Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Julie Hamos’ nightmare
Posted in:
* Gov. Pat Quinn insisted yesterday that local communities should have the power to block people from carrying concealed weapons…
“I am not excited about this at all,” Quinn said about implementing concealed carry. “If this has to happen, it has to have the proper restrictions and limitations. … I think we should make sure it’s very tight and I think local communities, wherever they are, should have the option to make it as tight as possible in their community.”
* The Tribune looks at what’s going on…
The NRA’s Vandermyde predicted he could pass a bill to block Chicago, Cook County and bigger cities from enacting tighter restrictions than a statewide law. That would take 71 votes in the House, and a test run came close, garnering 67 votes.
Phelps said the practical reason to have a statewide set of concealed carry rules is so law-abiding gun owners can drive across Illinois without accidentally violating the laws of different communities while passing through.
House Majority Leader Currie, the longtime voice of the General Assembly’s anti-gun movement, doubted the House would give the NRA-backed legislation 71 votes — the expected requirement of a three-fifths majority needed for a statewide ban to supersede the home-rule powers of Chicago and other local governments.
“May” vs. “Shall” issue is one of the most important items on the agenda right now, to say the least. The NRA is adamant about a statewide standard. Democrats like Quinn are just as adamantly on the other side.
I wouldn’t make any definite plans for June just yet if I were you. There could be a veto if the GA and the governor wind up on opposing sides.
* Meanwhile, the Illinois State Rifle Association is still ginning up the troops…
URGENT ALERT – YOUR IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED
CHICAGO MACHINE MISREPRESENTS ISRA POSITION ON GUN CONTROL
The liars in Chicago City Hall are at it again. This time they are spreading misinformation claiming that the ISRA supports a very dangerous gun control bill.
WE NEED YOU TO HELP SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT
Anti-gun crackpot Rep. Michael Zalewski recently introduced HB 2265. This gun control bill would set mandatory 3-year jail terms for violating any gun control law. For example, forget to renew your FOID and you go to jail for 3 years. On the other hand, if you boost a liquor store with a knife, you might get a 6-month suspended sentence. You know what this is all about. You know this isn’t about crime – it’s about punishing lawful gun owners.
THE CHICAGO MACHINE IS LYING TO REPRESENTATIVES CLAIMING THAT THE ISRA SUPPORTS ZALEWSKI’S DRACONIAN GUN CONTROL BILL. THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE LIE. THE ISRA STEADFASTLY OPPOSES HB2265.
HERE IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO RIGHT THIS WRONG:
1. Call your State Representative. Politely tell the person who answers the phone that you are a law-abiding Illinois firearm owner and that you oppose HB2265. Tell them that you expect the Representative to vote “NO” on HB2265. Also tell the person that anyone who claims that the ISRA supports HB2265 is a liar. If you do not know who your state representative is, the Illinois State Board of Elections has a new interactive search page here:
www.elections.state.il.us/DistrictLocator/DistrictOfficialSearchByAddress.aspxIf you know who your representative is, you can find their contact info here:
www.ilga.gov/house/.2. Pass this alert on to your family and gun owning friends. Tell them to take action immediately.
3. Post this alert to any and all Internet Bulletin Boards or Blogs to which you belong.
REMEMBER – GUN CONTROL IS A DISEASE, YOU ARE THE CURE!
Zalewski is definitely an agressive gun control legislator. But a “crackpot”? Not.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 9:02 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Julie Hamos’ nightmare
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Everything you need to know about gun control in Illinois in one post:
1. Quinn rambles on and may try to block any deal but takes no significant role in getting legislation passed;
2. Todd takes a reasonable position and he’s got a court order to fall back on if his position is not accepted;
3. BFC still doesn’t seem to get that she lost in court;
4. ISRA scares the moderates.
That pretty much sums up every gun control story for the past year.
Comment by HaroldVK Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 9:08 am
Come June 8th they cant enforce the ban anymore… they better do something.
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 9:11 am
Quinn playing to his Chicago base
tick, tock …
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 9:12 am
It would be very interesting if Governor Quinn vetoed a bill passed by both houses of the GA and then the deadline set by the Seventh Circuit passed, allowing CC with FOID. Perhaps the GA leadership could warn Quinn of this consequence.
While I am not a fan of Rep. Zalewski, the good people of his district sent him to Springfield, so he deserves the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think he’s a crackpot; I put him in the same category as Sen. Jim Oberweis, who has the same qualification.
Comment by Non-ISRA Member Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 9:13 am
If Quinn wants to veto it, that’s fine. Come June 9, if it’s not a law by then, Quinn will be wishing he’d signed whatever came across his desk that at least had some kind of control over Concealed Carry Permit issuance.
Comment by GurgleGutz Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 9:14 am
am I drunk from last evening? cause the ISRA message looks very weird.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 9:17 am
I love when groups pull out the hyperbole. Let’s see. In this one “Urgent Alert” they called people liars, crackpots, and said gun control is a disease. That certainly endears those of us who remain rational to their cause.
As for the demand that locals have control? That’s certainly what you want. Hundreds of different standards for concealed carry. Banned here. Strap it on your waste for all to see there. Good idea guys.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 9:18 am
So what happens if on June 8 the Gov has not signed a bill?
Comment by Charlatan Heston Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 9:31 am
Illinois is too badly governed to handle this case. Let the ban expire and let Illinois join the rest of the other 49 states. Then elect people who know how to move forward.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 9:31 am
I guess we need an official definition of “crackpot”. Zalewski is certainly antigun and he wasted a lot of time introducing silly restrictions without understanding his own amendments. If there is a right to carry, it should be statewide. A local unit of government can’t decide to restrict other fundamental rights. Quinn and the Chicago machine is in a corner on this one.
Comment by Tequila Mockingbird Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 9:34 am
@Charlatan
The 180 day stay that the 7th circuit issued is lifted. Meaning the state will wind up unable to enforce its ban on any type of carry of a weapon. That is why the court gave Illinois 180 days, to come up with a licensing and registration system or a set of laws that allowed for some type of carry.
Remember, this is just about concealed carry. What the court said was that you could not just outright ban all forms of carry flat out. You could have licensing systems, permit systems, etc.
If they fail to pass a law, they cant enforce the ban on carry.
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 9:35 am
Quinn makes my point from yesterday. Even if everyone agrees on the rules, we do not have the infrastructure and ability to coordinate accross agencies to implement a meaningful system.
While the Simon list seems reasonable, it will take at least a year to fund and implement. That is in effect continuing the band and will not hold up.
The legislature needs to split this into two plans right now. The emergency bill and the permanent one. Emergency bill due by June 9 should allow only current foid card holders to conceal and carry. Maybe make age limit 21 or require foid holder for 3-5 years to keep people who have only legally owned a gun for a few weeks from carrying in public. Create list restrictions on where guns are banned, and provide private entities the right to ban guns on their premises.
Then get together on a full bill with a plan to implement more comprehensive background checks on a feasible timeline.
Comment by the Patriot Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 9:35 am
Under Quinn’s idea, are the locals going to get a share of the licensing fees to compensate them for the work it’ll take?
The tone of that action alert makes me think a crackpot sent it.
Comment by Cheswick Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 9:37 am
@Ron
Right…So CCW exists for those with FOID by default?
Comment by Charlatan Heston Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 9:51 am
Note the “polite” reminder. You think that the ISRA guys finally figured out that the Capitol secretaries are fed up with caustic cranks yelling at them?
Comment by David Ormsby Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 9:58 am
@charlatan
Basically, thoughj local laws at each level of gov could be an issue, you couldn’t be prosecuted under UUW.
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 9:58 am
I wouldn’t bet the farm on that June 9 date. Besides, if those who want conceal carry really believe that, why would they even want to pass a bill that would be more restrictive?
Among the 49 states, there are a number that allow a measure of local control. One size fits all doesn’t always work in a big state like Illinois, as proponents of conceal carry would surely agree regarding the status quo.
Comment by Wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:03 am
I think local communities, wherever they are, should have the option to make it as tight as possible in their community.”
This is not a new idea. It is the same historical attempt to deny urban residents the right to protect themselves. Why should those who live in the inner city not have the same rights as those in rural areas? Its not new. It is the history of gun control advocates. It is the history of controling people.
Comment by SO IL M Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:03 am
The future is already here , in Illinois, for the gun control advocates: don’t issue FOID cards in a timely manner. I know someone who’s been waiting since December for a FOID card.
