27 Comments - in absentia - Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 10:53 am: Correctional Space, Judge’s Discretion, Proper Sentencing of UUW, tough on crime vs. soft on crime legislators, gun advocates vs. gun control advocates = No simple solution. If you just do the ONE thing that the NRA asks and that is to enforce the laws on the books already, you increase prison population to a point that you cannot even handle. More sentencing bills? Totally unneeded. - langhorne - Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 10:55 am: i know the games played with fiscal notes, but it is more than a tad disingenuous to throw in a quarter billion for new construction, when we just closed facilities. i am waiting for a lawsuit over the crowding and doc ending up under court ordered “corrections”. - siriusly - Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 11:10 am: I really appreciate your advice to both sides here Rich. It’s clear to anyone who has tried to look at the issue dispassionately that what is missing is any desire to work with the other side (both sides are guilty of this). You’re never going to get all of what you want. Try for a minute to walk in the other guy’s shoes and see if you can find a way to help them. Maybe they will return the favor on the next issue . . . - Anon - Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 11:11 am: I know marijuana offenders are only a small portion of those in state facilities, but non-violent offenses are very prevalent. The folks this bill seeks to put away are the ones that NEED to be away- not only gun toting, but gun using criminals (does this bill apply the new sentencing to felons only? Not sure). Regardless, a few smart tweaks to our justice system and I’m sure we could make room. - Muffin Man - Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 11:24 am: Regarding “my two cents”: Well-stated, Rich. Your points are spot on. - headlinehog - Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 11:47 am: People who commit crimes using guns already get heavy sentences. People illegally carrying guns can get big sentences. If they aren’t, maybe it’s because they shouldn’t be or because people aren’t doing their jobs. Shouldn’t we find out first, before passing new laws? Mandatory minimums catch the wrong people and do not work. Also, they’re never mandatory for everyone. Exactly why do we need a new law on this? The only reasons I see are that Emanuel wants to be friends with Bloomberg and that Alvarez and McCarthy are ineffective. Getting tough on traffickers and straw purchasers makes sense to me. Going even harder on people who are doing nothing more than carrying a weapon, illegally or no, especially in dangerous neighborhoods…it’s nonsensical, expensive, won’t positively affect safety, and will increase racial disparities. It basically hits the high points of all things that can possibly go wrong with crime legislation. Before doing this, we need more and better information than we are currently getting from these 3 loud public supporters of this law, who don’t seem able to defend it without pointing to New York City, whose violence decline started BEFORE their mandatory minimum gun law. - Skeeter - Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 11:49 am: Todd is mistaken. All of his supporters will get the necessary paperwork, since all gun rights people are fine and upstanding law abiding citizens. That being said, two points. First, this is another reminder that we lock up way too many non-violent drug offenders. We need to start treating drugs like a public health issue rather than a criminal issue. There would be more room in the jails for gun offenders if we emptied out the people in just for possession and even more if we emptied out the people who only committed the crime of selling drugs. Selling marijuana without proper paperwork needs to be treated like selling aspirin without proper paperwork. Second, Todd’s point about paperwork does carry some weight, despite my joke above. We haven’t taken a serious look at licensing and permits for guns since about 1970. We need to look at whether the FOID card/program serves any purpose. Getting a license should be streamlined for efficiency. It should not be confusing. There should be a reason each time we have to jump through a hoop. Right now, I question the purpose served by the FOID card. - Dan Bureaucrat - Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 11:56 am: I agree with most of this, and Alvarez certainly disappoints. But, the cause of crime is not that there isn’t enough deterrence through sentencing. And more prison time for people with violent offenses doesn’t translate to lower crime rates. It may even increase crime rates in the long run. That’s because you don’t buy much with more incarceration time, except greater costs, more incarceration, and people who have even less of a chance when they do get out. In short, mandatory minimums don’t reduce crime, and they are