Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » Get to the table and get a deal
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      About     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact Rich Miller
CapitolFax.com
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
Get to the table and get a deal

Wednesday, Oct 16, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller

* I asked the NRA’s Todd Vandermyde last week about Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s proposal to slap mandatory minimum sentences on some repeat and first time offenses. Here’s his e-mailed response…

Still looks problematic as they want 3 years on any first offense. We just had a guy spend 14 months in Cook County for having an out of state carry permit.

We have a 17 year old sitting in Cook for bringing a gun to school because he was scared and they want to wreck his life for it.

What about out of staters who don’t get that their permit is no good here? What about the out of staters who the State Police won’t let apply?

[Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez] had to drop the charges of over 100 people. What makes anyone think she won’t over charge carry permit violations with [Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon] because she hates guns?

Most of it, are things we have said, but at some point, I think their possession by a streetgang member is going to run afoul of freedom of association issues when no criminal record exists.

Vandermyde opposed the mandatory minimum bill during the spring session, but told a Chicago City Council committee not long ago: “Yes, we can support a mandatory minimum… if they’re not prohibited from not owning a gun generally we can support mandatory minimums especially for repeat offenders:

Listen…

* Vandermyde also had this to say to the Sun-Times

He presented the hypothetical situation of a man with a concealed-carry permit leaving a gun in his vehicle because he and his wife are going into a place where guns are banned.

“Your wife leaves without you, takes the car and gets pulled over,” he said. “Now she is jammed up with a mandatory minimum.”

* The problem now, as I see it, is that the NRA is chafing at Chicago’s insistence on running a bill their way, so Vandermyde is pushing back

Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the NRA, said the group disagrees with the three-year minimums for first-time offenders. He blasted Emanuel for not doing enough to combat city violence.

“The mayor is looking for a public relations solution to a crime problem that he can’t get his hands around,” he said.

* But the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, which backed concealed carry, wants the bill passed…

While we support and enforce the rights of law-abiding citizens to possess and maintain firearms, the reality is that these rights are undermined every day by illegal gun violence and arbitrary sentencing. Illegal possession of a loaded gun is a violent crime and the laws should reflect that reality.

This bill will help reduce violent crime in Chicago and the entire state because it is narrowly targeted to reach the most violent offenders. According to a 2011 University of Chicago Crime Lab analysis of all felons sentenced to probation, offenders convicted of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon were 4 times more likely to be re-arrested for homicide and nearly 9 times more likely to be re-arrested for a shooting than other felons. Certain laws must be put in place to keep our streets safe, deter violent criminals and protect the rights of honest citizens.

Gun offenders put our officers and our families at risk. Last month in a mass shooting , 13 individuals including a 3-year boy were shot in Cornell Square Park. One of the accused shooters, Byron Champ was convicted of felony possession of a weapon in 2012 and could still be serving his prison sentence. You may also recall that Hadiya Pendleton was allegedly shot by Michael Ward, a prior gun offender who should have been in prison for his violent crime but was instead out on the streets.

* Hadiya Pendleton’s mother has stepped forward, which only increases the emotionalism behind the legislation

Nine months after her murdered, 15-year-old daughter became the nationwide face of Chicago’s epidemic of gun violence, Cleopatra Pendleton can’t help but wonder, “What if?”

What if the Illinois Legislature had already approved a mandatory minimum, three-year sentence for gun crimes before Jan. 29, the day Hadiya Pendleton was gunned down while hanging out with friends at a park a few blocks from King College Prep?

“Learning that my daughter’s alleged murderer had been in jail for another gun crime was devastating. It was like rubbing salt in an open wound. It was like losing her all over again,” Pendleton said Tuesday.

“Every day, I wake up with a reminder that I’m in a world without her — without her life without her laughter, without her love. I wonder if a larger mandatory minimum had been in place if the person [who] allegedly shot and killed my daughter would have been in jail and Hadiya would still be alive.”

* Everyone can empathize with the Pendleton family of course, but the business of lawmaking requires compromise, and the simple fact is that the NRA has a lot of allies in the General Assembly and it has to be dealt with. Besides, not everyone on the liberal end of the equation is fully on board, either

Sen. Kwame Raoul, a South Side Democrat who negotiated the concealed carry measure on behalf of gun control advocates, said he was torn by the mayor’s “desire and sense of urgency to do something about” gun violence and fears that an “unintended defendant would more likely be a person of color.” […]

Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn has said he would review Emanuel’s proposal. A spokeswoman said Tuesday the governor believes the most effective concept of reducing violence is to come up with “a comprehensive approach.”

