Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: More troubles for Schock
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Cross, Nekritz introduce new pension plan
Posted in:
* Yeesterday’s hours-long debate on concealed carry was at times brutal…
Tempers rose and ebbed as frustrated Republicans questioned the majority’s motives. Democrats booed and shouted “No!” when Rep. Jim Sacia suggested imposing gun limits across Illinois because of Chicago’s homicide problem would be like forcing statewide castration because of a population boom in the city.
“If you’re having too many kids, you want me to get castrated,” said former FBI agent Sacia, a Pecatonica Republican. “That was an analogy to show how silly this is. You bet I used Chicago as an example because you’re the folks that want this craziness.”
Sheesh.
The video…
Sacia and Rep. Will Davis got into it after that one.
* There was plenty of intrigue yesterday…
The House began the day with 27 separate amendments dealing with concealed carry, many of which restricted where guns could be carried. Gun prohibitions in schools, casinos, stadiums and other locales go OK’d in amendments that go so far as to include parking lots, meaning firearms couldn’t be stored in cars while gun-owners go inside.
“You’re spray-painting red circles around all these places, and at the end of the day, the whole state is going to be red and you won’t be able to carry a gun anywhere,” Phelps said.
As the day dragged on, the approach faced a series of setbacks. The House rejected successive amendments banning guns from colleges, establishments that sell alcohol, and public gatherings or rallies.
Democrats soon withdrew 12 amendments, including requirements for 40 hours of firearms training in classrooms and the field; carrying $1 million in liability insurance; and for a psychological fitness examination, moving straight to the Phelps amendment, which is language taken as a whole from a separate concealed-carry bill he’s introduced, but didn’t get a hearing Tuesday.
* House Republican Leader Tom Cross, who has introduced dozens of empty shell bills, claimed the Democrats were wasting time. But he did make some good points…
With Madigan, the state Democratic Party chairman, already picking up suburban seats in the last election, Republicans feared he was setting his sights on gaining even more ground rather than actually trying to address the concealed carry issue. Republicans questioned why Democrats were focusing on the gun issue now, in this fashion, rather than on Illinois’ budget problems and $96.8 billion pension debt.
Republican Minority Leader Tom Cross asked state Rep. Sara Feigenholtz, D-Chicago, whether her gun amendment does anything to address the state’s pension crisis. Feigenholtz said the proposal was an “attempt to save lives.”
“This bill can’t pass out of the House like it is, nor can it go to the Senate, so how does that save a life?” Cross said.
The Trib’s analysis is correct and Cross’ last quote was absolutely spot on.
* SJ-R…
Taking roll call votes on separate issues, although preliminary, did give lawmakers a chance to essentially “explain their votes” to constituents later, said Kent Redfield, emeritus professor of political science at the University of Illinois Springfield. said.
“Someone could say ‘Hey, I fought the hard fight,’ but ultimately … the choice was either to pass what was in front of me or to automatically have weapons in the street,” he said.
Tuesday’s unusual approach also could give some leverage to House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, in negotiations over a final bill, Redfield said.
“Let’s assume a vote to exclude guns on mass transit gets 70 or 80 votes,” he said. “If you’ve got a big majority for something that (pro-gun supporters) didn’t want, then that would give you leverage in negotiations.”
That’s also correct.
* Another good point…
Democratic Rep. Michael Zalewski of Riverside said that today’s session was useful for getting members to grasp the complexity of the issue and getting a feel for where their preferences lie. “I think we needed this particular day to ensure that people were aware of the issues that we face on this. Everyone assumes that we can just pass a bill and this will all figure itself out, but there’s so many … factors that go into this and how we balance protecting public safety with the constitutional right to carry a weapon, so we needed this for people to start thinking about the issue.” He said the votes on the amendments banning guns were instructive about what proposals could receive support in a final bill. “We may not be able to put a restriction on what people do in a public way. We may only be able to regulate schools and mass transit and parks and things. So that’s my takeaway.”
* Sun-Times…
In a key test vote, Chicago-area mass-transit users couldn’t take concealed weapons on public trains or buses under legislation that moved forward in the Illinois House Tuesday during a more than a seven-hour session on guns.
But in later action, the House went on record supporting a broad concealed-carry amendment written by gun-rights advocates, an initiative that was adopted shortly before 9 p.m. by a 67-48 margin. It explicitly permitted guns on public transportation.
The mass-transit amendment by Rep. Deb Mell (D-Chicago) and backed by gun-control advocates advanced 65-45 with four voting “present.” It represented one of the biggest of more than a dozen votes the House took Tuesday that could help shape a broader concealed-carry bill that likely will surface in the chamber this spring. […]
An amendment pushed by Rep. Brandon Phelps (D-Harrisburg), the leading House champion of concealed-carry, won a majority in the House but fell short of the 71-vote supermajority that could be required in the House once a final concealed-carry package gets voted on. That supermajority also would be needed to fend off a possible veto by Gov. Pat Quinn.
Backed by the National Rifle Association, Phelps’ amendment dictates that the State Police “shall” issue $80 concealed-carry permits to those who undergo training and haven’t been adjudicated as mentally ill. His plan would bar concealed weapons in government buildings, bars, airports, schools, child-care centers, casinos, amusement parks, stadiums, arenas, community colleges and universities.
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:23 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: More troubles for Schock
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Cross, Nekritz introduce new pension plan
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Lets call it what it is. This has nothing to do with homicide statististics. Chicago politicians operate by fear. If law abiding people can protect themselves and no longer live in fear it takes the stranglehold the politicians have off of society. There is NO statistical evidence that gun control saves lives. This is about power and Chicago politicians keeping white peeople living in fear, and the minorities under their thumb. This is why the 2nd amendment exists. Chicago politicians don’t fear a high murder rate, they fear a population with the courage and means to tell them to back off.
Comment by the Patriot Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:34 am
If there is fear that the gun issue could lose seats for the Republicans it might be a recognition that they are on the wrong side of the issue. I live downstate and oppose people walking around with a hidden loaded weapon. I don’t think this is just a Chicago thing, Sacia was just way off.
Comment by Ahoy! Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:34 am
Sacia got right to the psychological reality for a lot of gun lovers.
Comment by walkinfool Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:34 am
===it might be a recognition that they are on the wrong side of the issue===
It’s not the overall issue in their districts, it’s the specifics and how they can be twisted to look in a mailer or TV ad.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:36 am
=== won a majority in the House but fell short of the 71-vote supermajority that could be required in the House ===
So… concealed carry advocates simultaneously have all the leverage in the world and none.
How does this sausage maker work again? *scratches head*
Comment by Formerly Known As... Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:38 am
Yesterday accomplished a lot more than simply putting some Reps in a tough spot with bad votes, although there was that.
It seems to me that Phelps’ bill is now the basis for renewed negotiation. I’ll give him a lot of credit for working with a lot of groups to make this a decent basis for the law. Several of the amendments were redundant with existing provisions in the Phelps amendment, but a few were not, like RTA.
After yesterday, we’re not far off in my opinion. If we all start with the court’s premise that there is a constitutional right to carry loaded firearms, then we can dispense with a lot of the nonsense and figure out how, when and where that right should be exercised in Illinois.
