Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: A very long to-do list
Posted in:
* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…
A new statewide poll shows a majority of Illinoisans favor concealed carry. But an overwhelming majority in every area of the state also say it’s OK with them if Chicago and Cook County police have additional authority over who gets to carry in their own jurisdictions.
The Capitol Fax/We Ask America poll of 1,284 likely voters found that 52 percent say they approve of allowing concealed carry.
“Illinois lawmakers are debating proposed laws that would allow some citizens who are properly licensed to carry concealed firearms,” respondents were told. “In general, do you approve or disapprove of allowing licensed citizens to carry loaded, concealed firearms?”
The poll, taken April 24th, found that 46 percent disapprove and just 2 percent were neutral or had no opinion. The poll had a margin of error of +/-2.7 percent. 26 percent of the numbers called were cell phones.
Geography breaks down pretty much how you’d expect. Chicagoans staunchly opposed concealed carry 69-29, while suburban Cook County voters opposed it 52-46. Downstaters strongly support the proposal 67-32 and collar county voters support it 53-46.
Women disapproved of the idea 55-43, while men supported it 64-34. Republicans backed it 72-26, Democrats opposed it 65-34 and independents favored it 61-36. African-Americans opposed the idea 61-36, but whites backed it 56-43, as did Latinos, 56-43.
The results for the poll’s second question were even more interesting.
The Senate is currently considering a plan that would allow Chicago police and the Cook County Sheriff to reject State Police-issued concealed carry permits if they have questions about the applicants’ character. The plan stalled last week when Republican Senators balked after strong National Rifle Association opposition and Chicago-area Democrats demanded more restrictions in the rest of the bill.
But the voting public absolutely loves this idea, with a whopping 73 percent voicing their approval. “I can’t get 73 percent of people to agree that it’s dark at midnight,” joked We Ask America pollster Gregg Durham last week.
“If a concealed carry law is passed, Chicago and Cook County law enforcement officials want the right to stop a permit being issued to any individual in Chicago or Cook County when there is a concern about the applicant’s character,” respondents were told. “Do you think they should be able to stop a permit in Chicago or Cook County under those circumstances?”
A mere 22 percent disagreed with the proposal and only 5 percent were neutral or had no opinion.
The results didn’t surprise Sen. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago), who is attempting to craft a compromise bill. Raoul said he believed that Downstaters don’t care what happens in Chicago or anywhere else as long as they get their right to carry. And Chicagoans are so concerned about guns that they want their local cops to have an extra say.
According to the poll, a hugely strong 71 percent of likely Downstate voters said they approved of the plan, while 25 percent were opposed. The NRA has threatened legislators with retaliation if Chicagoans don’t end up with the same access to concealed carry as everyone else, but that particular message may not fly as long as Downstaters get what they want for themselves.
Even so, Downstaters seem to be sticking with the NRA. “I am working to pass a Concealed Carry law that specifically says it SHALL apply to all counties in Illinois,” state Sen. Kyle McCarter (R-Lebanon) wrote on his website last week. “The Second Amendment of the Constitution applies [to] all citizens, including those in Chicago.”
But a sky-high 80 percent of likely Chicago voters approved of the proposal, as did 72 percent of suburban Cook voters and 71 percent of collar county voters.
Support was also very high across all demographics. Women were 80-14 in favor, and men were 62-32 in favor. Black voters backed it 75-16, whites supported it 65-34 and Latinos approved of it 75-18. Republicans supported it 64-30, Democrats favored it 82-13 and independents backed it 67-23.
Results like that could make you think this ought to be a no-brainer issue. But the NRA is bringing all of its considerable might to the table here, and that muscle is, so far, outweighing overwhelming public opinion.
Subscribers have crosstabs.
* Related…
* Quinn: Cities, not state, should approve concealed guns: Sen. Tim Bivins of Dixon, the Republican negotiator on the issue, supported Raoul’s idea of a “compromise” giving Chicago more authority if carry permits were more readily available to lawful gun owners in the rest of the state. But he was much more cautious late last week after seeing the proposed language. A more widespread local option is out of the question, the former Lee County sheriff said.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 9:37 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: A very long to-do list
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
So the NRAs solution to end a c-c ban that Downstaters strongly oppose is to impose on Chicago and Cook a c-c law that they strongly oppose.
LOL, if only there was an area for compromise….
The collar numbers and statewide numbers overall are a lot tighter than I expected.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 9:45 am
Fundamental rights cannot be abridged by a poll.
If the Kwame Raoul/Tim Bivins compromise is enacted later during this session, I would anticipate another SAF lawsuit and another loss for the Illinois politicians.
How many millions can the pols spend denying the existence of a constitutional right to gun ownership?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 9:46 am
Anonymous 9:46
The proposal is less restrictive than the New York City law, which the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to. What makes you think the Chicago / Cook County proposal would fail judicially?
Comment by Anyone Remember? Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 9:49 am
–How many millions can the pols spend denying the existence of a constitutional right to gun ownership?–
Gun ownership isn’t the issue.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 9:50 am
@Anyone Remember
Actually, words mean things… This line:
—- if they have questions about the applicants’ character. —-
How would a Chicago cop or Cook Co sheriff know anything about my character?
And if you read the amendment they were trying to pass off it wasnt simply that Chicago or Cook County could deny a permit to someone for their areas. The entire bill read like a MAY issue bill.
The devil is in the details. Always.
Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 9:51 am
Unlimited gun rights have somehow become a symbol for personal liberty, and are advocated via a constitutional purity that was never supported by the bulk of our founders.
This is a late 20th Century cultural movement, peaking now.
Just do the compromise, and be done with the self-righteousness on both sides.
Comment by walkinfool Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 9:58 am
The poll makes it sound like Chicago and Cook county Sheriff would have a say only for those that have “character” issues….but those issues are not specifically addressed. Do these poll numbers change if the question more accurately reflects what this bill will do? “May Issue for Cook and Chicago and Shall Issue for the remainder of the State”
Comment by Boondocks Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 10:02 am
= So the NRAs solution to end a c-c ban that Downstaters strongly oppose is to impose on Chicago and Cook a c-c law that they strongly oppose. =
read much?
Comment by benji Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 10:03 am
I’ll be interested to see what it takes or more likely how much it costs to pass any “character test” in Chicago and Cook County. Chicago aldermen and selected staff and “friends” will automatically get an “A.” You can count on that. Sounds like an income enhancement program for Chicago and Cook county pols.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 10:08 am
If the question was actually posed as worded below, I’m surprised the result is that low. I believe the original HB0997 provided for input from law enforcement that addresses this issue.
If the question was worded something to the effect “Should Chicago / Cook County leadership be able to arbitrarily deny individuals who possess clean background checks the ability to defend themselves?” or “Should Chicago / Cook County leadership be able to only provide conceal carry permits to those of their choosing?”, the results would likely be different.
“If a concealed carry law is passed, Chicago and Cook County law enforcement officials want the right to stop a permit being issued to any individual in Chicago or Cook County when there is a concern about the applicant’s character,” respondents were told. “Do you think they should be able to stop a permit in Chicago or Cook County under those circumstances?”
For some reason, I’m not seeing the actual poll questions. Can we get a link?
Comment by Logic not emotion Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 10:10 am
===For some reason, I’m not seeing the actual poll questions. Can we get a link?===
Then you’re not reading very well. The complete poll questions are in the column.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 10:13 am
>>>> Chicago and Cook County law enforcement officials want the right to stop a permit being issued to any individual in Chicago or Cook County when there is a concern about the applicant’s character
I think the question should have been worded:
“Chicago and Cook County law enforcement officials want the right to stop a permit being issued to any individual in Chicago or Cook County for any arbitrary reason, in keeping with Chicago’s patronage and racist history.”
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 10:13 am
JJJS, that’s ludicrous.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 10:14 am
” Just do the compromise, and be done with the self-righteousness on both sides. ”
or, do the conpromise, tell the true believer’s you did your best, and you need to continue fighting the gun grabbers, but gosh golly, we need more funding!
Comment by Happy Returns Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 10:14 am
Benji, I read the post. What are you reading?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 10:17 am
What sacrifice are the grabbers making in their willingness to “compromise”?
Comment by benji Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 10:17 am
Benji
What sacrifices are you willing to mnake for a compromise ??? A compromise requires give and take from both sides.
“What sacrifice are the grabbers making in their willingness to “compromise”?”
Comment by AFSCME Steward Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 10:28 am
Is it possible to get 25 posts in without seeing “grabbers” or “gunners” or accusations of bribery or similar comment content that adds nothing to the solution?
Comment by Mongo Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 10:30 am
Benji: good question.
They are offering a CC bill that is nowhere near as restrictive as some other states already have.
“grabbers”, as I assume you know, is hyperbole.
Comment by walkinfool Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 10:34 am
@AFSCME Steward
I will speak for the “pro gun” side for a second, without using some of the argumentative phrases Benji may be using.
1- we have compromised on training requirements, costs, testing, adding in CPD to the list that can den/object to a permit, no carry locations, Duty to Inform language, etc, etc.
There have been MANY compromises in the house. many.
Of course the senate bill was basically the House MAY issue bill. No the language was not identical, but it was just as bad requiring that the application show “Good reason” and document with police reports and restraining orders their need for a gun.
Sorry, we have compromised a ton and are still willing to. The other side likes to talk compromise but shows little ability to really to do that.
Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 10:37 am
@walkin
basically just because its not as restrictive as new york but is far away from 38 or 39 other states I wouldnt say that was “in the middle”.
Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 10:38 am
What are they giving up, you know, as a compromise? What is the sacrifice?
Comment by benji Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 10:44 am
Only 41 GA shopping days until June 9th.
Comment by Non-ISRA Member Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 10:49 am
@Anonymous 9:46:
You better re-read the judges opinion in the concealed carry case. Restrictions are allowed. I’m not sure if what is proposed for Cook County fits into that box but to say that this somehow abridges the “fundamental rights” of gun owners is ridiculous. I get tired of hearing the phrase “fundamental rights” as if any law related to guns is the end of the world. There are no absolutes. There is not one part of the Constitution that does not have limitations. If people would stop being so bull headed maybe something could get done. I doubt it though because the all-or-nothing crowds are dominating the debate. Must be nice to live in a world with such absolutes. Some of you should try coming back to the real world though.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 10:55 am
I still find it amazing that some people still think that allowing vetted citizens the right to CHOOSE would be a worse thing than what is already happening in Chicago. Are you afraid crime may actually go down, or go up with all these new shooters?
Comment by Fan Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 11:03 am
Downstaters don’t really care - in general - no doubt, about CC in Chicago/Cook. One really shouldn’t expect otherwise. But some of them will start to care very quickly once a few get felony charges while inadverently transporting through Chicao/Cook (in a manner perfectly legal everywhere else in the state).
Comment by titan Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 11:04 am
The poll does not capture the nuances of the proposal. How does one deal with people traveling through the county or city. Should these people have to stop at a rest stop to lock up gun? What if inadvertently goes into one of these jurisdictions? Does any portion of 294 go through Cook? Should a mistake be a felony or simple fine? The devil is in the details.
Comment by RSW Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 11:06 am
This poll was worded wrong, the bill proposed was “may issue” in Chicago/Cook. They can deny the permit for any or no reason. What this will mean in practice is that all applications will be denied except for the politically connected. I don’t mind standards and scrutiny, but the standards should be defined and apply equally to all. I hope the General Assembly doesn’t sell out those of us in Chicago/Cook who do support gun rights.
