore was not arrested or charged.


    The family’s trouble started Saturday night when Moore received an urgent text message from his wife. The Carneys Point Police Dept. and the New Jersey Dept. of Children and Families had raided their home.

    Moore immediately called Nappen and rushed home to find officers demanding to check his guns and his gun safe.

    Instead, he handed the cell phone to one of the officers – so they could speak with Nappen.

    “If you have a warrant, you’re coming in,” Nappen told the officers. “If you don’t, then you’re not. That’s what privacy is all about.”

    With his attorney on speaker phone, Moore instructed the officers to leave his home.

    “I was told I was being unreasonable and that I was acting suspicious because I wouldn’t open my safe,” Moore wrote on the Delaware Open Carry website. “They told me they were going to get a search warrant. I told them to go ahead.”

    Read the rest at: http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/familys-home-raided-over-facebook-photo-of-childs-rifle.html

  42. More Liberal /fascist tactics….

    ALBANY – A program aimed at rewarding people who blow the whistle on illegal gun owners has yet to show significant results, says three police agencies in the New York. In February of 2012, 11 months before the passage of the NY SAFE Act, Governor Cuomo’s office announced a four pronged initiative to curb gun violence. One of the programs was a cash reward for citizens who lead police to the arrest and confiscation of illegal fire arms. Known as the “Gun Tip Line”, New Yorkers can call a toll free hotline to alert police if they believe someone they know has an illegal gun. The call would be picked up by state police and local law enforcement would be notified if the tip seemed reliable. If there was an arrest the tipster would receive as much as $500. “This initiative seeks to turn neighbor against neighbor and use their own tax dollars to pay for the $500 reward,” said Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin, R-Melrose.

    Read More at: http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/features/top-story/stories/state-500-reward-turning-illegal-gun-owners-7024.shtml

    Most of these snitches probably wouldn’t know what constitutes an “illegal” weapon, or not. It may also be used in the same way as “SWATting*” someone, to use the police to terrorize someone that they don’t like.

    * See: http://rt.com/usa/swatting-krebs-hackers-security-331/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *