Previous Post
Next Post


Over at North Central Illinois’, staff writer Allison Ryan reports on Bureau County’s assistant state’s attorney Anthony Sciuto’s two-hour talk to 20 people about the Prairie State’s firearms laws. Attorney: Gun laws not all good, bad the headline proclaims. That’s pretty rich for a prosecutor working in the only state that has a blanket ban on concealed carry, where residents can’t buy or sell guns privately to anyone without an IL Firearm Owners Identification card. Still . . . “Sciuto said the ban on people under the age of 21 possessing handguns (for purposes other than hunting) applies to young veterans who may have handled weapons in combat units. ‘That is just wrong. That is absolutely wrong,’ Sciuto said. ‘But I don’t make the law.'” So that’s alright then. Or is it? And is there any such thing as a “good” gun law?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Yes. Shall issue concealed carry is a good law. Laws prohibiting local governments from making more stringent restrictions than state law are also pretty good IMHO.

  2. I like the one that says shall not be infringed and that powers not expressly given in this document are reserved to the people…other than that, can’t think of any

        • It always seems funny to me hoq many gun owners are prepared to make blanket statements about everyone who does not own guns. Society is not neatly divided into “people who should be institutionalized” and “people who should own guns.”

          In my work, I have met more than one person who holds down a job, pays taxes, is not particularly dangerous, but is not allowed by law to own guns. This includes manic depressives, autistics, ex-felons, and the list goes on.

          Even if we had enough money to lock up every single one of these people (we don’t), it would still be a terrible idea. Not only would it turn good taxpayers into freeloaders, it would be punishing them for crimes they did not commit. Surely, a pro-2nd Amendment crowd can appreciate the problems associated with unnecessary restrictions on personal freedom.

          The second half of the argument, though, is whether society should restrict them from owning guns. All you have to do is meet them and the answer is obvious. There is a huge spectrum of people who are responsible enough to live on their own (oor maybe in a group home) who are not responsible enough to own guns.

          I know an adult autistic, for example, who lost his driver’s license and his concealed-carry permit because he got caught drunk in public. He was not carrying at the time, and he posed no danger to himself or others, but a judge interviewed him and concluded that the essence of gun ownership (and, in this case, driving) was personal responsibility. Lacking that, even for just a few minutes, constitutes an irresponsible gun owner.

          I am not sure if the judge made him sell his guns, or just revoked the CWP, but the argument is the same either way. Some laws exist to protect people’s rights, and other laws exist to protect society. Any time someone makes a blanket statement that the former is always more important than the latter, they are failing to account for the exceptions to the rule.

          And, in a society with 300 million people, there needs to be a rule for the exceptions.

      • insane people have a right to own firearms as well provided they don’t use them to hurt people. as i understand it most insane people dont hurt anyone, and most of those that do only hurt themselves. there are plenty of sane people who are willing to do harm. in general the standard to own firearms should be: have they willingly done harm to others, or have they willingly tried to do harm to others (outside the context of military/police/self defense action). if either of those has been recorded then you may have a case to restrict access.

        • That means we will have to develop some kind of test to allow politicians their rights as they are all defacto cuckoo in my book.

  3. “Shall issue concealed carry is a good law”
    Makes it easy to find gun owners in the event of an “emergency”

    The age restrictions should have a military exemption for active duty and honorably discharged vets.

    • I think if you are old enough to serve, old enough to vote, you are old enough to carry. Also, if you are of an age to be legally responsible for yourself, i.e your parents are no longer on the hook for your actions, you are old enough to bear that responsibility – if none of the above are true than we need to revisit the legal age in this country.

      • Billy Wardlaw only said that those of age to die for their country and vote on its leadership are presumably mature enough to also carry a weapon for self defense. Two other notes: nobody today “refuses” to serve, don’t get it twisted we have a volunteer army. There is no federal sentence for not participating. As for denigrating the peace movement, I don’t think you can equate anti-war with being anti-self defense or being anti-American. Personally, I don’t think another young man, brave enough to fight for his country, should die in the sandbox that everyone knows we’re going to abandon. The country has clocked out mentally, it’s time to go. If this makes me a chicken then so be it. There is such a thing as a loyal opposition.

        • nobody today “refuses” to serve, don’t get it twisted we have a volunteer army

          They certainly do refuse. How many people are flipping burgers out of high school for minimum wage, with no chance of going to college, when they could be making 30k/yr plus a free college education and a ton of other benefits?

        • matt, true enough. Though I feel like that’s a softer easier choice (the status quo of a dead end job) rather than the drastic, political, and life changing)statement that is made by serving time in a penitentiary. What I was trying to convey is that while feelings of apathy are high that’s not necessarily the same as an anti war sentiment.

        • So rights are contingent upon a subjective definition of “training”… got it.

          You must of “served”.

        • Vets are at best as well trained to use handguns as the police are, which isnt saying much. And do vets or active duty members have to qualify once or twice with a handgun, like the police? Or do they only put a couple hundred rounds down range in basic?

        • An EOD buddy of mine does not carry a sidearm and was only given handgun training equivalent to a “handgun operation 101”. Basically loading, making safe and putting a few rounds on paper.

          The unwashed masses can handle that on their own.

        • What’s so wrong with people marching for “Peace”? Or are only vets allowed their 1A rights?

          Are you suggesting mandatory training for all under-21, non-vet citizens to get “better” with guns so they can also enjoy their 2A rights?

        • While most people in the forces (outside of a few special ops types) spend little time on handguns, anyone in a combat or combat support role spends lots of time around guns in general, practicing safe handling and learning the proper mindset to deal with weapons. Unlike cops, some of whom probably let their pistol rust into their holster, in the military your constantly loading and unloading, and thinking about the best state in which to carry at any given moment (i.e. safety on or off).

        • For those discussing military pistol training. I’m a pistol trained Marine and can tell you that Marine training was for five consecutive days long with each session lasting half a day with hundreds of rounds shot. Whether or not that is a good amount of training I will leave up to you.

          Now, if you want to move to my opinion on rifle training, I will give you that. Marines are trained to be some off the best shooting troups in the world. Each course of fire for Marines uses an M-16 and shoots from 200, 300, and 500 yards away unsupported. That means no bi-pod, no bench rest, just your sling and body for holding the rifle correctly and in my days (I left late 2006) we did this with just iron sights. So I think we have some of the best rifle training in the world for the basic veteran.

  4. I am mostly ok with background checks to help keep criminals from more easily getting access to guns. The issue of who and what constitutes a real criminal is another question. I am against the government making and keeping tally of the gun model, serial #, and law abiding person’s gun records. I think each state’s laws should not be subjected to more stringent laws passed by counties and cities or townships.

    • That doesn’t make sense Aharon, about background checks being ok. Is it a right or not? Also, if a person can’t be trusted to carry a firearm, should they really be allowed in public without a parent/guardian or some other type of custodian?

      • My thoughts are mixed on the issue. I can see negatives for going in either direction. I don’t want serious violent criminals access to guns yet I don’t want morally good and ethical citizens denied, hindered, and registered by government.

        Should an ex-con murderer let out after 20 years be able to buy guns? Should an ex-con sentenced for 2 years simply because he was unemployed and broke, and not able to pay child support not be able to one day own guns?

        I don’t claim to have the solution.

        • Because denying a felon the ability to purchase a gun in a store is really going to keep them from getting one? And without registration, how are you going to go after straw sales?

          The solution is to allow felons to purchase firearms.

        • Voting is also a right, but it’s one denied to paroled felons. No reason why firearms ownership can’t be similarly limited.

        • Why don’t we limit felons 1A rights, surely they wont speak the truth. Lets limit felons 4A rights, because we all know they have something to hide. Lets limit felons 5A and 6A rights, because a court all ready declared them guility once before, surely we shouldn’t have to do it again. Shit while we’re at it, lets reintroduce chattel slavery, because thats the only way we’ll ever get them to produce goods or services.

      • @stateisevil That is completely flawed logic. You forget what made the gun such a historical game changer in the first place. It let the weak man kill the strong, the poor man kill the rich, and the untrained kill the trained. It represents populist power, an equalizer. Trusting a man with that power and trusting a man with walking down the street have wildly different implications. Similarly speaking, I’d sooner let an alcoholic ride a bike than drive a school bus full of children.

        • You forget what made the gun such a historical game changer in the first place. It let the weak man kill the strong, the poor man kill the rich, and the untrained kill the trained

          I’m pretty sure big well trained men have been stabbed in the back for thousands of years, and even with out blades there are stories like David and Golliath.

          The only times it was a game changer was when your opponent had swords and you had a musket, or your opponents had muskets and you had a repeater, or similar situations.

    • What if there was an ad that suckered people into shelling out two grand with the promise of “constant police protection” in return, and then all they received was a letter in the mail like this:

      “Sorry, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that municipal police departments are not a personal protection and crime prevention tool. In return for your empty-headed donation, which has been given to charity, please accept this signed letter as the true illusion of security you foolishly bought into. Too bad you didn’t take personal responsibility and train to protect yourself. You know what they say, when seconds count…”

  5. Well for my money the problem with gun laws is that you almost always end up with the good weapons laws being used against us. Like the Huges Amendment in the Firearm Owners Protection Act.

  6. The purpose of law is to prohibit bad behavior. A law against murder? Good. A law about what or how many guns I may own? Bad. A law that bars me from exercising a right or requires me to get permission to exercise a right? Bad.

  7. “… shall not be infringed.” ‘ya know the second amendment to the constitution of these united states thingy……….

    IS A GOOD LAW. The only acceptable law.

    Nous Defions

  8. The only good gun laws are the ones that limit the government’s ability to pass laws against our natural born right. That is, the second amendment to the Constitution.

  9. Yes, all gun laws are bad. Any age restrictions should be established by the parents, not by the state.
    All gun laws are for is to control the law abiding.
    The only laws we need are the laws against rape, robbery, murder and assault; all other laws trying to preemptively stop a bad person from doing bad things by trying to control access to the tools they use for thier evil deeds simply gives more power to the government over all of us with no effect on what the criminal chooses to do.
    Do I really need to mention Chicago or Washington DC or gun free zones i.e. ( Aurora, CO) as to the ineffectiveness of gun control laws?


    • What about when people don’t steal, but they use false or misrepresented information? What about laws protecting the consumer from unethical business actions or unsanitary hospital conditions (or unsanitary food prep)? You seem to view the legal system in a really simplistic manner. I do agree with you to a point, but we do need more laws than just ‘don’t hurt people or steal from them.’

    • Bigfoot, we’re speaking about gun laws, not consumer protection laws; as for laws barring criminals from voting or owning guns for the rest of thier lives; I consider those laws as the worst violation against human dignity and self- respect possible.
      If a criminal paid his or her debt to society by thier time in prison; they should get all of thier rights restored; what insentive do they have to become a law abiding citizen if by doing so they are condemned to a life time of servitude and powerlessness; to be looked at with contempt by everyone; citizen and criminal alike.

    • Age restrictions should be established by the parents, not by the state? Should a 10 year old with schizophrenia be allowed to walk into a gunshop by themselves and purchase a fully automatic machine gun, no questions asked?
      There have been, and will always be laws of some sort.

      • pat, ten year old gang bangers already buy guns on the black market to protect thier drug territory.
        My point is simple, the more power we give goverment to keep us “safe”, the more power they have to control us the law abiding without stopping the bad guy from doing bad things.
        A well armed populace can handle the odd terrorist, mass murdering 10 year old or random mugger; the danger we face as a people is a government gone mad with power we give it to keep us “safe”.