Perhaps the most telling prospect signaling the fate of Emanuel’s legislation came from a spokeswoman for Senate President John Cullerton, the Chicago Democrat who is one of the mayor’s closest allies in the legislature.

Cullerton “shares the mayor’s goal of reducing gun violence in the city,” spokeswoman Rikeesha Phelon wrote in an email. “However, we are still reviewing the proposal, implementation concerns and cost estimates with the caucus and other stakeholders.”

So, rather than the usual Chicago bluster, which almost always results in nothing being done, how about they try to work out a deal before the personality conflicts make that impossible?

       

55 Comments
  1. - Nonplussed - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 10:21 am:

    Good to see the NRA defend the right of bangers to associate. Spreading their love to the rest of the Bill of Rights?


  2. - I'm Strapped - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 10:23 am:

    “unintended defendant would more likely be a person of color.”

    Not sure what is meant by an unintended defendant.

    A defendant is a defendant, not sure why race is injected here?

    I support mandatory minimums for Felony ‘gun crimes”, especially previously convicted Felons.


  3. - ChicagoR - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 10:27 am:

    “they want to wreck his life for it”

    Nice to see someone on the right worried about criminal penalties wrecking the lives of urban 17 year olds for a change. Perhaps they’ll work on not wrecking the lives of people charged with other nonviolent crimes, too?


  4. - John Howard Association - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 10:33 am:

    The Sun-Times published an op-ed today that took apart the arguments by the Crime Lab that this proposal will deter illegal gun possession. I pasted the link to the op-ed below, but I think Zimring’s concluding sentences says a lot about why Chicago’s seems unwilling to make a deal here:
    “But if this proposed legislation is transparently phony, why has it taken center stage in the discussion of Chicago’s very real gun violence problem? Because the city’s gun control laws have been struck down by the federal courts and more careful regulation of gun commerce will take time and effort. The mandatory minimum proposal is a temper tantrum masquerading as an act of government.”
    Here’s the link: http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/23163583-452/false-premise-of-gun-sentences.html


  5. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 10:34 am:

    Poor Todd, always a victim.

    A buddy of mine e-mailed this to me the other day. If you want to have good faith negotiations with the city, Todd, maybe you shouldn’t reveal yourself on Facebook:

    –Today is the anniversary of the great Chicago Fire. Maybe we should hope for another one and let them try again. They might get it right this time.-=

    That seems clear, Todd. Or did you misspeak?


  6. - Mason born - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 10:39 am:

    I think both sides in this have valid points. The problem IMHO resides in the fact that while we all know more or less what the goal is and isn’t drafting it into legalize becomes problematic. I don’t think to use Todd’s example, that Rahm wants the wife to be jammed up with a felony. Just like i don’t think Todd wants a gang member to get a pass. Which is the problem with a mandatory minimum law it applies to all.


  7. - John Howard Association - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 10:48 am:

    “Which is the problem with a mandatory minimum law it applies to all.” That’s exactly right. This problem has been framed as if the question is should we or should we not use prison to punish people for illegal gun possession? Of course, we should–which is what the law allows us to do. The question is do we allow judges to keep their discretion to decide a case based on the facts and the best information available to them, or do we give that discretion to prosecutors? Judges may make poor use of their discretion, in which case we should find new judges. However, the good thing about judicial discretion is that it is fairly transparent and reviewable by higher courts. We rarely see how prosecutors use their discretion, and it is not reviewable. I’m not saying the system we have is perfect–it isn’t. I’m just saying that mandatory minimums are not an answer to Chicago’s gun violence.


  8. - RonOglesby - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 10:50 am:

    I dont think anyone disagrees with this (while some of you bash Todd)
    “mandatory minimums especially for repeat offenders:”

    but then you skip right past the example of a wife taking a car with a gun locked in the glove box (unknown to her). That is AgUUW minimum 3 years.

    Or the out of state guy from Wisconsin or Iowa, or Indiana that drives into Illinois, has a CCW. He is fine as long as the gun is in the car. He stops for Gas and a cops see’s his pistol “printing” under his shirt. AgUUW. No Concealed Permit for Illinois and he left his vehicle.

    See you jump to the worst possible conclusion and skip over that part of the story.

    If they actually wrote some stuff in to cover those types of cases I (and I think Todd/NRA) could get behind it. no one wants to see criminals on the street.


  9. - crazybleedingheart - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 10:52 am:

    The problem with the mandatory minimum is that it’s a mandatory minimum. We’re smarter than this, or should be.


  10. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 10:52 am:

    =The problem now, as I see it, is that the NRA is chafing at Chicago’s insistence on running a bill their way==

    This is a funny statement because the NRA would want a bill run their way also. I get a little fed up sometimes with the NRA because they seem to believe they should have total control of any legislation dealing with guns. Don’t do it 100% their way and they call you a gun hater. It’s really rather arrogant in my opinion. I think they need better messaging. Something besides anybody that disagrees with them hates guns. I get tired of hearing that nonsense.


  11. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 10:54 am:

    ==See you jump to the worst possible conclusion and skip over that part of the story.==

    And you don’t think Todd jumped to the worst possible conclusion? Why is it that honesty is never a part of gun debates?


  12. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 10:56 am:

    “Nice to see someone on the right”

    Are you referring to Todd V?
    The guy who, when not sticking up for gun owners, is sticking up for unions?
    The guy who fought the good fight against “right to work”?

    I don’t know too many people “on the right” who are strongly pro-union.

    Maybe we need to stop this instinctive “ALL GUN OWNERS ARE RIGHT WING FANATICS” hysteria that allows us to ignore the arguments, and instead we should just listen to what people have to say.

    Todd raised some great points. If a husband leaves a gun in a car, are we going to lock up the wife for three years?

    It is one thing to crack down on gun crime. I’m all for it. But the crack down needs to make sense and to have a fundamental fairness. Unless the changes are made that Todd suggests, there is no fundamental fairness.


  13. - dupage dan - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 10:57 am:

    No one wants to see criminals on the street.

    Exactly.

    The John Howard Association doens’t think mandatory minimums are a good idea. Why? Because the discretion is left up to the prosecutors and that is less transparent of a process than if the case gets to court.

    I see some of the baiting responses above and lament the inability of some to avoid the emotional and stick to the rational. Because….
    We. Don’t. Want. Criminals. On. The. Street.


  14. - RonOglesby - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 10:58 am:

    @Demo
    So what you are saying is its fine to criminalize and lock up (we are talking a 3 year minimum here) these types of actions. That is the worst conclusion of this. A banger getting locked up for 3 years on his first gun charge. I see that as OK. Where is there not honesty in that.

    Todd said locking up repeat offenders is fine. is that honest.

    please tell me what is not honest about this debate?


  15. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 11:02 am:

    @Ron:

    No, that’s not what I was saying. I was saying that you said that people were ignoring part of the argument and jumping to the worst possible conclusion. Fine. But Todd also jumped to a worst possible conclusion. I was pointing out that BOTH sides are jumping to the worst possible conclusion. People need to be honest in these debates and recognize things from both points of view.


  16. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 11:02 am:

    Wow Wordslinger, Todd made a joke about Chicago.

    Glad you pointed that out, since I’ve never ever ever read any posts by any of my Chicago friends at the expense of downstate. This was truly an outrage.

    Wait, wait, wait. I seem to recall Todd’s Facebook joke. An I recall, people responded with humor of their own suggesting that downstate is a drain on Illinois.

    Looks like Todd’s friends were not taking his post too seriously.

    But, just in case, somebody ought to tell Todd to never make a joke about Chicago corruption, since some people take those jokes very very seriously.


  17. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 11:06 am:

    @Skeeter:

    The “joke” was in poor taste given Todd’s a public figure. He’s going to get called out on these things, especially since it was a “joke” about Chicago and he deals with Chicago frequently on gun issues. Sorry you were offended by somebody calling him out.


  18. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 11:09 am:

    Skeeter, it is what it is. The dude put it on Facebook. I’m hardly ripping him for pointing out the view he willingly shared with his one billion close personal friends.

    I detest the Illinois Curse of ignorant regionalism. I put the wood to the goof who “misspoke” when he called the Illiana the “road to nowherewesville.”


  19. - John Howard Association - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 11:09 am:

    “The John Howard Association doens’t think mandatory minimums are a good idea. Why? Because the discretion is left up to the prosecutors and that is less transparent of a process than if the case gets to court.”

    It’s not that the John Howard Association thinks mandatory minimums are a bad idea–it’s that nearly every credible non-partisan policy group that has ever looked at the deterrent effect of mandatory minimums say they don’t work.

    Again, use prison, use it on illegal gun possession, just use it wisely. Mandatory minimums will not lead to a wise use of prison in these cases.


  20. - Todd - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 11:16 am:

    There has been a compromised offered.

    Felon in possession — 3 years @ 85%
    AGUUW by felon of person under DOC control — same

    AGUUW by a gang member — Same

    first time offenders without a criminal past are a problem. So is the problem overcharging of if people make a mistake.

    In light of the rulings in Moore and Aguilar the burden of proof shifts from I or others have to prove we are entitled or acting under an exemption as an affirmative defense to one where the state has to prove we have a criminal intent.

    This is the safe neighborhoods fight on steroids all over again.


  21. - crazybleedingheart - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 11:17 am:

    Rich, did you see this?
    http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/23163583-452/false-premise-of-gun-sentences.html


  22. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 11:19 am:

    Demoralized and Word,

    It is unfortunate that you do not have a sense of humor.

    If you worked on getting along with people, and became friends with people like Todd, you would be able to tell from the comments:

    1) His friends clearly understood it was a joke; and

    2) Some of the responses were just as tough as his original joke.

    Nobody took it seriously.

    It is one thing to disagree with Todd on the merits of his gun positions. I disagree with him on a lot of stuff. It is another to see the kinds of comments we are seeing above — that he’s a right winger, that based on a joke, he must hate Chicago, etc.

    You can take those positions, but they really don’t advance the issue.

    Which is too bad because Todd has always been one to intelligently and calmly discuss and defend his positions.

    So go ahead — get upset because he told a joke. But do so knowing that you are focusing on that at the expense of a serious discussion of important matters.


  23. - RonOglesby - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 11:21 am:

    @Demo

    I was pointing out that BOTH sides are jumping to the worst possible conclusion. People need to be honest in these debates and recognize things from both points of view.

    Ahhh. My mistake then.

    From what I understand the NRA has asked to not put the mandatory minimum on first time offenders with no criminal history. They get that and they have a bill that most Chicago reps AND the NRA friendly members can get behind.

    Which to me sounds like a frickin’ miracle if I ever heard of one. A gun bill that both can back… But for some reason there is a real want in Chicago to pass 3 year minimum regardless of criminal background/gang affiliation. I think that is just not wanting to “give” anything to the NRA regardless of if its a good idea or not.


  24. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 11:30 am:

    ==If you worked on getting along with people==

    Grow up.

    ==It is unfortunate that you do not have a sense of humor.==

    Yeah, I recognize it was a joke. I’m not an idiot. But it’s also entirely reasonable to call out that joke. Todd’s a big boy. I’m sure he can handle it.

    ==Which is too bad because Todd has always been one to intelligently and calmly discuss and defend his positions. ==

    Does that “intelligent” discussion include calling people who disagree with you gun haters?


  25. - anonymouse - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 11:32 am:

    “We have a 17 year old sitting in Cook for bringing a gun to school because he was scared and they want to wreck his life for it.”

    So I guess the State’s Attorney was not supposed to charge him?” The refrain of every city gangbanger is, “I need gun for protection”.
    So just because they say it is for protection they’re not supposed to charge him?

    I guess they are supposed to wait until after he opens fire in the hallway? Or after that happens, will everyone complain because the State’s Attorney didn’t properly charge and enforce the law and prevent the horrible tragedy..


  26. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 11:33 am:

    @Ron:

    I don’t disagree with anything you said. I just get annoyed by the “us vs. them” mentality of the gun debate. Rarely does reason play into anything involving guns in Illinois. There are two extremes and no middle. I think this could get done if people stopped being so ridiculous.


  27. - walkinfool - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 11:37 am:

    Oh, Todd just wanted more work for his Operating Engineers.


  28. - Mason born - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 11:41 am:

    Todd

    Question how do they intend to define this part?

    –AGUUW by a gang member — Same–

    If the person isn’t a felon or under DOC control as you stated, how are they defining “gang member” for stiffer sentences?

    I kind of agree if there isn’t criminal action how do you get by the 1st amendment freedom of assembly.

    This seems to be another area where we all know what we are trying to say but how do you define it.


  29. - shore - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 11:42 am:

    the term in your post on Hadiya is emotion, not emotionalism. I would not want the million english illinois teacher march on the capitol fax blog.

    carry on.


  30. - OneMan - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 11:49 am:

    Interesting question: I saw something that said that this would have meant jail for Senator Trotter… Is that true, if so I think we have to rethink it.


