Emanuel to unveil gun control plan
Friday, Jan 11, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Tribune…
Mayor Rahm Emanuel today indicated he will put forward his own city gun control ordinance in the next few days after state lawmakers did not reach agreement on the divisive issue.
Emanuel refused to give details about what specifically his proposal will address. But he said he isn’t willing to wait until state lawmakers take up gun control. Last month, a federal appeals court tossed out the state’s longstanding ban on carrying concealed guns in public. The court gave the state six months to set up new rules.
During his remarks today, Emanuel hit on several of the firearms regulations he has said he would like to see in place at the state level since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in Connecticut.
“Waiting is not a strong suit of mine,” Emanuel said when asked today about the General Assembly’s failure to pass a proposed state ban on assault weapons. “First of all, I believe there’s, I know there’s a majority in the state, an overwhelming majority in the city for a ban on assault weapons, clips, and comprehensive background checks on all sales, wherever they take place, wherever the location may be. And there’s also a majority in the legislature.” […]
Emanuel also has spoken in recent weeks about the need for laws requiring people to report if their guns are lost or stolen.
* More from the Sun-Times…
The mayor’s new gun ordinance is likely to focus on the wish list that Police Supt. Garry McCarthy unveiled at an anti-gun rally last week that included parents whose children were innocent victims of gun violence.
McCarthy argued then that his officers would continue “drinking from a fire hose” until Illinois: bans assault weapons and high-capacity magazines; requires gun owners to report lost, stolen or transferred firearms; mandates criminal background checks before every single gun sale and imposes mandatory minimum penalties “sufficient to deter people” from carrying illegal firearms.
“We need those five things. Not just assault weapons. Not just high-capacity magazines. We need all of it,” McCarthy said on that day.
Noting that Chicago Police recover nine guns for every one recovered in Los Angeles, he said, “That’s insanity, folks.”
While the mayor was talking tough on guns, the City Council’s Public Safety Committee was relaxing city regulations on shooting ranges in Chicago that are the subject of yet another pending court challenge.
Ald. Pat O’Connor (40th), the mayor’s City Council floor leader, acknowledged that whatever Emanuel does locally is certain to end up court. That’s why the mayor’s legal brain trust has been scouring recent court rulings across the country on the subject.
“It’s the art of going to the end without going over the edge. … It’s nuanced pretty well. There are significant enough changes,” O’Connor said, careful not to spill the beans.
“We believe, based upon what we’ve done and researched, that the ordinance will stand [legal] muster. Obviously, if the state and federal government were to step into this in a big way, they could save a lot of time and energy that municipalities spend trying to do what states and the federal government have been unwilling to do.”
Emanuel will likely unveil his plan Monday morning during a Center for American Progress Action Fund event with Representative Mike Thompson (D-CA) and Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on gun control. You’ll be able to watch that live by clicking here.
Keep your tempers under control in comments, please.
- wordslinger - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 9:24 am:
Noting that Chicago Police recover nine guns for every one recovered in Los Angeles, he (McCarthy) said, “That’s insanity, folks.”
Anyone know what that means?
- OneMan - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 9:29 am:
When you had gun laws so strict they got struck down, not sure your issue is a lack of gun laws.
- Todd - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 9:38 am:
They already have a awb require registration on all firearms and even require a resident to report if they move it out of the city
I’m really not sure how much more they can try except to try their own carry law
- Plutocrat03 - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 9:39 am:
I her the Mayor is going to lead the way by forgoing armed guards for himself, the aldermen with that kind of protection and remove the armed guards from City Hall. - - NOT
Sad to consider that Alderman Burke ‘needs’ a retinue of armed guards, but a grade schooler in a gang infested neighborhood has to fend for him/herself. And mom/dad/guardian does not have the right to arm themselves to protect their child.
- Skeeter - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 9:40 am:
Is he also going to put a fence around the city and make all city entrants go through customs? If not, this is a huge waste of time.
Local gun control measures don’t work. When somebody can buy the same weapon just outside the city and bring it in, the ordinance will have no impact.
All this will do is cost the city money defending it.
- wordslinger - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 9:46 am:
– The LAPD has fewer officers and larger population to deal with, and yet the murder rate is significantly lower. –
LA County to Cook might be a better comparison. A lot of the tough parts are in LA County.
- RNUG - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 9:51 am:
Lord knows I’m no fan of studies and commissions, but instead of passing another questionable law that will have to be defended in court at a high cost, he would be better off to spend the same money on a real unbiased study of what could be done.
Yes, both approaches would just result in a big pile of paper … but that second pile might accidentally have a solution or two in it.
- wishbone - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 9:54 am:
First, so called assault rifles (or rifles of any kind) play an insignificant role in crime in our country. Only a couple of percent of crimes involve a rifle. Second, almost nothing happens to anyone when they are found to illegally possess a gun in Chicago. If these thousand of illegal guns (none of these folks have a FOIA id) that are collected every year led to prison time the problem would be solved. Instead the Mayor focuses on the law abiding gun owner.
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 9:54 am:
Here’s Mr. “Don’t let a good crisis got to waste,” at it again.
- shore - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 10:04 am:
The issue is not the guns in chicago, it’s the inability of the mayor of chicago to do his job protecting his citizens.
Read that last bit “Center for American Progress Action Fund event with Representative Mike Thompson (D-CA) and Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on gun control”
that’s everything that’s wrong with this mayor-he’s more interested in his national bit than focusing on local stuff. What does he need a mid level california congressman, a dc based special interest political action committee and an nyc based us senator to push a local ordinance? Does the mayor of atlanta call in that kind of political firepower to solve a local issue?
He’s lost.
- Anon - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 10:08 am:
I agree….Chicago needs more gun laws/ordinances…leave the rest of the State alone.
- Anyone Remember? - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 10:12 am:
Plutocrat03
Ald. Burke’s “retinue of armed guards” has nothing to do with concealed carry and almost nothing to do with personal safety. Rather, it has to do with something else Rich discussed today
https://capitolfax.com/2013/01/11/egg-noodles-and-ketchup/
- Cincinnatus - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 10:13 am:
My greatest beef with a local ordinance is that it makes a person a criminal for doing what’s legal in southern Illinois simply by taking a highway through Chicago to get to Wisconsin.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 10:14 am:
Lets see, semi-auto rifles that take a removeable mag are already banned, there is full regiustration (hah), and normal capacity magazines are banned, a permit is needed, presumably after a background check…
What’s left Rahm?
- mongo - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 10:16 am:
Hey Ghost, gotta point in there? I don’t live in Chicago, live in Kane County. Without Chicago, its business, its people and their skills, its airport, its highways, none of the collar counties could thrive. If you think secession is a solution, look in the mirror, that’s a tinfoil hat on your head.
The Mayor and the people of Chicago don’t want as many guns around and they want more enforcement. Let them do something about it, it does not affect you, does it?
- Jechislo - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 10:20 am:
Seems like Chicago is destined to live in the courts with their continued unconstitutional attempt at controlling guns; sort of like the legislature when attempting pension “reform” or actually pension “reduction”.
Poet William S. Burroughs says it best:
“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it.”
- Rich Miller - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 10:21 am:
Ghost’s post was belatedly deleted and s/he is now banned for life. Move along, folks. There’s literally nothing to see here. Sorry for the delay.
- Skeeter - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 10:25 am:
Thanks, Rich. If you could also delete my response to Ghost’s post I would appreciate it. As you noted, nothing to see there.
- oneademocrat - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 10:26 am:
With all the gun laws already in place and the majority Of Chicao’s crime and murders being committed by gangs do you really think a ban on assault weapons and magazines is going to curb the murder rate?
- USMCJanitor - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 10:26 am:
Wordslinger.
LA County had 204 Murders last year. Chicago (which isnt even all of Cook County) had 500+
- USMCJanitor - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 10:32 am:
The CPD havent released or finish the homicide analysis of 2012 (they did in 2011, but bet it never made papers for statistical analysis)…
Anyway, like 85% of Murders in Chicago are by gun. Of the ones by gun less than 1% are by “assault rifle”. And seeing how Chicago has strict registration requirements, limits on magazine size, assault weapons, etc already what else can he do?
They have been told they cant ban a CLASS of weapons. My guess is a more onerous ban entailing “features” will come into play and heavy restrictions on any transfers, storage, and even Ammo limits you can keep in the home…
And what they mean by will stand up, they mean they will fight it in court for years spending more money that they dont have.
- dupage dan - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 10:33 am:
The causes of gun violence in Chicago are different than those that occur in schools, or movie houses or malls. Much of Chicago gun violence relates to the gangs, of course. Not to mentally ill folk on a rampage. Chicago has had some success recently in breaking up some of the gangs - this can lead to more instability in neighborhoods as smaller groups seek to consolidate territories. Harder to monitor lots of smaller groups than a few large ones. Gang gun proliferation can be tied to straw man purchaces. The typical weapon used in gang shootings are small caliber handguns, not the higher power “assault weapons” with high capacity magazines. Requiring law abiding citizens to register their weapons is not going to diminish the access to weapons that these gang members have. Banning “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines is not going to stop gang members from using their small handguns to shoot up a neighborhood.
We need to address where these gang members are getting their guns and stem that tide. We need to address why there is more gang violence in Chicago compared to other cities w/similar gang presences (NYC, LA, etc)
I am a supporter of conceal carry in Illinois. Frankly I don’t think allowing law abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon will have much impact on the gun violence in Chicago because most of the perpetrators and many of the victims are members of gangs. The type of shooting in Chicago that involves gangs would not likely be diminished if law abiding CC citizens were nearby. These issues are not linked, IMO.
Other cities/counties have large gang presences and yet Chicago had an explosion of gang on gang shooting violence and they apparently didn’t. Let’s look at what is different and address that.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 10:47 am:
>>>>>> they mean they will fight it in court for years spending more money that they dont have.
They will use the taxpayers’ money to try to keep the taxpayers disarmed.
- wordslinger - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 10:52 am:
–It is certainly not sufficient enough to justify suspending a constitutional amendement.–
Who’s proposing that? And how does one go about doing that?
- USMCJanitor - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 11:01 am:
Wordslinger,
they pay lip service to the 2A while advocating gun bans. That is suspending an amendment by another name.
If we susbstitue Speech or Religion for any of these types of laws we would be saying the same thing.
We dont need the 1st amendment to protect speech that 55% or even 95% of the people agree with. its there to protect that right when a majority even disagree with it. Its why we are a constituional republic and not a democracy.
Same w/ the 2nd amendment. We dont need it to protect single shot shotguns and tiny revolvers pretty much even Rahm has to allow or agree that people need (which I doubt he does personally). Its there to protect our rights to firearms even people think we “dont need”.
- Skeeter - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 11:22 am:
USMC,
No actually nobody is advocating a complete ban.
Great that we can clear up your confusion!
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 11:24 am:
Is anyone advocating a half-ban?
How will that be accomplished?
- in Paris - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 11:25 am:
What percentage of the shootings in Chicago are by individuals with prior arrests? Does anyone have the numbers? I have seen a lot of anecdotal information that this is a high percentage. I am trying to determine, what shootings are basically not gang-drug related and the number of those - i.e. suicides, spouse, etc.
- Skeeter - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 11:25 am:
What is a “half-ban”, John?
- Colossus - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 11:26 am:
USMC:
So there is no way to evaluate whether 2A rights fall under Time, Place, Manner constraints? The constraints that are applied to the 1A for public safety reasons?
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 11:33 am:
>>>>>>> No actually nobody is advocating a complete ban.
It still seems like a good many guns and magazines owned by people who purchased everything legally would indeed be banned.
