When it comes to modern politics, sometimes it’s hard to find humor in the chaos. But when President Donald Trump tweeted out a mysterious (albeit likely misspelled) “covfefe” tweet last month, he did just that–kickstarting a slew of hilarious tweets, memes, and Urban Dictionary definitions.

But if you thought covfefe’s 15 minutes of fame were up, you’d be wrong. A Democratic lawmaker is looking to transform the now-deleted tweet typo into a federal law for archiving presidential tweets.

Who can figure out the true meaning of “covfefe” ??? Enjoy!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2017

Illinois Representative Mike Quigley introduced the Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically for Engagement (COVFEFE) Act on Monday, which would amend the Presidential Records Act to classify and archive social media posts, including deleted tweets, as “documentary material.”

#COVFEFEAct makes deleting tweets a violation of Presidential Records Act—WH says tweets = official statements; Trump has deleted 18 so far.

— Mike Quigley (@RepMikeQuigley) June 12, 2017

Quigley believes in the importance of holding the president accountable for everything he posts, even on his personal Twitter account.

“In order to maintain public trust in government, elected officials must answer for what they do and say; this includes 140-character tweets,” said Quigley in a statement released on his official website. “President Trump’s frequent, unfiltered use of his personal Twitter account as a means of official communication is unprecedented.”

Despite inheriting the @POTUS account from his predecessor, former President Barack Obama, Trump frequently opts for his personal account, @realDonaldTrump, to communicate with the public. Unlike the @POTUS account, Trump’s personal account isn’t archived in the same manner under the Presidential Records Act.

Quigley also noted that the National Archives  previously released a guidance in 2014, which stated that social media merits historical recording. And in April, the National Archives instructed the Trump Administration to document Trump’s tweets in full.

“If the President is going to take to social media to make sudden public policy proclamations, we must ensure that these statements are documented and preserved for future reference,” said Quigley. “Tweets are powerful, and the President must be held accountable for every post.”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House “Covfefe” Bill Would Archive All of Trump’s Deleted Tweets appeared first on Law Street.

A new law will go into effect in Illinois next year that mandates that hair stylists and salon workers receive training to recognize the signs of domestic violence. The bill recognizes the often-close relationship that people develop with their stylists, and is the first of its kind in the United States.

The bill will apply to licensed beauty professionals, including hair stylists, barbers, cosmetologists, aestheticians, hair braiders, and nail technicians. There are approximately 88,000 individuals who fit this designation in the state of Illinois. When applying for a new license, beauty professionals will be required to complete an hour-long course, and then continue to take renewal courses as a part of the continuing education requirements needed to keep a license active. These courses will teach beauty professionals how to recognize and deal with signs of domestic violence. They won’t be required to report anything to the authorities, but will be provided with resources they can give to their affected customers.

This bill was an effort led by Chicago Says No More, an organization aiming to raise awareness of domestic violence. The founder of Chicago Says No More, Kristie Paskvan, pointed out how useful the additional training has the potential to be: “When someone is essentially grooming you, you build a relationship with them. It’s a special relationship. People open up.” The organization is also reportedly considering trying to engage other members of the service sector, like bartenders, in similar efforts.

Of course, there are some who are hesitant about the bill and its effects. It’s a big burden to put on beauty professionals. But the point is just to spread more information and make sure that there are as many resources available to victims of domestic violence as possible. According to the Chicago Tribune:

Although the measure does not require stylists to report incidents to authorities, advocates hope the training will ultimately help lower incidents of domestic violence by making more people conscious of the problem, and offering victims one more place they can turn for help, especially when many do not seek help from authorities, said Kristie Paskvan, founder of Chicago Says No More.

Combatting domestic violence–a crime which often goes unreported–should be a priority for all of the U.S. If Illinois’s innovative new idea works, we may see it extended to other states.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Illinois Law Will Help Salon Workers Recognize Domestic Violence appeared first on Law Street.

Former congressman and radio host Joe Walsh threatened Obama and Black Lives Matter supporters on Twitter late Thursday night. In a tweet that since has been deleted he said “this is now war,” before warning Obama to watch out and that the “real America is coming for you.”

Former GOP Rep, now radio host, @WalshFreedom, deleted this tweet last night after the #DallasPoliceShooting: pic.twitter.com/RzhzJmY1QW

— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) July 8, 2016

Thursday night was the deadliest night for police officers since 9/11, leaving five officers dead after gunmen fired shots at police during a protest against police shootings. Republican Joe Walsh was very active on Twitter throughout the night posting several updates blaming Obama and liberals for the tragedy.

Obama says Cops are racist so 2 uneducated black thugs shoot 10 Dallas Cops tonight, killing 4.

Wake up silent majority. Stand w our Cops.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) July 8, 2016

BLM should be categorized as a hate group.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) July 8, 2016

Totally ignoring the recent shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, or for that matter all 136 black people that have already been killed by the police this year, Walsh had the guts to say it’s “time to stand against the cop haters.”

It's time 4 patriotic Americans to stand up & stand against all the Cop haters – from Obama to the thugs on the street.

It's way past time.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) July 8, 2016

10 Cops shot.

You did this Obama.

You did this liberals.

You did this #BLM.

Time to defend our Cops. Wake up. https://t.co/Zoc3x2xlMk

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) July 8, 2016

Finally he “explained” his tweets to the Chicago Tribune on Friday morning, saying that of course he didn’t call for violence against Obama or Black Lives Matter, because “It would end my career and it’s wrong. I would never say anything as reprehensible as that.”

Walsh was criticized by a lot of people, including activist and musician John Legend.

Joe Walsh needs to be arrested for threatening our President. STFU @walshfreedom

— John Legend (@johnlegend) July 8, 2016

A Racist History?

Walsh is from Illinois and has a history of making racist  and offensive statements.

In 2011 when Walsh was in Congress he expressed his thoughts on the reason for Obama’s election in an interview with Slate.

Why was he elected? Again, it comes back to who he was. He was black, he was historic […]a black man who was articulate, liberal, the whole white guilt, all of that.

At a meeting in 2012 Walsh talked about radical Islam as a threat “at home,” saying “It’s in Elk Grove, it’s in Addison, it’s in Elgin,” referencing various towns in Illinois and upsetting local Muslims.

In 2013 Walsh started hosting a radio show after losing his seat in Congress. Only a year later he came under fire for using racial slurs when talking about American football, including the n-word. He was shut off from his own show and appeared to have no idea why.

The station keeps cutting me off. I don't know why

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) June 19, 2014

And here comes to the General Manager. It appears I can say Redskins, which is supposedly offensive, but when I say other words, commercial

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) June 19, 2014

Walsh seems to be lacking self-censorship and social skills. Maybe he should just stay away from his Twitter account for now.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Former Congressman Joe Walsh Tweets Threats about Obama and BLM appeared first on Law Street.

Big time Illinois lottery winners are lucky–sort of. The recent winners are probably happy to have won big chunks of money, but they also just got news that they won’t receive it any time soon. As a result of the Illinois government’s inability to pass a budget, any winners of $25,000 or more won’t receive their payouts just yet.

It’s now two months into Illinois’s fiscal year without a budget, as the negotiations have reached a standstill. Governor Bruce Rauner is stuck into a fight with the Democrats who control the state legislature. The Democrats are looking to raise taxes, but Rauner is pushing for things like changes to workers’ compensation and collective bargaining.

Right now the two sides are at an impasse–so only essential things are being paid for, like payroll, schools, and child and foster care. The lottery does not fall under the category of essential items; moreover, payments over $25,000 need to be disbursed by the state comptroller. The spokesman for the Illinois Lottery Steve Rossi, explained:

The lottery is a state agency like many others, and we’re obviously affected by the budget situation. Since the legal authority is not there for the comptroller to disburse payments, those payments are delayed.

Lottery officials have explained that eventually the money will be paid out, but no one is exactly sure when. This has created some problems for winners who are waiting on that money, assuming they would have received it by now. This is an issue for winners of $25,000 or more, those who won between $25,000 and $600 can pick it up at various lottery offices throughout the state. Winners of $600 or less can pick their money wherever they bought the tickets.

State Representative Jack Franks, a Democrat, explained how this is indicative of some bigger issues with the lottery system. He stated:

Our government is committing a fraud on the taxpayers, because we’re holding ourselves out as selling a good, and we’re not — we’re not selling anything. The lottery is a contract: I pay my money, and if I win, you’re obligated to pay me and you have to pay me timely. It doesn’t say if you have money or when you have money.

While the lottery is obviously not an essential feature of what a state provides, the fact that a budget hold up reverberates through a state’s many different departments is clear. Not paying out prizes is probably a bad move in the long run–the lottery brings in plenty of revenue, and people won’t be encouraged to play if they aren’t guaranteed that they’ll receive the money. Lottery winners are certainly hoping that the budget snafu will be resolved soon.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Can’t Illinois Pay its Lottery Winners? appeared first on Law Street.

This year, Chicago’s celebration of the Fourth of July quickly turned into a bloody massacre. Reports vary on the exact amount of fatalities and people injured, although it appears that at least ten people were killed, and over fifty others were harmed due to gunfire in multiple different incidents throughout the city. This bloodshed was horrifying, although it’s only one of many instances of gun violence in the Windy City in recent years that have left countless people dead and put residents on high alert.

Among the victims was a seven-year-old boy, Amari Brown, who was fatally shot while watching the fireworks with his father, Antonio. Investigators believe that the intended target of the gunfire was his father, who is a known gang member with forty-five past arrests and who refused to cooperate with detectives during the investigation into his son’s death. Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy made an emotional plea to the public, urging people to put an end to this senseless brutality that has swept the city in not only the past few months but throughout recent years.

Chicago has a notorious gang population and the usage of guns is staggering. The problem is not too little of a police presence on the streets, given that it was actually increased by thirty percent over the holiday weekend, nor was it a lack of gun confiscations and arrests since these numbers were also higher than usual. Instead, McCarthy believes that there is a “broken system,” since criminals never really have to deal with the repercussions of their actions. He claims that gun control laws are too lenient in the city, despite Chicago having some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

Shooting during July 4th celebration leaves 7-year-old dead; police say bullet meant for dad http://t.co/GmReoTORHe pic.twitter.com/KLyrggsJ3U

— CBS News (@CBSNews) July 6, 2015

Sadly, these vicious shootings aren’t anything new for Chicago–the city has a long history of gun violence. Police have amped up their seizure of illegal weapons, which has proven to be effective since shooting incident rates are actually down compared to this same short period of time last year, but it’s not quite enough. Chicago has been plagued with crime for many years, garnering attention from news sources nationwide. It is the third largest populated city in the country, and yet its homicide rate is drastically higher than New York or Los Angeles. Evidently, changes must be made in order to put an end to this constant carnage. The cops are working feverishly to deter and terminate gun usage, although this is impossible to do without the full support and cooperation of the public.

One of the victims last weekend was seventeen-year-old Vonzell Banks, who was gunned down in a park that was named after Hadiya Pendleton, an honors student who was murdered in cold blood there in 2013. Pendleton’s death became a symbol of national gun violence, as she was killed while walking with friends through the park only a mile away from President Obama’s Chicago home, not long after she attended his inauguration. Unfortunately, the amount of shootings in this city has hardly decreased since her passing.

Amidst tragedy, authorities are hoping that they can turn these deaths into something positive. In memory of the many victims, they are encouraging the public to band together and not only be vigilant for other possible acts, but also work toward discouraging future gang activity within the community. One tactic that officials have used is creating mentoring programs and day camps for local children as a way to discourage them from becoming involved in gang activity. They are trying to reach kids at a young age so that they always have somewhere to turn to where they can grow and prosper rather than resorting to violence or crime.

In recent years, Chicago has become what can only be compared to a battlefield in certain parts of the city, with some residents even giving it the nickname of “Chiraq.” It has been known for a long time that Chicago is experiencing a surge of unnecessary violence, although the death of the seven-year-old sparked citywide cries for justice and peace. Hopefully those cries will finally start to make a difference.