  31. - Todd - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 11:58 am:

    So two utes walk into a bar. . . no can’t go there.

    D — everyone points out the extremes and how things can be abused. But lets talk about past practise.

    IL Supreme Court rules center console is a case for the UUW/AGUUW statute. Conviction overturned for having a gun in a center console — a felony.

    a couple of years later, Cook County charges a non-resident for similar offense. gun in a back seat console. Felony, convicted at trial. He had a carry permit from his state of Indiana.

    Cook also argued that the exception for unloaded enclosed in a case was only for Illinois residents with a FOID. No the intent.

    So if after a Supreme Court decision, and failing to get the definition changed in the law, through the GA, they still want to act like the ruling and law don’t say what they say.

    Is that extreme, or just looking back at past practice and not having a lot of faith?

    What about the guy that spent 14 months in in Cook CO. jail for having a FOID and a out of state carry permit? Is that extreme — pointing out the past abuses?

    So under the proposal, both of these individuals would be facing mandatory 3 years. Is it wrong to have less than a lot of faith as to how people who get carry permits are going to be treated when the City is already thumbing it’s nose at preemption?

    as for my right wing leanings. I am to the right of Attila, Left of Ghengis Kahn. But I was also one of the loudest voices against the proposal for RICO at the local level along with Kwame.


  32. - RonOglesby - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 11:59 am:

    @OneMan


    Interesting question: I saw something that said that this would have meant jail for Senator Trotter… Is that true, if so I think we have to rethink it.

    He plead down to a misdemeanor but I think his original charge revolved more around being found at the airport. But his same situation (a gun in a bag you’re carrying that you forgot was there in a rush) could be an AgUUW… depending on situation (its complex, which means even harder to understand)

    I also think the SAs want this for even first time offenders to get them to want to plea deal even more. “No time in jail but…” vs “3 years minimum” as if prosecutors need more leverage.


  33. - John Howard Association - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 12:00 pm:

    @OneMan: Donnie Trotter could have faced the minimum mandatory sentenced under this bill. Also, if you remember, Cook County State’s Attorney was pushing for the conviction. The judge exercised his discretion and said no.


  34. - Wensicia - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 12:10 pm:

    “Does that “intelligent” discussion include calling people who disagree with you gun haters?”

    It’s this “you’re with us or you’re against us” mentality that prevents reasonable solutions to gun violence.


  35. - RonOglesby - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 12:11 pm:

    The suntimes article on this is good.
    One great assumption they point to is this:
    the law assumes:
    ” Everybody who carries a gun on Chicago’s streets deserves three years in prison.”

    worth reading.
    http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/23163583-452/false-premise-of-gun-sentences.html


  36. - Todd - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 12:17 pm:

    mason — it is 24-1.8 the deadly weapons statute.

    defined:

    “Street gang” or “gang” has the meaning ascribed to it in Section 10 of the Illinois Streetgang Terrorism Omnibus Prevention Act.

    “Street gang member” or “gang member” has the meaning ascribed to it in Section 10 of the Illinois Streetgang Terrorism Omnibus Prevention Act.


  37. - Mason born - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 12:43 pm:

    Todd

    Thanks.


  38. - Mason born - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 1:01 pm:

    Wensica

    I assume you would say the following about McCarthy too right?

    –It’s this “you’re with us or you’re against us” mentality that prevents reasonable solutions to gun violence. –

    “During Sunday’s pre-recorded edition of “Connected to Chicago,” Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said law-abiding gun owners who lobby elected officials through organizations like the NRA and the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) are corrupt and endanger public safety.”


  39. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 1:05 pm:

    Mason, do you have a link to McCarthy’s statement?

    If those were his words, they’re outrageous, of course.


  40. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 1:23 pm:

    ==everyone points out the extremes and how things can be abused==

    That was my point. I grow tired of people ignoring one side of the argument. It doesn’t make one side more right than the other. I see legitimate arguments from both sides and I would like people to be honest about those differences instead of simply throwing one side or the other out the window.


  41. - Mason born - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 1:23 pm:

    Wordslinger

    Here you go Examiner is usually not a site i use but you should be able to get the transcript from wlsam.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/chicago-police-chief-law-abiding-gun-owners-corrupt-endanger-public-safety

    http://www.wlsam.com/common/page.php?pt=Top+Cop+is+on+the+attack+against+gun+rights+groups&id=17072

    I even give him the benefit of the doubt on the whole shooting CCW holders since there is a reasonable meaning. That clip from the radio that’s something else.