Comment by Steve Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:05 am
non-ISRA Member-
“Rep. Zalewski, the good people of his district sent him to Springfield, so he deserves the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think he’s a crackpot; I put him in the same category as Sen. Jim Oberweis, who has the same qualification”
Comparing him to Oberweis has to be the epitome of concealed insults.
Comment by Statesman Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:12 am
way to go, PQ. glad to know early on that, assuming the GA can pass something, you are ready to screw it up. for starters, do you suppo9rt your lt govs list?
Comment by langhorne Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:13 am
@Word,
very few states have “local control” in the way Quinn is talking about. the majority (vast) are shall issue, state run programs. I think 9 are may issue with 1 of the may issue states acting as a defacto shall issue.
This is a big change for Illinois. But acting as if every local gov entity should be able to pass laws restricting anything they want with guns does nothing but create a nasty nightmare of laws just driving through illinois.
As far as a June 9th date and why we are excited? Why would we WANT to pass a bill?
Easy, we give up some things (we negotiated in good faith) to get state wide coverage. Training, live fire, deeper background checks, we pay for the classes and licensing fees, Gov buildings out of bounds as are Bars, Stadiums, etc, etc.
We are willing to have a decent law that keeps felons and those mentally incapable or unqualified from having guns from having and carrying them. The absolutism is on the other side that wants to maintain that Chicago (or any City) gets to ban guns or make whatever laws (with regards to guns) that they want.
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:14 am
Do these folks really think that legislators are going to think kindly of them when they unleash their members to scream at underpaid admins who have the bad luck to answer their phone calls?
I remember seeing secretaries in tears after these types of phone assaults.
Jerks.
Comment by soccermom Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:22 am
@soccermom
ISRA is often over the top in these things. I dont agree with this model/message (the whole you get more bees with honey thing…) Do I understand and back their positions on guns? for the most part yes. Do I agree with how they go about these things? no. I spend my time calling my reps asking them to vote they way I want them to vote and expressing my opinions. I dont need the ISRA for that and I cant control or influence anyone that is not my rep.
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:28 am
If Quinn could wrap himself around the concept that is a funcdamental civil right, then he might realize that what he wants is the equivalent of local control over voting rights, or local control over equal housing opportunities.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:50 am
I am an ISRA member, but find their messaging to be unintelligent and too aggressive. And I have repeatedly relayed that to ISRA.
Comment by Just Observing Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:53 am
Good for you Just Observing.
I don’t really want to disagree with Governor Quinn, but I don’t see how local control is even possible.
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:56 am
- local control over voting rights, or local control over equal housing opportunities. -
There is an enormous amount of local control over those very items.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 11:19 am
@STL
what local control of voting rights do you see?
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 11:29 am
Good Lord. The HAIR ON FIRE use of CAPS (no pun) automatically puts such users in the ‘potentially unstable’ category. Talk about shooting yourself in the ………
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 11:36 am
support cc but am no longer a member of isra or nra due to their over the top retoric and constant begging for dollars.
Comment by wizard Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 11:47 am
That’s great.
So now we can have more incidents like Sen. Trotter, who fogrgot to unpack his gun while driving from Springfield to O’Hare after working his security job (supposedly, not saying I buy it).
Now we can have all sorts of wonderful laws that conflict with each other in all sorts of wonderful counties and municipalities.
Can you imagine something as simple as driving across the state to meet some friends for a hunting trip over the weekend? Or at a shooting range somewhere on the other side of the state?
You would need a roadmap to the gun laws more than a roadmap to route.
A lot of otherwise innocent people with no ill intent could wind up with criminal records thanks to braod local control on this one.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 11:54 am
Just
I can second that sentiment that whoever is writing the e-mails needs to take a decent english comp class. Like you i agree with the positions but the tone is very off-putting.
As for the polite thing that has been in the last half dozen or so i have seen.
Ron pretty well sums up why people like me want a bill passed. Constitutional Carry sounds great in principle but we do want some REASONABLE restrictions as to background checks, training etc. The problem is a good reasonable bill was negotiated unfortunately those who have supported the ban somehow think that is the new starting point instead of the result of a lot of hard work at compromising.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 11:58 am
“fundamental civil right”
Funny. I haven’t seen the Supreme Court case that declared concealed carry a fundamental right. Maybe they will but they haven’t. Speaking of hyperbole . . .
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 12:02 pm
JJS, I think Justice Scalia can help you out here. From Heller:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.”
Comment by Wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 12:12 pm
Word:
Illinois law is not just a concealed weapon prohibition. It is a prohibition on all carry.
Now, how do YOU want carry in Illinois, open or concealed?
On June 9, with no action by the GA, prohibition on any carry goes out the window, and you get both kinds.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 12:30 pm
Word, knock it off. You selectivly quote Heller without the context. Try reading State v Reid which was cited by the court.
But then that would require real work and study.
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 12:33 pm
Formerly Known As…
You would simply pull the magazine and case the gun. There is nothing being proposed that would change the current transport law. In fact, it will likely remain the de facto way to transport guns for everyone without a CC permit.
That said, the local control argument is simply a back-door attempt at prohibiting carry all together. Get a county/may-issue model and no one in Chicago (except those that are connected, of course) will ever carry.
Comment by Slick Willy Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 12:35 pm
Todd, not sure what you mean. knock off quoting from the opinion?
Comment by Wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 12:44 pm
Slick
Pulling the mag won’t make you compliant. You would need to pull the weapon, clear the chamber, and put it in a case. to comply with current transport law. Talk about distracted driving.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 12:44 pm
Anyone want to bet Quinn thinks he can veto and then blame Lisa since she didn’t appeal it as he told her too?
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 12:45 pm
As I see it, the bill currently being considered has two major faults. First is the matter of the home rule preemption. I agree with others that “one size fits all” is a bad idea in this case. All home rule units of government should have the option to decide for themselves what is best for their locality.
Second is the part of the bill that states that
“Signs stating that the carrying of a concealed firearm is prohibited shall be clearly and conspicuously posted at every entrance of a building or premises…”
This wording means that those who like the status quo will need to pay for something they do not have now and do not want in the future. I think that it would be much better to have the signs at the entrance of a build that welcomes
concealed firearms. Put the costs where the benefits are not the other way around.
Comment by Small Town Tax Payer Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 12:59 pm
To clarify: it is reasonable to see a future where some local areas would require the case to be in the “back seat”, others require it to be “out of the driver’s reach”, others “in the trunk”, others requiring cases of certain size, material or other requirements, others requiring the gun and magazine in “separate cases”, etc.
Not necessarily for safety reasons per se, but simply because these are Illinois politicians we’re dealing with. Who knows what else they’ll come up with.
Implementing common standards, whatever they may be, seems to make more sense.
For example, I would argue the same for medical marijuana. Local control on that issue would likely also lead to a profligation of local differences and make criminals out of individuals who are truly doing their best to follow the rules and live their life without causing problems for themselves or others.
Whatever the standards are, they should apply as equally as possible on this.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 1:05 pm
MB-
No one with a shred of intelligence travels/carries a pistol with a round in the chamber. Doing so runs counter to firearm safety protocal and is simply asking for trouble. Just as Plaxico Burress.
So, since there is not a round in the chamber, I simply drop the magazine/shells and throw it/them in the case with my gun. Easy, peasy, totally compliant with Illinois law concerning the transportation of firearms.
Anything else?
Comment by Slick Willy Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 1:10 pm
***Implementing common standards, whatever they may be, seems to make more sense.***
QFT.
Comment by Slick Willy Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 1:12 pm
“No one with a shred of intelligence travels/carries a pistol with a round in the chamber.”
Must be a lot of dumb cops, FBI, etc. walking around like that.
You do realize they were designed to work that way, John
Wayne?
Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 1:26 pm
Slick i don’t know anyone who DOESN’T caryy with a round in the chamber
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 1:28 pm
Slick
Where did you learn to carry Concealed?? What if you are carrying a revolver is the cylinder empty and a speed loader?? Not to get into details but if you are carrying a gun to protect your life or the lives of your loved ones you carry it in Condition 1. Otherwise known as Magazine inserted, Round in the chamber, Weapon on Safe (maybe 2 if using a 1911 but not advisable). Do you think the police carry with an Empty Chamber?? Does the Military?? As for Plaxico Burris you can’t fix stupid. This is one of the reason why ISRA and NRA want a bill carrying a loaded weapon requires a certain mindset if like Mr. Burris you don’t utilize that mindset you become a danger. Therefore Training is essential.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 1:32 pm
Slick Willy…
If you carry you should have a round in the chamber, safety on. Its called condition 1 and is the normal carry condition for most weapons.