a money and human potential sinkhole. I would say buy more cops with that $500 million bucks and use best practices for policing. - Skirmisher - Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 12:05 pm: Rich- I agree with your “two-cents” worth, but with this concern: Who in the world would have enough credibility to gain the trust and cooperation of the “NRA” or “ILSRA”?? As far as I know, virtually all Chicago politicos have made extreme anti-gun and gun-owner measures an article of faith in that county. Who up there would even extend a hand to gun-rights advocates? - zatoichi - Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 12:10 pm: This is a classic example of ‘what I want does not fit reality’. I want the bad guys off the street and I want the laws enforced. At the same time I do not want higher taxes which would provide the funds to keep those prisons open. That same model repeats itself with every other group (close the institutions, schools run more economically, better roads/bridges, cut state workers, control health insurance, living wages, etc.) that has a ‘don’t touch my special interest’ topic. In the end it all comes back to a package of great ideas that work when you have the money. If the bucks are not there, something has to give no matter how hard you are working the squeeze to stay afloat. 60 Minutes just had a short piece showing the US tax base is far from the highest in the world. High taxes may not be the answer, but without it how do you address the priorities. Everything can’t be #1 and there will never be 100% agreement. - Amalia - Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 12:15 pm: yep, things are getting very confusing…. http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=35925 http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com Sunday March 24 Aggravated UUW Unconstitutional? - RonOglesby - Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 12:25 pm: Right now Rich is right that someone needs to offer an olive branch and reach across the isle. BUT Illinois gun owners are suspicious of most of these folks. We have a FOID law right now that the state is not living up to (many people become illegal sitting for 3 months waitting for a FOID card or renewal) and completely out of date (it still asks you to send a pic of yourself like the old days, yet they use your DL pic…. Anyway, tradeoff requires just that. A tradeoff. And right now none of the Pols in Chicago have been willing to “trade” and instead have had to be drug into court time and time again to even do things like allow a shooting range in the City to comply with the City’s own laws. Maybe if existing laws were enforced and the “big stories” weren’t about the banger that has 3 gun charges but was pleaded down over and over, then we would listen to arguments about how the laws now are so weak. My take? hit straw buyers. Chicago region is the worst right now for prosecuting federal gun crimes, and greate at prosecuting and plea dealing down its own. As the CPD Chief said, FOID card holders aren’t the problem. - RonOglesby - Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 12:31 pm: Amalia, its a lower court, but something to look it. Basically if you ahve a gun on you without a FOID you can be charged with UUW or AgUUW. two laws covering the exact same crime with very different punishments. That ruling also noted that if youa re under 21 you can’t get a FOID without a parnet’s signature, yet you can be charged with not having a FOID card… At 20, a legal age for even buying a gun. Illinois writes lots of laws with little thought and often written by people that A: dont know guns and B: dont even know the current laws. Hell at 20 years old I was a 3 years active duty in the military already. What if I was stationed here as a recruiter or at Great Lakes… would I ahve to call my mommy out of state and get her signature to get a FOID card? yes I would. Stupid. - Amalia - Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 12:44 pm: @Ron, thanks. it certainly does seem to be a conflict of laws. but at a time when there is a call for stronger penalties to decrease violence, a strong penalty itself seems to be at risk. this matters up in Cook County, jail space or no jail space. gangbangers gotta be loving what Judge Brown did. - RonOglesby - Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 12:50 pm: @Amalia the ruling will only really impact his court, unless other judges at that level read it and take it as their own. But I will say we in the gun coommunity have heard this more than a few times recently… simple UUW charges being dropped once the defense starts pushing unconstitutional defenses. One thing we need is a rational law (or set of laws). If you cant be able to understand and comply with a law easily you being to have issues. On top of that we need police training on even our own laws. Our own laws are so confusing that even legal gun owners have been arrested. One was a couple of months back, driving through south elgin or something, a Nat. Guards man with a pistol, unloaded, in a case, in his duffel in his trunk… When the cop asks about guns he said yes he had one and showed him. Arrested, car towed, etc. Imagine that the cop didnt even know the law and just knew… Gun=Arrest! Its worse for Chicago cops. Hopefully some sane people will lead the change needed, but I dont see that happening. - wordslinger - Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 12:51 pm: So if 90 days is too short a period to renew, what should it be 120? 160? Who cares? The point is to get on board with laws that attack the gun terrorists in primarily poor black communities. Conceal-carry doesn’t cut it; violent crime rates involving guns are much higher in many poor communities throughout the country with conceal-carry. And you’ll have to more than talk tough — you’ll have to back paying for locking them up. - RonOglesby - Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 12:56 pm: I will say, I still do not support the Zalewski Amendment noted above. The reason is that his modification just added an affirmative defense to geting charged. Meaning you still get arrested, you still goto jail, your weapons are confiscated, you pay for a lawyer, etc… THEN in court you get to try and prove that you had a FOID, and show that you sent a renewal and the ISP sat on it. So a legal gun owner waiting on the ISP has to pay, have an arrest record, etc. - RonOglesby - Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 12:58 pm: @word it isnt about the timeline Word. Its about the fact that focus is being placed on paperwork, when existing laws are ignored, plead down, etc, etc no one here brought up Concealed Carry, while that has to do with guns has nothign to do with the laws being proposed here. AgUUW and UUW are on the boks now. On top of Chicago fire arm laws. Plenty of laws, few of which are really pushed and enforced to the max. - 47th Ward - Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 1:37 pm: ===no one here brought up Concealed Carry,=== No one here had to, thanks to the Appellate Court decision and the ticking clock. UUW laws, FOID card, a lot of this stuff ought to be on the table precisely because Illinois needs to pass a CCW law. It’s all related, and all of these issues should be on the table. I’ve said that from the beginning. Todd and ISRA would be better served trading pre-emption for sanity on UUW laws and enforcement, FOID and other issues that really impact gun owners and could improve the situation for everybody. We’ve got to bite the apple before June 9th. Let’s take a big bite and take care of all of the related issues with firearm ownership, transport, use, background checks, etc. The hodge-podge approach isn’t working. - headlinehog - Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 1:56 pm: But, 47th, another mandatory minimum law is the opposite of “sanity on UUW laws.” The tide is turning away from the political utility of “bluff”-on-crime sentencing across the board. We really don’t need to add to the Criminal Code every single year in order to feel competent and effective. Enough. - 47th Ward - Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:18 pm: Headlinehog, I wasn’t clear. I meant we should use this opportunity to rewrite all of the firearms legislation in Illinois so that the criminal code is consistent and up to date with other laws regulating 2nd Amendment rights. There are several ways to improve the system in light of the new reality of CCW and the ongoing problem with straw purchasing, FOID and felons/criminals with guns. The right people are at the table now in the CCW debate. Let’s simply expand the topic to include the broader picture on firearms and crime in Illinois. - Rod - Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:56 pm: Skeeter does not seem to grasp that some of the murders in Chicago are related to the distribution of drugs and that includes marijuana currently. Mexican marijuana dominates the Chicago market. The Sinaloa Cartel has even created marijuana farms in the Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest in northern Wisconsin because they can’t import enough to Chicago to meet the current demand level. Decriminalizing marijuana would reduce the wealth and power of the cartels, which derive substantial revenues from that product. But to really get the murder issues under control probably more than just marijuana would have to be legalized. Mexican federal seized more than nine tons of marijuana destined for American markets just days ago. The RAND Drug Policy Research Center has found that about 2 billion of the estimated 14 to 35 billion dollars in profit the cartels generate a year comes from the pot trade. So releasing low level marijuana dealers and users from jail while it may create space for violent gun violators may also generate more violence because there is little or no social cost for using illegal drugs with jail time being issued. I think this is called unintended consequences. Gun violence in Chicago and the drug trade are interrelated. Jim Gierach, a former Chicago-area prosecutor, notes that 80 percent of homicides in Chicago are gang-related. He has said “and what’s the business of gangs? Obviously, drugs. We can change drug policy. … It’s the way to reduce violence that’s easy, the one that’s obvious.” Gangs and low level drug dealing are at the heart of Chicago’s murders, even if each and every killing does not have its basis in a deal gone bad, the reason there are so many illegal guns in the city is because of the drug trade. The truth is you simply can’t call the cops if you are a drug dealer and you get robbed, your gun is your police. Arming teenagers around your hot spot for dealing drugs is a good way to keep out the competition. Sometimes these kids randomly shoot each other, that is part of the cost of doing business. Putting more gun violators in jail will likely not solve our problems up here in Chicago, nor will giving people tickets for smoking pot as opposed to putting them in Cook County jail but sill locking up crack heads or heroine users. The problem is bigger than that. - SO IL M - Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 3:02 pm: First of All, I agree totally with Rich. There is also a Federal law on the books that makes it illegal for a convicted felon to be in possesion of a firearm or amunition. Chicago is, I believe, the worst in the country for fedral prosecution of gun crimes. If I am mistaken about them being the worst, they are definately in the top few. Wouldnt that be a good place to start? I do believe a felon in posession of a firearm should be Class-X, 10 yr mandatory minimum at 85% for first offense, mandatory consecutive to any other crime or sentence, increasing for subsequent convictions for the same. But, if we arent using the laws we have now do we need more? Also, the costs are not truly reflective of the actual costs. Savings that would incur from keeping those that run through the revolving door on a regular basis locked up are not shown. The savings, both in lives and money, that would be seen off sets the cost of incareration time and time again. This would be seen by the State, Countys, Citys, and citizens. Keeping them locked up is cheaper than multiple trips through the system and the cost of lost property and death and injuries to the citizens. - Todd - Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 4:29 pm: Guys we have offered to talk to the city, they have not wanted to talk. Instead they want to dictate. We have pointed out the short comings in thteir bill, but they refuse to recognise that with carry coming, this now goes to a regulatory offense. But they dont want to see it that way. They want to throw the book anyone with a gun, reguardless Of the situation. We have offered to work on minimizing the circumstances. We have offered other offenses that are not on the books thaat will be helpful. But so far no takers. So we pont out the flaws but they are hung up because all they here is gun. Now we have another cook county judge finding the ag uuw unconsitutional for a couple of reasons. Now every other judge in cook county will look at that and it tosses a bunch of cold water on the zalewski bill. Not to mention that chicago continues to push an increase in penalties and mandatory 3 years on a statute that is deemed unconstitutional today. Yet they continue to try to slap more duct tape on this statute without fixing it. And carry and uuw can not be seperated. They need to be looked together and intandem . They want to work is out, we can but they are picking the safe neighborhoods fight, on steriods, all over again. It didnt work out to well for them last time, and neither did McDonald, Ezell, Gowder, or Moore. Now add holmes and mosley. They know how to reach me. - anon - Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 5:21 pm: Funny isn’t it? How the Chicago mayor can figure out that he should go after the money that funds the gun trade by going after gun manufacturers — demanding pension funds to withdraw there investment dollars — to push the appearance of an anti-gun adgenda. However the mayor and none of the other members of the political apparatus are willing or able to go after the money supplied by the drug trade to the street gangs that provides the money to buy guns and fuels the illegal gun traffic. - Johnny Justice - Tuesday, Mar 26, 13 @ 12:22 am: Quit wasting time and resources on prosecuting an honest mistake, when there clearly was no criminal intent, such as was made by Sen. Donne Trotter. - Keith E. Turner - Tuesday, Mar 26, 13 @ 8:04 am: The NRA is not responsible for coming up with solutions to the gang or crime problems. Frigging liberals created this mess by being so soft on crime. Limited prosecutions, reduced sentences, early release, no death penalty. None of which serve to deter crime. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.