Toni Keddell

Toni Keddell is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Toni at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Endless Bloodshed on the Streets of Chicago Mars Holiday Weekend appeared first on Law Street.

Ah, Missouri, the Show Me state. Let me just jump right into this edition of The Dumbest Laws in the United States. In Missouri, you can’t honk the horn of a car that’s not yours unless you have the owner’s permission. Be sure to ask if it’s okay to honk the driver’s horn if you are the passenger in a car and feel offended by something another driver did. Furthermore, one may not “attempt to manipulate any of the levers, starting device, brakes, or machinery thereof, or set the machinery in motion” if you do not own said machinery. Also while on the topic of cars, Missouri has a law simply stating that it is illegal to speed. In case anyone wasn’t aware.

I can’t honk the driver’s horn? I can’t SPEED? WHAT?

In Colombia, Missouri, drinking in a bar between the hours of 2:00am and 6:00am is strictly prohibited. It would be a difficult task seeing as how most bars close at 2:00am. Perhaps it’d make more sense to ban breaking into closed bars and drinking inside. In University City, owning a PVC pipe is illegal as it is considered drug paraphernalia. Perhaps too many students were converting the pipes into bongs. In University City, yard sales located in one’s front yard are also banned. The law does not mention sales in back yards, however, so perhaps doing so is permitted?

It frightens me to think of what instances prompted Illinois to create such a law, but the state has one banning sex with a corpse. Sex offenders there are prohibited from taking part in holiday festivities such as passing out candy to children or acting as Santa Claus. I mean, makes sense sort of, especially for registered sex offenders who are pedophiles.

Both those laws up there? Messed up.

One law listed as “stupid” actually makes a lot of sense to me. Individuals younger than 21 may drink alcohol if they are enrolled in a culinary program. I mean, if this weren’t allowed, how else would aspiring chefs know about wine pairings or using alcohol in cooking?

In my oh-so-humble opinion, another “dumb law” that is actually very sensible is one that prohibits hanging dangling objects from rear-view mirrors. I find them personally distracting while driving but maybe that’s  just me.

In Illinois’ famous capitol city, Chicago, citizens with an expired city sticker on their cars can receive a fine of $120. Also, all businesses “entering into contracts with the city must sift through their records and report any business they had dealing with slaves during the era of slavery.”

Citizens of Collinsville, Illinois must have gotten sick of seeing young men whose boxers peek over their pants while walking around. Or perhaps they got sick of seeing a few too many plumber cracks. Yes, in Collinsville, wearing sagging pants is illegal, so tighten up those belts!

Watch those pants, Gramps!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Missouri and Illinois appeared first on Law Street.

It’s no secret that flying is expensive, and many customers will do almost anything they can to save a few bucks on airfare. Under that assumption, 22-year-old entrepreneur Aktarer Zaman created a website called Skiplagged.com. Skiplagged advertises itself as “better at finding cheap flights than any other website!” However, because Skiplagged operates based on a loophole in airline pricing, airline companies aren’t as ecstatic about this new site as many consumers. In fact, United Airlines filed a suit against Skiplagged. There’s good and bad news for purveyors of cheap flights–the good news is that the lawsuit was just thrown out by a judge.The bad news is that the legal fights aren’t over yet.

Skiplagged is able to find cheaper fares by taking advantage of what is dubbed “hidden city pricing.” These “hidden cities” are the layover locations of flights. Suppose you’re trying to get from Atlanta to Philadelphia. It might be cheaper to book a flight from Atlanta to Boston, with a layover in Philadelphia, then just walk off the plane in Philadelphia and never continue on to Boston. You obviously wouldn’t be able to check a bag, but if you’re looking to save a few bucks, it’s a pretty brilliant idea. It’s always been possible for individuals to do so, but it takes a decent amount of research and work. Zaman built a website that does the same thing.

So financially, it’s definitely a win. But what about the ethics of this approach? That is significantly fuzzier. Technically speaking, by purposely not getting on a connecting flight, you are breaching the contract you signed with the airline when you purchased the ticket. You also may cause delays–if the flight crew is trying to make sure that they have all the customers on board it may take them a while to mark someone a no-show. Most importantly to the airlines, you’re costing them money.

As a result, United decided to sue Zaman, saying that he promoted “unfair competition” and “deceptive behavior.” Travel site Orbitz sued Zaman because you can’t book flights directly on Skiplagged, so the site directs you to purchase them from other retailers, such as Orbitz. Orbitz didn’t want to lose its bookings as a result of Skiplagged’s recommendations. Orbitz, however, settled its lawsuit in February, although the exact details of that settlement have not been disclosed.

As for the United lawsuit, that was just thrown out out by Chicago Judge John Robert Blakey of the Northern District Court of Illinois, but not on the merits of the case. It was thrown out because the court in which it was filed lacked the jurisdiction to decide the suit, given that Zaman did not live or do business in Chicago. This leaves United with the opportunity to try again in a more appropriate jurisdiction.

Trying again is something that the airline probably will do. United released a statement after the decision saying:

We remain troubled that Mr. Zaman continues to openly encourage customers to violate our contract of carriage by purchasing hidden-city tickets, putting the validity of their ticket and MileagePlus status at risk.

So, United will probably continue its quest to put Skiplagged out of business, and given the revenue that airlines have the potential to lose from this trick, others may join the lawsuit. For now, Skiplagged appears operational, but there’s no guarantee it will stay that way for long.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This Site Will Save You Money on Airfare, But is it Legal? appeared first on Law Street.

Ever since Illinois Republican Aaron Schock stepped foot in Washington D.C. he’s been making headlines. He was one of the first millennials to be elected to Congress, in 2009. He gained prominence for his flashy Instagram account, constant presence at the gym, weird office re-decoration possibly inspired by television show “Downton Abbey,” and persistent gay rumors. All of those things, in addition to his millennial status earned him applause from some and criticism from others. Either way, one thing is certain: Aaron Schock was certainly a character. A character that Washington is losing, as Schock announced his resignation yesterday after weeks of financial scandal allegations. But I want to be clear about one thing: Schock isn’t resigning because he’s young, or because he’s a millennial. He’s resigning because he’s a corrupt idiot.