This isn’t about gun bans or saving lives or creating “killing zones” or anything else. This is about how we’re going to allow citizens to exercise their rights with reasonable limits to protect public safety and the rights of property owners.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:45 am
@Patriot - Fear rests at the heart of this issue in so many ways, doesn’t it?
Fear of losing your seat.
Fear of being shot purposefully or accidentally.
Fear of not being able to protect yourself or your family.
Fear of the Chicago gangs indiscriminately killing so many people.
Fear of __________ (there’s plenty more to fill in).
With so much fear flowing in every direction, it becomes easier for manipulators to manipulate.
Not for any greater good, of course, but simply to preserve their cushy job.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:45 am
I want to see Sacia debate Bloomberg. Now.
Pay per view sales alone can close our budget gap.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:47 am
Ahoy!
the problem with your statement is the mailers sent out will be carefully couched. No one there wanted to see guns throughout the school but if you read these amendments a lot of them had extremely vague language such as adjacent and near that no one wanted to clear up. For example Currie at one point stated that if your congressman has an office in the same strip mall as a gun store then if there wasn’t a different building between rep and store the store would be banned. So a lot of the votes had to do with details. Do you think the mailers will explain the differences or will it say Oh My G@d so and so wants guns in school?
Formerly
The real question is as rich pointed out in the fax technically Phelps has 68 votes as of yesterday. The question is as the clock begins to run out does the total go up or down? If when forced with Constitutional Carry or Phelps bill is it better to hold out and try to pull 10 to 12 votes from phelps or accept his and add 3? That is what i think the next few months will answer.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:50 am
Yesterday’s amendment circus seemed bent on crafting a concealed carry law that would permit carry only in one’s back yard, and not in many of the places where it would (from past instances)be a good idea for a good guy to have a gun when a bad guy shows up with one. Do the amendment-makers assume that bad guys will suddenly start following this law unlike all the others they break?
Comment by BehindTheScenes Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:51 am
To the crazy pro-gunners (ex. The Patriot). I live in Chicago, I don’t live in fear, but I might if people like you start running around ready to blast somebody. Funny, I use to think conceal carry law with gun registration would be fair, now I think need to add liability insurance since there seems to be trigger happy people posting here. And strict gun laws seen to be working in New York, so laws do work.
Comment by M O'Malley Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:54 am
47th
I think you are right as far as yesterday made the Phelps bill look better to both sides i think. There are a lot of people on the pro side that thought they were giving up too much this shows that the alternative of a MJM bill is much worse. The Anti side i think got an idea as far as what Phelps had done with his bill to ease some of their concerns. The two things i see that are going to be sticking point is Home rule and Mass Transit. Parking lot exemption (keeping weapon in car while in a no gun est.) might be another but i really think even Chicago dems can compromise on that since it isn’t much different than the case now.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:56 am
==Chicago politicians don’t fear a high murder rate, they fear a population with the courage and means to tell them to back off.==
The “means” to tell them to back off? What exactly are you saying here?
Comment by Roamin' Numeral Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:57 am
Because they are barred under both federal and state laws from possessing guns, guns get into the hands of previously convicted criminals through illegal transfers.
There are other sorts of “disqualified” persons not yet convicted of a crime. However, all of their guns are also possessed illegally.
How do the amendments to this bill hinder or prevent those illegal transfers? With the exception of Amendment 29, I don’t see that they do. I have other problems with this one, in that failing the record the “unique identification number” gets a boost from “petty offense” to Class 4 Felony, skipping everything between.
Comment by Jeeper Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:59 am
M O’mally
I don’t want to start anything. I am curious why you are more concerned with a law abiding, background checked, and trained citizen then the criminals and gangbangers that committed 500+ murders in your city last year. I am actually curious i have seen the same kind of comments and even more severe by other comenters and i am very curious what logic leads you there?
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 11:00 am
M
And by the way i am not condoning “The Patriots” presence especially the racial overtones. However there are Cranks everywhere and most of them don’t care about laws they don’t like.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 11:02 am
Hey, “Patriot”–I live and work in Chicago and even use public transit, and I can’t even imagine what it would be like to live the way you say I do. Maybe you’re scared but not all of us–or even most of us–would want to live that way.
Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 11:03 am
presence should say premise
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 11:06 am
- keeping white peeople living in fear -
I’m white, I grew up in central IL, I live in Chicago now, I don’t live in fear. I actually kind of feel like taking a nice walk through the city without carrying a gun, if only the weather were nicer. Oh well, spring is around the corner.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 11:08 am
Ok, the mailers and tv ads can be twisted on each issue, however in general, (and correct me if I”m wrong) the majority of people (including the suburbs) are actually opposed to conceal-carry even though the courts have ruled. The language might have been tricky, but the overarching issues are still the same. The majority of people want stricter gun laws than the proponents do and the entire thing is a sticky wicket right now.
Comment by Ahoy! Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 11:08 am
MB,
I think the parking lot thing can be worked out because it has to be worked out. It is too broad of a provision and I think the supporters know that. Home rule and RTA are more problematic for the pro-gun crowd because of the roll calls there. Even Todd said in the committee hearing last week that he’d never say never on compromising a prohibition on RTA trains/buses.
My initial review of the roll call on amendment 27 tells me there are a few votes that could switch if the heat gets too high. Rich is telling me today that pre-empting Home Rule might only need 60 votes. So it all depends upon that vote threshold required and how many “extra” votes Phelps and Todd can round up.
I count 7 Dems and 3 GOP Reps who are about to feel some major heat. We’ll see if it matters.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 11:10 am
===the majority of people (including the suburbs) are actually opposed to conceal-carry===
The last statewide poll I saw had it as a plurality, not a majority…
Do you believe the Second Amendment includes the right to carry concealed weapons in public?
Yes 39.5%
No 49.7%
Other/Don’t know 10.8%
http://paulsimoninstitute.org/images/PDF/spring2013/firearms.pdf
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 11:15 am
When Illinois gets a CCW law, it will not result in hordes of newly armed criminals. It will reduce (possibly eliminate) the arms disparity between the criminal element and the law abiding.
The variations on civil armageddon predicted by those opposed have not happened in the other 49 states. What is so special about Illinois that we will descend into Dante’s Inferno when NONE of the other states has?
I seriously do not understand though I am trying. Illuminate me, please.
Comment by Jeeper Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 11:21 am
Mason,
Conceal carry and gang bangers are not mutually exclusive. I’ve worked in the criminal enforcement area in Chicago so I am concerned about both. People who post like the Patriot seem to be against any laws, such as gun registration and mandatary backround checks, which would help reduce crime IMO. New York, Switzerland have strict laws which seem to work. Lastly, I am concerned about the cost of shootings by conceal carry. If the shooter injures a bystander, that bystander is now going to have to hire a lawyer and sue the shooter, and if the shooter does not have money to cover s judgment, the injured is out of luck. And one last thing, the murder numbers in Chicago has gone up since the McDonald case that was suppose to increase safety.
Comment by M O'Malley Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 11:25 am
I don’t get the mass transit issue at all.