Comment by Chicago Gun Owner Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 11:08 am
soundtrack for the poll, current pop tune, ” I love it (I don’t care)”
Comment by Amalia Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 11:12 am
Bivins dropped off so now it’s simply the Raoul proposal. The proposal would enact an extremely restrictive version of CCW while also enacting the antigunners’ decades-old gun control wish list. There’s not way gun owners may be expected to support any such proposal.
Comment by Mr. Wonderful Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 11:21 am
What walkingfool said - This is a late 20th Century cultural movement, peaking now. Unlimited gun rights have somehow become a symbol for personal liberty, and are advocated via a constitutional purity that was never supported by the bulk of our founders. -
Exactly. Whatever else you can say about it, gun control has turned into a hot-button wedge issue. Longtime congressional correspondent Elizabeth Drew has a recent analysis of how it plays out at the federal level at
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/apr/26/obama-and-myth-arm-twisting/
Including this on the defeat of federal gun control legislation: “The polls can indicate a large majority on an issue but that doesn’t mean that this proposition will be uppermost in all those voters’ minds when they next go to the polls—which may not be for at least a couple of years, by which time other issues dominate the headlines. The intensity is quite likely to rest on the side that opposes laws that may interfere with ideologically held views: for the person who worries (irrationally, but no matter) that the government might move to take his guns away this might be the most important issue in the election.”
Not sure how much that would apply to Illinois legislative primaries, but Drew has an interesting take on the overall political climate.
She also has a nice little aside on how Sen. Everett McKinley Dirksen was lobbied on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Comment by olddog Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 11:25 am
===Bivins dropped off ===
As of Thursday, he was still willing to negotiate and denied the rumors that he was off the bill.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 11:26 am
But I also want a permit system because Colorado only recognises permits issued by person’s state of residence. I lived there a number of years and go back to visit. My Florida and Utah non-resident permits are not accepted there.
Comment by RSW Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 11:26 am
Benji: I thought I answered your question.
They are giving up what they actually want, and believe is their constitutional right: to have a more restrictive CC law for public safety — similar to what the courts have allowed in some other states.
There’s obvious disagreemment on issues of impact and safety. But we cannot wish those away, or just keep arguing about them with no compromise.
Both sides have already moved positions on this legislation. They just have to finally meet.
Comment by walkinfool Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 11:28 am
walkingfool - Our rights aren’t theirs to give up
wordslinger - Nowhere in the post does it say the NRA wants to impose a Chicago style law on the downstaters. You made that part up based on something you misread or misunderstood.
Comment by benji Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 11:43 am
The question pertaining to Cook/Chicago should be worded to more accurately reflect the situation. This is another reason why polls stink…we expect people to come to a simple response to an incredibly large and dynamic policy decision.
“Do you think that the Cook County/Chicago government should have authority over who qualifies for conceal/carry in Cook County?”
That would most likely garner a different percentage.
Comment by Phenomynous Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 11:45 am
@RonOglesby: Your comments are always well-taken.
I agree this doesn’t look like the “the middle” given the court finding that we have to have some CC law at all. It does represent compromise from some previous hard line positions.
Comment by walkinfool Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 11:47 am
@walkinfool
Too much of this is emotion. There are those in the ILGA (and chicago PD) that believe a laser sight on a handgun makes it much more dangerous… And the mention of it drives them to call it out specifically.
And on the other side are those that screamed when CPD may be give the right that sheriffs had under HB997 to object to a permit in writing…
Neither of these sides are thinking clearly and are unable to get past the emotion.
Should CPD and Cook County have the right to object to a permit (in writing) like any other sheriff in the state? Yes. Why not.
Should they be able to then turn that question into putting “you require proper cause to get a permit” on the bill… Turning it into May issue?
No.