Schock’s downfall essentially came from the fact that he spent way too much money. Some of that money was campaign donations, which he is accused of spending for personal use. He also used taxpayer money for things like private flights, and he was untruthful when filing things like spending reports and travel reimbursements. Some of the best allegations about Schock’s spending include:

• A personal photographer named Jonathan Link. Schock paid Link and his studio more than $50,000 last year and listed that cost as “personnel.”
• He requested mileage reimbursements for miles driven in his car for both official government business and campaigning; however, his car had less than half of the miles on it he claimed he had driven.
• He paid to take his interns to a sold-out Katy Perry concert.
• His “Downton Abbey” inspired office cost $35,000, but was designed by the wife of one of his donors. Many have argued that it was an “inappropriate gift.” The Washington Post described Schock’s private office as including “a drippy crystal chandelier, a table propped up by two eagles, a bust of Abraham Lincoln and massive arrangements of pheasant feathers.” Overall, Schock has spent more than $100,000 to renovate his various offices.

Last one. Full shot of Aaron Schock’s office. http://t.co/PJ1NGekafQpic.twitter.com/2SjsGQlKhp

— Ben Terris (@bterris) February 3, 2015

Overall, it seems pretty clear that Schock’s spending practices weren’t really in line with helping his constituents, but more with helping Schock himself.

Many of his colleagues are disappointed because they saw him as a rising, attractive Republican star. With an active presence on social media that included pictures with people like popstar Ariana Grande, he was more prominent for many young people than say, Senator Lindsey, “I’ve never sent an email” Graham. In a party that has long struggled to connect with young people, Schock seemed like a shoe-in to help fix that problem. But not everyone was so impressed with the Congressman. Politico, which broke the story yesterday, reported:

Schock’s associates — many of whom are afraid to speak for attribution, fearing potential legal action — say a combination of immaturity, sloppiness and an oversized ego led to his downfall. He came to Congress as an eager 27-year-old, raised a lot of money and spent it at a rapid clip.

I think that’s partly right. I think he did have a huge ego, was incredibly sloppy with his position, and was incredibly immature. That being said, politicians get slammed on this kind of stuff all the time, particularly in Schock’s home state of Illinois. I’m not sure what’s in Illinois’ water, but more than 1,500 holders of various political offices in the state have been convicted on corruption charges in roughly the last 40 years. That includes four out of seven of its most recent governors. Schock may have been sloppy, immature, and egotistical, but I don’t think he’s alone.

The issue isn’t that a millennial politician can’t be successful. Schock’s fellow millennials include Representatives Tulsi Gabbard, Patrick Murphy, and Elise Stefanik, none of whom seem to have the same spending issues. Young people need to get involved in politics–from the most recent midterms alone, it’s obvious we’re lagging in participation. It really is pretty clear Schock didn’t get nabbed because he’s young or  likes to travel. He got nabbed because he, like so many other politicians, became entitled and thought he was untouchable.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Aaron Schock’s Age Didn’t Do Him in, His Idiocy Did appeared first on Law Street.

Common Core State Standards have been a matter of controversy for a few years now, garnering opposition from both sides of the aisle. Common Core in some ways saw its inception in the George W. Bush era and serves as a predecessor to the No Child Left Behind Act. But what exactly is Common Core, why was it launched, and what is the opposition? Read on to find out.

What is Common Core?

The Common Core State Standards “aim to raise student achievement by standardizing what’s taught in schools across the United States.” They include a particular focus on language arts and mathematics. The objective is to universally prepare students from Kindergarten to high school to be successful for entry-level college courses or to enter the workforce. It lays out what students should know and be able to do by the end of each specific grade. The standards are results driven, but the methods used to achieve the set results are chosen by local teachers and facilities.

The History Behind Common Core

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was first signed into law by President Bush in January 2002. The next decade was spent revising the law’s requirements and attempting to create more successful “adequate yearly progress” reports. However, people quickly realized that NCLB was in need of serious reform itself. In November 2007, state chiefs first brainstormed Common Core standards at the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Annual Policy Forum. The following year, the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA), CCSSO, and education nonprofit Achieve released Benchingmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World-Class Education. In it they recommended the common standards. In April 2009, the NGA and CCSSO officially invited states to commit to the Common Core standards, and by June 49 states and territories announced commitments. After public feedback, a final draft was released in June 2010.

The NGA and CCSSO  led the development of the standards and actively advocated for their implementation. They also sought input from teachers, parents, school administrators, and various state leaders in “how the standards are taught, the curriculum developed, and the materials used to support teachers.” Implementation, however, is completely up to the states. Once a state adopts the Common Core standards, it is delegated to local teachers, principals, and superintendents to introduce the standards into school curriculum.

 Why was the Common Core program started?

It has long been a bipartisan view that the U.S. needs education reform. Common Core was started to allow high school graduates to be competitive in college, but also in “the rapidly changing American job market and the high tech, information-based global economy.” It is widely believed that U.S. students are falling behind their counterparts in other countries. Standardized tests in countries like China and Singapore have advanced well beyond the U.S. over the last few decades. Bill Gates, a heavy investor in the Common Core, advocated,

Our nation is one step closer to supporting effective teaching in every classroom, charting a path to college and careers for all students, and developing the tools to help all children stay motivated and engaged in their own education. The more states that adopt these college and career based standards, the closer we will be to sharing innovation across state borders and becoming more competitive as a country.

In Gate’s interview, he repeatedly noted that the standards are not based on curriculum. They are “solely” milestones for where the students should be at each grade level.

How much does Common Core cost?

The cost for implementing Common Core will vary from state to state, but will undoubtedly be expensive. Training teachers and buying new materials will take a substantial amount of money. In 2011, California estimated that replacing its current standardized tests with Common Core standards would cost taxpayers approximately $1.6 billion. In Texas, the estimate is upward of $3 billion dollars.