Where are you going with your gun on mass transit? To work downtown? I doubt many buildings are going to let you in the door. Same with shops, restaurants, etc.
Even the Phelps bill anticipates enough sensitive areas that going about your business armed would not be practical using mass transit.
In reality, you’re going to need a car to leave it behind and locked up in the course of daily life.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 11:32 am
===In reality, you’re going to need a car to leave it behind and locked up in the course of daily life.===
Agreed Word, which is why the ban on parking lots is goofy and counter-productive.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 11:33 am
=== This is about power and Chicago politicians keeping white peeople living in fear, and the minorities under their thumb. This is why the 2nd amendment exists. Chicago politicians don’t fear a high murder rate, they fear a population with the courage and means to tell them to back off. ===
Patriot, you have no idea what you are talking about in terms of what people in Chicago are thinking. I live in Chicago. The number of homicides in my neighborhood in the last year? There were 0. If you broaden the definition of my neighborhood to include an adjacent neighborhood, there was 1. We aren’t living in fear. There isn’t gun violence. The majority of people do not want or see the need for concealed carry. This is true for many people in other Chicago neighborhoods and suburbs.
The real issue here isn’t about gang violence or gangbangers with guns. No type of carry law is going to alleviate that type of violence. If you think it will, you are delusional, and obviously have no idea about how these criminals operate.
The real issue here is simple. Now that the Courts are finally starting to address the scope of the 2nd Amendment (after 220 years of being silent on the issue), what can the State do to enact a law that reflects the wishes of most Illinoisans while complying with the Constitution. That is the issue. Get off your high horse and get rid of your God complex. Chicagoans do not want your way of life!
Comment by Fred's Mustache Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 11:35 am
Patriot, your “means” comment sounds like a threat. And there is statistical evidence, Australia for one.
Mason Born, a “ditto” isn’t appropriate here, but I agree with O’Malley too…I don’t want Patriot going about his day, anywhere near me, with a loaded and hidden weapon.
Let’s talk politics. The NRA and the ISRA are not gonna outflank the Speaker. Tuesday was a brilliant move, but also a helpful one. Rich points out a lot of the advantages, like protection, better understanding, and more.
Sacia was incredibly silly. Few can pull off that kind of tirade. He isn’t one of them.
Comment by mongo Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 11:37 am
I am curious why when a poll comes out that shows a trend against guns, that the ~600 people polled is sufficient.
However, when a poll is released that shows a majority are unfavorable of Rahm Emanuel’s performance, the ~600 is far too small of a pool to believe.
Comment by TRL WGN 1 Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 11:38 am
M O’M
I can see your point (may not agree but i see) except to the last one you know as well as i do that McDonald had absolutely nothing to do with the spike you are dealing with right now. Right now chicago is front lines in the a drug war between rival gangs and cartels. to be honest i am just glad they haven’t started shipping truly heavy weapons (Machine guns, RPG’s etc.) to Chicago like they use in Mexico. We disagree as to the items you think will help but you are entitled to your opinion. I wish i knew how to stop the mess in Chi town right now. Short of having Force Recon and some Seals ventilating Guzman and his competition. The problem to me is this if all guns in U.S. were rounded up and disposed of these Cartels would have their “soldiers” rearmed in a week. After all they Move Tons of highly illegal cargo daily that is much more sensitive than a firearm.
As for cost of shooting by CCW holders so far it hasn’t been a huge issue to best of my knowledge. In fact most people never have to fire the weapon usually presenting the weapon causes criminals to flee. Thank you for a honest response.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 11:41 am
I watched at least half of the debate from home yesterday. When the batch of amendments were pulled en masse, one of the sponsors didn’t get the memo and made a brief stink about it, it was a bit humorous to hear.
Sacia is my rep, I never really liked him due to his big-government nanny state anti-drug stance, and the whole whiny “move my business to Wisconsin” thing a while ago, but I know now how solidly 2nd-A he is, so I guess I can deal with some of the rest. He sounds cool for an old guy.
I always figured since he is former FBI that he would be more anti gun.
It was a day of letting the D’s have their moment, it will be interesting to see what goes to the governor.
Comment by CarrollCounty Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 11:47 am
mongo
Talking politics. i think while MJM has a disgusting amount of control in the house i think the 7th changed quite a bit. I do think we will see some compromise but i think the frame work is the Phelps bill one way or another. I actually think MJM is less strident on this then is portrayed just from the Fax and etc. As i said i think yesterday was to point out that for his side while 997 isn’t great it is closer to what they want then most thought. I could be wrong but that is my take. AS for the CCW carriers can you agree there is a lot of difference between “The Patriot” and most applicants who will receive a permit. as for Sacia guy is a hot head idjit.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 11:51 am
Look, people. There is nothing to be afraid of. Not one state has repealed their concealed carry laws because they have not led to any increase in crime!! It’s a no brainer. Please tell me one other city with CCW that has these typse of shootouts on trains and buses with LEGAL PERMITTED gun carriers?
Comment by OakPark Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 11:56 am
M O’Malley: Gun registration always comes up in these debates as “reasonable” or “effective.” It is neither.
Assuming that I am not a criminal (which is the case for the vast majority of gun owners), how does registering my gun(s) influence the crime rate? If my gun(s) and crime do not intersect, then registering my gun(s) will not influence crime in the least.
Gun registration cannot tell police anything useful to a criminal investigation about a gun or its owner until the gun or the owner are found at or near the scene of a crime. Even then, it is after the fact information so it cannot reduce crime.
Opening up the ISP “instant background check” line to every seller makes sense, as in Amendment 29 (IIRC). Indeed, many have suggested this from the initial debate concerning the FOID law in the 1960s. Boosting the penalty for forgetting to record the “unique identifying number” from “petty offense” to “Class 4 felony” makes no sense to me.
Comment by Jeeper Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 11:56 am
- the ~600 is far too small of a pool to believe. -
Read closer next time, the issue is new, untested internet polls vs. time tested phone based polling.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 12:12 pm
“Jeeper” has it spot-on. Armageddon is not going to occur because law-abiding citizens can more openly carry guns. The majority of murders, rapes, armed-robberies, etc. are committed by gang members that obtained their guns illegally or nut jobs that wouldn’t pass a psych evaluation.
Folks, we need to stop living in fear and be realistic. I understand why those riding the Metra in Chicago wouldn’t want guns on public transportation but I don’t think it’s that big a deal in Springfield where we’re not packed in like sardines. I also understand why some feel strongly there should not be guns on campus but would there have been fewer dead if someone at NIU would have had a gun to shoot back with? No doubt it is a complicated issue, exacerbated by by the diverse populations and cultures in our state. That is why it is better to make the concealed carry bill more open with less restrictions and provide for more local control, giving any business or building the opportunity to post “no guns”; thereby self-regulating in a way that is best for them.
We need less “my way is the only way” and more “I’m OK and you’re OK”.
Comment by Both Sides Now Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 12:14 pm
===the majority of people (including the suburbs) are actually opposed to conceal-carry===
The last statewide poll I saw had it as a plurality, not a majority…
You’re correct and I was wrong. I was 4/10 of a percent off the State wide poll results. I could be equally wrong a on the suburban numbers, but I’m guessing it was a majority. I could not find the cross tabs.
