Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

We’re grateful to the 18 attorneys general for joining the amicus, on behalf of the residents of their respective states. The right to bear arms does not end at the Illinois state line, and untold numbers of citizens from other states have occasion to travel to or through Illinois and they should not be expected to leave their right of self- defense at the border.

Alan Gottlieb
Chairman of SAF
February 9, 2020
45 American states ‘illegally affected’ by 1 state’s serious gun control: 18 attorneys general join fight against firearm restrictions
[The case before SCOTUS is here. It is scheduled to be in conference 10 days from now.

My quick review of the case leads me to believe Illinois is looking for excuses to not allow other state residents to apply for conceal weapon licenses. Their excuse is that they require proof the out of state resident isn’t disqualified by reason of felony conviction or mental health reasons. They claim::

while the Illinois State Police have direct access to information about the criminal and mental health history of Illinois residents, they lack access to such information about nonresidents.

I find that “interesting”. If someone were to move to their state and become a resident, do they magically have their databases filled with criminal and mental health history? If so, I’d like to learn their magic. I have some databases of my own I would like kept update by such means.

I didn’t read all the briefs, or even any in their entirety, but I did not see them address the issue of why someone so dangerous they cannot be allowed to carry a firearm is allowed to walk their public streets unescorted or obtain other dangerous items like gasoline and matches. If they are so concerned about people they consider dangerous because they don’t have databases entries on them why don’t the stop all traffic at the state border and demand their criminal and mental health records before being allowed entry? It’s because it’s the excuse, not the reason, to deny out of state people their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

 The petitioners bring up a related point with this:

Respondents claim it is impossible to know if the non-resident carrying in Illinois, who has a concealed carry license in her home state, who is trusted to carry in her vehicle on Illinois roads, on Illinois private property, on Illinois firing ranges and hunting grounds, is nonetheless too dangerous or mentally ill to carry for self-defense and exercise her Second Amendment right anywhere else in the State.

The go on to destroy the fraudulent claim.—Joe]

3 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

  1. The FBI database that all police forces use has not only wants and warrants. In short order a print out of entire criminal history/ arrest record of anyone with an ID.
    Oregon has its own background check system for firearms. And I’ve had more people than I can count “delayed” when trying to purchase one. Because of crime that was committed in another state. Sometimes as long as 40 years prior!
    I’ve seen the delay status come back in under 5 minutes. Mental health is covered by HIPA laws I believe? So they shouldn’t have access to those. But I have seen the delay status imposed for things their not suppose to know. People who had crimes expunged. Crimes committed as a minor.
    It should be trivially easy to prove the state is committing fraud for a political agenda.

  2. I see a snare laid out for us. Seems to me this is part of the on-going run-up to the total sharing of personal information among all jurisdictions. It’s that Open Society we keep hearing about.

    Those in government are forever saying, “We need more ‘tools’ and ‘resources'” but what it really means is, “We need all the tools and resources”.

    Some of us will go along with it, even eagerly (calling it “victory”), if it means that we get permission from our overlords, temporarily, to carry our guns in more places. We’ll fail to realize, until it’s far too late, that it also means any psychiatrist or even any physician can now take your guns away by declaring you “unstable” or any such, and that all jurisdictions in the country, and eventually the world, will have that declaration attached to your files, which follow you wherever you go.

    The authoritarians will do it, and we will have helped them. We think they’re far too stupid and incompetent to outsmart us like that.

    This is all somewhat speculative of course, with experience and intimate knowledge of the left to back it up. So look for this in the coming months and years to become a conversation more about information sharing and information infrastructure than about guns. They’ve been calling it “Openness” (and who can argue against “Openness”?) But all of that is already well underway, into the advanced stages, so one needn’t be a prophet to see where it’s going.

  3. I figure that if that state can trust my Michigan drivers license, then they can trust my Michigan carry permit. Especially since Michigan recognizes permits from every other state, provided it is issued in your state of residence.
    It really is too bad that they won’t admit that it is not the law abiding firearm owners that cause the problems with guns. As the saying goes, it is not about guns, it is about control.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.