According to the Common Core Initiative however, the implementation will allow for states to eventually save on resources, materials, and “cross-state opportunities that come from sharing consistent standards.” The cost-benefit ratio should end favorably. As of 2014, 43 states, Washington D.C., Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands adopted the Common Core.

What are some characteristics of Common Core?

English and Language Arts

Generally, the standards call for “regular practice with complex texts and their academic language.” They demand a steady increase in complexity and progressive reading comprehension. There is to be an emphasis on academic vocabulary, focusing on meaning, nuances, and range. There isn’t a required reading list; however, categories of literature are required. Examples include classic myths, foundational U.S. documents, works of Shakespeare, and staples of American literature.

Students should know how to provide evidence from the text when forming analyses and arguments at different levels. The standards call for text-dependent questions on assessments as opposed to questions based on student experiences and/or opinions. The objective is for students to be able to effectively inform and persuade, and for these skills to become stronger as students move up in grade levels.

There is also a larger focus on nonfiction. For grades K-5, there is a 50/50 ratio between informational (history, social sciences, etc.) and literary texts. In grades six through 12 there is substantially increased attention to literary nonfiction.

Mathematics             

In mathematics, the standards call for a “greater focus on fewer topics.” The standards aim to narrow and deepen lessons on concepts, skills, and problemsolving depending on grade level. For example, K-2 will focus on addition and subtraction, while grades three through five will focus on multiplication and division of whole numbers and fractions.

There is an overriding theme across grades of linking topics and thinking. A standard at any grade level is designed to build upon the standard of the previous grade and act as an extension. This consistently reinforces major topics, which are used to support grade-level word problems that need mathematical applications to solve.

Finally, the mathematics standards aim to pursue conceptual understanding, procedural skills and fluency, and application with equal force. The idea is to deepen the understanding of concepts as opposed to memorizing rules. If the building blocks of complex math concepts are completely understood by students, that will eliminate degrees of future difficulty. Speed and accuracy are both to held in high importance.

What are the arguments against Common Core?

The goals of the Common Core seem to have U.S. students’ best interests at heart. So why is there so much opposition? Here’s a look at some of main challenges.

National Standards

First, some argue that the name “Common Core State Standards” is misleading. Since they have been adopted by 43 states, they are truly national standards. Detractors worry that states didn’t necessarily adopt the Common Core by choice, but were strong-armed by conditions ascribed by federal Race to the Top grants and the No Child Left Behind programs. Prior to the implementation of Common Core, all 50 states–whether on board or not–adopted NCLB or revised standards under the threat of losing federal funding.

More of the Same

Many see the Common Core as round two of No Child Left Behind. NCLB failed in both “raising academic performance and narrowing gaps in opportunity and outcomes.” This propagated the notion that American schools need to be fixed. Test results from NCLB did not meet expectations. After the first ten years, more than 50 percent of the nation’s schools were categorized as failing. Many of these same schools never received the support or resources necessary to stand a chance. In the same respect, will all schools be supplied with the needed computers required to take the Common Core tests?

Too Curriculum Based 

There are also worries that Common Core has become more curriculum based than originally intended. In the video below, a seven-year public school teacher discusses why the Common Core is not good for kids and dictates curriculum. She argues, “when the standards are tested that’s what you are going to spend your time on…[there is] no room to teach anything else.”  Her job security is based on meeting the standards. As a result, she’s concerned that the standards must be taught 100 percent of the time, and don’t allow flexibility or creativity.

She continues to argue that the material is not condensed, using the 93 elements of the third grade reading standard as an example. Her largest problem with Common Core is its age appropriateness. Although she advocates pushing students, she doesn’t believe seven year olds should be expected to master the difference between an adjective and an adverb. She labels the standards as a  “race to the middle” with “mediocre teaching.” Using a uniform approach, the faster learners are bored, while the slower learners are under immense pressure.

There is plenty of concern on the length and difficulty of the assessments as well. In the first round of distribution of the Common Core tests in New York, students, parents, and teachers strongly voiced their concerns. Many students felt immense pressure and were scared of failing, and teachers complained about the atmosphere the tests created.

Opting Out

Some children have started to opt out of the tests, often with parental support. The “opt out movement” has grown in popularity–thousands of students nationwide have chosen this route. Opt-outs protest the Common Core standards and the overemphasis on testing in public schools. There is even a National United Opt Out group comprised of parents, educators, students, and social activists. The legality of opting out seems to be a gray area, varying from state to state. In an extreme case, the Illinois State Board of Education sent a letter stating students opting out would be breaking the law and teachers refusing to administer the test would face legal consequences.

There are a variety of other arguments as well. One other concern is that corporate businesses are behind the standards to create a marketplace for Common Core resources. Others argue that electives like music and art will be sidelined. Finally, many teachers and parents don’t approve of the “one-size fits all” approach to teaching children.

Conclusion

It’s hard to say what is in store for U.S. education reform. We do need a change, but is Common Core the right one? There aren’t any studies regarding Common Core’s success to fall back on. Only time will tell. There are convincing arguments on both sides. Ultimately, everyone involved wants the same thing: U.S. students to be as educated and prepared for the world as possible.

Resources

Primary

Common Core State Standards Initiative: About the Standards

CCSSO: National Governors Association and State Education Chiefs Launch Common State Academic Standards

U.S. Department of Education: No Child Left Behind

Additional

Washington Post: The Common Core’s Fundamental Trouble

EdWeek: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World Class Education

U.S. News & World Report: Who is Fighting for Common Core

Truth in American Education: State Costs for Adopting and Implementing the Common Core State Standards

U.S. News & World Report: The History of the Common Core State Standards

U.S. News & World Report: The History of the Common Core State Standards

U.S. News & World Report: Opt-Out Movement About More Then Test, Advocates Say

U.S. News & World Report: Who is Fighting Against the Common Core

Why Science: A Historical Timeline of No Child Left Behind

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Common Core: A Solution to America’s Education Problems? appeared first on Law Street.

I’ve heard about judges having very specific laws for their courtrooms before, but a judge in the Cook County Circuit Court, near Chicago, has taken quite an interesting step in that regard. Judge Gloria Chevere has started to fight against saggy pants in her courtroom–even throwing eight people in jail for the offensive apparel in the last three years. When defendants have come into her courtroom wearing pants she deems too low slung, she’s remanded them to jail for “direct criminal contempt.”

That really is pretty extreme–criminal contempt is defined in Illinois as:

Any conduct committed with intent to impede, embarrass, or obstruct the court, or to derogate from the court’s authority, or bring the court into disrepute.

The direct part just means that it is done in the presence of a judge–in this case Judge Chevere. Usually such a designation is reserved for something legitimately distracting–such as fighting, or yelling in the presence of a judge. It wasn’t just pants that got Chevere to invoke that designation though; she had 22 other cases of direct criminal contempt in her courtroom as well over the same period of time. She has now been assigned to a courtroom where she deals more with administrative issues because of worries that her constant throwing people in jail when she didn’t like their pants impeded justice somehow.

I’ve never been to Chicago, but I guess saggy pants don’t just get Judge Chevere up in arms. Apparently it’s a big problem in a small suburb outside of the Windy City, too, called Forest Park. Mayor Anthony Calderone himself proposed legislation that would not allow people to wear “pants or shorts falling more than three inches below a person’s hips and exposing that portion of the person’s undergarments, buttocks, pubic area and/or genitals.”

It’s kind of a weird proposal–it’s one thing to ban someone showing their genitals, but there are, I have to assume, public decency laws already on the books about that kind of exposure. This ban seems tailored at really one thing–a fashion trend that I probably hear people complaining about more than I actually see.

At first glance it seems kind of silly at best, but if you look more closely at the proposed rule, it’s pretty problematic. First of all, it seems to target a particular group–young black men. Those in favor of the ordinance deny that’s the intention. Mayor Calderone, said:

There are people on both sides of the issue. This doesn’t have to do with any sort of racial profiling what so ever. In our town, it’s not been any one specific color (race), it’s been whites and blacks.

While that could be true, the arguments about racial profiling are justified. Those who disagree with the ordinance argue that known discriminatory practices like stop and frisk could be facilitated by this new rule. If police officers can stop a young man from wearing pants that don’t fit the code, they may segue that into a more invasive interaction.

So if you’re a particular fan of sagging pants, don’t wear them in the greater Chicago area. Some places you might get thrown out of a courtroom, and in some you may break a law.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Illinois vs. Saggy Pants appeared first on Law Street.

If you’ve been following Law Street’s Crime in America 2015 city crime rankings you might have one big question: where are Flint and Chicago? Flint, Michigan was the #1 Most Dangerous City with a population under 200,000 last year, and preliminary data from the FBI indicated that it would remain so this time around, and reporting on Chicago’s violent crime pervades American media. So where are Flint and Chicago on these lists?

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE TOP 10 MOST DANGEROUS CITIES WITH POPULATIONS OVER 200,000.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE TOP 10 MOST DANGEROUS CITIES WITH POPULATIONS UNDER 200,000.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE TOP 10 SAFEST CITIES WITH POPULATIONS OVER 200,000.

First let’s look at Flint. It’s not because it isn’t still really dangerous–it very much is. It comes down to its population, though, and if the city had just 59 more residents it would have easily maintained its #1 Most Dangerous City ranking over Little Rock, Arkansas. According to the FBI, Flint’s population decreased by 1,691 last year, putting the city just 59 residents shy of the 100,000-person threshold that Law Street uses to rank the most dangerous mid-sized cities.

Flint has a violent crime rate of 1,908 per 100,000 people, which far exceeds Little Rock’s violent crime rate of 1,407. Flint’s murder rate clocks in at 48 per 100,000, while Little Rock is only at 18 per 100,000. Flint’s population statistics speak for themselves as well: the median household income is just $26,339, and almost 40 percent of the population lives below the poverty line.

If Flint had those 59 additional people it would definitely be the #1 Most Dangerous City in America–but that does not mean things aren’t getting better there. They absolutely are; this year’s crime statistics saw a dramatic decrease in violent crime in the city. Last year, Flint had a violent crime rate of 2,729 per 100,000 people, which means that its overall rate has dropped 30 percent. The murder rate dropped by quite a bit too, from about 62 per 100,000 people to 48 per 100,000 people. So while Flint is still incredibly dangerous, things are getting better there, just slowly.

Now to Chicago–another notable exception from the list of Most Dangerous Cities. The answer here is fairly simple. Chicago isn’t included in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report from which our data is curated. According to the FBI, Chicago under-reports its crime data, so the numbers are simply missing from the FBI report, making it impossible to rank the Windy City in a uniform way with its like-size counterparts.

While Law Street’s statistics are definitive and it’s interesting to look at what cities make the list, it’s also very interesting to see which cities are missing. Flint and Chicago are two notable examples for two very different reasons.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Flint and Chicago Are Still Dangerous Despite Absence From Rankings appeared first on Law Street.

Did you know that you can get a scholarship to not go to law school? Last year, Matthew Willens, a Chicago attorney and part-time legal professor at Loyola Chicago Law School, created a $1,000 scholarship to be awarded to a winning undergraduate student who chooses to pursue any post-graduate path other than law school. This scholarship, which was just awarded for the first time in 2014, is offered as part of the “Anything but Law School” campaign started by Willens.

This may seem a bit odd, given that Willens is an attorney himself, but he firmly stands behind the belief that law school is no longer a smart post-graduate option due to the lack of available jobs. According to Willens, “too many of our best and brightest are pursuing a career where there just aren’t any more seats at the table.”

Willens announced his “Anything but Law School” program last year because he believes that too many people think that going to law school is their ticket to a secure job–they see it as a sure thing. Now, he says, the market is saturated and there are not enough jobs to go around. He says:

If part of your reason for going to law school is that, well, there’ll be a good job that you like and will pay well afterwards, then you’re maybe mistaken. There’s more than 90,000 lawyers in Illinois, and I’m not confident there’s enough jobs.

He also believes that the saturation of lawyers is having a negative effect on the growth of current attorneys, as well as a negative effect on the clients of these attorneys. He explained:

Lawyers don’t finish their education when they graduate. They need extensive training and mentoring to develop their skills. But when new graduates hang a shingle because they can’t find employment, their clients are wronged and their own growth is stunted. They never reach their potential and the profession suffers. Many will never be employed in the profession at all.

There were dozens of applicants for the inaugural “Anything but Law School” scholarship, which was open to students pursuing an advanced degree in anything but law. Applicants were asked to write an essay explaining why they are doing something other than going to law school. The first recipient of the scholarship was Louise Kelly, a 37-year-old music teacher and performer from Chicago. She plans to use the scholarship to help pay for a course at VanderCook College of Music in Bronzeville, Illinois. According to Kelly, a graduate degree will earn her better pay, which will help her to provide for her two children.

While Willens is confident in his stance, not everyone agrees. There has been significant pushback from other attorneys in response the scholarship. Many are offended by the premise of the scholarship, which is completely understandable. This scholarship is essentially a slap in the face to the creator’s own profession. I personally agree with those attorneys. While law school is certainly not for everyone, those who have done the research and have put a great deal of thought into it should not be discouraged from applying. Willens, however, does not consider the scholarship to be “anti-law school.” Rather, he sees it as a statement about suppy-and-demand.

While Willens is certainly making a point with his “Anything but Law School” campaign, in reality, it is unlikely that this scholarship will have a significant impact on the number of people that apply to law school. It will be interesting to see if this movement can gain any more traction in years to come.

—

Brittany Alzfan (@BrittanyAlzfan) is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [jridgewayphotography via Flickr]

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chicago Attorney Continues Scholarship for “Anything But Law School” appeared first on Law Street.

The latest news from Northwestern Law School seems eerily reminiscent of the TV show “Suits.” Just a few months before graduation, Northwestern University Law School discovered that one of its students, Mauricio Celis, was a Texas felon infamous for posing as a lawyer. Celis was expelled in March from the school’s International Law LLM program as soon as they discovered his criminal history. He is now suing Northwestern over the decision.

Northwestern Law argued that the 42-year-old LLM student misled admissions officials by failing to inform them of his criminal history during the admissions process. Celis’ record includes a felony conviction for falsely presenting himself as a lawyer and a misdemeanor conviction for misidentifying himself as a police officer in an incident involving a woman wandering nude from his hot tub to a local convenience store. According to Northwestern Law, Celis’ criminal history makes him an “undesirable candidate” for their program. School officials say he would not have been admitted had they known of his past.

Celis is arguing, however, that they never asked about his criminal history during the admissions process. He was accepted to the prestigious program in 2012, spent about $76 thousand on tuition and fees, and was never once asked about his criminal history in the process.

While Celis has not commented on the lawsuit, he mantains that he is innocent in the Texas cases, despite the fact that both ended in convictions. He told the Chicago Tribune, “I’ve been trying to put this thing behind me for many, many years already”. According to his Northwestern application, Celis holds dual citizenship in the United States and Mexico. He worked in the legal field in Mexico and then co-founded a personal injury law firm in Texas in 2005.

In 2006, Celis made headlines in Chicago. After six children died in an apartment fire, he read a statement outside their wake. The Chicago Tribune picked up the story, and quoted Celis as the family’s attorney. According to Celis, he has no idea how the Tribune got the impression that he was the family’s attorney. He believes that he was brought in to help because he speaks Spanish, like the victims’ family members.  He has also stated that he has “never allowed anyone to have the impression” that he was licensed to practice law in the United States, and that while he was happy to help, he “let the lawyers do the lawyering.”

In 2007, Celis was indicted in Texas on charges that he illegally presented himself as a lawyer. Based on the court records, the argument was over whether or not Celis could technically be considered a lawyer from Mexico, despite the fact that he never obtained a license to practice law in the United States. Celis argued that the legal education that he received in Mexico qualified him to practice certain types of law there, although he was unable to provide any official documentation of his certification. He also maintained that he never actually practiced law in the United States.

However, the jury wasn’t buying it. They found Celis guilty on 14 counts in 2009, and he was sentenced to 10 years of probation. In response to the jury’s verdict, Celis said, “they looked at me as being some shyster faking my credentials, I am a Mexican lawyer.”

Regardless, Celis was convicted, and the issue at stake here is that Northwestern Law really should have caught it. If they were truly concerned about having convicted felons in their program, then that is something that they should ask about on their application. At the very least, they could have googled him. One quick search and you have access to public criminal records. That way, they wouldn’t have had to kick a student out just months before he was set to graduate. Paul Campos, a University of Colorado law professor and frequent critic of law schools put it best, stating,  “the fact that this guy got into Northwestern … it’s, I think, kind of revelatory of how much checking goes on even at a top program.” If a school doesn’t manage to ask its applicants a question that is found on every McDonalds application, then that’s on them.

Northwestern is arguing that Celis should have known that his criminal history was a problem, and should have voluntarily disclosed the information to admissions. However, I would disagree: if you don’t ask, what would stop someone with a criminal history from applying to your program? If someone with a criminal past wants to do something positive in their life, like get an education, why would they voluntarily disclose information that could stand in their way? It’s the school’s responsibility to ask the right questions of their applicants, not the applicants’ responsibility to anticipate possible issues.

According to court records filed in Chicago, Celis and Northwestern both agreed to a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit. No details of a settlement were disclosed. While they were able to work something out this time, hopefully this situation will make law schools rethink their application processes so something like this does not happen again.

—

Brittany Alzfan (@BrittanyAlzfan) is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Chris Devers via Flickr]

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Too Much, Too Late: Northwestern Law Expels LLM Student for Former Crimes appeared first on Law Street.

Millennials love the Internet, and most can tell you that from a young age, bullying was as present there as it was on the playground. As states have struggled to keep changing technology on the books to prevent bullying, they have faced challenges when it comes to preventing, or correcting, behavior that happens online and outside of school.