Comment by Ahoy! Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 12:23 pm
Jeepr, registering your gun will help solve crimes, which I assume you agree is important to provide justice to the victim of gun crimes, no?
Second, registration combined with laws requiring to report your stolen gun will reduce straw purchases, where gang bangers are currently getting their weapons. New York, Switzerland, and California have strict gun laws with lower homicide rates than Chicago.
Third, and I agree, the FOID system should be an instant check.
Comment by M O'Malley Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 12:26 pm
To add to Jeeper’s comments regarding gun registration. A registered gun can quickly become an unregistered gun by removing the serial number. So what does registration do in the end?
Comment by 332bill Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 12:27 pm
Also, for all the talk about gun violence in Chicago, Illinois consistently ranks in the bottom half (often the bottom 5 or 10) of states in gun deaths per capita. Keep that in mind when the right wing is touting Chicago’s gun violence as a need to implement looser gun laws. It’s awful and needs to stop, but even that is not bringing down our State’s rankings in gun violence to those with more relaxed gun laws.
We would also have even better data on gun violence if Congress was not systematically preventing the CDC and the ATF from collecting and publishing better data.
Comment by Ahoy! Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 12:40 pm
M O’m
Registering my gun will not help solve crimes. In order for your supposition to work it has to be stolen or sold first. Which makes it an illegal gun. At best registration would make straw purchasing more difficult but no where near impossible. For example i went to Joes gun shop and my car was robbed while i stopped for lunch they stole 27 guns. It again comes down to Chicago’s problem. You have at least 2 multi-billion dollar Criminal enterprises fighting a war on your streets for control.
Never forget corellation does not imply Causation. TX has looser gun laws than Chicago and a lower crime rate as well as several other states all with CCW.
I agree on the foid.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 12:46 pm
Willie Cochran wants to put GPS devices into guns, and my alderman wants gun owners to have to buy insurance so if they wound an innocent bystander they’ll be able to pay for treatment.
Does anyone think these are bad ideas?
Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 1:00 pm
No matter what Mr Cochran and Cheryl’s alderman want, I don’t envision gangbangers bring in their guns for a free GPS retrofit, nor going to State Farm or “The General” for state-minimum pistol liability ins.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 1:10 pm
Cheryl
Yes i think bad ideas. a.(gps) Technically expensive and difficult at best there aren’t a whole lot of spare room in most handguns. which is also why during Fast and Furious no gps was used. This also adds a significant amount to the cost of the firearm.
b.(insurance) Cost for those who own firearms. Since Firearm ownership is a right the proposal for insurance results in depriving the poor of that right.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 1:11 pm
JJJS
Darn it man quit using LOGIC.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 1:12 pm
I have a usable self-defense handgun that is over 100 years old.
It seems to have worked just fine since it was made, without GPS technology.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 1:19 pm
M O’Malley: == …registering your gun will help solve crimes… ==
Because I am NOT a criminal, and MY gun(s) (if I had any) do not intersect with crime, the answer is a resounding NO. It is a truism that the guns involved with crimes BELONG TO CRIMINALS not lawe abiding citizens. Again, registering MY gun(s) will NOT affect the crime stats at all.
OR could you show they would considering they are not found at the scene or brandished to passers-by??
==…, which I assume you agree is important to provide justice to the victim of gun crimes, no? ==
I do not argue that solving crime is unimportant only that is -not- helped by making me register guns -not- used in crime.
== Second, registration combined with laws requiring (you) to report your stolen gun will reduce straw purchases… ==
Perhaps. Even so, knowing a gun has been stolen does help police find it -before- it turns up at a crime scene. So, how does this help?
Comment by Jeeper Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 1:23 pm
Sacia - “because people in chicago” (or did he say your people?) “are having too many kids.”
Interesting he chose that particular analogy. One might say he was playing right into good old fashioned Republican myths of dependancy, welfare, etc. etc.
I’m not saying he was…just that perhaps at that late hour he slipped.
Comment by have issues Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 1:36 pm
What would GPS look like inside/outside/attached to a small revolver or small-frame semi-auto?
I can imaging nothing there that couldn’t get picked out with the blade of a knife, nor conveniently, innocently, disabled by “accidently” placing the [unloaded!] firearm in a microwave oven for 8 seconds on “high”.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 1:38 pm
Cheryl-
How do you power GPS in a handgun for an extended period? My phone has GPS, but the battery only lasts a few days if I turn off all other services and leave it on standby.
Also, what infrastructure tracks the guns with GPS? Does any police force/government agency have the manpower/money to do that?
In addition, the Supreme Court I believe requires a warrant to put a GPS device on your car and track your movements for an extended period - how would that mesh with tracking firearms, most of which won’t be used in a crime?
On insurance, one big problem is many of the insurance proposals want to requie coverage for “willful” acts - i.e., including wrongful acts, which to my understanding, no insurer covers.
Comment by mjrothjr Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 1:46 pm
Sacia is one of the most pleasant, positive, intelligent people I have ever met. It is my uninformed, speculative opinion that his frustration with the goofiness of Springfield is showing.
The shrillness of both sides of the CC issue is nearly unbearable.
Comment by Freeze up Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 1:57 pm
It is a little irionic people who “don’t live in fear” express fear of people living hundreds of miles away that don’t even own a conceal and carry weapon. It sounds like people living in “safe” Neighborhoods feel like kids getting killed in “bad” neighborhoods is just not their problem.
If you don’t live in fear, I will pick a street in your city for you to walk tonight at 2:00 am and you can pick a street in my city for me to walk. If you are not willing to walk on any street, you live in fear, you just have the means to avoid the problem. But why not try to help the people who can’t afford it with simple cost efficient measures that work instead of trying to violate constitutional rights of people, most of which never go to Chicago.
Chicago could easily get guns off the street with a policy of stop and frisk. It is constitutional and effective to get illegal guns off the street.
Comment by the Patriot Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 1:58 pm
“The Patriot” wants warrantless searches.
How patriotic.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:02 pm
–If you don’t live in fear, I will pick a street in your city for you to walk tonight at 2:00 am and you can pick a street in my city for me to walk.–
Aren’t you the guy who said he packs a gun walking his kids to school in the morning?
If not, my apologies. If so, I’m not sure you’re the best judge of who is living in fear.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:08 pm
Yesterday’s hearing reinforced to me that most of the anti-gun people really don’t have a solid understanding of firearms, the issues, or the realities of how they all interact. They are just going by emotion.
Comment by Logic not emotion Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:09 pm
Patriot, dude - you’re not helping the cause.
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:09 pm
Really Logic,
Most comments by the pro gun people here show me that they are scared little boys who think they need a weapon to ward off some non-existent threat.
Now that we’ve insulted each other, should we move on to substance?
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:12 pm
- express fear of people living hundreds of miles away -
I certainly don’t. Y’all are the ones afraid to go outside without packing, why would I be afraid of you?
Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:18 pm
Cheryl, with regard to your comment ” y alderman wants gun owners to have to buy insurance so if they wound an innocent bystander they’ll be able to pay for treatment.”
I think it is a bit ridiculous. All it would cover is accidental discharge. Is there a lot of that going on?
All it does is add an extra expense for gun owners, with no real benefit.
With all due respect to your Alderman, I don’t think he’s spoken to anybody in the insurance industry.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:20 pm
STL, one regular commenter in particular has posted several times about his concerns and fears about people from downstate carrying in Chicago.
Choosing to carry has very little to do with fear, it has everything to do we preparedness. Some people can’t or don’t want to discern the difference.
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:23 pm
Ken that’s not quite right.
What I’ve repeatedly said is that I am more concerned about the downstate guy (i.e. Pat) who is terrified on Michigan Ave. than I am of gangbangers.
It was about context.
On a day to day basis I don’t give either of them much thought.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:25 pm
Skeeter, you weren’t the person to which I was referring.
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:27 pm
- one regular commenter in particular -
Sure wasn’t me, and “the wannabe Patriot” is the one painting in broad strokes.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:28 pm
“Choosing to carry has very little to do with fear, it has everything to do we preparedness.”
Sure Ken. You are not afraid.
So tell me, Ken. When a gangbanger sticks a gun in your back, what’s your plan? How’s that gun going to do anything other than get stolen?
Admit it, Ken. You are afraid. We all know. It is OK.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:29 pm
Skeeter
You really aren’t arguing that it is better to give in to a criminal than to resist right?
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:32 pm
Patriot, don’t worry, there’s plenty of stop-and-frisk in Chicago and the Metro area.
It’s just not a reported metric like it is in New York (very controversial there, by the way, as far as rights and effectiveness).
My 18 and 20-year-old sons’ black friends crack jokes about getting stopped for DWB in the western burbs. They’ve all eaten the prowler’s hood more than once while going to the movies in Melrose Park or Johnny’s Beef in Elmwood Park.
Put it this way: there’s a stretch of Thatcher Road along the Forest Preserve that’s a quick way to get from Randolph to North.
The posted speed limit is 25. Everyone drives 40 to 50. In 25 years, I’ve never been stopped for speeding. Everyone I’ve seen stopped was DWB.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:33 pm
But we are getting off track.
A few interesting points from last night –
1. The idea of the GOP that it was a waste of time is interesting. They had to move forward. The court required it. It was either do it publicly or do it behind closed doors.
2. The GOP objections to having to vote on this is sort of unbecoming. They don’t want responsibility. If you don’t want to have to vote, either vote present or find a different line of work.
3. Yesterday people asked about amendments that were in contradiction. I sure looks like that is exactly what happened. That doesn’t make anybody look good. The same people that got us the pension crisis can’t even vote consistently on an issue in one night.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:34 pm
Skeeter, two things -
1. You’re exactly right about the commercial insurance implications.
2. I try to keep my head out of my backside enough to not allow myself to be put in the position of having a gangbanger get that close to me. It’s called “situational awareness”, and it’s as much a part of preparedness as is CCW.
And, no - I am not afraid. Really. Alert, yes - but not afraid, armed or not.
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:34 pm
Jeeper,
If you promise that nobody will ever steal your gun, then you don’t have to register it. And full disclosure, I own weapons and would be happy to register it. It seems you do not have much experience with the victims of gun violence and those that have to deal with the aftermath.
Comment by M O'Malley Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:35 pm
Mason,
I think the odds of successfully using a gun in a mugging are ridiculously small.
There are certain times that gun can be used for self defense. In your own home against an invader is at the top of the list.
In the car against a potential carjacker (assuming you see him coming) is another.
However, they just don’t work against muggings and the likely result is, at best, that the mugger takes the gun.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:37 pm
=“The Patriot” wants warrantless searches.
How patriotic.=
Sketter showing your lack of understanding again. Words mean something. A frisk is not a warrantless search.
Comment by Leave a Light on George Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:37 pm
I mean Skeeter…
Comment by Leave a Light on George Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:38 pm
I need to read up on Terry Stops. What’s allowed, and what needs to predicate one?
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:39 pm
Skeeter: Point taken. Insults from either side - even if they’re largely based on reality - don’t help.
Not intending this as an insult; but it appeared to me that many of the sponsors of the anti-second amendment bills had not thoroughly considered their potential, real world implications. On the flip side, some of the second amendment supporters went to pretty extreme lengths to illustrate the potential negative ramifications of those amendments.
Comment by Logic not emotion Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:41 pm
@ Skeeter:Admit it, Ken. You are afraid. We all know. It is OK.
As though your drive by comments are any less ignorant and fearful. Consistantly you try to portray those who wish to CC as downstate undesirables with nothing more than bloodlust on their minds.
When you manage to get both your ignorance and uncontrolled fear of the unknown under control, come back and try again.
But since you are on a roll, please provide some details of other states that have experienced a rash of LEGAL CC’rs in Iowa, Indiana, Wisconsin, Florida )or any of the other 49 states that allow it) suddenly pulling out their concealed firearms and shooting down the civilians that are perceived actually med students (or anyone for that matter).
There are plenty of people that would benefit from the ability to protect themselves from threats that are real. That you choose to pretend that every threat is fantasy and anyone that wishes to have some measure of protection is crazy is rather telling of your own level of fear.
Comment by How Ironic Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:41 pm
Ken,
I haven’t spent much time recently looking at standard homeowners policies.
My recollection though is that a standard homeowners policy would cover an accidental discharge of a weapon whether the owner is in the home or elsewhere.
Is that your understanding?
Again, there is a lot of talk about insurance as if it would make a difference, but most losses that would be covered by some required policy are already covered.
However, most actual gun injuries (deliberate shootings) would never be covered.
The insurers would have to write some brand new type of coverage.
I haven’t similar coverage anywhere, so it would a nightmare for underwriters.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:42 pm
Skeeter
I think a lot of the amendments i read were not just conflicting they were worded so poorly, such as property adjacent and near, that the amendments seemed designed to be voted against. I think there was a lot of Politics played out in them. If we had straight amendments that were clear as to what was required a lot of those votes might have been a lot higher totals. I do think this made the Phelps bill look better to both sides. A lot of the complaints from pro side was that they were giving up too much last night showed just how much they could have given up. For the Anti side i don’t know that most of them knew how much was already dealt with in the phelps bill or that support was that strong. I think either way we look at it Phelps bill will be the final but it may very well not look like id did monday.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:42 pm
How Ironic,
Let me get this right — you think you need a gun.
I walk around pretty much anywhere thinking I don’t need a gun.
But I’m the one living in fear?
How ironic.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:45 pm
Skeeter
don’t know that you can say most muggings even. The example you give is correct if you are taken unawares. However Criminals as a general rule are cowards and most cases of defensive uses of weapons involve the “victim” presenting the weapon. now i grant you i am relying on individuals to have common sense which is becoming less common.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:46 pm
Mason,
If you are walking down the street and somebody sticks a gun in your back, what is your plan?
Are you going to spin around and open fire?
Seriously, it just doesn’t seem to be effective.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:51 pm
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/video/video-pizza-delivery-driver-shoots-1-of-2-armed-robbers-during-hold-up/#
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:55 pm
The 2nd amendment doesn’t exist for your subtle threats of murdering politicians.
Sure, it might reduce the “arms disparity” you claim exists, but that has no significant effect on crime. Crime is a multi-faceted issue that CC has little to no effect on if done properly. However, the Wild West threat of anti-CC becomes a crime increaser (homicides) when there are extremely lax restrictions.
http://www.uwplatt.edu/~wiegmake/Intro_Files/CJ%20-%20paper%20example.pdf
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=R1
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 3:03 pm
todd, i would guess that most of the anti posters here do not read the “armed citizen” which is the first section i turn to when the magazine (paper type:) is received.
Comment by wizard Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 3:12 pm
From the Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Victim and offender are likely to have had a prior relationship as family members, intimates, or acquaintances. Victims of rape and sexual assault report that in nearly 3 out of 4 incidents, the offender was not a stranger.” Unless gang members are your social group, street gangs aren’t running around raping.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/SOO.PDF
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 3:16 pm
@Todd
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/ccwprivatecitizens.pdf
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 3:20 pm
@ Skeeter:
Let me get this right — you think you need a gun.
(Actually I own a gun. Several)
I walk around pretty much anywhere thinking I don’t need a gun.
(Fantastic. Your desire to not own a gun, or carry a gun is a personal choice that does in no way reflect the views or rights of others)
But I’m the one living in fear?
(Who’s ‘living in fear’ here? I own a gun for sport. I take my kids shooting. Even if CC comes to IL, I won’t be getting one because I don’t want one. YOU however, break out in hives everytime you think of someone from Effingham coming to Chicago, with the unwarrented and foolhardy belief they are going to mistake a med student for a terrorist. Your words, not mine)
How ironic.
(Not really)
If you don’t want a gun, don’t have one. But until you stop generalizing about gun owners, and their motivations for wanting a firearm, or CC people will not take your drive by comment seriously.
Comment by How Ironic Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 3:29 pm
M O’Malley: You -cannot- serious about ==If you promise that nobody will ever steal your gun, then you don’t have to register it.==
How does registering a gun which is later stolen help the police find or even identify it -before- it turns up at the scene of another crime? Asserting that is does is just wrong. A report of the theft is no more helpful -before- it turns up again.
Neither registration to the lawful owner nor the lawful owner reporting it stolen will help prevent future crimes using that gun.
Either will establish ownership -prior- to the theft so the police can return it when it is no longer needed as evidence.
Continued assertion that you believe registration or nearly instantaneous reporting of its theft will prevent crime or aid in solving subsequent crimes involving it does not make it true.
Comment by Jeeper Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 3:29 pm
–The majority of murders, rapes, armed-robberies, etc. are committed by gang members that obtained their guns illegally or nut jobs that wouldn’t pass a psych evaluation.–
Is there a “psych evaluation” for gun ownership that I’m unaware of? Are you suggesting there should be?
Let’s try to keep on topic. It’s not gun ownership, it’s not hunting, it’s conceal-carry in the public square.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 3:30 pm
How Ironic,
So let me get this right.
1. You are strongly pro CC.
2. When CC passes, you will not CC.
OK. Whatever.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 3:32 pm
Pecinct
I looked over that 208 cases spanning many years. in FL as of July there were 950,000 permits issued and in effect according to FL dept of Ag. 208/950,000 gives a grand total of .02% or .2 people per 100,000. Now for those that didn’t read PC stats those 208 range nationwide so it is considerably less than .2 people per 100k. Now nation wide the murder rate is 4.7 per 100k. It appears that using the violence prevention center data CCW holders are more than 23 times LESS likely to commit crimes. Seems like a win for the state.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 3:36 pm
How Ironic,
Can you explain how “I’m more concerned about the guy from Effingham than about some gang member” translates to “breaking out in hives”?
Do you speak some new language down there?
Are you from Effingham? You seem to take this extremely personally. Should I focus on Watseka instead? Would that make you feel better?
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 3:36 pm
Gun registration does nothing good, history proves that. If I am a law abiding citizen and my gun is stolen I report it to the police with the make, model and serial number. Then when they stop and frisk someone that has a gun they can find out if it was stolen. If I have an illegal gun I won’t register it and I won’t report it. Why burden honest citizens and cost taxpayers millions with such schemes? Use the resources toward crime control! BTW FOID cards are out dated and expensive - do away with them. And while you are at it - do away with the waiting period, especially when I take a gun in and trade it for another one or already have one at home.
Comment by G.I. Joe Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 3:36 pm
Skeeter, my Personal Lines experience is pretty stale but my recollection is yes - that most Homeowners and Renters policies would cover accidental acts absent any optional exclusions. I’m also not aware of any movement by ISO to file firearms related coverage form restrictions in the wake of all the CCW changes across the county the last several years, which would lead me to believe it’s a non-issue from a tort standpoint.
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 3:38 pm
===Are you from Effingham? You seem to take this extremely personally. Should I focus on Watseka instead? Would that make you feel better?===
Skeeter, maybe it *was* you after all.
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 3:50 pm
===You really aren’t arguing that it is better to give in to a criminal than to resist right?
Who doesn’t argue this? I’m fine with conceal carry, but if someone has a gun or knife or whatever with an advantage, give them your wallet or watch or whatever. The vast, vast majority of time they will take off. I don’t know of a police force in the United States that would tell you different or anyone who deals with self defense tactics. If you are in Chicago it won’t be the most painful thing–waiting at the Sec of State facility to get a new license will be while trying to make small talk with people the cantina in Star Wars was modeled on will be the most painful.
Usually when you get mugged it’s because you weren’t paying attention or ignored something going on around you. That’s not always true, but generally if you are paying attention you can avoid the situation which should always be your first choice. Second choice, after the first didn’t work, give them what they want. Now, if you are paying attention and somehow can’t avoid it, a gun or other defense is fine, but usually, even dumb criminals are trying to get someone unaware and then it’s too late to do anything so give them what they want.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 3:52 pm
In terms of registration or whatever, there are two options that are a reasonable compromise to me
1) As Illinois requires, keep on file for 10 years who you sold a gun to
or/and
2) Require all sales go through a background check
The issue of wanting to know who had a gun is to stop straw sales and you do that by showing that someone is a straw purchaser by tracing guns back to them. Right now the clowns can claim the gun was stolen and I never reported it or I don’t remember who I sold it to–so the police couldn’t track down whether it was that guy or some guy that guy sold it to who sold it to the nice fellow with all the gang tattoos who seemed like a fine upstanding fellow.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 3:57 pm
—I’m also not aware of any movement by ISO to file firearms related coverage form restrictions in the wake of all the CCW changes across the county the last several years, which would lead me to believe it’s a non-issue from a tort standpoint.
Everything I understand is that your homeowner’s insurance personal liability should cover you. That might not be $1 million, but the average is like $250,000 which seems reasonable to me though $1 million wouldn’t cost much as a rider.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 4:00 pm
Arch
Read my second post. You see it all comes down to what they want. My wallet take it. Cash heck ask nice i may give you some without a gun. However there are times when what they want cannot be given. That is when the firearm you may or may not carry is invaluable.
