* From a Sun-Times editorial…

According to Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, when he files an objection, the Illinois Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board goes ahead and grants a permit anyway 82 percent of the time. That’s a pretty good batting average for people who have records that a professional lawman finds scary. […]

In one example, the board granted a permit over Dart’s objections to a person who had two arrests for unlawful use of a weapon, a violation of an order of protection and a domestic battery case.

Does that sound like a “law-abiding individual” who should be permitted to carry a concealed weapon?

And those numbers likely understate the seriousness of the problem. Some people with violent pasts who apply for a concealed carry permit remain completely off the radar of local law enforcement because their arrests took place in other counties, and police are not permitted to use the most comprehensive data base for background checks — the Law Enforcement Agencies Data System — when evaluating concealed-carry permit applications.

Consider the case of 45-year-old Richard Idrovo, who just this month shot his girlfriend and himself to death at a Loop business. Idrovo possessed a valid Illinois concealed carry permit though he had a “domestic violence history,” according to police. We now know his record contained a 1994 order of protection and a 1997 arrest on misdemeanor charges of assault and violation of an order of protection. But without LEADS, Idrovo’s full record didn’t show up, and no police department objected when Idrovo applied for a concealed-carry permit.

* The accompanying chart. Click for a larger version…

* I have yet to hear a valid objection to using the LEADS system to vet concealed carry permit holders.

Concealed carry proponents also want some changes to existing laws. Some could be do-able. But they need to agree to demands from the other side as well, and this should be at the top of everybody’s list.

By the way, before some of you NRA types take after me, I’m a gun owner.

       

62 Comments - Kevin Highland - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 9:47 am: “…police are not permitted to use the most comprehensive data base for background checks — the Law Enforcement Agencies Data System — when evaluating concealed-carry permit applications.” The local police are prohibited from running this check as the state police should have already ran it before sending the application to the locals. Also to the article “arrests” aren’t convictions. Speaking to the murder/suicide by Idrovo, it would seem the problem was he had a weapon and an ill intent. The paper in is pocket doesn’t really matter. He could have easily stabbed her and then sliced his own wrists. All that said if there are truly problems with the system the problems should be looked at and procedures revised. - hisgirlfriday - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 9:49 am: thinking about the domestic violence angle of both of the examples mentioned, it occurs to me somewhat strange that gun control advocates don’t talk up gun control as a women’s health issue more. - FTR - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 9:49 am: Interesting numbers. Given his ideological bent, I will allow for the possibility that Dart might be over-objecting. But still, there are some real red flags here that need to be examined further. The LEADS ban makes no sense. And while the confidentiality of the applicants should be respected, the public has the right to know why the board is overruling the sheriff’s objections. - Anonymous - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 9:51 am: Something tells me part of Tom Darts “problem” is arbitrarily objecting to as many applications as he can, due to his dislike of concealed carry overall. I’m also suspicious that the Sun Times and Tom Dart may be leaving parts of the story in this “loophole” out. We’re there any convictions that resulted from these arrests and charges? Or were they just arrests with no conviction? These are normal grounds to revoke Foid cards (needed for a concealed carry)….but are things that a judge could’ve granted relied for. Did they check that, or would that not have fit into their hit piece? - Anon - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 9:53 am: I think it’s sort of neat that the body politic has pretty much forgotten why back ground checks were popular and broadly supported in the first place. But I guess we all need to hear a few more stories about women being murdered by their significant others with a half dozen failed opportunities for intervention before we’re willing to stop being bystanders. - Anonymous - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 9:53 am: Relief* not relied - old-pol - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 9:54 am: The valid objection is obvious. LEADS gives you arrest history not just convictions. Simple arrest history is not a valid basis to deny someone their fundamental constitutional rights. - Anon - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 9:54 am: - Anonymous - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 9:51 am: ===Something tells me part of Tom Darts “problem” is arbitrarily objecting to as many applications as he can, due to his dislike of concealed carry overall.=== Someone didn’t read the chart, did they? Come on man, you’re giving anonymous a bad name. - A Jack - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 9:56 am: I suppose it depends on whether it’s a temporary or a permanent order of protection. The temporary order of protection can be done based on a domestic quarrel and without any evidence of violence. Certainly I don’t have a problem with being on the safe side and allowing it to be easily granted. But in itself a temporary order of protection shouldn’t be a disqualifing factor without additional disqualifications. - Jack Stephens - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 9:58 am: It’s time to start enforcing the clause that says “A Well Regulated Militia”! As a non gun owner this means no unrestricted or unregulated access to guns. Gun owners should be licensed (like drivers) and required to carry a blanket liability insurance policy as well in case your firearm discharges and injures or kills an innocent bystander. The for profit insurance market is perfectly suited to price this product. - Mason born - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 9:59 am: As for the domestic violence issues the lautenberg ammendment that went into effect in the 90’s prohibited individuals with a domestic violence conviction (even misdemeanor) from possessing firearms. So these individuals didn’t have convictions most likely. I wonder the time frame of the issues Dart is bringing up. Is it possible Dart is going back decades and the board has ruled that an arrest w/o conviction years ago isn’t bearing. Completely agree that a cleanup bill addressing both sides is needed. Someone should be checking LEADS if ISP is checking they should staple the report to the form. - ugh - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 10:03 am: I don’t think the conceal carry law prohibits law enforcement from using LEADS. The prohibition is based on an administrative rule and the way ISP and law enforcement interpret the use of LEADS. You can’t blame the General Assembly for this one. - Rod - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 10:03 am: Rich I think those of us on this blog who belong to the ISRA and or the NRA are aware that you are a gun owner. Gun owners and supporters of 2nd amendment rights are not a monolith in relation to their perspectives nor should they be. I would add that there have been more rational and respectful debates on this blog between gun rights advocates and gun control advocates than I have seen anywhere else. This speaks volumes to the type of tone to set on this blog Rich, thanks. - nona - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 10:03 am: Most of the objections had to do with histories of domestic violence or gun crimes. Will anyone, other than the Appeas Board, argue that individuals with such histories be able to get a permit? - Just Observing - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 10:05 am: Just as a friendly reminder, to aid in the discussion, having a cc permit is not the permission to own a gun, the FOID card is the permission to own a gun. So, these people already have access and permission to own guns. I’m not advocating one way or the other, but it’s important this distinction is not lost. - Wordslinger - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 10:06 am: The Supremes have never found a Constitutional right to conceal carry. In Illinois, it is permitted and subject to state law. The Court of Appeals ruled Illinois’ former blanket prohibition on any carry outside the home unconstitutional, based on Heller and McDonald. There are still jurisdictions in the country in which conceal carry is not permitted. The Supremes a while back refused to hear an appeal of New York’s law which effectively bans conceal carry in NYC, population 8.4 million. - Anonymous - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 10:06 am: == Most of the objections had to do with histories of domestic violence or gun crimes. Will anyone, other than the Appeas Board, argue that individuals with such histories be able to get a permit?== If their “history” is merely being accused, yes I would argue that. - JS Mill - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 10:12 am: =He could have easily stabbed her and then sliced his own wrists.= Or he could have dropped an elephant on her and jumped off of a spaceship. The infinite possibilities argument is silly. He, in fact, used his gun to kill her and himself. So let’s stick to the facts because your infinite possibilities argument can go the other way too. = not a valid basis to deny someone their fundamental constitutional rights. = As I read the Constitution, concealed carry is not mentioned. Therefore, not a “fundamental right” if you are a strict constructionist, which you seem to be. I am all for concealed carry, I am a gun owner and hunter. Arrests are a good indication of a persons worthiness or lack there of for concealed carry. Unless you ascribe to the concept of someone just being “unlucky” and getting arrested multiple times. An arrest (singular) could be a different matter. Charges, orders of protection all up the likely hood, as do multiple incidents that a person has the requisite issues for denial. - Ron Oglesby - Now In Texas - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 10:14 am: Yup, its not the CCL law that keeps dart from using LEADS. its policy/rules elsewhere. That said arrests are not convictions. Someone arrested for Unlawful use of a weapon (UUW as its known) can be very benign… We had an Illinois National Guardsman with an unloaded pistol, in a case, in his bag, in the trunk of his car arrested for UUW a couple of years ago. the arrest was dropped 2 days later when the cop was told the guy was perfectly legal transporting his weapon. I had a bud get arrested for UUW because he forgot his wallet at home while bringing a shotgun to his dad in his trunk 4 blocks away from his home. Once they got to the station and his wife could get there a couple of hours later with his wallet, foid drivers license, etc the charges went away. Not saying domestic abusers shouldnt be looked at, or that access to LEADS couldnt be looked at. But arrest is not conviction thats why cops have the saying. “you may beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride” - Name Withheld - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 10:14 am: I would be interested in stats on people who received a concealed carry permit over objections and were then convicted of a crime where the weapon was a factor. - Anonymous - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 10:17 am: ==Just as a friendly reminder, to aid in the discussion, having a cc permit is not the permission to own a gun, the FOID card is the permission to own a gun. So, these people already have access and permission to own guns.== This. Ability to possess is based in the FOID requirements, which is based on a CONVICTION and is screened for. The only possible thing allowing LEADS would do is disclose arrests without convictions, which by statute would not be grounds for revoking someone’s right to possess. - A Jack - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 10:22 am: One could argue that even if Idrovo didn’t have a CC, would that have prevented that tragedy from happening? On the other hand, could have a CC holder possibly stopped the tragedy from happening, had that CC holder been at the scene? Like that Uber driver a couple months back that stopped that crazed shooter of pedestrians. - nona - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 10:30 am: If someone has a history of arrests for child abuse, but no convictions, would you therefore be comfortable hiring her to babysit your kids? - Mason born - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 10:33 am: Nona What is that history a conviction means no gun federal law. Is a 30 yr old who was arrested and then released 15 yrs ago for shoving his mom a threat if he has no other run ins with the law. As for gun crimes lets remember Chicago had unconstitutional ordinances regarding firearms (McDonald decision) should someone arrested under those ordinances be prohibited? - Anonymous - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 10:33 am: ==If someone has a history of arrests for child abuse, but no convictions, would you therefore be comfortable hiring her to babysit your kids?== I must be missing the part of the Constitution that makes babysitting a constitutional right that would make that a valid comparison - Sir Reel - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 10:41 am: We’re talking about concealed carry. This isn’t really about the 2nd amendment. People denied a permit are not being denied their right to own a gun. - nona - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 10:48 am: Suppose someone has a history of arrests for stalking and violating orders of protection, but no convictions. Knowing that charges are dropped for various reasons, only one of which is objective innocence, should the ex-girlfriends or we-wives be worried when individuals with such histories get a permit? Or are they just nervous nellies? - RNUG - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 10:53 am: == Gun owners should be licensed (like drivers) == - Jack Stephens -, In Illinois, law obeying gun owners are … it’s called a FOID card. As I stated and repeated yesterday, the issue is the law breaking gun owner, i.e., a criminal. How do you stop them with out further infringement on the lawfull? - Anonymous - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 11:03 am: ==Knowing that charges are dropped for various reasons, == The problem then lies at the county level where those charges were dropped. What is being discussed is denying someone a constitutional right (per the 7th circuit) based solely on an accusation. Which would itself be a “fix” full of enormous constitutional problems and likely by thrown out by a Court rather quickly. - RNUG - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 11:15 am: Whether we like it or not, SCOTUS said Illinois citizens have a right to carry a firearm. The court left it up to the State to decide if said carry right would be open or concealed. A lot of states, admittedly mostly west of the Mississippi, allow open carry. Most the eastern states, for various reasons, prefer to allow concealed carry. Illinois was allowed to write their own rules for carry within the constraints of the SCOTUS decision. Illinois choose concealed carry and also choose some of the toughest training / licensing requirements in the nation. If you go to the trouble and cost of obtaining the training required for the application, you have to presume the applicant is somewhat law-abiding. One of the fundamental’s of this nation’s legal system is innocent until proven guilty. The issue is how do you identify real threats while not overly infringing on lawful citizens? I’ll admit I don’t have any easy answers. In the case(s) under discussion, maybe if the arrests / charges had not been dismissed, the results might have been different. It’s possible the criminal justice system failed us. Maybe more prosecution, more review, more oversight of every criminal charge brought, and stiffer probation (when granted) would make the court system work better … but that would cost more money. So it really comes down to this: how much money are the citizens willing to pay to try to prevent future tragedies and how much freedom are they willing to give up? - Kevin Highland - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 11:18 am: For those who might be interested: The Law http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3497&ChapterID=39&Print=True The Administrative Code & Rules ftp://www.ilga.gov/JCAR/AdminCode/020/02001231sections.html - Anonymous - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 11:22 am: No conviction = innocent in this country, plain as that. Arrest mean NOTHING. - Name Withheld - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 11:23 am: RNUG - hat tip for a well-reasoned and well-expressed statement. As usual. - Kevin Highland - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 11:27 am: @Anonymous See below Arrest do mean something excerpt below is from the above links I shared….. (430 ILCS 66/15) Sec. 15. Objections by law enforcement agencies. (b) If an applicant has 5 or more arrests for any reason, that have been entered into the Criminal History Records Information (CHRI) System, within the 7 years preceding the date of application for a license, or has 3 or more arrests within the 7 years preceding the date of application for a license for any combination of gang-related offenses, the Department shall object and submit the applicant’s arrest record to the extent the Board is allowed to receive that information under State and federal law, the application materials, and any additional information submitted by a law enforcement agency to the Board. - FormerParatrooper - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 11:40 am: Why wasn’t he ever convicted after arrests? Did the State actually bring charges against him in Court? If he did go to Court, was the State prepared properly to get a conviction? These are the type of questions we need to be asking. Would he have killed her if he did not have a FOID or CCW? More than likely I would assert. Many incidents of this type happen even when the aggressor is ineligible to possess a firearm. I really do not think his FOID or CCW had anything to do with him killing her. What I do think is that his prior arrests without of convictions gave him the feeling he had done nothing wrong and reinforced his behavior. - nona - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 11:41 am: It is instructive that concealed carry advocates would totally ignore a history of 5 or more recent arrests and grant such individuals permits. I wonder how well that extreme position would poll? - Ron Oglesby - Now In Texas - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 11:44 am: @Nona “It is instructive that concealed carry advocates would totally ignore a history of 5 or more recent arrests and grant such individuals permits.” Uh. where has that been said. That part above (5 or more arrests) is actually in the law. one of the reasons its at 5 is because that shows a pattern (regardless of conviction) vs an arrest or two for UUW where a leo on the street didnt understand the transport laws of a fireams (as an example). As a CCW supporter I was simply pointing out that UUW arrests were common when no law was even broken. Which pro gun comment above was saying we should ignore 5 or more arrests? - Amalia - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 11:46 am: arrest can also equal case pending. witness the criminal in the South Carolina church mass shooting. the NRA should support universal background checks and whatever records sharing measures are necessary to ensure that when a gun is sold, the status…including arrests and cases pending…of the buyer is known. - Mason born - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 12:04 pm: Amalia Actually the feds admitted it was a clerical error on their part that allowed Roof to get the gun. - Stu - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 12:13 pm: Elwood: I bet these cops got SCMODS. Jake: SCMODS? Elwood: State