In Illinois, the Senate just passed a law that would ban students from using phones and computers as mechanisms for cyberbullying- whether in school or at home. The bill is on its way to the governor’s desk, and if signed, would be one of few around the country to include such far-reaching rules for cyberbullying; most only tackle in-school behavior. But critics call into question whether the bill can be effective, and even if it is, whether or not it goes too far- making school administrators step in where law enforcement should instead. The law in Illinois previously covered cyberbullying only if it took place on school computers- this new bill goes far beyond that.

This Illinois bill, while in many ways necessary, calls into question a number of things, the first of which being the jurisdiction of a school’s administration. If cyberbullying is taking place outside of school altogether, it is hard to find legal precedent for why the matter should be brought inside the school. Some critics of this bill, and of others like it, say cyberbullying is best dealt with by local police authorities instead of those at the school. Furthermore, not all cyberbullying is a result of students being victimized by others at the same school- it is entirely possible that the bullying can happen from students in other school districts, other states, or even other countries.

Another potential problem with this bill would be the mechanisms by which it is enforced. The simplest way to keep track of this cyberbullying would be to have victims show school administrators websites or other social media platforms that have the bullying. But oftentimes, victims are too scared or embarrassed to do that. And even for those who do come forward, social media websites like Facebook and Twitter, and other new platforms like YikYak (which has already been called a haven for bad behavior), can allow bullies to act anonymously. Of course, some simple sleuth work or help from law enforcement would be able to dig up a lot of information on the root of the cyberbullying, but with many schools being underfunded and understaffed, there are questions about how effective administrators could be about looking into all of these instances.

But even if it were possible for school officials to effectively monitor this kind of behavior- what are the legal complications of instituting this kind of policy?

1. Historical Precedent

At public schools, students are granted a degree of free speech, and there have been a plethora of court cases trying to define such boundaries. One of the earliest is the famed Tinker v. Des Moines, which held students have the right to free speech so long as they don’t disrupt what’s supposed to happen at school (learning in a calm environment). One of the reasons cyberbullying is difficult to mesh in with a case law on free speech, is because it usually does not take place on campus, so that “disruption” is more difficult to pinpoint.

2. Different ways cyberbullying is defined

Currently, 13 states have off-campus behaviors included in their cyberbullying policies, all to varying degrees. Some states, like Arkansas, require off-campus attacks to be directed at students or staff and be “intended for the purpose of disrupting school, and has a high likelihood of succeeding in that purpose.” Other states, like Connecticut, define cyberbullying a bit more broadly, considering cyberbullying anything that “creates a hostile environment at school for the victim.” Obviously, the more broadly defined, the more instances of bullying it will include, and the more work that will need to be done by school officials as a result.

In Illinois, bullying is defined as “any severe or pervasive physical or verbal act of conduct, including communications made in writing or electronically” that results in a student fearing harm of self or property, that substantially interferes with academic performance, or causes harm to a student’s physical or mental health. That definition has always been in place in Illinois, just now extends further to cover off-campus online bullying, too.

It is not yet clear where the line will be drawn in terms of cyberbullying rules each school can enact. It seems that as long as schools can prove the bullying (on campus, or off) led to significant disruption within the school, they are within their rights to enact these policies.

[Education Week] [State Facts] [Tinker v. Des Moines] [boston.com]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Flickr- woodleywonderworks]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Illinois Tries to Expand Cyberbullying Laws Outside of Schools appeared first on Law Street.

Until last year, there was only one state without a conceal carry law, and that state was Illinois. A Federal Appeals Court stated last winter that the ban on carrying concealed weapons was unconstitutional. The court required the Illinois legislature to draft a conceal carry law by July 9th, 2013, for implementation by January of 2014.

The law has been written, and is ready to take effect, but it has led to a lot of confusion in Illinois. There are a lot of places where it is still forbidden to carry a concealed weapon, and there were many caveats inserted into the brand new law. For example, one of these complications is that it is illegal to take a concealed gun to a large fair or parade. But you can have a gun on the street normally. So, if you happened to be walking home with your legal concealed gun, and run into the parade, your gun suddenly becomes illegal. This makes things very complicated, because if someone was arrested for having a gun in a public gathering, they could just claim they were walking home.

You can have a concealed gun on a bike path that goes through a park, but not in the park itself. You can’t bring a concealed gun into a post office, alright, but you also can’t bring it into a post office parking lot.

Now I think the fact that restrictions are put on where concealed firearms can be taken is a good thing. I live in the one single, solitary place in the United States where it is still illegal to carry a concealed weapon–Washington DC–and I am completely okay with that. But I have to admit that these laws in Illinois do seem unnecessarily confusing.

Colleen Lawson, who owns a gun training facility stated, “it’s like a Byzantine maze. It’s possible to get through it without breaking any laws, but it’s tricky.”

The confusing law seems to be the result of the short period of time that the Illinois Legislature had to cobble it together, as well as the conflicting lobbies fighting for their say, leading to weird contradictions and Catch-22s.

Charles Lawson, Colleen’s husband, gave an interesting example. He described,

a scenario in which an armed person goes to a restaurant for a meal and decides to take a CTA train home. In that case, the permit holder would have to unload the gun and put it in a purse, backpack or other encasement. But the trick is removing it from the holster and unloading it. That can’t be done in public view. You can’t even go to a restroom inside the station and do it. To do it legally, the carrier would have to find a place nearby that allows firearms and go there to unload and put away the gun.

It seems clear that this juxtaposition arises out of the combination of pro-gun groups lobbying to allow that man to carry a gun into the restaurant, but anti-gun groups lobbying to disallow him from carrying it onto the train.

Like I said, it’s hard for me to say that conceal carry laws should be looser, because personally I’m not a fan of conceal carry on principle. But I really do believe that if you’re going to make a law, it shouldn’t be full of such gaping contradictions and complications the way this new Illinois conceal carry law is. It will make patsies out of innocent people who didn’t realize they were breaking the law, and that’s just not right.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Brent Danley via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Conceal Carry Mess in Illinois appeared first on Law Street.