BTW i find it interesting that you act as though being mugged was a part of life and really not that bad. When it happened to me i was mad enough to spit fire.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 4:02 pm
Arch
DO you have a link to where the personal liability on home owners is? i actually have a mil rider due to having one of those dogs everyone loves to hate. but assumed anything outside the house was on me.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 4:04 pm
“Skeeter, maybe it *was* you after all.
”
I thought so. For some reason, it seems to get under the skin of some people.
Apparently they don’t like it that I have more concern about them than about gang members. Not that I spend much time thinking about either.
I find the whole thing sort of funny.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 4:08 pm
But have you really examined that event, Mason? I too was held up on the ‘L’. It all boiled down to not paying attention, and my first knowledge of trouble was the snick of a blade followed by it touching my chin. Would you have had time to draw? And even if you did, if you were on the train, could you bring it to bear effectively? You survived your encounter. I did too. We both had these encounters without a weapon to change the way we thought at the moment. Talk about causative vs. correlative!
Comment by Springfieldish Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 4:14 pm
Fair enough–I missed your previous bit
===BTW i find it interesting that you act as though being mugged was a part of life and really not that bad. When it happened to me i was mad enough to spit fire.
I was madder at the DMV. But yes I was mad–I was being sarcastic about the DMV in the City of Chicago which is a truly awful experience. I don’t take it as an every day experience. Having lived in a central city for years, I’ve had one experience and while I wouldn’t say it’s my fault, I could have completely avoided it if I had been paying attention.
I don’t have a link, but pretty much the personal liability aspect of your insurance covers you for nearly all non-incredibly negligent things you do. For example, when Clinton had to pay out with Paula whatsername, it was the personal liability portion of his homeowner insurance that paid.
I am covered under mine if I’m sued for defamation as well–I keep meaning to get a bigger rider giving the number of times I’ve been threatened to be sued.
They obviously wouldn’t pay if you committed homicide, but for some sort of ‘accident’ it will cover most people. And that’s a case where you absolutely should check with your agent to make sure that’s consistent with your policy and not take random guy talking definitively on the internet as the last word.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 4:16 pm
Arch
Thanks for the info. Yes believe me i never take advice from internet but i would never have asked the State Farm guy if you hadn’t brought it to my attention.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 4:27 pm
I don’t know what I like more…the logical, fact-based debates on this topic or the melodramatic. It does make one think…even the goofy stuff. I will be both relieved and disappointed when something actually becomes law.
Comment by Charlatan Heston Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 4:30 pm
Yesterday I listened to Representative Mell give emotional testimony about how good citizens with guns would scare her to death and make her feel uncomfortable. She also stated that rapists don’t scare her and almost sounded like that never really happens anyway and would never happen to her.She also felt that spraying a can of mace on a bus is the best solution to thwarting crime on buses and trains.
Comment by benji Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 4:31 pm
===Thanks for the info. Yes believe me i never take advice from internet but i would never have asked the State Farm guy if you hadn’t brought it to my attention.
If I’m wrong, let me know.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 4:45 pm
Arch
Will do enjoy the rest of your day.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 4:53 pm
==I listened to Representative Mell give emotional testimony about how good citizens with guns would scare her to death and make her feel uncomfortable. She also stated that rapists don’t scare her and almost sounded like that never really happens anyway and would never happen to her.–
Wow. She said that? Shout it from the rooftops, you’re on to something here
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 5:00 pm
How had can this be? The ENTIRE United States (exception Illinois) has concealed (or open) carry laws. Form a committee on the task of consulting with the other 49 states to ascertain what has worked and what has not.
It shouldn’t be any problem whatsoever with crafting a hybrid bill based on the successes and failures of the 49 states which currently respect and honor the 2nd amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Madigan and Clowns are dysfunctional at best.
Instead of Illinois, how about Illannoyed. Instead of Land of Lincoln, Land of Flunkin. Actually there is a better way of spelling Flunkin.
Comment by Munchkin Madigan Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 5:17 pm
Munch,
What do you think they were trying to do last night?
They had a series of proposals and went thumbs up or down.
Would you prefer they do it behind closed doors?
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 5:25 pm
–How had can this be? The ENTIRE United States (exception Illinois) has concealed (or open) carry laws. Form a committee on the task of consulting with the other 49 states to ascertain what has worked and what has not.–
Blah, blah, blah. Another ignorant 49er.
Run the New Jersey conceal-carry law as a bill. Happy?
How about this? We “form a committee to take the task to ascertain..” blah, blah blah.
They’re working on it. What do you think they were doing?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 5:35 pm
@Archpundit:
Illinois does not have a Department of Motor Vehicle Services per se. The Illinois Secretary of State still handles licenses, plates and car titles. DMV is a term used in other states where there is a separate bureaucracy providing those services.
Beyond concealed carry laws, I was astounded that a couple of Eastern states opened hunting in areas close to residential properties as a matter of necessity a couple of years ago when some of the wildlife was getting to close for comfort. The deer population was one matter, but when New Jersey declared that bear hunting was legal again in the suburbs. Oh, my!
Comment by Esquire Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 5:53 pm
No Skeeter- what I prefer is that the Chi-town Dems take a pragmatic approach rather than their irrational fearful unrealistic demands for total gun control which will negate any reasonable allowance of a concealed carry law.
It’s painfully obvious to downstate Illinois (and the rest of the country) how well Illinois’s existing gun control laws are working for Chicago. Can we take the blinders off?
Comment by Munchkin Madigan Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 5:55 pm
So Phelps is under control of Chicago Dems? That’s news. Who is going to tell him? He won’t like that.
Because you realize, of course, that the Phelps plan was approved last night, right? You are not just another nut rambling on about how much he hates Chicago? You’ve actually read the news, right?
Poor Phelps. He thought he was an independent voice, but MM knows the truth.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 5:59 pm
Actually Skeeter- no I didn’t know it passed. I haven’t had the time to read or watch the news since Monday.
I’m actually SHOCKED that any bills regarding ANYTHING has been passed with this bunch. I’m almost afraid to read what that they agreed to.
This website (pension & concealed carry) is the only reading I’ve had time for this week!
Comment by Munchkin Madigan Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 6:08 pm
–Beyond concealed carry laws, I was astounded that a couple of Eastern states opened hunting in areas close to residential properties as a matter of necessity a couple of years ago when some of the wildlife was getting to close for comfort.–
As Mr. Heston said, we have to arm ourselves to defeat the apes.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 6:10 pm
Why in the world would you comment without reading the story, MM?
Reading is good, my Chicago-hating friend.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 6:10 pm
I am still waiting for someone to tell me what states that instituted concealed carry over the past 20 years have experienced these wild west shootouts on public transportation by permitted carriers.
