As a card-carrying member of this country's intellectual elite, I chafe at the elitism of government. "We know what's best, so we're going to tell you what you can or cannot do; and we're going to take your money because we know best how to spend it." I understand that we live in a representative democracy. Approximately one-fifth of the citizenry are too illiterate to fill out a cheque; a similar number are functioning alcoholics. It's probably a good idea for public officials to have some semblance of intelligence. Unfortunately many of these same public officials let their intelligence go to their head.
This may be a recurring theme here. I'd like to focus briefly on three items that come to mind:
1. Handgun restrictions and bans. In my opinion, handgun bans are advocated for and passed by people who live in safe neighborhoods and can afford monthly ADT bills specifically to limit the ability of people who live in dangerous neighborhoods to defend themselves. The concept is idealistic--wouldn't it be great if America were gun-free?--but in the end, only helps criminals prey on defenseless victims.
2. Taxpayer-funded museums. It costs about $100 to take a family of four to Shedd Aquarium, the Art Institute, or the Field Museum of Natural History. Most families cannot afford that; or if they can, it's a very big deal and a significant portion of their fun fund. Yet these institutions inhale taxpayer money to the tune of the deep six figures each year. They receive support from the city, the state and the federal government so the privileged few can enjoy them. To me, this is outrageous. These institutions have ready access to millions in major-donor gifts and foundation grants. I think we should yank their public funding and make them private institutions. Then they may charge what they want, and those willing to pay may do so.
3. Taxpayer-funded media. With the infinite internet and thousand-channel cable television, our media choices are boundless. Yet the taxpayers are supposed to support PBS, National Public Radio and classical music radio? Why? Why should Joe Lunchbucket, who works 50 hours a week to feed his family, pay taxes to support institutions largely enjoyed by the high-income intellectual elite? How do these media outlets benefit him? They don't. It's the governmental elite telling Joe that his tax money is better off being spent on these media outlets rather than on his kids' shoes.
Showing posts with label handgun ban. Show all posts
Showing posts with label handgun ban. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
SCOTUS shoots down Chicago
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in MacDonald vs. Chicago, a landmark case in which the defendant argued for the ability to deprive its citizens of their Second Amendment right to defend themselves with handguns. The Supreme Court affirmed that Chicago is indeed part of the United States, and regardless of the wishes of its mayor, its citizens are entitled to exercise their constitutional right to defend themselves.
Not so fast, said the City Council. After first considering a limit of one handgun per person (illegal), the aldermen settled on one handgun per person per month. I'm glad I'm not limited to one blog post per month; or one members' meeting of The V Show Fan Club per month. Those limits would infringe on my First Amendment rights. The City Council's law infringes on Chicagoans' Second Amendment rights. Is there a constitutional difference? We'll soon find out. One alderman--Robert Fioretti (2nd), as I recall--warned gun advocates about taking the City to court. Of course, Alderman. The little people wouldn't dare assert their constitutional rights. The law enacts a $100 gun possession license valid for three years. Since this is more than the cost of processing, the license fee is illegal: the city cannot charge its citizens to invoke their Second Amendment rights. The law bans more than one gun in the home being operational; the others must be disassembled. Who is going to enforce that? Stormtroopers? (G-d forbid.) My sense is people who own more than one consider their firearms like fire extinguishers; they want one at the ready on each floor in case of intruders. I don't see how this part of the law is at all helpful in quelling crime; it seems only helpful in weakening law-abiding homeowners. The law also bans gun possession in garages, porches and outside staircases. So criminals know they're safe in those parts of a residence, where the Second Amendment doesn't apply. The law bans gun sales in the city--certainly unconstitutional. The city cannot ban from sale an item the U.S. Supreme Court insists is legal.
"I can't imagine why anyone would oppose these reasonable regulations," squealed Ald. Joe Moore (49th). Because they're illegal, Alderman. Because they restrict your peasants' constitutional rights. Because they want the same right your long-serving colleagues kept for themselves 28 years ago while banning it for their constituents.
On an issue seemingly controversial in the city, in which two residents successfully defended themselves with handguns they owned, and in which the Chicago Tribune estimates there are 100,000 handguns, this ordinance passed 45-0. I wonder if the aldermen excluded themselves from these restrictions like they did from the original 1982 handgun ban.
Quick question: how does one bring home his just-purchased gun from a gun store outside the city? If it is concealed in one's vehicle and one is stopped by police, who conduct a "probable cause" search, then the concealed weapon violates the state's ban on concealed weapons. If it is in plain sight, and the police see it from their vantage point outside the vehicle, then it violates the city's law against possession away from home. And how does one transport the weapon to the city's mandated target practice sessions? I would love to see the trial for the possession charge.
This is just another example of Chicago's City Council doing the bidding of Hizzonerdamare Richard M. Daley with no debate or public input. If the Tribune's estimate is true, perhaps 10 percent of homeowners protect themselves with handguns. Shouldn't they have a say in how their Second Amendment rights are being trampled upon?
Not so fast, said the City Council. After first considering a limit of one handgun per person (illegal), the aldermen settled on one handgun per person per month. I'm glad I'm not limited to one blog post per month; or one members' meeting of The V Show Fan Club per month. Those limits would infringe on my First Amendment rights. The City Council's law infringes on Chicagoans' Second Amendment rights. Is there a constitutional difference? We'll soon find out. One alderman--Robert Fioretti (2nd), as I recall--warned gun advocates about taking the City to court. Of course, Alderman. The little people wouldn't dare assert their constitutional rights. The law enacts a $100 gun possession license valid for three years. Since this is more than the cost of processing, the license fee is illegal: the city cannot charge its citizens to invoke their Second Amendment rights. The law bans more than one gun in the home being operational; the others must be disassembled. Who is going to enforce that? Stormtroopers? (G-d forbid.) My sense is people who own more than one consider their firearms like fire extinguishers; they want one at the ready on each floor in case of intruders. I don't see how this part of the law is at all helpful in quelling crime; it seems only helpful in weakening law-abiding homeowners. The law also bans gun possession in garages, porches and outside staircases. So criminals know they're safe in those parts of a residence, where the Second Amendment doesn't apply. The law bans gun sales in the city--certainly unconstitutional. The city cannot ban from sale an item the U.S. Supreme Court insists is legal.
"I can't imagine why anyone would oppose these reasonable regulations," squealed Ald. Joe Moore (49th). Because they're illegal, Alderman. Because they restrict your peasants' constitutional rights. Because they want the same right your long-serving colleagues kept for themselves 28 years ago while banning it for their constituents.
On an issue seemingly controversial in the city, in which two residents successfully defended themselves with handguns they owned, and in which the Chicago Tribune estimates there are 100,000 handguns, this ordinance passed 45-0. I wonder if the aldermen excluded themselves from these restrictions like they did from the original 1982 handgun ban.
Quick question: how does one bring home his just-purchased gun from a gun store outside the city? If it is concealed in one's vehicle and one is stopped by police, who conduct a "probable cause" search, then the concealed weapon violates the state's ban on concealed weapons. If it is in plain sight, and the police see it from their vantage point outside the vehicle, then it violates the city's law against possession away from home. And how does one transport the weapon to the city's mandated target practice sessions? I would love to see the trial for the possession charge.
This is just another example of Chicago's City Council doing the bidding of Hizzonerdamare Richard M. Daley with no debate or public input. If the Tribune's estimate is true, perhaps 10 percent of homeowners protect themselves with handguns. Shouldn't they have a say in how their Second Amendment rights are being trampled upon?
Monday, June 21, 2010
Is registration safer?
In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Mayor Richard M. Daley seems resigned to his favorite law's fate. Chicago's 28-year-old handgun ban, enacted with the hope of reducing violent crime, will most likely be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court before it adjourns for the summer. In the interview, Hizzoner Da Mare indicated he will require handgun registration. This is necessary, he says, to protect emergency response teams who need to know if a home is armed.
In another report, the same newspaper estimated there are 100,000 illegal handguns in homes all over Chicago. Obviously, most of these are not registered because it is currently impossible to register a new handgun legally in Chicago. (Handguns owned before the ban went into effect are legal.) Let's say there are one million households in Chicago. Maybe ten percent of these have guns. Once the ban is overturned and a registration law goes into effect, how many of these gun owners will bother to register them? Registration fee, licensing fee, fingerprinting fee--for a right that the Supreme Court says is really none of the city's business?
Mayor Daley can blather all he wants about the need for registration to protect cops and firefighters. When one considers that only a percentage (small percentage?) of handguns in the city will be registered, his pronouncements make about as much sense as his certainty that the handgun ban reduces crime.
In another report, the same newspaper estimated there are 100,000 illegal handguns in homes all over Chicago. Obviously, most of these are not registered because it is currently impossible to register a new handgun legally in Chicago. (Handguns owned before the ban went into effect are legal.) Let's say there are one million households in Chicago. Maybe ten percent of these have guns. Once the ban is overturned and a registration law goes into effect, how many of these gun owners will bother to register them? Registration fee, licensing fee, fingerprinting fee--for a right that the Supreme Court says is really none of the city's business?
Mayor Daley can blather all he wants about the need for registration to protect cops and firefighters. When one considers that only a percentage (small percentage?) of handguns in the city will be registered, his pronouncements make about as much sense as his certainty that the handgun ban reduces crime.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Self-defense in the city
Back when I was young, ignorant and naïve, I supported a national handgun ban. It sounds good in theory; guns kill people, so if there are no more guns, violence drops sharply. This theory works perfectly in Mayor Richard M. Daley's dream cloud.
In practice, there are 250 million guns in the U.S. About one-third of American households are armed. No one proposes sending the National Guard to conduct house-to-house search-and-confiscate missions, so those legally-owned guns are here to stay. Local handgun bans prove fruitless as legal weapons in the next town are portable.
During a period of living in the city unarmed, defenseless and dependent upon public transit, I realized weapons neutralize the thugs' physical superiority. Inside one's home, a gun-owners' advantage is even more pronounced. A home invader, desperate as he is for valuables and cash, isn't interested in a gunfight he may lose.
Two final notes.
I have never seen gun-ban advocates suggest that police be disarmed. So they understand intuitively that to keep the citizenry safe, someone needs to pack heat. Since the police can only respond to a violent crime in progress, that someone might as well be us law-abiding citizens.
There were two recent incidents in which Chicago residents defended themselves with weapons they owned illegally. One, an 80-year-old African-American war veteran, shot an intruder who shot out a window to enter his home. The other, a 27-year-old resident of South Austin, shot someone fleeing police who broke into his home. In both cases, Chicago Police did not charge the men with possession of illegal firearms. Why not? Because a citation or arrest--for men using firearms to protect their homes--would create a media sensation and embarrass the Office of the Mayor.
So the secret is out. Chicagoans need not fear prosecution for using handguns in self-defense--which is the reason law-abiding citizens purchase them.
In practice, there are 250 million guns in the U.S. About one-third of American households are armed. No one proposes sending the National Guard to conduct house-to-house search-and-confiscate missions, so those legally-owned guns are here to stay. Local handgun bans prove fruitless as legal weapons in the next town are portable.
During a period of living in the city unarmed, defenseless and dependent upon public transit, I realized weapons neutralize the thugs' physical superiority. Inside one's home, a gun-owners' advantage is even more pronounced. A home invader, desperate as he is for valuables and cash, isn't interested in a gunfight he may lose.
Two final notes.
I have never seen gun-ban advocates suggest that police be disarmed. So they understand intuitively that to keep the citizenry safe, someone needs to pack heat. Since the police can only respond to a violent crime in progress, that someone might as well be us law-abiding citizens.
There were two recent incidents in which Chicago residents defended themselves with weapons they owned illegally. One, an 80-year-old African-American war veteran, shot an intruder who shot out a window to enter his home. The other, a 27-year-old resident of South Austin, shot someone fleeing police who broke into his home. In both cases, Chicago Police did not charge the men with possession of illegal firearms. Why not? Because a citation or arrest--for men using firearms to protect their homes--would create a media sensation and embarrass the Office of the Mayor.
So the secret is out. Chicagoans need not fear prosecution for using handguns in self-defense--which is the reason law-abiding citizens purchase them.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Speak softly and pack heat
The Chicago Tribune printed my letter in its Feb. 9, 2010 edition. A little background: On Jan. 31, the Tribune ran an article profiling Otis McDonald, a Chicago resident who owns rifles but would like to purchase a handgun to protect his home. He and his wife have suffered several home invasions. With the assistance of a legal team, McDonald is the named plaintiff in McDonald vs. Chicago, a case challenging Chicago's 28-year-old handgun ban which the U.S. Supreme Court will hear beginning March 2. Hizzonerdamare Richard M. Daley, who enjoys taxpayer-funded 24-hour armed police protection, vehemently opposes having the law being repealed or ruled unconstitutional.
The letter-writer I refer to, Irving Maslow of Northbrook, had yet another letter published near mine in the Feb. 9 newspaper. He still opposes handgun ownership.
Dear Editor:
Colleen Mastony's excellent profile of Otis McDonald ("The Public Face of Gun Rights," Page One, Jan. 31) offers an opportunity to respond to a Voice letter that appeared Jan. 9. A gentleman from Northbrook states simply, "Guns should be banned everywhere by law" and is absolutely sure they are never used in self-defense because he has never heard anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
This gentleman doesn't offer a suggestion of what to do with the 200 million handguns currently in circulation in America, the vast majority of which are in the hands of law-abiding citizens. In the safety of his low-crime Northbrook community, surrounded by other low-crime communities and miles removed from Chicago's dangerous neighborhoods, surely he can't imagine needing to defend oneself and one's home, as Mr. McDonald does on a constant basis. A handgun can be "used" in self-defense simply by announcing to an intruder or would-be attacker, "I am armed." Such incidents rarely show up in statistics. A handgun is a solitary woman's best friend, as well as anyone else who wants to protect him/herself.
The Northbrook letter-writer wants American troops to protect us. Right. Police respond to draw chalk outlines. It's up to us to protect our own homes and families with the best defense available: handguns.
The letter-writer I refer to, Irving Maslow of Northbrook, had yet another letter published near mine in the Feb. 9 newspaper. He still opposes handgun ownership.
Dear Editor:
Colleen Mastony's excellent profile of Otis McDonald ("The Public Face of Gun Rights," Page One, Jan. 31) offers an opportunity to respond to a Voice letter that appeared Jan. 9. A gentleman from Northbrook states simply, "Guns should be banned everywhere by law" and is absolutely sure they are never used in self-defense because he has never heard anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
This gentleman doesn't offer a suggestion of what to do with the 200 million handguns currently in circulation in America, the vast majority of which are in the hands of law-abiding citizens. In the safety of his low-crime Northbrook community, surrounded by other low-crime communities and miles removed from Chicago's dangerous neighborhoods, surely he can't imagine needing to defend oneself and one's home, as Mr. McDonald does on a constant basis. A handgun can be "used" in self-defense simply by announcing to an intruder or would-be attacker, "I am armed." Such incidents rarely show up in statistics. A handgun is a solitary woman's best friend, as well as anyone else who wants to protect him/herself.
The Northbrook letter-writer wants American troops to protect us. Right. Police respond to draw chalk outlines. It's up to us to protect our own homes and families with the best defense available: handguns.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Attacks on men in Lincoln Park continue
It happens every few months in Chicago. The typical situation: women walking alone at night are sexually assaulted in North Side neighborhoods with high concentrations of white women, such as Lakeview and Lincoln Park. Last week and yesterday, men were the target--just robbery. In Monday morning's incident, apparently the victim used a bike lock to fight off his attackers while giving up $137.
These perpetrators know they are preying on an unarmed and disarmed populace. Possession of handguns in Chicago is illegal. When the handgun ban ordinance went into effect in 1982, handgun owners were allowed to keep their weapons, avoiding an unpleasant situation of mandatory turn-in or possible door-to-door confiscations. I do not know if "grandfathered" handgun owners are permitted to replace non-working weapons. I do know Chicago Police Headquarters in Bridgeport, at 3510 S. Michigan Ave., has a "Handgun Registration" window.
The biggest proponent of the handgun ban is Hizzonerdamare Richard M. Daley, who has 24-hour armed, taxpayer-financed Chicago Police protection, as well as a taxpayer-financed Chicago Police squad car in front of his South Loop home at all times.
I sympathize with the victims and anyone who must walk alone at night in the Windy City. From my days of being Carless in Lakeview, there were a few very scary incidents. Fortunately, none resulted in violence or the loss of my wallet/cash, thank G-d. But I know I would have felt so much safer if I had been able to carry a handgun with me, on my person. (Concealed carry is illegal only in Illinois and Wisconsin. The other 48 states respect their citizens' constitutional rights.) Thanks to Chicago law, I was only permitted my wits and pepper spray. Pepper spray is ineffective on attackers under the influence of controlled substances, and many of them are, desperate for cash to fuel their addictions.
The sexual assaults are obviously more serious than robbery attacks, although one victim last week was hospitalized with a broken jaw. I keep hoping that one night, a potential victim will whip her handgun out of her purse and blow her attacker's head off. I would pay to see Mayor Daley's press conference the next morning. What could he say? Would he congratulate the heroine? Would he be furious at her for daring to defend herself in Daleyland, his imaginary crime-free metropolis? Would such an incident encourage the aldermen to consider repealing the handgun ban, against the mayor's threats to their cushy taxpayer-financed jobs?
One of my Facebook Friends posted a news story today on the attacks to warn her male friends. After I suggested someone ought to defend himself with a weapon, another Friend teased me for using the term "pack heat." A loaded phrase, perhaps--pun intended. But the situation is absurd. The city with one of America's highest murder rates has a handgun ban. Exactly how does the handgun ban reduce street violence? It doesn't. It just makes it more difficult for us to defend ourselves against the violent perpetrators who prowl the city, looking for hapless victims.
These perpetrators know they are preying on an unarmed and disarmed populace. Possession of handguns in Chicago is illegal. When the handgun ban ordinance went into effect in 1982, handgun owners were allowed to keep their weapons, avoiding an unpleasant situation of mandatory turn-in or possible door-to-door confiscations. I do not know if "grandfathered" handgun owners are permitted to replace non-working weapons. I do know Chicago Police Headquarters in Bridgeport, at 3510 S. Michigan Ave., has a "Handgun Registration" window.
The biggest proponent of the handgun ban is Hizzonerdamare Richard M. Daley, who has 24-hour armed, taxpayer-financed Chicago Police protection, as well as a taxpayer-financed Chicago Police squad car in front of his South Loop home at all times.
I sympathize with the victims and anyone who must walk alone at night in the Windy City. From my days of being Carless in Lakeview, there were a few very scary incidents. Fortunately, none resulted in violence or the loss of my wallet/cash, thank G-d. But I know I would have felt so much safer if I had been able to carry a handgun with me, on my person. (Concealed carry is illegal only in Illinois and Wisconsin. The other 48 states respect their citizens' constitutional rights.) Thanks to Chicago law, I was only permitted my wits and pepper spray. Pepper spray is ineffective on attackers under the influence of controlled substances, and many of them are, desperate for cash to fuel their addictions.
The sexual assaults are obviously more serious than robbery attacks, although one victim last week was hospitalized with a broken jaw. I keep hoping that one night, a potential victim will whip her handgun out of her purse and blow her attacker's head off. I would pay to see Mayor Daley's press conference the next morning. What could he say? Would he congratulate the heroine? Would he be furious at her for daring to defend herself in Daleyland, his imaginary crime-free metropolis? Would such an incident encourage the aldermen to consider repealing the handgun ban, against the mayor's threats to their cushy taxpayer-financed jobs?
One of my Facebook Friends posted a news story today on the attacks to warn her male friends. After I suggested someone ought to defend himself with a weapon, another Friend teased me for using the term "pack heat." A loaded phrase, perhaps--pun intended. But the situation is absurd. The city with one of America's highest murder rates has a handgun ban. Exactly how does the handgun ban reduce street violence? It doesn't. It just makes it more difficult for us to defend ourselves against the violent perpetrators who prowl the city, looking for hapless victims.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Guns in the City
From Chicago Tribune Voice of the People, July 18:
Make city safer
July 18, 2009
Make city safer
This is in response to "Weekend sees rash of killings; 11 people slain, dozens injured in city violence" (News, July 7). Most were shooting victims.
The prevalence of shootings in a city with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country shows that these restrictions are meaningless; they also provide the best argument for Illinois to join the majority of the states by permitting qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons.
Mayor Richard Daley is busy rhapsodizing about the virtues of blowing taxpayer dollars to host the 2016 Olympic Games in the city. Why would the committee that decides where the games will be held want to put athletes and staffers in Chicago where the odds are too high that they will be shot or killed by some moron?
I truly love Chicago and I fully acknowledge that our suburban enclaves wouldn't be worth much if they were not located near the city. However, my trips to the city have dropped sharply as the sales taxes have soared, as parking lot and parking meter prices have spiked, as the potholes have become more numerous and deeper, and as violence soars out of control. I suggest that the mayor forget the Olympics and redirect his considerable enthusiasm toward casting a new marketing plan for the city. The new plan should focus upon making the city a safer and more economical venue for those who want to come into town for recreation and fun. Ideally they could do this while legally packing a pistol in their belts or purses -- just in case.
-- Charles F. Falk, Schaumburg
Make city safer
July 18, 2009
Make city safer
This is in response to "Weekend sees rash of killings; 11 people slain, dozens injured in city violence" (News, July 7). Most were shooting victims.
The prevalence of shootings in a city with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country shows that these restrictions are meaningless; they also provide the best argument for Illinois to join the majority of the states by permitting qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons.
Mayor Richard Daley is busy rhapsodizing about the virtues of blowing taxpayer dollars to host the 2016 Olympic Games in the city. Why would the committee that decides where the games will be held want to put athletes and staffers in Chicago where the odds are too high that they will be shot or killed by some moron?
I truly love Chicago and I fully acknowledge that our suburban enclaves wouldn't be worth much if they were not located near the city. However, my trips to the city have dropped sharply as the sales taxes have soared, as parking lot and parking meter prices have spiked, as the potholes have become more numerous and deeper, and as violence soars out of control. I suggest that the mayor forget the Olympics and redirect his considerable enthusiasm toward casting a new marketing plan for the city. The new plan should focus upon making the city a safer and more economical venue for those who want to come into town for recreation and fun. Ideally they could do this while legally packing a pistol in their belts or purses -- just in case.
-- Charles F. Falk, Schaumburg
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Update on Concealed Carry bill in Illinois
Here is a synoposis of H.B. 245, the Family and Personal Protection Act:
Creates the Family and Personal Protection Act. Establishes statewide uniform standards for the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms in this State. Vests in the Department of State Police the authority to issue concealed firearms permits to qualified applicants. Requires an applicant to complete a training course in handgun use, safety, and marksmanship. Also requires instruction in the law relating to firearm use. Creates the Citizen Safety and Self-Defense Trust Fund administered by the Department. The moneys in the Fund shall be used to administer the Act. Establishes restrictions on carrying concealed firearms. Establishes standards for the training course and for certifying instructors. Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that the Family and Personal Protection Act supersedes an ordinance of a unit of local government inconsistent with that Act. Prohibits a home rule unit from regulating the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms. Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Exempts, from an unlawful use of weapons and aggravated unlawful use of weapons violation, persons who carry or possess firearms in accordance with the Family and Personal Protection Act. Effective immediately.
* * *
On Jan. 20, H.B. 245 was referred to the Rules Committee, where bills often die a quick death. There it received three "Chief Co-Sponsors" plus three "Co-Sponsors" and was referred to the Agriculture and Conservation Committee. The Ag Committee has 13 members, including Rep. Julie "Taxaholic" Hamos (D.-Evanston). I'm not an expert on the Illinois House, but I would assume the bill needs seven supporters in the Ag Committee to have a shot at a floor vote.
The best way for a bill to hit the floor, go through the Senate and head to the governor for his signature is to have a top lobbyist like former Gov. Big Jim Thompson to support the bill and call some of his friends in the Statehouse. In this case, the problem would be sneaking the bill past House Speaker Mike "It's My Money" Madigan, a notorious gun ban hardliner.
I would encourage all Evanston gun ownership supporters to call Mrs. Hamos at 847-424-9898. You may ask her how she's planning on voting on the bill.
Creates the Family and Personal Protection Act. Establishes statewide uniform standards for the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms in this State. Vests in the Department of State Police the authority to issue concealed firearms permits to qualified applicants. Requires an applicant to complete a training course in handgun use, safety, and marksmanship. Also requires instruction in the law relating to firearm use. Creates the Citizen Safety and Self-Defense Trust Fund administered by the Department. The moneys in the Fund shall be used to administer the Act. Establishes restrictions on carrying concealed firearms. Establishes standards for the training course and for certifying instructors. Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that the Family and Personal Protection Act supersedes an ordinance of a unit of local government inconsistent with that Act. Prohibits a home rule unit from regulating the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms. Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Exempts, from an unlawful use of weapons and aggravated unlawful use of weapons violation, persons who carry or possess firearms in accordance with the Family and Personal Protection Act. Effective immediately.
* * *
On Jan. 20, H.B. 245 was referred to the Rules Committee, where bills often die a quick death. There it received three "Chief Co-Sponsors" plus three "Co-Sponsors" and was referred to the Agriculture and Conservation Committee. The Ag Committee has 13 members, including Rep. Julie "Taxaholic" Hamos (D.-Evanston). I'm not an expert on the Illinois House, but I would assume the bill needs seven supporters in the Ag Committee to have a shot at a floor vote.
The best way for a bill to hit the floor, go through the Senate and head to the governor for his signature is to have a top lobbyist like former Gov. Big Jim Thompson to support the bill and call some of his friends in the Statehouse. In this case, the problem would be sneaking the bill past House Speaker Mike "It's My Money" Madigan, a notorious gun ban hardliner.
I would encourage all Evanston gun ownership supporters to call Mrs. Hamos at 847-424-9898. You may ask her how she's planning on voting on the bill.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Shuls in Rogers Park, Lincolnwood vandalized
The Chicagoland Jewish community is abuzz with the news that Palestinian sympathizers vandalized five shuls over the holy Sabbath last weekend. Some vandals broke plate-glass windows, and others spray-painted "Death to Israel" on shuls' front doors. Jewish organizations, including schools, are taking extra security precautions. After all, Hamas targets children. The Hamas rocket launcher operators and suicide bombers are heroes to these vandals. There's no reason they would hesitate to target Jewish children.
This seems like a great time to start packing heat.
But no.
We can't do that.
Not in Chicago, we can't.
We can act like the vandals and antisemites expect us to act--frozen with fear. We can check our backs as we walk down California Avenue. We can wave to the cop cars conspicuously parked at various locations around the neighborhood. We can walk in groups. Some of us will stop going to shul; I remember someone telling me that she stopped going because "I don't want to be killed." And that was several years ago. It doesn't stop.
This is all window dressing. Without guns inside and outside our homes, we are giving up our best defense--our best way of defending ourselves against extreme violence. If the vandals, who most likely live in Rogers Park or nearby, knew that we were a well-armed community, they wouldn't be so quick to throw bricks through our synagogue windows or spray-paint synagogue doors. They would worry about getting shot. I have heard (but cannot verify) that some shuls practice a bit of civil disobedience--one guy in the shul wears a gun during services. And he's not a cop. He's just a member--a "minyanaire" regular, maybe a shul officer--who is always there and always carrying. He helps protect the shul. Meanwhile, willingly or not, he is giving Hizzoner Da Mare the finger. Mayor Richard M. Daley, Mr. Anti-Gun himself, who has 24-hr. protection--two cops on him at all times, thanks to the taxpayers of the City. Da Mare, who doesn't think the people should be permitted to defend themselves.
The National Rifle Association's lawsuit against the city to overturn its handgun ban should go to trial sometime this year, with a decision, I hope, by summer. Other cities, like Evanston, have capitulated and rewritten their handgun bans. Mayor Daley wants to spend millions of dollars the city doesn't have to fight this case in court. Why? It would make great television for the parents of a murdered child, c'v', to ask him that question. A child killed for the crime of being Jewish. I hope we never, ever have that opportunity.
This seems like a great time to start packing heat.
But no.
We can't do that.
Not in Chicago, we can't.
We can act like the vandals and antisemites expect us to act--frozen with fear. We can check our backs as we walk down California Avenue. We can wave to the cop cars conspicuously parked at various locations around the neighborhood. We can walk in groups. Some of us will stop going to shul; I remember someone telling me that she stopped going because "I don't want to be killed." And that was several years ago. It doesn't stop.
This is all window dressing. Without guns inside and outside our homes, we are giving up our best defense--our best way of defending ourselves against extreme violence. If the vandals, who most likely live in Rogers Park or nearby, knew that we were a well-armed community, they wouldn't be so quick to throw bricks through our synagogue windows or spray-paint synagogue doors. They would worry about getting shot. I have heard (but cannot verify) that some shuls practice a bit of civil disobedience--one guy in the shul wears a gun during services. And he's not a cop. He's just a member--a "minyanaire" regular, maybe a shul officer--who is always there and always carrying. He helps protect the shul. Meanwhile, willingly or not, he is giving Hizzoner Da Mare the finger. Mayor Richard M. Daley, Mr. Anti-Gun himself, who has 24-hr. protection--two cops on him at all times, thanks to the taxpayers of the City. Da Mare, who doesn't think the people should be permitted to defend themselves.
The National Rifle Association's lawsuit against the city to overturn its handgun ban should go to trial sometime this year, with a decision, I hope, by summer. Other cities, like Evanston, have capitulated and rewritten their handgun bans. Mayor Daley wants to spend millions of dollars the city doesn't have to fight this case in court. Why? It would make great television for the parents of a murdered child, c'v', to ask him that question. A child killed for the crime of being Jewish. I hope we never, ever have that opportunity.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Roland Burris on gun control
In any given issue, it's likely that people on both sides of the issue can agree on one principle: we can't stand hypocrites. I support the right of law-abiding citizens to pack heat in their homes and on the street. Roland Burris thinks only cops and Roland Burris should be able to bear arms. To wit, from Eric Zorn's blog post in today's Chicago Tribune:
Burris in 1993 as he organized Chicago's first Gun Turn-In Day:
"The main goal, of course, is to get the guns out of the hands of the citizens."
Burris in 1994, admitting that even though he urged people to turn in guns, he kept his own. He later gave it up. The controversy occurred during his bid for governor, which he lost:
"It's a little, small thing. I just have it here for safety. If I ban them, I'm going to be the first one to burn mine."
* * *
[Me again.] What a disgusting excuse for a politician. The main goal, Burris said, is to get the guns out of the hands of the citizens, except for me, because I have it here for safety. Well, that's the whole point, Mr. Political Creep. We want to pack heat for safety, too. What is the difference between safety for you and safety for me? You're a politician and I'm not, apparently.
I hope no one else saw U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.) and Roland Tombstone "I am the junior senator from Illinois" Burris on Face the Nation this morning. Once Burris is seated, we will have two sleazy, pathetic excuses of senators we will spend the next two to six years apologizing for.
Burris in 1993 as he organized Chicago's first Gun Turn-In Day:
"The main goal, of course, is to get the guns out of the hands of the citizens."
Burris in 1994, admitting that even though he urged people to turn in guns, he kept his own. He later gave it up. The controversy occurred during his bid for governor, which he lost:
"It's a little, small thing. I just have it here for safety. If I ban them, I'm going to be the first one to burn mine."
* * *
[Me again.] What a disgusting excuse for a politician. The main goal, Burris said, is to get the guns out of the hands of the citizens, except for me, because I have it here for safety. Well, that's the whole point, Mr. Political Creep. We want to pack heat for safety, too. What is the difference between safety for you and safety for me? You're a politician and I'm not, apparently.
I hope no one else saw U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.) and Roland Tombstone "I am the junior senator from Illinois" Burris on Face the Nation this morning. Once Burris is seated, we will have two sleazy, pathetic excuses of senators we will spend the next two to six years apologizing for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