County Municipal Offender Data System. - crazybleedingheart - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 12:16 pm: ==- RNUG - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 11:15 am: Whether we like it or not, SCOTUS said Illinois citizens have a right to carry a firearm. == Nope. SCOTUS did not say any such thing about carrying a firearm. - RNUG - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 12:26 pm: == Nope. SCOTUS did not say any such thing about carrying a firearm. == Okay. Technically, the court said the State and Chicago laws were over-reaching / unduly restrictive / unconstitutional. The practical result is Illinois had to pass a carry law by a certain date to address it. - Anonymous - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 12:30 pm: == Whether we like it or not, SCOTUS said Illinois citizens have a right to carry a firearm. == Nope. SCOTUS did not say any such thing about carrying a firearm.== The 7th Circuit did. Unless overturned by the SCOTUS, that is binding to Illinois - crazybleedingheart - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 12:33 pm: The practical result was that IL had to pass a law that enabled people to possess in the HOME. It’s only the goofy, self-contradictory 7th Circuit decision that validated carry (expanding a circuit split). Too bad IL’s CC law “solved” a “problem” that wasn’t yet settled by the courts. - crazybleedingheart - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 12:48 pm: Re: this supposed CCL “loophole,” why is the attention not on defining who gets a FOID card? I mean, who are we protecting from gun violence when we don’t let VOP offenders carry in PUBLIC? Not the people living in their house with their guns. - crazybleedingheart - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 12:51 pm: Got caught violating an unconstitutional law (UUW)? No gun for you! Got caught violating a pointless law (drug possession)? No gun for you! Got caught willfully violating a judge’s specific order issued to protect the health and safety of another person? Well, we wouldn’t want to tell you what to do. - RNUG - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 12:52 pm: == The 7th Circuit did. Unless overturned by the SCOTUS, that is binding to Illinois == You’re right. I forgot the carry case was never appealed to SCOTUS. - Mason born - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 1:02 pm: Crazy That’s the million dollar quiestion here. Why would soneone be arrested and not convicted? As RNUG mentions these aren’t convictions we do not know why charges were dropped. Is it possible that the individual was found not violating the order of protection once authorities investigated further. That is why we have the board in the first place is to sort this out. It is possible that the counties aren’t prosecuting the arrests if so we need to get that fixed. - Formerly Known As... - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 1:06 pm: ==According to Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, when he files an objection, the Illinois Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board goes ahead and grants a permit anyway 82 percent of the time.== That percentage may be inflated by Dart jamming the system with ==blanket== objections like he said he would. https://capitolfax.com/2013/12/17/dart-vows-blanket-objections-to-thousands-of-concealed-carry-applicants/ - JoanP - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 1:24 pm: Sure, use LEADS. But “1994 order of protection and a 1997 arrest on misdemeanor charges of assault and violation of an order of protection”? I’m not convinced that a nearly 20-year-old misdemeanor arrest apparently not resulting in a conviction is a valid reason to deny a permit. Same for an even older OP. Let’s not forget that OPs are generally issued in the first instance in a one-sided hearing. Was this one extended? Was there ever a contested hearing on it? What was the basis for it? Was it part of a divorce proceeding? The mere existence of an OP, without more, means pretty much nothing. - Left Leaner - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 1:42 pm: 18% = 581 Number of “gun crimes” = 1,005. That doesn’t include the 23 for murder - 100% of which I sincerely hope were denied - and 222 for gang affiliation. The explanation of why hundreds of people identified with records of “gun crimes” were allowed permits would interest me greatly. Anyone? - Mason born - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 1:53 pm: Left leaner Those apear to be arrests and not convictions. Considering that Dart’s jurisdiction includes Chicago it is highly likely sone of those were arrested under the unconstitutional ordinances prior to the McDonald decision which would have vacated any convictions for those offenses. These aren’t records of gun crimes but records of gun crime arrests. The whole innocent till proven guilty would seem to apply. That would be my quess. - Lobo Y Olla - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 1:56 pm: Whether we like it or not, SCOTUS said Illinois citizens have a right to carry a firearm. Nope. They never said that. - Mason born - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 1:56 pm: Left Leaner Also the chart states more than one reason can be had for the objection. In fact there are 4508 items in the chart. - Todd - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 2:00 pm: Wow, go spend a couple of days at the range and look at all that I missed. So mush to comment on I hope I don’t miss anything. State Police made the decision not to allow LEADS to be used. I forget the exact reasoning for this, but Dart in his own words wanted to, and presumably still does want to file blanket objections to people. He wants to file objections based upon a single arrest, where there may be no conviction and the offense is not even a prohibitor to a carry permit much less firearms ownership/possession. You don’t have to like the law or agree with the concept, but simply trying to shut it down and/or deny as many people as possible a fundamental right is just wrong. People often wonder why “gun guys” won’t go along with this proposal or that proposal as it only sound/seems