From State Rep. Suzanne Ness:
Happy New Year! This new year comes with many changes.
To start, I am delighted to introduce the district to my new District Director, Katrina Harrington.
Katrina is a district resident and recent graduate from DePaul University.
You can read more about her background below.
She joins a great team and I am confident and comforted in knowing that if someone calls my office, they will be greeted with respect and care: a team here to serve.
Change is nothing new with this role.
My first term was defined by change: the pandemic, historic changes in leadership, and a redistricting process that resulted in a shortened campaign season in a district that is 40% new to me.
Even in all of that, I still passed 6 pieces of legislation, had action on other bills, and participated in 2 press conferences with the Governor as he signed 2 of those bills into laws.
I learned a lot about the process and I move into my 2nd term a little more “seasoned” and clear about how I can continue serving our district.
The highlight of my first term actually happened during the lame duck session a few weeks ago when I had the chance to vote yes for the assault rifle ban and ban on sales of high capacity rounds of ammunition.
Long before I thought I would be a State Representative, I watched each mass shooting with a growing sense of resignation and deep sadness that policy makers across the country seemed unable or unwilling to pass legislation that would reduce the general public’s access to military style weapons.
Even in a state like IL, it was still challenging, and we were able to get it done.
I want to give an acknowledgement first and foremost, to Speaker Welch, who was committed to getting this bill passed, as well as the house sponsor, Representative Bob Morgan.
Two of my first term colleagues, Denyse Stoneback and Maura Hirschauer came to the General Assembly running on this issue.
They’ve been tireless advocates and this bill is a result of their work. It is a true honor to serve alongside so many talented and dedicated leaders. (See my statement about passing the Protect Illinois Communities Act)
My priorities going forward into my 2nd term include:
- Expanding services to individuals with disabilities and their families
- Ensuring that quality care becomes the norm at every long-term residential facility in the State
- Promoting fiscal responsibility and economic prosperity, safeguarding the environment
- Bringing much needed resources and dollars to the district for infrastructure, economic development, and healthcare, especially mental health needs.
- Working with local stakeholders to create meaningful and impactful policy that addresses our child welfare system
My team and I are planning out a busy year of events, educational programs, and opportunities to be involved for everyone who wants to serve and be a part of making a positive difference in our communities.
I am also excited to invite constituents back to Springfield! If you are part of a group that will be visiting, or if you want to visit on your own, please contact my office so I can make arrangements to see you in Springfield and show you around! It’s truly a wonderful place to visit.
Lastly, if you know someone who lives in the District and does not get my newsletter, please forward them this link. It is one of my goals to send out regular communications about what is happening at the State level and ways you can become more involved.
= = = = =
From the new assistant, Katrina Harrington:
“I was born in Colorado and grew up in Boulder, CO and moved to Illinois when I was in 8th grade. I graduated from Huntley High School and graduated from DePaul University with my bachelor’s in communication and Media Studies.
“In my spare time I love to spend time with my family, my husband Rob, my son Blake, and our puppy Winston. I like to spend time outdoors and enjoy snowboarding, hiking, and staying active and traveling. I also enjoy history and learning about cultures. I am a huge sports fan, but my favorite sport is Hockey.
“I am very excited to have started working for Suzanne Ness as her District Director. I am eager to learn more about politics and I am also excited about my new career and working with my team!”
Yep, if you never work a day in your life, you’ll love what you do.
She was spawned by a witch and was initiated into the Satanic ‘craft’ by Lou the Crooked.
Lou tried to put hexes on her Turning Point enemies who fired her.
Now Witch Lou sits atop the County Board spinning hexes all the time.
Until 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States had never seriously considered the constitutional scope of the Second Amendment.
In its first hearing on the subject, in Presser v. Illinois (1886), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment prevented the states from “prohibit[ing] the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security.”
More than four decades later, in United States v. Schwimmer (1929), the Supreme Court cited the Second Amendment as enshrining that the duty of individuals “to defend our government against all enemies whenever necessity arises is a fundamental principle of the Constitution” and holding that “the common defense was one of the purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution.”
Meanwhile, in United States v. Miller (1939), in a prosecution under the National Firearms Act (1934), the Supreme Court avoided addressing the constitutional scope of the Second Amendment by merely holding that the “possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” was not “any part of the ordinary military equipment” protected by the Second Amendment.
For more than seven decades after the United States v. Miller decision, what right to bear arms that the Second Amendment protected remained uncertain.
This uncertainty was ended, however, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which the Supreme Court examined the Second Amendment in exacting detail.
In a narrow 5–4 majority, delivered by Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court held that self-defense was the “central component” of the amendment and that the District of Columbia’s “prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense” to be unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court also affirmed previous rulings that the Second Amendment ensured the right of individuals to take part in the defending of their liberties by taking up arms in an organized militia.
However, the court was clear to emphasize that an individual’s right to an “organized militia” is not “the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment’s guarantee.”
Because the Heller ruling constrained only federal regulations against the right of armed self-defense in the home, it was unclear whether the court would hold that the Second Amendment guarantees established in Heller were equally applicable to the states.
The Supreme Court answered that question in 2010, with its ruling on McDonald v. Chicago.
In a plurality opinion, a 5–4 majority held that “the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense” is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.
Thanks for the summary. Does that mean the question is still open for the Supreme Court to determine what, if any, protection the constitution gives citizens against laws from states or the US Congress limiting rights to own certain kinds of rifles or high capacity magazines, bump stocks, and so on?
“High capacity rounds” might be from the sci-fi movies, where a single round splits into a dozen individually targeted mini warheads.
The Miller decision was an abomination.
It was contrived as a test case to uphold the 1934 National Firearms Act, which, among other things, regulated the possession of shotguns with barrels less than 18″.
Miller was arrested with a short barreled shotgun, and was tried in federal court.
The trial judge was a supporter of the 1934 Act, but he ruled that it was unconstitutional, knowing that Miller was a career criminal who would not show up for any appeal.
No one represented Miller’s side when the case made it to the Supreme Court.
The government lawyers told many lies that went unchallenged, and the Court based its decision on the false premise that a shotgun with a barrel of less than 18″ had no legitimate military application.
The US Army had in fact issued many shotguns for trench warfare in WWI, and did a fair amount of experimenting with shortened barrels to make them handier in confined spaces.
State Rep Ness lists 5 priorities for her next term. These are nice, meaningful. But, she did not list anything about increasing crime in her District which covers parts of McHenry and Kane Counties and nearby areas. Addressing crime, especially in Northeast Illinois, ought to be the number ONE priority of all elected persons to public office. What must be done to drastically reduce shootings, car jackings, robberies, beatings? Short and long term.
I’m sure all the criminals are going to follow fat ass’s new law.
Wouldn’t want to break a gun law while murdering someone.
This stupidity does nothing except make it harder for people to protect themselves.
FJB and FJBP.
Skank:
Derogatory term for a our Illinois District 66 State Representative.
Implying trashiness or tackiness, lower-class status, poor hygiene, flakiness, and a scrawny, pockmarked sort of ugliness.
May also imply promiscuity, but not necessarily. Can apply to any race, but most commonly used to describe white trash.
Is Martin a teal person or an Antifag AI device?
In listing her many accomplishments and priorities, it looks like Rep. Ness forgot to mention voting herself a pay raise.
An inadvertent oversight, I imagine.