  42. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 1:26 pm:

    ==I assume you would say the following about McCarthy too right? ==

    I didn’t see anything in @Wensicia’s statement that would indicate otherwise. It’s this type of thing that drives me nuts. It’s the “yeah, but” argument. People need to stop already. It’s childish and just shows further why nothing gets done on gun issues. People are too busy playing these kinds of games.


  43. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 1:32 pm:

    Thanks, Mason.


  44. - Mason born - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 1:51 pm:

    @Demo

    I actually agree with you as far as working together to reach a compromise. I pointed out McCarthy largely because anything Todd V. says is treated like it is somehow a fringe statement. Having read Wensica i know he/she considers Todd to be a bomb throwing extremist. I have confronted ISRA when their Rhetoric was inflamatory and insane. I wish someone would do the same to McCarthy.

    Whether you agree with saying Anita Alvarez hates guns or not Todd brings up some very good points as to the potential problems with this proposal. Considering Todd is the closest thing to an expert (no offense Todd) the ILGA is liable to hear from, it seems wise to consider his points and not throw them out because of poor word choice.


  45. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 1:58 pm:

    I should add, I appreciate Todd’s efforts against the mindlessness of mandatory minimums and Emanuel’s philosophy of governing by feel-good press releases.

    This Illinois farm boy who lives in the burbs and works in the city has a hair-trigger on divisive regionalism.


  46. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 2:02 pm:

    @Ron:

    I’m not trying to throw one side or the other under the bus. I believe we are in agreement.


  47. - reformer - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 3:07 pm:

    Does anyone care to defend the assertion that everybody who carries a gun on Chicago’s streets deserves three years in prison?


  48. - John Boch - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 3:49 pm:

    Reformer, I won’t.

    But it looks as though something will happen, so I think we are trying to find a commonality that everyone can live with.

    John


  49. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 4:40 pm:

    ==Does anyone care to defend the assertion that everybody who carries a gun on Chicago’s streets deserves three years in prison? ==

    I think you first need to find where such a thing has been proposed. Sheesh.


  50. - reformer - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 4:48 pm:

    == I think you first need to find where such a thing has been proposed. Sheesh.== DM
    == Still looks problematic as they want 3 years on any first offense.== TV

    Is Todd wrong about that?


  51. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 5:04 pm:

    @reformer:

    You have to be committing a crime. Simply carrying a gun isn’t a crime (or won’t be with CC) if you have registered to do so.


  52. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 5:05 pm:

    And by the way, I think the “crimes” need to be a little more defined to get you 3 years off the bat. I’m not in support of that.


  53. - Wensicia - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 6:06 pm:

    ==Having read Wensica i know he/she considers Todd to be a bomb throwing extremist.==

    I have never made such a personal accusation or implication concerning Todd. I consider him one of better representatives of the NRA, while I disagree with some of his statements.


  54. - RonOglesby - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 6:16 pm:

    @ Demo
    ===I think you first need to find where such a thing has been proposed. Sheesh. ===

    check this out. this has been proposed just recently. that is what we are fighting about here. its a 3 year minimum.
    https://capitolfax.com/2013/10/08/figure-it-out-and-pass-a-bill/


  55. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 8:27 pm:

    @Ron:

    Nowhere does it say that you can get 3 years just for walking around with a gun. That’s what I was arguing. The statement said you can get 3 years just for having a gun. That is absolutely not true. A law has to be broken. If you don’t have a permit then you have broken the law. Now, do I think it’s stupid to get 3 years just for not having a permit? Yes. But to suggest all you have to be doing is walking around with a gun is patently false. A law must be broken. Again, people need to argue honestly. It does no good to inject hyperbole and falsehoods.


Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.


* Belvidere UAW local sticking with Foster despite regional UAW's endorsement of Dem opponent Rashid
* Isabel’s afternoon roundup
* Despite reported shortage, state claims city has not requested diapers for migrant babies since October
* IVF debate takes a weird political turn
* ComEd Four sentencing will be delayed
* It’s just a bill
* Open thread
* *** UPDATED x1 *** Isabel’s morning briefing
* Live coverage
* Yesterday's stories

Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...

...............

...............

...............


Loading


Main Menu
Home
Illinois
YouTube
Pundit rankings
Obama
Subscriber Content
Durbin
Burris
Blagojevich Trial
Advertising
Updated Posts
Polls

Archives
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

Syndication

RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0




Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller