What part of "Shall NOT" is causing the confusion.
No law no way no how! We already have the law! Written in easy to understand language!
It's the Constitution!
>It’s sad they have to pass laws to interpret those written in plain english.
>What part of “Shall NOT” is causing the confusion.
Nothing, to you or I, however the whole thing seems to be held as “optional” by the “Powers That Be.”
I wrote about the same situation in a State’s Constitution here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2874833/posts
>No law no way no how! We already have the law! Written in easy to understand language!
>It’s the Constitution!
Yes, however, if there is no consequence to violating a Constitution then it stands to reason that that Constitution dead, null and void.
Perhaps it needs to be watered in the same way the Tree of Liberty does.
The Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the State militias. It did not apply to the states and they were left free to control guns should they wish. So having this right specified in this law is appropriate.
However, since the Illinois constitution specifies all able-bodied persons are part of the militia therefore gun carriers and this state has absurd gun control laws it is never enough.