Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Daley cranks up the rhetoric against concealed carry as Chicago police lieutenants announce support

Posted in:

Illinois

* Earlier this week, Mayor Daley referenced the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. while speaking against the concealed carry bill…

Speaking out against the legislation, Daley invoked the assassination of Martin Luther King, Junior.

“We have learned nothing from that assassination. We have learned nothing that guns are killing another generation of young people. There have to be more people to stand up. Not those that have lost their loved ones, but anybody standing up on behalf of some child lost today or tomorrow or last week.”

Dr. King was slain by a sniper using a rifle, so I’m not quite sure what the heck Daley was talking about.

* Today, Daley cranked it up again…

Daley said he and Mayor-elect Rahm Emanuel sent a letter they both signed to General Assembly members, urging them to oppose House Bill 148, which would allow people to carry concealed, loaded weapons with training and a permit. Opponents of the proposal will also be traveling to Springfield to lobby lawmakers to vote against it, he said.

“Do you want guns at your neighborhood festival or block party? Or in a park, like the one we’re here today?” Daley asked at a news conference at the Austin Town Hall Cultural Center, where he was joined by several aldermen and anti-violence advocates. “CTA buses or trains? Do you want students with concealed weapons walking around every college campus in the state?”

Daley said the bill would take away Chicago and Cook County’s ability to opt out of allowing people to carry concealed weapons, but he suggested those who want firearms should live in other areas.

“If everybody wants to carry weapons in DuPage County, if they want to carry it, and you can go and get permits, they can carry them in DuPage County,” he said. “They want to carry them in Lake County, McHenry, if they want to carry them in Will County – in other words, if you’re here and you want to go there and get guns, you can carry them in those counties. You can go to the malls and everything, just carry your weapons out there.”

* Steve Chapman retorts…

Daley has a weekend home in Grand Beach, Michigan — a state that for over a decade has granted such licenses to anyone who qualifies. Does he worry about guns at local events when he’s there? At the lake? In line for an ice-cream cone?

If he were that worried, he probably would have gotten a vacation place in Wisconsin or Illinois. So maybe it’s not that scary in reality.

* Last Friday, the Chicago Police Lieutenants Association expressed its “full support” for the concealed carry bid, claiming it would “enhance citizen safety and in the end make our job easier”…

Try to avoid drive-by comments today. Make your points without using bumper-sticker slogans. It’s getting to be a bit much on this topic, and I’m more than a little bored with some of the rote responses.

Thoughts?

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 3:44 pm

Comments

Good. The Morning After pill debate was making me wish we could argue about concealed carry instead. Let’s see if we can get 100 comments on two threads in one non-Blagojevich news day.

As for Daley, I hope no one was expecting him to offer anything less than full-throated opposition to concealed carry. He’s a lot of things, but he’s also pretty consistent on the subject of handguns in Chicago.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 3:48 pm
Daley’s have been controlling Chicago politics for a long time. I’m glad he’s going to be gone (not to say that he still won’t try to control politics, he just won’t have an elected office to do so).

To answer the Mayor’s questions though, yes on all accounts, provided they are owned by law abiding citizens with proper training.

Comment by Ryan from Carrollton Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 3:54 pm
Didn’t realize Daley was doing something besides traveling overseas for the rest of his term.

Good riddance.

Comment by shore Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 4:00 pm
steve chapman’s retort is a good one. is there anyone new in the Daley presser or is this the same messsage and photo crowd delivered for the last 10 years? I’d rather not have concealed carry, but things are moving in that direction.

Comment by amalia Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 4:01 pm
I really hate the idea of conceal carry, but I can’t find a reasonable argument against this bill.

Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 4:01 pm
Another police endorsement for conceal carry. Opponents better get their game on. The coppers are providing a lot of cover for fence-straddlers.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 4:03 pm
Training is key, yet it will not prevent inevitable misuse on occasion. In very simple terms I am for it because the potential for good outweighs the potential for bad. I wish there were a way to accurately poll what the criminals and criminally minded think of concealed carry. The results, I believe, would bolster the case for it.

Comment by GMatts Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 4:06 pm
I still do not understand why the concealed carry issue cannot be county by county. 90 plus counties have passed resolutions in support of R.T.C. If Cook, Madison, St. Clair dont want it, they dont have to have it. The majority of the state (geographically) wants this bill to pass. It seems like a logical compromise to me.

Comment by John A Logan Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 4:13 pm
@GMatts-

Criminals as universally ‘against’ CC. As well as martial arts training, self defense courses, police, or citizen patrols.

Generally they prefer their victims unarmed, passive, and generally defenseless.

+/- 5% on this poll.

Comment by How Ironic Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 4:14 pm
Why would Daley care about vacation home. He has a ARMED with a loaded gun, Chicago Police officer as a guard. If you remember a Chicago police officer guarding his Michigan vacation home, captured a prison escapee from Indiana. I wonder if the outgoing Mayor receives lifetime protection from the Chicago Police department.

Comment by Bob Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 4:16 pm
Real question: Does this law allow c&c everywhere? Like schools, state buildings, hospitals?

Comment by JL Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 4:20 pm
As Rich has noted in posts on this site, very few people in the city of Chicago are getting permits for hand guns in their homes. Even fewer may be applying for concealed carry permits.

Those that feel the need to pack will be able to, most of us do not want to carry 9mms under our coats all day. There are some people who carry cash for work purposes to banks or maybe to hide under the bed, too cheap to have an armored service pick it up, these people have been packing in Chicago for years. At least now these folks will be legal if they want to be.

By the way Daley has guns all around him and an armed police officer at his home in Michigan. I am so tired of Daley’s rants, I will be glad when May 16 comes and he is history.

Comment by Rod Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 4:20 pm
Logan, I think a lot of opponents would take that deal about now. But I think Todd’s crew is shooting for a veto-proof super-majority. If they can’t get it, maybe it will happen.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 4:22 pm
Rich said no bumper sticker slogans, but I can’t resist, “Keep Boulder Weird.”

Seriously though, I’m not a fan of guns & am tired of the NRA types ignoring the fact that the 2nd Amendment specifically uses the words, “well-regulated” in relation to firearms.

Nevertheless, if Illinois & Wisconsin are the only states that don’t allow responsible citizens to carry a concealed weapon, its worth considering that we’ve been overbearing.

Comment by David W. Aubrey Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 4:22 pm
Does anyone know why the Police are changing their position on this? Seems a little odd and didn’t know if they had a statement explaining the change.

Comment by Ahoy Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 4:27 pm
I believe many in law inforcement were against CC in the past. Seeing the letter from the Chicago Police Lieutenants Association is heartwarming. The stats bear out at least that allowing CC doesn’t unleash the hounds of h&!! and does benefit folk in some cases. Daley has taken his stance and it is strident enough that he would look foolish now if he were to back down. He has nothing to gain or lose so why shift?

I support CC. So many states have it now that there is a body of evidence as to its’ effectiveness and risks. The naysayers predicted the fall of civilization if people were allowed to CC. The evidence does not support their position.

Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 4:28 pm
Mr Aubrey,

Regarding the 2nd amendment, the SCOTUS respectfully disagrees with you.

The key here is law abiding. There are laws on the books to punish those who use fire arms illegally. I’m all for preventing the purchase, possession and use of firearms by convicted felons, spousal abusers and the mentally unfit. I am sure there are a few other categories of people who should not have the right to possess, much less carry, a firearm.

Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 4:34 pm
–So many states have it now that there is a body of evidence as to its’ effectiveness and risks.–

Effectiveness at what?

There’s quite a range among the 48 state laws. And there’s a big difference between the words “shall” and “may.”

Given the “sensitive areas” where even proponents would ban conceal carry, I would think those in the middle or opposition could reasonably come up with a whole lot more. CTA, PACE and Metra come to mind, instantly.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 4:35 pm
The more guns become available to law-abiding citizens, the more they also become available to criminals. The more gun shops & shows that are in our state and country, the more straw buyers we’ll have buying guns and selling them in the parking lot to criminals. Concealed carry has one guaranteed result: more guns. As a lifelong Chicagoan, that’s the last thing this city needs.

Comment by B Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 4:39 pm
@ Dan,

I’m well aware of what SCOTUS wrote in the DC & Chicago cases. It only took 200 years for them to [d]evolve to that view.

You know as well as I, that political activism is alive & well on the Robert’s court. The restraint of the Rehnquist court is a long gone.

Comment by David W. Aubrey Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 4:39 pm
“Try to avoid drive-by comments…” Gimme a break here.

A LOT of folks, especially in Chicago, get dead by HANDGUNS. Oh yeah…easily ‘concealed’.

“provided they are owned by law abiding citizens with proper training.”

And none of them are nut-cases are they?

“I am for it because the potential for good outweighs the potential for bad…”

Maybe - maybe not. How so?

Cops for this concept? Wait till the first dude gets shot by a cop when he/she brandishes a gun. Lawsuit to follow. Who’ll pay - yeah - taxpayers.

Comment by sal-says Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 4:47 pm
Rich, I”m not sure there is anything left but bumper stickers…the lack of legitimacy of the Supreme Court’s exercise in conservative judicial activism and the lack of any rationality to the NRA unwaivering extremism leaves little to coherent discussion.

Comment by D.P. Gumby Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 4:53 pm
B is concerned about increased access to criminals?

Is there any evidence indicating that the criminal class has difficulty in acquiring weapons? Didn’t think so.

Comment by Plutocrat03 Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 4:54 pm
“When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!”

–’nuff said!

Comment by Damfunny Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 5:07 pm
Rich said,

“…so I’m not quite sure what the heck Daley was talking about.”

Amen.

I was wondering if anyone can explain the rationale behind Daley’s stance. I do agree with 47th, Daley has been nothing but consistent. Sarah Brady had her husband shot in the head, I understand her motivation. I really don’t understand why Daley has taken this up as his cause, and the man is so inarticulate that while his motives are surely sincere, I have no idea what they are.

Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 5:09 pm
“Training is key”. Did you know that under HB 148 regular citizens who are permitted to carry concealed weapons will have to be recertified LESS often than retired law enforcement officers currently have to be for the same “privelege”. Renewal of the permits has to happen every 3 years, but the firearm education class does not have to be retaken in order to renew the permit. Applicants just have to show that they took the class previously. Under current IL law, retired law enforcement officers (trained professionals) have to be recertified every year to have a conceal and carry permit. How does that make any sense at all?

Comment by Seriously??? Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 5:32 pm
the SCOTUS decisions included lots of language that would indicate plenty of regulation is allowable. perhaps not against concealed carry, but certainly other regulations. Scaila is interesting.

Comment by amalia Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 6:08 pm
County option is a real dumb idea. Legal in one county, felony once you cross over? Fed courts would love ruling on that one.

That said, I really don’t like this whole handgun thing. I don’t care how many states allow it. Are the D’s in S’field trying to find something to counteract bad pub on civil unions and tax/fee increases? Just say no on it and deal with the gun lobby.

Comment by Park Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 6:32 pm
So just a what if? It’s July, it’s 100 degrees, Cubs are playing the Sox, on either side of town. The Beer has been flowing for 6 hours now. And people think it’s a good idea to have 40,000 peeps with guns?

What about a bar? How about on Expressways?

Do the other 48 states have less crime than we do? Or Wisconsin?

So the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms — how absolute is it?

What crimes could you committed in your past that would prevent you from carrying? How much added government do you have in order to discern who is mentally unfit?

What if you lived in an apartment or condo — would you feel okay and safe if your next door neighboro having a gun — bullets will travel through walls?

Do people that disapprove of guns have a right NOT to live/work/sleep next to people that do want them? Should I, as an owner of a business, fear or worry that customers have conceal carry weapons on them?

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 6:32 pm
Anonymous, stadiums are excluded.

===Fed courts would love ruling on that one. ===

Meh. If buildings can legally be put off limits for concealed weapons (see above) then why not towns?

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 6:48 pm
Not that I disagree, why are stadiums excluded? I can guess you don’t want 40,000 or 100,000 emotional (and very possibly drunk) people ready to shoot at Country Joe West.

So if buildings are excluded, I guess that would include courts? Legislative buildings? Maybe hospitals? What would be the reasoning behind allowing some and not others?

Towns, that’s an interesting idea too. It would disappoint me greatly if this or any Supreme Court ruled that 2nd Amendment applies the strict scrunity analysis that prevents laws that discriminate against certain persons or people.

And why just “conceal”? Why not just allow people to openly have and brandish a gun? Anytime, anywhere?

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 7:04 pm
Mr. Aubrey,

The 2nd Amendment is actually irrelevant to carry conceal. If a State wants to grant the right to carry conceal, it can, regardless of the 2nd Amendment.

Even if you if disagree that the 2nd Amendment gives an individual the right to carry a firearm, that doesn’t preclude a State (or the Feds) from passing a law allowing citizens to do so.

Comment by Edison Parker Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 7:33 pm
Local ordinances restricting firearms in public have been around since the founding. The Supreme Court actually hasn’t weighed in on conceal carry. Scalia was just riffing in ober dictum in the 5-4 Heller decision.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 7:34 pm
States clearly can allow conceal carry wherever they want, barring some federal law.

Proponents extract from the Heller decision that states cannot limit conceal carry except in “sensitive areas” (Scalia mentioned courts, specifically, lol), but allow that it is a licensed activity (i.e., there are categories of citizens that can be denied the privilege).

You don’t have to buy the NRAs interpretation to see that even it leaves a lot of running room for limiting conceal carry in public and in who may have that privilege.

Rep. Phelps bill envisions many “sensitive areas” where conceal carry would not be allowed and lays down markers for those who would seek state permission for the privilege (thereby acknowledging that it is not a Constitutional right).

My advice to opponents is to keep going and building on those.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 8:08 pm
===Meh. If buildings can legally be put off limits for concealed weapons (see above) then why not towns?===

I can’t see anything that would prevent a Home Rule community from banning concealed weapons. Frankly, I’m not sure what would prevent a non-home rule community from doing it either a la video poker or smoking before the statewide ban.

Comment by Obamarama Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 8:19 pm
==I wish there were a way to accurately poll what the criminals and criminally minded think of concealed carry.==

Actually, I doubt that criminals care one way or the other. I have yet to see any stats showing a decrease in crime that can be attributed to CCW. The most common crimes undertaken in the US are property crimes where there is no threat of force used against the victim. Criminals prefer to not deal with a person, or, if they do, to take the victim by surprise. In these cases CCW or gun ownership of any kind is not much of a factor.

I don’t oppose CCW, I just think it makes people feel safer when it actually has little, if any, impact on crime.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 9:00 pm
He is opposed as someone with 24 hour security would be.

Comment by Wumpus Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 9:05 pm
Many of us have conjectured on what Daley’s post mayoral life will entail and what his career plans are. We’ve heard about the speakers’ bureau gigs. And it’s pretty certain he won’t be representing the NRA as a lobbyist. But I’m starting to wonder if he will be involved with HCI or perhaps join the board of The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. Seems like a good fit for him.

Comment by Responsa Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 9:30 pm
===There are some people who carry cash for work purposes to banks or maybe to hide under the bed, too cheap to have an armored service pick it up, these people have been packing in Chicago for years. At least now these folks will be legal if they want to be.===

Rod,

That’s the best argument for CC in Chicago. There are plenty of people in the cash economy (including several friends of mine) like bar tenders, cab drivers and small business owners who might be good candidates for CC permits. The application, registration and training rules in the bill need more attention, and there ought to be some other requirements like liability insurance. But there should be some legal way for responsible people to protect themselves if they feel the need.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 9:31 pm
This is one of those issues where you have a certain percentage people locked in on both sides trying to sway the open minded. My problem with carrying a gun is I feel I have about as much chance of needing it as I do getting on a plane and having the top peel back. I am sure some on here think they have a chance to be in a Bruce Willis situation. What percent of the pros have had to draw and fire thier weapon on duty? Sorry I am not sold yet folks.

Comment by Bemused Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 9:40 pm
Park said “I really don’t like this whole handgun thing.” extremely compelling argument you make Park. May want to take a mulligan on that and try again. In regards to the county by county option, I agree it would be difficult if the state were highly split on the issue. However the following map may help alleviate your concern.

http://www.pro2aresolution.com/id12.html

Comment by John A Logan Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 9:41 pm
Concealed carry should be a “national bill” not state by state or county by county. All Americans should have this option.

Comment by Zoble21 Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 9:46 pm
==Concealed carry should be a “national bill” not state by state or county by county.==

What ever happened to States’ Rights?

Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 9:57 pm
It is always politicians like Daley and Rahm with armed police security and police escorts who drive through red lights who want the rest of us to behave differently than they are allowed to do. They are hyprocrites! Allow the public to defend themselves.

Comment by Armed Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 11:48 pm
“I have yet to see any stats showing a decrease in crime that can be attributed to CCW.”

There are indeed studies, as recent as 2009 that do show decreases in crime in shall-issue jurisdictions. When there are counter arguments to this studies, they show that while they isn’t an decrease in crime, there isn’t an increase either. So the worse case scenario is that CCW is a wash to a slight increase in weapon carrier safety.

Since there is no detrimental public safety effects, the only outcome from resistance to CCW is that elite opinion makers sustain their attack on individual freedoms with no actual benefit to society from the limiting position. Again.

Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 1:42 am
–Since there is no detrimental public safety effects, the only outcome from resistance to CCW is that elite opinion makers sustain their attack on individual freedoms with no actual benefit to society from the limiting position. Again.–

Or, it could be states and local jurisdictions through their elected representatives setting law on carrying firearms in public within Constitutional parameters, just as they have since the country’s founding.

But your description sounds much more sinister and dramatic.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 8:17 am
Word –

I do believe that right to carry is just that a right as described in state v reid as cited by the Court in Heller. However, I also believe that like the First Amendment it is not unlmited and can be subject to some time place and manner restrictions.

You have a right to free speech, you dont have the right to jump up in a city council meeting and disrupt it with your views.

As for the cops, there are more endorsements from cops coming. What has happened? Most of them support the concept and have decided to get off the sidelines and not let the chicago brass types drive the bus. They realized there are more of them, than there are ofnthe other types.

101 sheriffs, chiefs, CPD LTs it is building and will continue to build. When the antigunners try to wail, I will bet that the dupage sheriff will stand up and tell people that its no big deal and backup any of those suburban legislators. Just like the dem sheriff in kane, or Will or Kendall.

The blue wall is backing us up.

Comment by Todd Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 8:48 am