Comment by Oak Park Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 6:11 pm
Looks like working through all of these restrictions alone will take quite some time because there are SO many safety, practical, and political issues involved, let alone a final version which a Majority can actually agree about enough to pass! But those who are muttering that the PENsion crisis and Legislative gridlock surrounding THAT issue should take priORity now and be dealt with 1ST, before Conceal ‘n Carry, ARE CORRECT!!! Stop running from the HUGEST Problem Illinois faces right now and get ON with it! As the old sayin’ goes, People, “1ST Things 1ST!!!” U can all come back to “C & C” LAter! THAT’s not COSTING all of us $17 MILLION $ a DAY–a DAY…just thrown out the Window!!! Just outright Unconscionable….
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 6:15 pm
==I am still waiting for someone to tell me what states that instituted concealed carry over the past 20 years have experienced these wild west shootouts on public transportation by permitted carriers.==
You should know, by now, that no one says “Wild West shootouts” except those building little strawmen.
And you should know, by now, the greatest, most historic Wild West shootout of all time was when the duly-sworn Earp Boys went to disarm the Clanton Gang for illegally carrying firearms in Tombstone.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 6:17 pm
I commented on what little I read right here. I don’t have to read the encyclopedia to have an opinion. After reading the same old crap I had the urge to take a crap and you read it. So get over it. You are right on one thing though . . . . I do loath Chicago mentality. Go Cubs! Losers!!
Comment by Munchkin Madigan Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 6:23 pm
After all of this i think i will introduce an amendment barring arch, word, skeeter and a couple of others from getting carry permits….
Geeez
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 6:24 pm
What exactly did you read, MM?
Because Rich’s story included the following. You didn’t have to click on any of the links. It was right there:
“An amendment pushed by Rep. Brandon Phelps (D-Harrisburg), the leading House champion of concealed-carry, won a majority in the House.”
You know, if you calmed the heck down you might get rid of some of that hate.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 6:27 pm
Sure Todd, and then we can introduce legislation barring anybody from a CC permit who thinks Gerry McCarthy is like Bull O’Connor.
Anybody making that analogy wouldn’t do too well on a psych exam.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 6:29 pm
–After all of this i think i will introduce an amendment barring arch, word, skeeter and a couple of others from getting carry permits…. =
LOL, what have we done that the National Rifle Association would want to take away the civil rights for which they are fighting so hard?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 6:34 pm
- from getting carry permits… -
Feel free to add me, I don’t need to carry a gun around so I’m not scared all the time. I’m looking forward to poking fun at those that do.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 6:37 pm
Well, getting on an NRA enemies list is not exactly an exclusive club.
Surprisingly, just about everyone’s out to get them.
They’ve taken the list down from the NRA website, but the stories are still there on the google.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-nra-enemies-list-britney-hallmark-and-the-ywca-20130205,0,3908128.story
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 6:43 pm
“I doubt many buildings are going to let you in the door. Same with shops, restaurants, etc.”
Are they going to screen all their customers? That’s why its called “concealed” carry.
Comment by wishbone Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 7:53 pm
every gun control debate devolves into saving lives.. when no gun control will do much to prevent any of the crimes loss of life etc etc. prosecution , serving full sentences, programs to fight recidivism, proper reporting of mental health and easier access to mental health… they haaven’t spent ten minutes on those at debate
Comment by civil Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 8:53 pm
I don’t think we will actually see as many “no carry” signs in businesses as people seem to believe. In traveling all over the country, signs actually banning carry in various buildings are rare enough that I still get a bit of a jolt when I do see one … even at those places (a certain favorite resturant chain in the south, bars in Texas, some NFP stores in Missouri) that I know have them.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 9:01 pm
First, I do not want warrantless searches. But you cannot argue you need to infringe on the Constitutional rights of people living outside of the City when the City refuses to institute constitutionally tested methods of stopping people who look like they have a gun and after questioning see if they have one. C’mon.
Maybe it is not fair to generalize Chicago. But please give me the list of elected officials in Chicago who insisted on an up or down vote on conceal and carry in the legisature before the Court said is has to be done. You allowed the dictator to refuse to allow a vote when he had leverage and you lost. If Madigan had been reasonable and passed a bill to allow cook County to opt out or have more strict rules it may have stuck. But you cannot get around the fact communities where there are legal gun owners on every street are safer than Chicago.
Comment by the Patriot Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 9:30 pm
– You allowed the dictator to refuse to allow a vote when he had leverage and you lost.–
The Phelps c-c bill was voted on in the House in the last GA. It got 66 votes, I believe.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 9:41 pm
- stopping people who look like they have a gun -
Can you describe what this looks like, exactly?
Maybe draw a picture and link to it?
Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:55 pm
Mason Born, sorry got stuck at work. You said: AS for the CCW carriers can you agree there is a lot of difference between “The Patriot” and most applicants who will receive a permit.
I don’t disagree with that. I am concerned by the strident tone of the debate. This isn’t just a debate…our discussion does influence policy. If some commenters would at least hold themselves a bit, just a bit, please, just a bit, both sides, I am convinced, would see a middle ground.
Comment by mongo Thursday, Feb 28, 13 @ 12:55 am
Mongo
I understand where you are coming from and aggree in point. I thnk 2 things make the debate on this so heated. 1. is regional if you live downstate it seems like Chicago, who shares nothing in common with you, is trying to dictate your life. I myself have to reign it in when i here someone talk about MJM like he is anything other than the primary source of the mess state is in. I have to remember that if it is your issues MJM plays dictator to ram through you probably like him.
2. at least on comment boards everyone here is more or less anonymous so things you wouldn’t say in front of your kids just tumbles out.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Feb 28, 13 @ 5:30 am
Mongo
BTW i am not saying that the folks in Chicago don’t have their own regional biases at play. I just am not going to attempt to explain them since i am not from chicago.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Feb 28, 13 @ 7:26 am
I did not dream up the stop and frisk idea. terry v. ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889.
I guess proposing solution that has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States is a little scary forsome people. I do tend to overgeneralize and appologize for the reasonable people who live in Chicago. Unfortunately we all have to live with our elected officials who are our only voice.
I just don’t see how it is unreasable to try other legal approached before trying to rework laws that have been found unconstitutional. I don’t care about guns nearly as much as I care for the rule of law. I don’t own and assult rifle or a conceal and carry gun. But I do believe we have to abide by the laws including court rulings whether we like them or not.
Comment by the Patriot Thursday, Feb 28, 13 @ 8:54 am
Pat,
Stop and frisk is legal.
What you are discussing is not stop and frisk.
Pulling random people off the street to search them is the complete opposite of patriotism.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Feb 28, 13 @ 9:03 am
==Sure, it might reduce the “arms disparity” you claim exists…==
Of course it exists: Criminals are already carrying concealed weapons of all concealable types. They use these as tools to pry your possessions from your grip and transfer those possessions to themselves. In Illinois we are prohibited from leaving home with effective means of defense.
==…but that has no significant effect on crime. Crime is a multi-faceted issue that CC has little to no effect on if done properly.==
I say it does, so I want it; you say it does not so you oppose it. If it makes no difference, why do you oppose it? Why so vigorously?
That makes no sense unless you oppose ALL government actions/programs of dubious merit with equal vigor. Do you?
Comment by Jeeper Thursday, Feb 28, 13 @ 9:33 am