Just would like to get a take on everyones interpretation of one section of our state Bill or Rights:

Espicially the part "Subject only to the police power"

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
   Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

I am not a lawyer nor was I an English major. However.........

The first clause, "subject only to the police power," modifies the second clause, "right of the individual citizen...." It essentially negates it. One does have the right to keep and bear arms in Illinois, but since that specific right is subject to the fancies and faddish whims of the police power, it basically renders your right a mere privilege, subject to "the police power." It is the old proverbial "rights versus powers" argument.

In my opinion, rights are something you are born with, humanly recognized and God given, if you will. Powers are something that is man made, and delegated to other groups, individuals or entities. Powers are privileges. But in this contemporary topsy-turvy world, such terms are meaningless and often largely determined by those who are in charge and maintain the heaviest firepower, and hence, the largest physical and legal influence over the common citizenry. (That is why prohibiting semi automatic rifles from the general populace is so important to these various types of odious people)

Owning a gun and ammunition in Illinois is a privilege, whether you choose to believe it or not. However, the 10 Amendments to the Federal Bill of Rights supercedes State Constitutions in that regard. Most people would disagree with me however, but the fact remains that the Constitution & the Bill of Rights is the supreme law of the 50 states.    

So what do we have to do to change this amendment /wording.I think that this would be very important. Have it worded so that it would not be open to interpritation, and could not be challanged.

So what do we have to do to change this amendment /wording.I think that this would be very important. Have it worded so that it would not be open to interpritation, and could not be challanged.

One of us run for Governor and a bunch of us run for senate and house to make a majority!

I agree and like your interpatation IllinoisGun!

Quoted: However, the 10 Amendments to the Federal Bill of Rights supercedes State Constitutions in that regard. Most people would disagree with me however, but the fact remains that the Constitution & the Bill of Rights is the supreme law of the 50 states.

The 2nd amendment has never been interpreted to apply to the states.  That is why the states continue to destroy our rights to gun ownership.

Not all of the bill of rights have been interpreted to apply to the states.  Until they do, our 2nd amendment rights will continue to fade away.

Instead of wasting our resources trying to beat one law or bill, we should be spending our effort getting the supreme court to interpret the 2nd amendment as an individual right.  As soon as that happens, gun control would require a constitutional amendment to exist.  At that time, felons who'd served their time, as well as all of the other people who are banned from gun ownership at this point becase .gov says so would be able to own firearms.  That personally doesn't bother me, but I bet there's a lot of you out there, (especially LEOs) that have a problem with that.

The Second Amendment was intended to be applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, though the courts have refused to acknowledge or apply original intent. So until SCOTUS declares that the rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, with special regard to the 2nd Amendment, are not applicable to the states, then my contention stands.

I suggest some background reading on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Freedmen's Bureau, which initially lead to and induced the passage of the 14th Amendment. Both measures dealt directly with the southern state's infringement on the rights of newly freed Negroes, particularly pertaining to their right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment, as newfound free citizens of the United States.

I understand your valid argument and the merits of your point, but our Founding Fathers never intended for states to infringe on the rights guaranteed to all free citizens under the Federal Constitution and Bill of Rights, as the 14th Amendment so distinctly clarifies and prominently brings forth.

Perhaps one day SCOTUS will address these alleged discrepancies, but I wouldn't hold my breathe.  

Not that I know my history so well but was it the 14th ammendment that was not fully ratified by congress?

Quoted: The Second Amendment was intended to be applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, though the courts have refused to acknowledge or apply original intent. So until SCOTUS declares that the rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, with special regard to the 2nd Amendment, are not applicable to the states, then my contention stands.

You are correct, however, legislation is only one part of law.  Until there is case law to support that, it will not hold water.

Although I agree with you on the intent of the founding fathers, until a court interprets it that way, we're screwed.

Quoted: Just would like to get a take on everyones interpretation of one section of our state Bill or Rights: Espicially the part "Subject only to the police power" SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS    Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Subject to the Illinois General Assembly


Support Concealed Carry for Illinois IllinoisCarry.com

OK, I will be the Gov and you will do as I say. Because thats what I want,and I don't care what you want as long as I get what I want