Honestly. I Believe that if much of the Chicago reps would stop the knee jerk and get in a room with Phelps this could get done and they could get much of what they say they want in public (no bars, no stadiums, no schools, longer training, CPD can deny a permit in writing for valid reasons, etc, etc, etc)…
But I dont see that happening. We could as a State have the Most restrictive shall issue permitting system in the country. That alone sounds like a compromise to me. Is it what either party wants? no. But to be honest Chicago politicians dont even want their people to OWN handguns legally so its a hard starting point.
Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:00 pm
===“Do you think that the Cook County/Chicago government should have authority over who qualifies for conceal/carry in Cook County?” That would most likely garner a different percentage.===
Highly doubtful.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:00 pm
Ron
I’m glad to see your reasoned debate rather than some of the hysteria that others are posting. In Cook County, especially Chicago, we have a serious problem with guns. People don’t even feel safe watching TV in their living rooms in some neighborhoods. Some of the problem is federal with persons not eligible to own fireams in Illinois buying them in other states or at gun shows, or through straw purchases. But there is a real fear that allowing everyone to carry in Chicago particularly could create more problems.
One of the issues I have not seen discusssed is what constitutes a law enforcement ofrficial to inquire about a permit. In Chicago many gangbangers are caught because a citizens reports a person with a gun. Would a cop be allowed to pull over & question every person carrying ? What would constitute probable cause ?
I understand the concern that some have about politics in Cook County. I am actually more concerned with persons being issued permits to carry solely for political reasons than denials. We have had a history of auxillary Sheriff’s deputies based on connections.
I think that the problems with violence in Chicago need to be a part of the final bill.
“I will speak for the “pro gun” side for a second, without using some of the argumentative phrases Benji may be using.
1- we have compromised on training requirements, costs, testing, adding in CPD to the list that can den/object to a permit, no carry locations, Duty to Inform language, etc, etc.
There have been MANY compromises in the house. many.
Of course the senate bill was basically the House MAY issue bill. No the language was not identical, but it was just as bad requiring that the application show “Good reason” and document with police reports and restraining orders their need for a gun.
Sorry, we have compromised a ton and are still willing to. The other side likes to talk compromise but shows little ability to really to do that.”
Comment by AFSCME Steward Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:00 pm
We’ve learned this year again that with guns polls don’t matter because the intensity of the NRA it can match almost everything else.
Comment by Shore Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:04 pm
Sorry Chicagoans, you’ll only be able to bring a knife to a gun fight. (Flagrant ripoff of the Untouchables).
Comment by Jack Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:06 pm
I’m a downstater. The other day, I was talking to some of my pro-carry neighbors. They really don’t care about what happens in Chicago and Cook County. One of them commented that if he wanted to deal with Chicago problems, he’d go live there.
We also have a prison in our area that houses a lot of folks from Chicago and Cook County. I asked my neighbors if they want the family member, close friends and associates of the men who are housed there carrying concealed weapons in our town when they come to visit? That question was greeted with a lot of dead silence and exchanges of questioning looks. The response was shaking heads “no”.
I should mention that people from Chicago are viewed with suspicion out this way, anyway. It took me ten years for my neighbors to decide that I was okay for a Chicago lady.
Comment by Aldyth Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:06 pm
Rich
The way the poll was worded, even I would have been in the majority (I’m an obvious ardent cc supporter). If the proposed legislation was worded like the poll question, then I would have no problem with it. But that is not what the senate bill would do…it is MAY issue in Cook and Chicago, not Shall issue with a little extra diligence.
Would have been a more informative poll if it had accurately stated the senate bill language, IMHO.
BTW, love the forum here….gives me a chance to view the other side of the discussion, not just drink the Kool-Aid from one side or the other. Thanks
Comment by Boondocks Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:27 pm
–Nowhere in the post does it say the NRA wants to impose a Chicago style law on the downstaters.–
Benji, you’re misreading. My point is that a majority of Downstaters want an end to the current prohibition of conceal carry. A majority of Chicagoans do not want it.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:28 pm
First of all, I agree that Residents of Cook County have the same rights as those in the rest of the State, and the Government should not infringe on those rights just because a person lives in Chicago. But, I also dont believe that this State will be able to pass any bill that allows Concealed Carry in Chicago. In my opinion, it is sometimes better to take a partial win and conitnue to fight later for the rest. Pass the original House “Shall Issue” Bill, with the “May Issue” for Cook County, and sorry Cook County, but keep working on your Reps and we will argue that again. This will also let all of them go home and claim a win in their Districts.
Comment by SO IL M Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:30 pm
–Highly doubtful.–
Only one way to find out
I will be looking forward to the next “We Ask America/Capitol Fax Poll”. And to be fair, the lead to the question should set the context of what “may issue” will look like in Chicago, instead of making it look like the local law enforcement just want to keep bad guys from getting conceal and carry.
I will gladly contribute to the cost of the poll if I can help with the wording of the questions and context.
Comment by Phenomynous Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:30 pm
As a Chicago resident I really hope our State Reps or Senators don’t sell us out by turning Chicago/Cook into a “may issue” jurisdiction. Chicago residents do not need to fear otherwise law abiding citizens carrying a gun when so many criminals are carrying guns without cc.
Comment by Just Observing Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:33 pm
This is BS. Look at the question. Basically it says, “should people in Chicago who have questionable character get CC?” Most people will say no. The truth is it would deny CC in cook and chicago. Geez, look, we know you don’t like CC but you don’t have to be so disingenuous about it.
Comment by Beatbox Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:33 pm
===Basically it says===
No, it doesn’t.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:36 pm
“Geez, look, we know you don’t like CC but you don’t have to be so disingenuous about it.”
Actually, I think you’ll find Rich is pretty neutral on the topic. I’m not crazy about the survey wording either, but I don’t think Rich was pushing an agenda.
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:40 pm
===I think you’ll find Rich is pretty neutral on the topic===
I try to be, but I will be applying for a permit if the law passes.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:50 pm
@wordslinger: No offense; but you cannot objectively conclude that a majority of Chicagoans do not want concealed carry based upon that poll question. I am a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment and I would agree that law enforcement should prevent people of bad character (as evidenced by arrest records/convictions/known gang associations/etc.) from receiving a permit. That is why HB0997 allows for law enforcement input - in case agencies such as Cook Co SD has objective information that isn’t already in the state database (for some reason).
Comment by Logic not emotion Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:52 pm
–No offense; but you cannot objectively conclude that a majority of Chicagoans do not want concealed carry based upon that poll question.–
It’s hardly the first poll on the subject.
Perhaps you could point out some polls where a majority of Chicagoans are in favor of conceal carry?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:57 pm
@ AFSCME
I understand the problem in Chicago. I grew up there not far from Midway and spend a lot of time in the City still.
But you assume “EVERYONE” will carry gun. Doubtful. This law would allow for someone willing to do background checks, training, etc to carry a CONCEALED weapon. As far as the “man with a gun” calls.. You pull your weapon only when your life of someone elses is in danger. end of story. Waving the gun around? yes the cops have a right to stop you and you will lose your license.
as for would the cops be able to stop you and ask for a permit? Yes. If they have reason to. It should be concealed carry. meaning its never out unless you are in danger. (see piece above)
And as far as everyone carrying.. generally only a few % points of the population go through the process to legally carry. Maybe 3 4 or 5 percent in some states. I would expect no different here.
BTW
Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 1:03 pm
remember this law wont enable the south or west side banger to get a permit… they carry anyway right now as shown by the shootings in Chicago.
Think of the insurance adjuster that has to drive into those neighborhoods and cannot be armed for fear of a felony… that is who I picture when I think of laws like this.
Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 1:06 pm
If you were neutral, you would have pointed out the glaring problem with the working of the poll and discounted it, instead of using it as “evidence” that downstaters don’t care about Chicago carry.
