This is Obama's state. Just imagine if he because President. He is a pawn of the NRA.

For the most part, they are, jnmmy. That's no excuse to ignore fashion, or to appear in a soiled or poorly-coordinated outfit, or to fail to properly trim one's nose and chest-hair. Many young ironworkers show a remarkable sense of fashion and an obvious basic colour-sense coupled with a basic, practical personal grooming regimen.

While practical concerns may limit their natural adventuresomness in the areas of implants, hairdos, and manicure, but that doesn't begin to stop these vibrant, vital young men from expressiing their own rugged brand of fashion awareness, and if you imagine that they are unaware of the world of fabrics and textures, you are simply mad. After looking down fashionable young women's blouses all day, these young fellows are probably more keenly aware of the subtler nuances of colour and fabric than you are!

Illinois is widely known as one of the strictest "gun control" states in the USofA.

Here is an additional Illinois law that pretty much nullifies the whole issue of "arming babies":

[State law holds gun owners responsible if they leave a gun easily accessible to a child and the child uses the gun to injure or threaten someone if the child is under 14 years old.]
Info from the Brady Campaign State Laws page.

Assuming this family abides by the State's laws regarding firearms (which they seem to do) there is no problem with "Little Bubba" officially "owning" a shotgun.

Presumably, if a 14 year old uses or brandishes a gun (not unusual among gangbangers), Illinois will treat them as adults.

Bigbenr, what the hell are you going on about, and how does it relate to this story?

If they didn't issue the permit to own the gun, the baby would be outside the law in owning it. It makes sense to me - he has been added to the list of responsible gun owners in that state.

Only in America...

Could one of your erudite readers tell me why the states have the right to issue gun licenses? As I read it the second amendment to your Constitution says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
A state taking it upon itself to issue a licence, with the obvious implication that it could withhold it, or even legislating for any sort of gun control, must surely be in breach of the Constitution?
So it seems to me the fuss should not be about a 10 month-old getting a licence but even having to apply for one.
Or am I wrong?
John Walters, a bemused Australian.

To John Walters:
John, the reason for that is simply that Americans, over the last century or so, have stopped holding our government to it's oath to not only abide by, but to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution".
We let them convince us that "it's for your own good", or "it's for the safety of the public", and pass laws that are outside the powers granted them in the Constitution.

We've gotten to where we actually clammor for them to do things they are not empowered to do, such as providing health care, and deciding what medicines we ought to be taking.

That's why government has come to feel that it really has whatever powers it wants, and we end up with atrocities like the Patriot Act.

Thanks gvc for your comments.

You clearly believe that governments 'push the envelope' (not unique to America by the way!) and suggest that there might be some validity in my argument.

However, as the NRA is well known for its aggressive attitude to government gun control laws, why have they not attacked states with gun control legislation?

Surely, by not doing so they are implicitly acknowledging that governments DO have gun control rights?

Or is it perhaps that they feel by taking the argument to the its logical conclusion that they may even provoke a definite legal conclusion that may not be in their interests?

Fascinating!

John Walters wrote:
"...as the NRA is well known for its aggressive attitude to government gun control laws, why have they not attacked states with gun control legislation?"

John, you probably don't hear about it, as the issues are of very local interest here, but the NRA frequently opposes 2nd Amendment infringing laws at every level of American government, including state and city level.

On the other hand, NRA has become very much an "inside" player in American government, and has taken to trading off Constitutional and Bill of Rights principles in order to be a power player in government.

It's true I'm surprised that Obama has done nothing to stop this from happening, and I hope he'll do better with gun control if president, but calling him a pawn of the NRA is pushing it. The NRA hate him, they rated him "F" for his pro-gun control positions. I'm disappointed at him, I'll admit, but I hope this gets corrected

Paxaddo wrote: "I'm surprised that Obama has done nothing to stop this from happening"

Please recall that Obama is a US Senator, and no longer has a hand in making or amending Illinois State laws.
The time to have addressed this law, if he was going to, would have been during the 8 years when he was in the Illinois Senate. (and maybe that's what you're really saying?)

But as I pointed out earlier, it's really a "non-issue" in light of other Illinois state laws:
[State law holds gun owners responsible if they leave a gun easily accessible to a child and the child uses the gun to injure or threaten someone if the child is under 14 years old.]
Info from the Brady Campaign State Laws page.