Quinn Uses Gun Violence Victims as Props to Infringe on Rights

I know you’re shocked to learn that a politician is dancing in the blood of innocents and using families of victims of gun violence to infringe on Second Amendment rights.

In Illinois.

I’ll wait until you wipe that look of surprise off your face.

Done?

Illinois governor Pat Quinn on Tuesday vetoed parts of a gun bill that would have allowed people to carry more than one gun, carry guns into some places that serve alcohol, and carry a partly exposed gun.

Flanked by parents of gun violence victims, Democrat Quinn said at a press conference that he objected to at least nine provisions of the new Illinois concealed carry measure that was passed by the legislature.

Which provisions does Pat Quinn not like?

He wants to ban firearms from any establishment (including restaurants) that serves alcohol, which makes me wonder if he would also ban establishments that serve alcohol from having parking lots, since thousands more people are killed by drunk drivers than they are by gun violence each year. Hey, if you can’t park your car in the lot, you won’t drink and drive, right Pat?

He also favors reinstating “home-rule” communities’ authority to institute assault weapons bans, proving once again that if the representatives of the people actually represent the views of their constituents in the state legislature, and if said representation clashes with the political agenda of the gun grabbers, the laws must be changed to allow petty local tyrants to infringe on the rights of the citizens.

He also doesn’t like requiring business owners to post signs if they want to ban firearms on their property. Get a load at this douchery:

Under this bill, loaded guns would be allowed in stores, restaurants, churches, children’s entertainment venues, movie theaters and other private properties, unless the owner visibly displays a sign prohibiting guns. As written, this provision would lead to the unfair and unduly burdensome presumption that—without private property owners’ specific actions to the contrary—guns are welcome.

It’s “unduly burdensome” for a business owner to make it clear to his or her customers what they will or will not allow on their property, so we must make the assumption that every business owner is a hoplophobic asshat like Pat Quinn. Unduly burdensome to post a sign. Right.

Other Quinn douchery includes limiting the number of guns and ammunition “clips” (They’re MAGAZINES, jackhole!  If you don’t know what they are, you shouldn’t have the right to ban them.) and requiring a weapon to be completely — not just “mostly” — concealed and allowing employers to ban weapons in their workplaces (the latter is something with which I actually agree – unless employer receives taxpayer support in any way). Apparently Quinn is crapping his Depends over open carry, because OMGOHNOESELEVENTY!!11!!1!!!!1 someone might know that a citizen is carrying a firearm and get scared or something! I’m not a huge fan of open carry, but the way – it’s not tactical, and frankly it allows a potential assailant a peek into your ability to defend yourself and make a counter plan if needed – but I’m not soiling myself at the thought either!

None of this is particularly surprising, given that it’s Quinn and it’s Illinois. It’s not even all that shocking that he would use families affected by violence as props to advance his insane agenda. I’m not even all that amazed that some people would use their tragedy as a club to bludgeon the rest of us into giving up our rights.

It’s just irritating, that’s all.

4 responses

  1. I should sue the guy for using my name. That is all.

    Like

  2. I’m thinking Illinois needs to put a for sale sign on Chicago and board it up. A lot of fine folks could breathe a sigh of relief if they did.

    Like

  3. Nicki, we have open carry in NH, and nobody even blinks twice, so does ME, and VT,but if you cross that border into MA, watch out. There be crazy people down there!

    Like

  4. Delbert Carpenter

    The phrase “mostly concealed” was also discussed. The ISP representative cited Texas law as his model for requiring guns to be “completely invisible.” He conveniently ignored that Texas passed SB 299 this year, authored by State Senator Estes and signed by Governor Perry. According to Estes’ office, this law explicitly and narrowly differentiates between inadvertent and intentional exposure. For example, if a gust of wind blows your coat open and your waistband carry is momentarily exposed, you’re more protected against charges. It narrowly clarified intent, so that CHL’s aren’t falsely accused of failure to conceal, without making it so broad that somebody brandishing unnecessarily could hide behind the new law. Illinois’ HB 183 seems modeled after the updated Texas law.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: