Second Amendment

Illinois Upholds Public Carry Ban on Weapons


Eugene Volokh explains and contextualizes a crummy Second Amendment decision just out of Illinois in Shepard v. Madigan:

Illinois basically bans private citizens from carrying guns outside the home in any way that's useful for immediate self-defense. Shepard v. Madigan (S.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2012), has just upheld this ban; other courts, in California, Illinois, Maryland, and Massachusetts have done the same, though the federal district courts in Maryland and North Carolina, as well as an appellate court in Puerto Rico have held the opposite.

Volokh goes on to try to untangle the question of judicial scrutiny as it is unfolding in various lower court decisions about the Second Amendment post-Heller. 

The district court reasoned that even a total ban on carrying guns for self-defense outside the home should be judged under "intermediate scrutiny," and the ban passes because "[t]he State of Illinois has determined that, for purposes of protection of its residents, a citizen's interest in carrying a firearm in public should be subject to the governmental interest in safeguarding the welfare of the public at large from the inherent dangers in a loaded firearm."…  

The court doesn't discuss whether — as the Maryland federal district court recently suggested — intermediate scrutiny can only be satisfied by regulations of the carrying of guns outside the home, rather than by total prohibitions…..

The court also says that, as to "laws that impact the right to bear arms outside the home," "the Seventh Circuit has determined that intermediate scrutiny would apply. See, Ezell, 651 F.3d at 703-04 (collecting cases applying intermediate standard in the Third, Fourth, and Tenth Circuits)." But I don't see how that is a correct reading of Ezell v. City of Chicago (7th Cir. 2011)…:

Volokh then quotes Ezell:

"The approach outlined here does not undermine Skoien, 614 F.3d at 639-43, or United States v. Williams, 616 F.3d 685, 691-93 (7th Cir.2010), both of which touched on the historical "scope" question before applying a form of intermediate scrutiny. And this general framework has been followed by the Third, Fourth, and Tenth Circuits in other Second Amendment cases.

For all other cases, however, we are left to choose an appropriate standard of review from among the heightened standards of scrutiny the Court applies to governmental actions alleged to infringe enumerated constitutional rights; the answer to the Second Amendment "infringement" question depends on the government's ability to satisfy whatever standard of means-end scrutiny is held to apply."

But there were specific reasons that Ezell's decision found "intermediate scrutiny" appropriate in Skoien and Williams, as Volokh goes on to explain:

But, as the Ezell court noted, "Intermediate scrutiny was appropriate in Skoien because the claim was not made by a 'law-abiding, responsible citizen' as in Heller, 554 U.S. at 635, 128 S.Ct. 2783; nor did the case involve the central self-defense component of the right, Skoien, 614 F.3d at 645.

And Williams similar involved a challenge brought by someone who wasn't a "law-abiding, responsible citizen" (indeed, Williams was a convicted felon). So in context, the Ezell passage quoting above is simply (1) noting that Skoien and Williams are consistent with the notion that some "standard of means-end scrutiny" must be chosen in each kind of case, and (2) mentioning that this doesn't undermine the decision in Skoien and Williams to choose intermediate scrutiny. The court is not, I think, silently concluding that "intermediate scrutiny" is the proper test even as to claims that are "made by a 'law-abiding, responsible citizen.'"….

I'm not claiming that Ezell clearly selected "a more rigorous" standard than intermediate scrutiny for law-abiding-citizen Second Amendment claims….But I am saying that Ezell did not select "intermediate scrutiny" as the general standard for law-abiding citizen Second Amendment claims outside the home, and the district court was mistaken in concluding that Ezell did so. Rather, the district court should have recognized that the issue had not been decided by the Seventh Circuit, and the court should have accepted the responsibility for itself making the choice, rather than asserting that the choice was made for it.

The full decision in Shepard, a case filed by the Illinois State Rifle Association.

Previous writings by me about Ezell, and about the Maryland federal court case Volokh mentioned above in which it decided that "intermediate scrutiny can only be satisfied by regulations of the carrying of guns outside the home, rather than by total prohibitions."

My book Gun Control on Trial on how the Second Amendment got to where it is today post-Heller. Questions of "scrutiny" will continue to require scrutiny as more Second Amendment cases arise from the lower courts.

NEXT: Canadian Privacy Commissioner Worried About Drones Patrolling the Border, Too Much U.S. Influence

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well it was an ILLINOIS court so why are we shocked by this?

    1. Woah woah woah, we’re TRYING to save you from yourselves here. And by “yourselves,” I mean anyone with a gun. Except for police, their always so responsible and polite.

    2. I live in Illinois and I could not have said it better myself.

      1. Same here.

      2. Same here.


      3. Now I remember why I recently skipped over the border to Indiana: It feels good to sit in the frying pan, for a change.

    3. The only reason I find this at all surprising is that a California court didn’t do it first.

  2. I’m sure that if you are a wealthy contributor to the Democratic machine or are a fishing buddy of the county sheriff they will gladly give you a concealed carry permit or will “deputize” you so you can carry a weapon.

    If you are a regular law-abiding taxpayer the second amendment doesn’t apply to you.

    Some animals are more equal than other animals.

    1. Pigs. That’s pigs.

    2. That is how you get a CCW in most of California.

  3. I just looked them up, and wow, does IL have incredibly shitty gun laws. Like, MA/NJ level shitty.

    1. Hopefully someone will take one of these cases to SCOTUS and IL will get its ass kicked.

      1. Let us pray that SCOTUS will deliver Illinois from evil, amen.

      2. Chicago has already got it’s ass kicked, but it doesn’t matter. The dickhead libs here do as the please.

        1. …they…

        2. You seem to have a problem doing as your betters tell you.

    2. Fortunately the state is no safer with the shitty laws. Just more silly charges for lawyers to bill a few hours on.

  4. The south side of chicago seems like a good place to abstain from self-defense.

    1. It is funny that Chicago politicians are allowed to carry their own weapons for self-defense (not to mention that some have body guards). The rest of us are just peons, though, who are only good for the money which we provide to them.

      1. I find it stunning that the average Chicagoan acknowledges that their city is home to one of the biggest and longest standing political machines in america, yet refuse to take substantial action against it.

    1. Gun weasels?

  5. “[t]he State of Illinois has determined that, for purposes of protection of its residents, a citizen’s interest in carrying a firearm in public should be subject to the governmental interest in safeguarding the welfare of the public at large from the inherent dangers in a loaded firearm.”

    Hmmm, let me check something….

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    I don’t see a single part of that talking about weighing “governmental interest” versus the people’s right.

    1. What’s that second thing you’re quoting? It’s very difficult to understand, and was probably written more than 100 years ago. < /sarc >

      1. The Bill of Rights was written a long time ago by guys who owned slaves.

    2. A well regulated financial market, unrestarined printing press, and free birth control for ivy league students is necessary (also xbox 360 and free weed) is necessary to the security and happiness to the people and shall not be infringed by you racistssy racerists retards.

    3. I ain’t no Lawyer or nothin, but doesn’t that quote just plain loop back on it self?

    4. “I don’t see a single part of that talking about weighing “governmental interest” versus the people’s right.”

      +1000 to you Auric

      1. Constitutional law is hard!

    5. IL lawmakers and judges basically think you can keep arms (well, post-Heller/McDonald), but you definitely can’t bear them. The Supreme Court needs to smack them again.

  6. Black is beautiful

    1. Black is beautiful

      Really? Wow! I never heard that before.
      It’s a good thing you were here. Golly!

      1. I sort of like the new shrike. He’s so simple and peaceful now. I’m starting to think better of lobotomy as a public health measure.

        1. It is cheap and remarkably effective, but irreversible, so be careful for what you pine.

          Shriek is an interesting case, however; we keep cutting, and his frontal lobe keeps regenerating. Shriek is worthy of a lifetime of study.

          Much like Epi’s bottomless rectum and Warty’s omniphagocytic, polymorphic ways.

          1. Unfortunately, real shrike will be back. We’re not done being subjected to “Christ-fag” this and “Soros” that.

            But so far, this thing’s a lot better.

    2. Glocks are black.

  7. …State of Illinois has determined that, for purposes of protection of its residents, a citizen’s interest in carrying a firearm in public should be subject to the governmental interest in safeguarding the welfare of the public at large from the inherent dangers in a loaded firearm.”

    What I don’t understand is how the courts rule in favor of the state and try to make it seem like they’re deferring to rights of the people. They believe somehow that if legislators and bureaucrats want it, it must be what the people want.

    1. We spent a lot of time carefully confusing that issue and will not tolerate you pointing it out.

    2. Its hard to follow simple rules, so you have to gerrymander your way to the desired outcome.

      Probably why we have so many rules too

    3. “Weighing goverment interest” is what happens when the underclass accepts the notion that holy men from SCOTUS are needed to interpret the fundamental priciples that govern us.

    4. “They believe somehow that if legislators and bureaucrats want it, it must be what the people want.”
      This is a liberal state, with pockets of sanity, so most do want it.

  8. The fact that the 2nd mentions both keeping and bearing should lead us to conclude that keeping and bearing are two different things.

    “Keeping” would seem to be the part where you have your gun in your house.

    That would make “bearing”…what, exactly, oh sage court in Illinois?

    1. keep verb \?k?p\
      : to retain in one’s possession or power

      bear verb \?ber\
      : to carry

      Hmm … maybe they don’t have dictionaries in Illinois.

      1. bear noun \?ber\
        : any of a family (Ursidae of the order Carnivora) of large heavy mammals of America and Eurasia that have long shaggy hair, rudimentary tails, and plantigrade feet and feed largely on fruit, plant matter, and insects as well as on flesh

        I think it’s this one.

    2. You’re obviously confused by the word bear – it is not a verb, it is a noun. We have the right to the upper appendages of the genus, Ursus.

      1. Then maybe we also have the right to a medieval fortress?

  9. I have reached full convincement that a constitution should not get in to details about rights. A mention that government has no authority over anything other than the powers granted to them by the constitution is sufficient.

    1. “government has no authority over anything other than the powers granted to them by the constitution”

      I am in agreement, but to be smartass I have to point out that we are underestimating the govt’s ability to expand the definition of ‘anything’.

    2. Hamilton made that argument. Aren’t you glad he didn’t win.

      1. Hamilton also made the argument for a centralized National bank. Whether he eventually won that one is subject to debate.

      2. I thought it was Frankin and the anti-Federalists who didn’t want to go into detail about rights, for the reason Angus gives, while Hamilton and the Federalists thought that if there were no Bill of Rights, future governments would more or less think the people had no rights.

        The compromise was what is now the 9th Amendment, but we see how well that’s respected.

  10. Registration is here, ladies and gents. I just got the e-mail.

    1. No more shitting in public – woohoo!

      1. I don’t see no registration.

        Where’s John??

        1. That’s because you are gonna get blocked. Say goodbye!

          1. If it were that important to me, I’d register like the rest of the clan.


              Oh god, it’s so fucking delicious…

            2. Your tears are so yummy and sweet!

              1. Could this be the new salty ham tears thread?

                1. I think it can’t help but be!

    2. What registration?

  11. Does anyone with half a brain think that banning private guns in public will deter or prevent criminals from carrying guns in public?

    Is this a racist law intended to protect criminals from non-criminal citizens with guns?

    1. Laws against firearms have exactly the same restrictive capabilities as a license to go fishing.

    2. No, it is a law intended to protect government fucksticks from angry peasantry. They dont give a flying shit about criminals, crime or victims.

    3. I do and I am a shit for brains with a big ego.


    1. I didn’t think it was going to happen that fast.

      1. I “reset” my account already.

        1. Me too. I decided to bring out the original.

          1. You know, you guys could have kept quiet about it so that it came as a surprise to certain parties. But what’s done is done.

            1. *hangs head*

              Do you think maybe Warty won’t read the thread? I hope I hope I hope…

              1. The Warty doesn’t “read” the thread. It absorbs it.

                1. The Warty doesn’t “read” the thread. It absorbs it.

                  Warty is Tetsuo?

                  1. We normally aren’t meant to exist in the outside world.

            2. The joy, she had to escape. And it matters not at all in the long run.

              1. Correct, but I kind of wanted to see if I could hear the howls of rage rolling over the Cascades tomorrow morning.

                1. It’s powdered sugar. It’s delicious.

                  1. The lice… hate the sugar. So anyway…

                2. Keep your window open tonight. You might get an early wake-up howl.

                  1. I lolled

                    1. So, heller, this was indirectly your doing. It would seem that you mentally broke Mary Stack, she started typing “John K**** is a child m**ester, and then voila, Registration.

                      how does it feel.

                    2. How come it wasn’t implemented earlier when Warty nearly single-handedly vanquished The Lonewacko?

                    3. Warty completed his mandatory psychiatric treatment as part of the agreement.

                      He still lobbies them for more electro-shock therapy.

                    4. Warty completed his mandatory psychiatric treatment as part of the agreement.

                      If you mean “absorbed all the psych staff into him and emerging as a novel, chimeric being” as “completed”, I suppose that’s true in a Gordon/Lovecraft sort of way.

                      Warty told me ECT makes him giggle.

                    5. If you mean “absorbed all the psych staff into him and emerging as a novel, chimeric being” as “completed”, I suppose that’s true in a Gordon/Lovecraft sort of way.

                      Why do I suddenly I have the image of the dog pen in The Thing in my head?

                    6. It feels great. I would like to thank the Academy, my family, but most of all, myself.

                    7. Will you be in your bunk thanking yourself?

                    8. No.

                      I’ll be in my bunk.

                    9. Masturbating in a mirror is not gay, heller. Not exactly anyway. Don’t sprain your, um, commenting handle… If you know what I mean.

                      I mean your penis.

                    10. Damn. The whole Axis showed up late to celebrate.

                    11. Damn skippy.

          2. Hah! I got Rev. Blue Moon.

            I hope you don’t have plans for it, because it’s going to be known hither and yon for its affection for Bears and leather.

            1. Use it well and wisely, good soul.

          3. no reg here.

    2. Lame.

      1. Not much choice, was there?

        1. We could have had MNG physically assault everyone for their non-compliance and impudence. As long as he didn’t brandish a gun in IL, that is.

          It’s in his DNA, yanno.

          1. Some enterprising individual could probably try to sell MNG his handle. He’ll desperately need it.

            1. Are you saying that this place will become even more inbred, cliquish and insular?


              1. That’s me.

              2. Boohoo, no one is sad to see you go, asshole!


                1. Fucking glee.

              4. Way to prove the problem, dude.

  13. Libertarian Candidate Gary Johnson will be on Comedy Central’s Cobert tonight at 10:30 (Central time). Being a staunch advocate of the right to carry arms he might have a thing to say about this.

  14. California, Illinois, Maryland, and Massachusetts

    That’s what you call a Rogues Gallery.

  15. “[t]he State of Illinois has determined that, for purposes of protection of its residents, a citizen’s interest in carrying a firearm in public should be subject to the governmental interest in safeguarding the welfare of the public at large from the inherent dangers in a loaded firearm.”


  16. Did anyone expect Illinois to allow hand gun carry?

  17. I lived in IL for 11 yrs and could never carry, legally. I moved out of there the first chance I got. Now I live in a proper state and get to carry my gun everyday, just about anywhere I want to.

    Any IL gun owner who values his right to keep and bear arms ought to take his self elsewhere and quit supporting those who undermine that right with their taxes, revenue, and skills.

    It is the only state that has in it’s constitution: “SUBJECT ONLY TO THE POLICE POWER, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    WHAT? Subject to the POLICE POWER? It’s time to move people. Move your businesses & families to a state that values your contributions and let the place destroy itself. It’s time to give up on IL. It’s a lost cause.

    1. I live in Illinois and never leave home without being armed with “the Judge”.

      1. well, you’re either a gangster, cop, or potential felon (when you’re caught). that’s everyone who can carry in IL.

        1. He also has a poor taste in guns…

  18. Maybe I’ll get more work done.

  19. Maybe I’ll get more work done.

    When pigs fly and bulls grow tits, Brooksie.

  20. I really should visit your state and rob the fuck out of you people. If you are decadent enough to allow your state’s elite to disarm you, you deserve it.

    1. I’m starting with the deep dish joints.

  21. This is like the worst chat room ever.

    1. You’ll be gone soon enough, Sam Colt Spoofer! There’s a new sheriff in town, and he goes by REGISTRATION…

      1. Heh. 🙂

        1. Where’s John?

  22. What is this registration?

    1. Yeah, I’m curious how it’s gonna work. I’ve avoided using my email with this handle, and I’d prefer to keep it that way.

      1. I think you’ll be able to post without exposing your e-mail address.

        1. Correct. Your profile page has a check box for displaying or not displaying your email address.

          1. And the hypercompetent Reason squirrelry will ensure that it works just like that, forever, for sure.

            I’ll just go watch from over there.

          2. And one can always whore one’s low-traffic blog in that link space. 🙂

    2. It’s anarchy confessing its own incompetence.

      1. No it’s a giant middle finger aimed at you, loser!

      2. It hurts to set you free
        But you’ll never follow me
        The end of laughter and soft lies
        The end of nights we tried to die


        Someone haz a sad 🙁



      1. I feel more fucking triumphant than
        Odysseus cutting down the suitors in his hall.

    1. I hadn’t heard that song since the early 1990s, but then it was used in a movie I saw recently. Young Adult, I think.

      Anyway, just seeing if I can still post without registering.

      1. Today is the last day. The end of a shitty era, the birth of a brave new world.

        1. Easy, dude. You’ll have to change your panties!

          1. HAHAHAHAHAHA

            Fuck you!

            1. Dance, puppet!


                Oh my god, more! More! Such perfect stupidity!


  24. Fuck “registration”

    1. Fuck you, buddy!

        1. Fuck you too!

        2. At first flash of Eden, we race down to the sea.
          Standing there on Freedom’s Shore.
          Waiting for the Sun
          Can you feel it now that spring has come,
          And it’s time to live in the scattered sun?

        3. heller will remain our greatest wit, and you’ll be nothing.


          Keep squirming, it’s like fucking Christmas.


          1. Dammit, somebody tipped him off. Epi, can you please try to restrain your pillow talk next time?

            1. (he beats it out of me…don’t tell him I told you)

              1. Don’t worry – this is a safe place for battered spouses. Although you do look like you could take care of yourself /curbyourenthusiasm

          2. My prediction:

            It won’t stop her… She’ll get 10 new email addresses per day and keep griefing.

            Only having cookies that uniquely identifies individual machines and flags a machine/account that uses multiple handles will do the trick.

            Of course, that could be defeated too.

            1. You can only keep that up for so long, tarran. You have to register a new address, wait for the confirmation e-mail, post as a troll, get banned, and do it all over again.

              Registration works.

              1. Hey, I would love to be proved wrong.

                But let’s face it, Mary is a crazy, malignant, energetic and very determined cyberbully, stalker and libeler.

                Any system that can depends on fatigue and a lack of will to keep her at bay is doomed to failure.

              2. I’m calling BS.

                If they really wanted to stop the trolling they would just ban her IP. That’s really easy. You can actually find the range of dynamic IPs easily, as well. You could also give a regular the power to nuke all posts associated with an IP.

                The idea that there will be active moderation — unless they’re planning on community involvement — strikes me as unrealistic.

                Now, hopefully I’m wrong. But I don’t think I am.

                1. This will at least keep spammers from changing their handle every second. That means they’ll stay ignored for those who downloaded reasonable.

                  1. I understand that it will slow trolls down. I doubt much more, though.

                    Will there be mods?

                    (Also, FWIW, I’ve made a fuck-ton of improvements to reasonable that I’ll probably roll out shortly after the Registrationpocalypse.)

                    1. Doesn’t matter if it stops them. If it limits their (its) ability to change handles for every post, reasonable chrome extension handles the rest.

  25. Yes please cry more anon-holes. Let this thread be a monument to your pathetic lives and your foiled efforts to shit on us.

    1. Joe M mentioned the salty ham tears thread, but this is actually much more reminiscent of this thread.

      Running joe off was so much fun. Almost as much fun as this!

    2. your foiled efforts to shit on us

      I don’t see any registration here, but if it comes, we win.
      You don’t get it yet, do you.

      1. Rather, I never want to get it. Keep me in the dark. I’ll stay ‘uncool’. Smirk if you like. Does not matter shit to me.

      2. Your delusions are as yummy and sweet as your tears.

        Don’t cry. It’s OK, big girl. You still have cheekbones like the cliffs of Dover.


      3. “We”


        1. “We”

          The attention whore and the many piles of shit left in its wake.

      4. I don’t see any registration here

        This is so hilarious. The dread, the uncertainty, the rage.

  26. Do you think they’ll pull the trigger right at Midnight? This could be the last free thread in existence.

    1. In that e-mail, what did registration require. If they hide the email, cool. If not, I need to create a one off.

      1. The “manage users” page for your individual account gives you the option to display your e-mail when posting. It’s not required.

        1. Cool. I guess it is the last time I’ll be able to do dead celebrity and deity impressions. Shame, they were never intended for anything but humor. But it was either registration or doing away with the site. White Indian/Rather crap could not continue forever without nearly everyone getting apathetic about being here. Dozens of threads I skipped altogether to avoid that crap.

          1. This is going to be so cool!

            1. Cause you were always so challenging to my intellect, I just want to hide away in a shell and not deal with it. That help you sleep at night, lil’ buddy?

            2. Oh it just burns so much, doesn’t it, Mary. DELICIOUS

            3. Are you claiming the sounds of diarrhea improved on this so called echo chamber?

          2. Aw, you can still do it, and now you can get credit for the jokes to boot.

            1. But the romance of anonymity!

              Now the scaffold is high, and eternity’s near.
              She stood in the crowd, and shed not a tear.
              But some times at night, when the cold wind moans
              In a long black veil, she cries o’er my bones

              Chorus ~ She walks these hills, in a long black veil.
              She visits my grave when the night winds wail
              Nobody knows, nobody sees.
              Nobody knows, but me.

  27. Declassified documents show that the Falklands War really did matter.…..-osullivan

  28. That’s 8. Go big blue!

    Feels good, man.

    1. When your coach cheats, that kinda makes it easier.

      1. You mad, bro?

      2. Aren’t those grapes the sourest?

        1. OSU would’ve been drubbed fairly badly too.

          Like I said, easy when your coach cheats.

          “How do I reach these keeeeds?”

          1. Your tears are delicious.

            1. Pffft. I’ll give you guys this one – it isn’t as if UK has anything else they can look forward to the rest of the year. I mean, you’re still in Kentucky, and that’s the worst part.

              1. Is it the incredible scenery, the amazing college basketball*, or the great open carry laws that you dislike about the commonwealth of Kentucky that you dislike. Also, funny that a libertarian would complain about players being possibly paid (by someone other than the coach) for performing a service the other people make money off of. But, I’m sure as soon as someone has done something untoward at UK someone will say something.

                *Not just UK. Many schools in Ky did well this year.

                1. that you dislike about the commonwealth of Kentucky that you dislike.

                  Ok, so maybe I have been drinking tonight. Gotta love that delicious bourbon from the great commonwealth of Kentucky.

                2. No – I am jealous of the coal mines, the incest, FLORENCE Y’ALL, and the lack of teeth.

    2. Is this in reference to the college BB tournament?
      I’m wondering if De Vry and Phoenix have teams. They could emial it in, you know.

      1. Hmm, that was a test. No registration yet required.

    3. Nothing quite like jingoism combined with minor-league level sports.

  29. Nothing else happened.

  30. It’s a night for great news. Being named a moderator would be the perfect way to cap it off.

    SugarFree for Moderator: This Time Crazy Is On Your Side

    1. Isn’t it one of the Charter Laws of the Internet that one who wishes to be a mod should not be a mod?

      1. I don’t want to be a moderator, I’m just ready to serve my fellow individuals to the best of my abilities. I’m here if you need me.

        1. Egads! Define “serve”. (shudder)

          1. It’s a cookbook!

    2. I’d vote for you. But I get to ban one person of my choice per day, and I start with ProL.

      1. Sure, go for the guy who’s not here to be butthurt in person.

      2. Deal. Is see no reason why this process cannot be just as corrupt as all other democracies.

        SF, He’s Your BFF! The extra “F” is for Frenulum.

        1. It stands for “Fistula”. Emphasis on “Fist”. Heh!

          1. Spare me your fancy lawyer talk.

    3. My opponent only wants to wield supreme and arbitrary power over your puny lives to his own warped satisfaction. No good will come of this. I’m sure the odd smells from his crawlspace rumor is just that.

      Under the gentle leadership of JW, all will flourish and grow and there’s free ice cream every Friday.

      Vote for JW as your gracious host and Moderator. He really does love you and not just for your novelty coin collection as SugarFree does.

      1. I will be the Moderator for the common folk, the real salt of the Earth of this blog, those with only two monocles or a slightly out of fashion tophat.

        I’m not saying that my honorable opponent JW would steal your baby’s blood to make his foul bread. I won’t say that. But I will say that I would never do something like that. Can JW say that? And, more importantly, can he mean it?

        1. It would be cruel and unfair of me to suggest that my honorable opponent has been caught numerous times defecating on the graves of your beloved ancestors, which is why I would never suggest such a thing. I can’t imagine the good people of our blog looking favorably on such a retched scoundrel, especially one with such bloody stools.

          Rest assured that under my watchful eye, the sacred remains of your loved ones will never be besmirched by such an odious act of villainy, even by such an upstanding blogizen as SugarFree.

          Free ice cream this Friday and all the toppings you can stand!

          1. SugarFree sounds like a man of the people. My tophat is last year’s model. I have two monocles. I use them both. At the same time. Depth perception is key when you’re decimating rivals who would ridicule your tophat, you know. But I digress.

            I admit I do like JW’s stance on not shitting on my mother’s grave. And like they say, there’s always room for ice cream.

            On the other hand, as always, I’m voting for the Hypnotoad.

            1. Same. He’s got such a catchy campaign slogan.

              1. I have known and loved Hypnotoad since he was barely a toad. There can be more than one moderator. It is too big of a job even for an overweight insomniac. But if there can be only one, please vote Hypnotoad over the unstable JW. We all know about what happen with that poor Puerto Rican maid. And he let her live, which speaks directly to his cavalier attitude toward operational security.

                Do you really want this JW character with his finger on the button? or in your poor, defenseless grandmother?

          2. What do we really know about this JW? I’ve never met him. Have you ever met him? This shadowy figure, someone without the wherewithal to have more than two letters for a handle is asking you to trust him. Ask yourself: When has JW ever made a term equal to “lesbian wrinkle death”? When has this JW ever entertained you with vomitus stories?

            You all know me. I know all of you. Except this JW. Does anyone really know anything about him (her?)?

            1. On the other hand, do we really want a man who can’t ingest sugar near our kids?

              1. More sugar for your kids. Kids love sugar. I’m like a Santa Claus made out of lollipops and Australian strawberry licorice.

            2. Honored guests, I served with JW, I knew JW, JW was a friend of mine. SugarFree, you’re no JW.

              My friends, we know many things of SugarFree, many things that we’d sooner forget, things that will lessen the trauma and flashbacks and the cries of your small children in the night as they beg for the nightmare to stop, but things we never, ever can forget, all to the credit of social media.

              All I ask you is one question: Is SugarFree the kind of man you can trust to not violate your children? Look into your heart and you will see the blessed image of JW there, smiling back at you from inside your heart and protecting your childrens’ precious genitals.

              1. Did we really want old man glucose with his finger on the button?

              2. Lies and calumny! I have never hurt a child that didn’t have it coming.

                1. I have it on good authority that SugarFree is a Sith Lord! For those who doubt me, I ask only that you watch this secret video and decide for yourself.

                  1. So much for JW’s vow not to run a dirty campaign. Guess all that dirty commenters UNION money has emboldened him.

                    Tell your paymaster back in ‘Moscow, Ivan: Hit and Run IS NOT FOR SALE!!!

                    For the future, for the promise of a new day… VOTE SUGARFREE!

                    Good night, and God Bless this great comment board of ours!

              3. Vote for Dr. RON PUAL!!!

                R?VO?UTION 2012!!!

                1. what has happened to this place!?

                  All this talk of registrations and moderators, is this our brave new H&R?

                  A moderated reason, this cannot be!

                  1. waffles – registration is tomorrow. Or, er, later today. E-mails went to some of the regulars.

                    1. How did you dicks get emails? I’m a major donor – I gave three times at the last embarrasing pledge drive to get three different things on the banner – and I didn’t get no email. (I was able, however, to hack into the website and register my most righteous name anyways.)

                    2. Everyone point and laugh at Fist!

                    3. BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

                    4. I see. You know, this place will be a lot better when people can write thoughtful discussion in cohesive essays again. The flame wars in the past year of this site really made it less enjoyable for me.

                      I always clicked over here to get a bit of news, but more importantly lurk for some good commentary. I’m hoping this will be a good refresh so I can keep enjoying it here.

    4. Mary Stack for moderator!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  31. Mary just sent me her farewell video:

    1. Funny, I imagined her “sturdier.”

      1. Apparently she’s had some work done

        1. She look FABULOUS.

  32. We value our uniquely active community of readers and commenters, and we look forward to maintaining as the premier spot for wide-open, full-contact libertarian debate and conversation.

    Full-contact? Yuck. No wonder it burns when I pee now.



  34. Ending threaded comments would be much better solution than “registration”.

    1. I don’t understand this critique. Mary could just as easily spam the hell out of nonthreaded comments.

      1. Its much less personal. You cant respond TO someone without quoting. And even then, it isnt obvious.

        1. I argued at the time of the change that threading only made sense with registration.

          Unlike the old system its hard to find new posts now. Before you just went to the bottom and found the last one you read.

          Im fine with threading/registration, but the two go together.

  35. How do we know that registration is coming?

    1. Important people got emails. Not-so-important people can click the link to the next blog post.

      1. Thanks. I hate to be obtuse but why does registration preclude the WI/Rather problem? I mean, one can register using any name and can do it repeatedly with different names.

        1. You need to answer an email in order to register. This would at the very least keep Mary from continuously spamming under different names.

      2. heller, what link is this?

        1. n/m I found it.

          1. I didn’t. Where is it?

                1. Alrighty, I’m now registered, I can go beddy bye (yep, THAT paranoid that one of our freakydeekys would steal my hard earned name).

              1. Well its about damn time. Great news.

  36. Oh yeah, now I just remembered why I so intensely hate Sacha Baron Cohen.

    Grew up in Perth. Sure she did, and I’m a barbarian from Cimmeria!

    1. Almost as unbelievable as Jason Sudeikis and Olivia Wilde.

      1. The very thought. She’s an asshole magnet.

  37. Well, goodnight, sweet Reason. Tomorrow, we awaken to a brave new world.

  38. I guess this is the last time I can not be me.

  39. I’m in. Someone already claimed “Warren” if I defeat that person in one-on-one combat do I get his mansion and secret lair in addition to the handle?

    1. “You keep what you kill.”

      1. So I’m one “accident” away from keeping Portia de Rossi?

        1. Wouldn’t rather keep that one ali….wait, good SOD Warren, you are one sick bastard! Heh!

          BTW are you the Doom..DOOM…DOOOOM! Warren?

          1. No,that’s the bastard Warren. I suppose he has been posting longer than I have so maybe he can keep the name.

            Man am I going to miss being able to use a fake handle to make a joke. Some of the best batshit insanity of the humorous variety came from those. Dead celebrity cameos, STEVE SMITH and others. To me that is what is a huge loss.

            One crazy person ruins it for everyone.

            1. It appears that you’ll be able to change your user name. The only question is if it changes it just for those posts or for ALL of your posts. If it’s the former, we may still be able to make spoof handles.

  40. Make me a moderator, Reason! I’m qualified. I mean I keep dozen of kids in check everyday. Including that boy with the buck teeth and the pink hat…there’s something about that kid..

  41. Just curious…anyone else make a one-off email address just for reason? That’s the only thing I don’t like about registration.

    1. This is a one-off address, so yes R, it’s par for the course, if you are concerned about privacy.

      1. I normally don’t do one-offs. I have my regular email which is not anonymous, and then another “junk” email that is semi-anonymous that I use for most sites that require an email address for whatever reason. This is the first time I’ve made one just for one specific site, so I was curious if anyone else here is as paranoid as I am.

    2. No, I gave them my usual one. I don’t care if they have my e-mail.

      I’m not remotely worried about someone named Matt Lee Welch screwing me over. I mean has there ever been a historical example of someone with “Lee” in their name causing a bother to anyone?

      1. Lee Harvey Oswald? Robert E. Lee? Lee Majors? Lee Greenwood?

        I could go on…

        1. Holy crap! I forgot about Lee Greenwood!

  42. anytime reason cites

    it’s a win. is *the* site for legal analysis.

    come here for the wild rumpus but go there for the real analysis

    also, the ACCURATE reporting vs. the steigerwald sloppiness

  43. We have to register now? Change it now or forever hold your handle?

  44. Registered.

    Now, lets see if they eventually give us the useful features of it…primarily, marking comments as read and an easy way to navigate to next unread comment.

  45. lol, laws are for honest people. Those silly lawmakers lol.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.