Plaxico had a loaded handgun (maybe safety off maybe no safety) jammed down the front of his pants, with no holster… Then he stuck his finger in the trigger guard. He got what an untrained uneducated person gets: Negligent discharge.
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 1:34 pm
Whether or not one should carry a round in the tube has been argued forever. Some argue that it is unsafe and an accident waiting to happen. Others argue that CC without one in the tube makes a gun nothing more than an expensive brick. Apparently, the crowd I shoot with is overly cautious. “To each his own”.
Comment by Slick Willy Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 1:43 pm
Slick
So be it. I hope you never have to Rack that slide when your life is in danger.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 1:50 pm
Mason,
Slick willy, or anyone carrying a firearm has to determine the way they will carry. One not in the chamber or one in the chamber has been debated in our community forever. Its not INVALID to carry with the chamber empty. You just have to practice that way.
What I disagree with is stating one way is the only correct way, or saying responsible people carry ONLY this way…
I carry one in the pipe. I always have. My neighbor a Fed carries on in the pipe only in a duty holster, but tucked “mexican” style we goes chamber empty. Personal preference and level of comfort.
Ok. Sorry that turned into a gun forum debate here. Back to the Quinnisms
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 2:09 pm
Ron
You misunderstand my statement. Slick Willy can carry anyway he pleases he can take it apart and carry the slide in one pocket the frame in the other. I sincerely hope he never has to rack the slide just as i hope you never have to take yours off safe and the same way i pray i never again have to fire at a human being. Perhaps i appeared more strident than i intended. Reviewing the comment it does appear i am passing judgement Slick i am sorry. Slick’s safety is his business and he can provide for it in the way he wishes.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 2:26 pm
Is it really appropriate to compare a citizen carrying to a police officer or the military? Every time I see that comparison I tend to dismiss the remainder of the statement.
Citizens are not cops. Citizens are not the military. If it was, here, just intended to add to the question of whether a round should be in the chamber or not, please clarify.
Comment by Mongo Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 2:28 pm
We COULD steer this back towards Quinn and local control…
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 2:30 pm
Mongo,
but what is the difference between the two groups?
The Cops are not the military either. Being a vet I am sure I have trained more and fired more rounds in anger than 95% of cops that are not vets.
Cops are citizens. That is all. They do not even have military level training with arms. They are primarily trained on a handgun, generally about a 40 hour course at the start of their career and they have to re-qual (not training mind you, qualification shoot) about 1 time per year. That last study I saw showed that like 80+% of cops never fire their weapons except on the day of their re-qual.
Most have no more skills than most of the average gun guys out there.
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 2:34 pm
MONGO
In my example the comparison was as to the idea of carrying a weapon with an empty chamber. The corollary being both of those groups carry to protect their lives which is what a CCW holder is supposed to be doing.
JJS
I agree we need to get back to topic i apologize for the divergent path.
Question JJS? Think Quinn can veto the bill saying it isn’t tough enough for him (like gambling) blame the unrestricted carry on the Madigans and then when the GA overturns the veto use it as a club that it is because Lisa didn’t appeal and MJM let a bill that wasn’t tough enough pass.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 2:50 pm
Should have said a club in the primaries.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 2:50 pm
Mason,
Not sure its the right club in the primaries. She can hit back that by vetoing the bill he defacto let a ton of people carry without any additional training, testing, rules on where CCW is allowed, etc.
She can say “Quinn said it would be the wild west, well guess what, his veto brought us exactly that!”
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 3:02 pm
Ron and Mason…
Mason, that’s what I asked, thanks for clarifying.
Ron, I don’t fully agree. Police officers are citizens, yes, but have much more training and are sworn to uphold the law.
Police officers have arrest powers, citizens don’t.
Police officers have duties that a citizen does not have.
Now back to Quinn. This latest statement is another example of him leading by confusion. If only we had a Governor who would work with the GA…I gotta admit I am a D but I long for Thompson and Edgar.