reasonable. Yet these types of abuses are why we don’t go along with them. Based upon Dart’s own criteria, he would object to Shawn Gowder’s application. A person from Englewood who was caught and convicted of carrying a firearm for self-defense back around 2000. After the Court struck Chicago’s handgun ban, and they instituted their new licensing system, the City denied Shawn’s ability to own a handgun based upon this misdemeanor conviction. Shawn sued and the City lost and they had to issue him his City permit. Shawn has a carry license today. He’s been a union electrician for as long as I have known him and a standup guy. But according to Sheriff Dart, he would file a blanket objection to him applying for a carry permit. And so, those that don’t like guns, don’t like carry want to reduce it to a mere privilege – not a fundamental constitutionally protected right. The costs and hurdles are already too high and prevent a number of people from being able to get a permit. I have helped several people file responses to objections from Cook County. Some for mistaken identity, same name and DOB and Cook confuses the criminal with the guy with no record. I’ve had to help people file court challenges even when records have been expunged. So since there are people in public office, who want to thumb their nose at the court ruling, who want to find an end run around the law to try and neuter it, they complain that they can’t try and undo this law. Let’s not forget that Chicago had an opportunity to change it’s law before SCOTUS ruled. They didn’t they gambled. And they choose to try and continue a ban. Then after the Court ruling they moved this/far to allow for ownership. And that was fought in court and they had to move again. To date Chicago has paid over $2 million in attorney’s fees to the NRA. Not counting any of the other lawsuits. And they still owe at least another $1 million, and we are not even close to being done. Illinois had a chance for a carry law over the last 20 years. They said no. The anti-gunners said no. And so we went to court. And we won. And then buttressed by a court decision, that the Attorney General refused to appeal, the legislature crafted a bill. But that still wasn’t good enough and Quinn vetoed it and wanted more gun control. We didn’t get everything we wanted in the bill. But all along the way, those that complain about the “law” had a chance to craft a different one. But said no for all those years. So now they get to live with what got passed. And while Rich says we need to make concessions, to my friend I say, NO we don’t. Chicago continues to try and restrict carry in spite of the preemption law. Others want to undo the few gains we’ve made, or even make it more restrictive than what it is. Not gonna happen. We don’t plan on giving up one inch of what we gained. Nor do we plan on making it easier for anti-gun politicians or bureaucrats to try and stamp out a right they don’t like. It is a fundamental Constitutionally protected right. Get use to it. - Flanagan - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 2:23 pm: Right on, right on, right on! - Striketoo - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 3:06 pm: One murder in over a year for 127,000 ccw permit holders. Rockford or Peoria would welcome those crime statistics. - nona - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 3:50 pm: Let’s see if we have any common ground. When the arrest record for domestic violence is accurate, not a case of mistaken identity,and when it is in the last 7 years, does everyone agree that someone with 5 such arrests should be denied a permit? - Mason born - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 4:10 pm: Nona I can agree that that individual should be objected too and placed under heightened review by the board. He or She would need some pretty compeling evidence as to why they shouldn’t be denied. - Rod - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 4:28 pm: The case Todd noted of Shawn Gowder can be read at https://casetext.com/case/gowder-v-city-of-chi As a gun owner and a Chicagoan I recall the nightmares I went though having several grandfathered hand guns bought prior to Jane Byrne’s hand gun ban. I even had to have a separate registration for each hunting rifle I owned, which is why I moved all but one gun to Wisconsin. Tom Dart and many others (like good Father Pfleger) would like to move Chicago back to those days. I never heard a word out of Dart questioning the legality of Chicago’s gun laws while a state prosecutor in Cook County or as an Illinois State Senator. Let’s also recall that in 1999 then IL Senator Dart supported a bill modeled on a Connecticut law that authorized the police to confiscate guns from anyone found by a judge to be an immediate danger to himself or others. Connecticut’s “Act concerning firearm safety” was the country’s first to give police such sweeping powers to enter a home and seize guns. The bill failed in Illinois. The truth is Tom Dart is profoundly anti-gun, even though WBBM has exposed the fact that he has often carried a concealed hand gun himself which he is allowed to do as Sheriff even though he is entitled to a security person. As much as I like Tom’s positions relating to the problems at Cook County Jail I have to say he would abrogate my 2nd amendment rights as quick as possible if he could. - Wordslinger - Friday, Aug 28, 15 @ 4:43 pm: Todd, is there a difference between “carry” and “conceal carry?” Because I’m pretty sure the Supremes ruled on on of those, and not tne other. Tne other is subject to state law. That one Madigan passed. And seriously, do you want to get in a competition of anecdotes about “good guns in public” and “bad guns in public?” I’m surprised, actually. You guys usually keep your heads down for a while after the latest massacre, for p.r. reasons, then come back with “tne victims should have armed themselves.” Of course, the frequency of massacres being what they are, how long can you keep your heads down? - Flanagan - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 1:37 pm: Our heads are down after events like this because that’s how we mourn. How do you do it? Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.