- wordslinger - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 11:37 am:
–they pay lip service to the 2A while advocating gun bans. That is suspending an amendment by another name.
If we susbstitue Speech or Religion for any of these types of laws we would be saying the same thing.–
There are limits on speech. Check your libel, slander or defamation laws. False advertising can get your into trouble, too. So can lying to an FBI agent, or when you’re under oath.
There are numerous other limitations as to the 1st Amendment, especially in regards to the right to assemble.
Under the 2nd Amendment, there’s always been gun regulation throughout the country’s history. It’s never been an absolute right.
- Notacop - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 11:38 am:
Wordslinger and USMCJanitor-
LA County Population ~ 10 Million, 204 murders, ~ 1 murder per 50k
Chicago Population ~ 3 Million, 513 murders, ~ 1 murder per 5k
When you adjust for population, it is even more drastic.
DuPage Dan-
Excellent points, and very well said. You covered the gang crime/ gun law disconnect, let me tackle the AWB/Mass Shootings aspect…
(apologies in advance for being so long)
According to the FBI Universal Crime Report for 2011 (most recent data available): http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
Illinois data carries the disclaimer “Limited supplemental homicide data were received” so I will look at nationwide numbers.
Murders by rifle account for 323 out of 12,664 murders or 2.5%. (does not specify assault rifle vs. hunting rifle)
Shotguns - 356 – 2.8%
Knives/cutting - 1,694 - 13%
Hands, feet, fists, etc. - 728 - 5.7%
Why is the focus on “Assault weapons”? I believe it is because of the high visibility of mass murders.
For some detailed analysis of mass murders check out: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data (a traditionally liberal source for equity sake)
That looks at mass murders since 1982. I have analyzed the data and come up with the following:
Assault weapons were used, sometimes in conjunction with other weapons, in 24 of 69 mass shootings accounting 193 deaths.
Mass shootings involving legally attained assault weapons, sometimes in conjunction with other weapons, regardless of mental health account for 19 of 62 events, 138 fatalities. These numbers could potentially be reduced by an assault weapons ban, if you use the assumption that assault weapons are more lethal than other firearms.
Only 4 events, 21 fatalities, involved legally attained assault weapons exclusively. These may have been prevented by an AWB if the killer didn’t choose a different weapon.
40 of 62 mass shootings, 325 deaths, involved killers with clear signs of mental health problems prior to the attack.
34 of the 40 mass shootings, 277 deaths involved legally obtained guns wielded by those with clear signs of mental health problems. Changes to mental health restrictions on gun purchases could potentially have affected these attacks.
Mass shootings involving legally attained non-assault weapons in the hands of those without clear prior indications of mental illness account for 8 of 62 events, 83 fatalities. These killings would not have been affected by any laws concerning assault weapons or mental health.
In Summary,
AWB = may have reduced the 138 fatalities in 19 events, and prevented 4 events for 21 fatalities.
Mental Health Reform = May have reduced the 277 fatalities in 34 events.
My interpretation of the statistics is that an assault weapons ban would not have near as much impact as changes to mental health services and stronger restrictions on gun purchases to those with prior mental health issues (changes to doctor/patient confidentiality restrictions, lack of national FOID card program similar to IL, etc.)
- USMCJanitor - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 11:44 am:
Word slinger and Colussus
Yes, you can restrict speech and arms. But like Colussus mention.. Time Place and Manner.
I cant come city hall with a megaphone and start screaming the mayor is a pedophile… Lots of laws broken there. BUT no one says I cant hold that opinion and that I cant have the megaphone.
Here they are not going to try and manage/regulate time place and manner. They are going to arbitrarily ban specific guns or features (hell they do it today look at the weapons that cannont be registered in the City).
So using the time place or manner law… that would regulate where the gun can go, what places I can use, and in what manner. it doesnt say I can have a general ban on possessing the gun.
To wordslinger.
you talk about slander and false advertisement. Then seem to say that I said the 2A was absolute! Did I say that? no, Nice strawman.
Regulation has been around. But not banning. The court has ruled you cannot ban a class of weapons like handguns. They also reference the 1930’s case (Miller) that this ruling noted sawed off shotguns were not conductive with use in the militia or military use.
With that said saying someone cannot own a weapon that looks like a military weapon but even isnt is not keeping with the 2A.
So how about you stop saying I am advocating for an UNLIMITED 2nd amendment with everyone carrying nuclear weapons and put just a little bit of logic and reasonable discussion into your comments.
- Steve Bartin - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 11:45 am:
I guess we will have to wait until Monday to see what Rahm proposes. I doubt “common sense” Chicago gun laws will consider the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or the 9th.
- Jechislo - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 12:03 pm:
–It is certainly not sufficient enough to justify suspending a constitutional amendement.–
Who’s proposing that? And how does one go about doing that?
I know this is off topic Rich, but this is the same question I posed a month ago on just exactly how does a retiree voluntarily go against the Illinois Constitution by agreeing to give up the 3% compounded cost of living raise for pensions?
- dupage dan - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 12:08 pm:
On a slightly different note, California Senator Barbara Boxer apparently has said she is interested in the idea of having an armed presence in schools - “If a school district wants to have a community policing presence, I think it’s very important they have it,” Boxer said in an interview Thursday. “If they want uniformed officers, they can do it. If they want plainclothed officers, they can do it.”
The article I read (Washington Post, 1/10/13) went on to say the WH is considering asking for some funding for the plan. I can’t figure out how to link to this blog - sorry.
I remember telling wordslinger I would help pay for this with a new tax on bullets. I still think it a good idea.
- M O'Malley - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 12:43 pm:
USMCjanitor,
Please note the 2A starts with “a well regulated militia”. Please remember the regulated part.
- Notacop - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 12:43 pm:
Rich was my 11:38 post deleted? I can see it on the PC/Browser I posted it from but not on my cell or on a different browser. If it was deleted please let me know, otherwise I’d like to repost it as I believe the info is valuable. I have it saved as it was long enough to warrant a copy/paste.
- dupage dan - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 1:15 pm:
M O’Malley,
What is your point?
Please note that SCOTUS has disconnected the militia part from the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.
- the Patriot - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 1:47 pm:
Uhh…who is suggesting suspending the 2nd amendment, The President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, The Governor of the State of IL, the AG of the State of IL, the Mayor of Chicago. They have all been told that what they want to do violates the second amendment. Yet they keep trying to do it. How else to you interpret that but as an attempt to suspend the second amendment in part or in whole. I guess your argument is they just want to take little nibbles out of it, not suspend the whole thing.
You can’t say it it is anything but another attempt to violate the Constitution after you have been told time and time again by the Courts you are wrong.
What all these people have in common is that they are protected by guards with authomatic weapons with multi round clips. That is the bastion of hypocracy. If you think you can make society safe enough that I don’t need a gun, why do you need one?
- Skeeter - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 1:50 pm:
Really, Pat? You don’t like the line drawn. Ergo, THEY ARE SUSPENDING THE SECOND AMENDMENT!
That seems a bit “intense” for a response. Your argument seems to support those who would claim that gun advocates, despite their claims of being calm and rational, are the opposite.
- Skeeter - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 1:53 pm:
I’m really struck in these threads over just how extreme the gun advocates view things.
They rarely say “We don’t like this proposal.” Instead, they scream “YOU ARE DESTROYING THE SECOND AMENDMENT” and “YOU HATE FREEDOM” and then we have people going truly off the deep end with unsupported claims about the impacts on crime, and of course the people who think that taking away your 30 round mag makes the government just like Nazi Germany.
Gun owners should try the calm and rational approach. If we thought you were calm,we might favor less regulation.
- dupage dan - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 2:01 pm:
=== Gun owners should try the calm and rational approach ===
I would suggest that gun control advocates could learn from that advice as well. Good idea.
- Notacop - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 2:06 pm:
===”Gun owners should try the calm and rational approach. If we thought you were calm,we might favor less regulation. “===
I agree with you 100%. I am not in favor of more gun restrictions and yet most of “our side’s” most vocal advocates do more harm than good.
I don’t like Ted Nugent at all because of this very reason. He wrote an excellent open letter to Joe Biden a week or so ago, but I feel that it’s effectiveness is greatly diminished due to his past extremism.
Rahm Emanuel is the other side of the coin. It reminds me of the preacher’s wife on The Simpsons who always was shouting “Won’t someone PLEASE think of the children!?!?”.
Do we need to do something to prevent more gun deaths? Yes. Does that include banning guns based on cosmetic features and limiting the size of quickly changed magazines? I don’t think so.
I think our state is on the right track with the FOID card system, although it is very poorly implemented. I’d like to see proper felony/mental health reporting within the FOID system, and think it would be a good solution at the federal level. I wish that they didn’t have to regulate peer to peer sales, as it will add costs and hassles, but unfortunately many people don’t check a FOID card for P2P sales in this state, and other States don’t even have a card to check. The so called “gun show loophole”? I think consistent checking of FOID cards or even a process to check validity of FOID cards instantly would provide much of the same benefit without effectively killing off the whole gun show industry, as mandatory waiting periods likely would.
These are changes that logic and stats support. “Assault Weapon” and magazine bans are not.
- walkinfool - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 3:04 pm:
@D’Dan: makin’ a lot of sense in your comments.
I don’t expect a lot of Rahm on this issue, but we can always hope.
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 3:30 pm:
DuPage Dan has the right idea– start with the actual statistics, the breakdowns on who is using the guns, what type of guns they are using, and where they are doing it. Chicago has zero credibility with imposing gun bans, since its own crime statistics prove they fail. So start with an honest assessment about WHY they failed before proposing new restrictions. I’m tired of McCarthy’s crocodile tears about “insantity”– what’s insane to me is the CPD’s seeming helplessness to control gang violence here.
- Rod - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 4:42 pm:
As far as I know any Chicago ordinance in addition to what exists relating to gun ownership by residents of the City of Chicago could carry only a maximum penalty of Imprisonment for six
months for any one offense. (See 65 ILCS 5/1-2-1.1.) I do not think this would in any way impact a gang member, but it might prevent otherwise law-abiding citizens from attempting to evade any new ordinances the city proposes relating to guns. But then again it might not even do that.
What I think is so disturbing to those of us who are Chicago residents and do have FOID cards are the repeated efforts on the part of the City to catch us in a violation. For example if a otherwise law-abiding citizen owns a gun but has not followed the current registration rule and their home is burglarized and the weapon is taken do you think they will report this to the police, and possibly be fined or imprisoned?
If Chicago continues to make its gun laws more and more onerous fewer and fewer people will compile with them. About two weeks ago I posted on this site links to all the forms and processes we have to follow here in Chicago. As has been pointed out by posters the rules and forms are amazing.
I know of one person who filed notice to CPD that they have transferred their once registered weapons out of the City because they simple did not want to go through the process, but in truth they are keeping their guns hidden. How does that help in any way the situation we are faced with here in Chicago, now clearly they will not report a gun theft.
In relation to mongo’s post from this morning I do not think it’s fair to say that the citizens of Chicago support in mass Mayor Emanuel or even Mayor Daley’s past positions on highly restrictive gun laws. For example Mary Mitchell a columnist with the Sun Times publicly has supported a reasonable concealed carry law and has indicated many African Americans who live in the city support also support it. I don’t think people want criminals to have easy access to weapons, but that does not equate to mass support for highly restrictive gun laws.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 4:43 pm:
===Why is there not a mandatory helmet law for bicycle riders? ===
ABATE. Todd V’s other well organized advocacy group.
- Skeeter - Friday, Jan 11, 13 @ 4:47 pm:
Not, do bikes kill a lot of innocent non-riders?