Comment by Mongo Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 3:25 pm
ron
I agree she could come back with that but that would require Quinn to use logic something we have no proof of his proficiency at.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 3:30 pm
I took the The Small Arms Master Marksmanship Course, or SAMMC, a two-week course offered by the US Army Combined Arms Training Center (CATC). This course was designed for non-combat arms soldiers and officers, I was in logistics. The first week was spent conducting hands on training in we learned to perform function checks, the functions of each weapons system and proper weapon safety. This included the M-9 pistol. I had to be able to assemble and disassemble six different weapons to make sure they were operational.
In any situation where the combat use of the M-9 pistol might be required it was understood that there was a round in the chamber. Reloading is faster with a round in the chamber since time is not needed to release the slide. We were taught to count rounds shot and change magazines with one round left in them if at all possible so as not to run out of rounds in a combat situation.
But in civilian life I would not leave a round in the chamber. I do not have the legal protections provided to me by the military in the situation of an error. Even at the risk of my life I would want the extra seconds to make sure I needed to actually take out a target. We were taught to hold our breath in a very specific manner and to maintain as calm a demeanor as possible. If I am in a reasonable proximity of my target I will destroy it.
As I have posted before I do not intend to seek a concealed carry license, the liability issues weigh heavily on me especially after the Zimmerman case in FLA. But it seems to me that the tactical advantage is going to be with the individual who has been threatened and who is legally carrying a handgun. The criminal really is in greater danger than you are, chambering your weapon will take very little time and give your opponent a chance to retreat.
Comment by Rod Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 4:04 pm
>>>>> She can say “Quinn said it would be the wild west, well guess what, his veto brought us exactly that!”
We won’t have the wild west.
>>>>>Police officers have arrest powers, citizens don’t.
Citizens have arrest powers it just doesn’t play out very often outside of the scope of the security guard.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 4:07 pm
Rod
A quick divergence but counting shots while someone is trying their damndest to kill you is kind of like shot placement in combat. It’s a swell idea but impractical as hell. That is why as an Infantry Marine we were taught to change mags at the conclusion of any fire fight. (of course not all at once)
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 4:11 pm
JJS
I think what Ron was reffering too was my contention Quinn may veto the bill for political advantage. In an attempt to club the baby Madigan (sorry couldn’t resist) with it. I.E. if she had only appealed etc…
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 4:15 pm
John, I am aware of citizen arrest power. Aside from TV, I recall very few credible news reports of a citizen detaining a suspect until law enforcement arrives.
I’ll amend my statement. Sworn officers have a duty to arrest if probable cause exists. A citizen has a permissive power of arrest, and is not required to exercise it.
Now back to Quinn!
Comment by Mongo Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 4:18 pm
O/T, but whenever I hear the words “Citizen’s Arrest” I’m taken back to the episode of the Andy Griffith Show where Barney Fife stops Gomer Pyle for making a U-turn on Main Street in Mayberry. After Barney finishes writing Gomer a ticket and such, he pulls away and makes a U-ie, with Gomer in hot pursuit yelling “Citizen’s Arrest! U-Turn, Barney! Citizen’s Arrest!” all under the watchful eye of Sheriff Taylor.
So that’s what I think about citizen’s arrest.
To the post, do you want Andy Taylor or Barney Fife weighing in on your right to pack heat?
Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 4:36 pm
AA
Barney no Andy if we put him in charge of the ISP then sure.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 4:44 pm
AA, LOL…and we do have Barney “Pat” Fife weighing in…
There are, dang it, we want the Governor to lead. Not so today.
Comment by Mongo Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 4:45 pm
Just how fine is the line between Citizen arrest and Unlawful Detainment? Microns?
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 4:45 pm
Mongo
I was going to get on here and say how unfair it was to Dep. Fife to say Barney “Pat” Fife. However the more i think of it the more Apt it is. Mind if I borrow that?
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 4:51 pm
Like it or not, it’s clear a MAjor Battle will be fought over this issue, but Gov. Quinn and many others will no doubt vigorously pursue local authority creation of limitations and restrictions rather than a State-wide approach, if anything, to protect the primary source of his Constituency/vote support in Cook County, and more specifically, in Chicago.
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 7:19 pm
Mason and Mango, borrow away.
Just the Way, agree 100%.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 8:49 pm
I’ll just leave it that I have fired more rounds in anger than 99+% of sworn police officers. so assuming a 40 hour course at the ISP makes them better than me with a weapon is simply an argument based in ignorance of the realities of police training.
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 11:05 pm