        • I agree completely with the folly of big gov. I am only saying that there is NO WAY you can give a 10 year old who walks into a gun store alone (while exibiting clear signs of mental illness) with a big wad of cash and no ID a fully automatic machine gun. You are peeling several layers of common sense of the onion here. Dont you see that?

  10. I have a gut level instinct to not allow those that have been convicted of violent crimes and things like sex crimes to own firemarms. Yes, I know that they’ll get them on the black market but we as a society should make a distinction between the good and bad.

    If you’re a legal age adult, and that means 18 in this country, then you should enjoy all rights due an adult regardless of military service. And yes, I served and was nor drafted.If an 18 yo is not to be trusted then the law needs to change to reflect that. There was a time when 21 was the legal age.

  11. I would like it to be that felons not be able to buy guns. Not allowing them to have a legal gun gives you another charge to stick them with when they repeat offend.

    Regardless, I keep reading (from studies purchased by the governments) that felons rarely acquire their guns legally. Yet, they follow that up by stating that prohibiting concealed carry and restricting firearm ownership will reduce crime. I’m not for or against any policy, but I am against stupidity.

    They must think that the felons will pluck the gun from the concealed carrier, and that any guns owned by law abiding citizens are going to plucked from their homes.

    • I agree with the extra charge bit, but couldn’t we just double the sentence for the repeat offenses? And remove all parole options on the second offense? Someone trying to go clean might need one for self defense, especially if they have enemies waiting for them outside the prison.

      • Of course, lets lock them and throw away the key, such a simple solution, why didnt anyone think of that before? Oh yeah, it costs a shit ton of money to keep someone locked up and most people here all ready bitch about their taxes.

    • Felonies are crimes that are destructive to society. Why would you want to allow a felon to have a gun? You don’t accidentally commit a felony either. Felons choose to commit felonies. They weighed the consequences and decided what they wanted was more important than what society wants. A person like that should not be allowed to have a gun.

      • So you’re saying even after paying his debt to society by spending time in prison, that his life means nothing, that anyone can attack or kill him, without consequence because if he uses a gun to defend himself he goes back to prison and this punishment will contiue for the rest of his life.
        That a dog has more ability to defend himself than he does because the dog carries his teeth where ever he goes.
        I am just astounded that people who supposedly understand the importance of the second amendment could so callously and cruelly condemn any person to such a life of punishment and have such contempt for any human being that you would support such a law.
        I have no doubt why there is such a high level of recidivism of criminals, why would he want to be part of a society that would be so cruel and unforgiving as to condemn him to a life of abject servitude.

  12. Good gun laws? Yeah, I can think of a few, like having to be 18 to buy a firearm. I really don’t think that a 14 year old kid should be able to buy a rifle or shotgun on his own with no parental supervision, with his paper route money. If his mom or dad want to buy it for him, then at least they know about it. And yeah, I know that SOME kids would be perfectly ok with a gun, but I also know a lot of 14 year olds that shouldn’t be allowed near anything sharp, let alone fires bullets. And I like that in my state at least, there is a pre-emptive law that keeps individual municipalities from making up their own gun laws. The PA state law applies to the whole state the same, no matter how bitchy the mayor of Philly gets. And of course the Second amendment is good, and I really can’t think of anything else that I’d consider a “good” gun law.

  13. Every mala prohibitum law should be repealed. Ever mala per se law should be kept.

    Look up the terms if you don’t know what they mean. You should know, because every gun control law is of the mala prohibitum type.

  14. From an article on a different blog a few days ago:

    “If we stop using the term “gun control” and instead adopt the term “law abiding gun owner control”, it would be easier to see why so many are opposed to a particular piece of legislation. Further, if when we seek to use new laws to reduce violence and we used the term “violence prevention laws”, we make it easier to test the practicality of law, that is to make our own estimation of whether or not the measure will reduce violence.” — James Kaleda (the author of the article)

  15. The only good law is the Second Amendment. The law protecting your right from all. Ignored at every turn or thought by some, forgotten about by others, and raped by far to many.

    Only one law is needed.
    Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    Nous Defions


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here