Also, if you were neutral, you would point out how the wording in the proposal will practically result in Chicago and Cook being “may issue”
Comment by Beatbox Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 1:07 pm
===you would point out how the wording in the proposal will practically result in Chicago and Cook being “may issue” ===
It may, or it may not.
And as for your insinuations, bite me.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 1:10 pm
–If you were neutral, you would have pointed out the glaring problem with the working of the poll and discounted it, instead of using it as “evidence” that downstaters don’t care about Chicago carry.–
Sure. People in Pekin, Marion, Carbondale, etc. are up all night worrying about conceal-carry in Chicago.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 1:13 pm
= Benji, you’re misreading. =
No, I’m not. Go look at what you wrote.
= My point is that a majority of Downstaters want an end to the current prohibition of conceal carry. =
Definately.
= A majority of Chicagoans do not want it. =
Maybe or maybe not. I’m in Chicago and nobody asked me or anyone I know what my opinion was.
= Perhaps you could point out some polls where a majority of Chicagoans are in favor of conceal carry? =
There’s been quite a few in the Illinois Carry forums. It’s hardly the first poll on the subject.
Comment by benji Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 1:25 pm
==== My point is that a majority of Downstaters want an end to the current prohibition of conceal carry. =
Definately.
= A majority of Chicagoans do not want it. =
Maybe or maybe not. I’m in Chicago and nobody asked me or anyone I know what my opinion was.===
If you can’t see the blatant contradiction and willful stupidity in those two statements of yours, then you are hopeless.
==== Perhaps you could point out some polls where a majority of Chicagoans are in favor of conceal carry? =
There’s been quite a few in the Illinois Carry forums. It’s hardly the first poll on the subject.
===
Those aren’t polls, dude. Goodbye.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 1:27 pm
I agree that Rich has made a strong effort to show his neutrality on this topic and he has asserted numerous times that he will apply when the law passes.
Many conceal/carry supporters, as the poll shows, care more about their own ability to obtain the license and not so much whether or not others can. I personally think the wording of the poll questions could be better, and the results would likely change if they were more descriptive of the Raoul proposal. That being said, I don’t know how significant the change would be knowing that most supporters will just be happy to obtain their own license.
Long story short, many conceal/carry proponents will be happy with any win, especially if it positively impacts them.
Comment by Phenomynous Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 1:30 pm
Ah has filed for 30 day extension on cert petition
Comment by Todd Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 1:32 pm
There’s a lot of picking pepper out of fly stuff here on the wording of the poll questions.
C’mon man.
Is it that hard to believe that there’s a division between Chicago and Downstate on conceal-carry?
Is it that hard to believe that Downstaters who want conceal-carry don’t really care what goes on in Chicago?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 1:37 pm
That was suppose to be the AG
Comment by Todd Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 1:37 pm
Pro tip: When you’re arguing methodology with Miller, you’re losing.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 2:00 pm
I suspect that if you ask Chicago residents any poll on any issue that starts with “Do you trust Chicago police . . .” you will get less than 40%.
The reputation for that department when it comes to honesty and overall competence is remarkably low.
Yet when you ask people to trust CPD to decide who should get a permit to carry a gun, you get high numbers.
I find that response to this poll odd.
Comment by HenryVK Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 2:00 pm
Of course, I still don’t understand why so many in Chicago are so afraid of CC.
Come on, people. Do you really think the bad guys are not already carrying?
As somebody noted above, do you seriously think that the insurance adjuster who comes into the city to review a claim and thinks he needs a weapon for protection is going to go on a shooting spree?
This poll just seems like more evidence that people make judgments on serious policy issues while being disconnected from facts and reality.
Comment by HenryVK Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 2:04 pm
–I suspect that if you ask Chicago residents any poll on any issue that starts with “Do you trust Chicago police . . .” you will get less than 40%.The reputation for that department when it comes to honesty and overall competence is remarkably low.–
BS.
I bet you don’t hesitate to call them when you’re in a jam, and, when you do, I know they’ll come running with no regard to their safety, like they know they’ll do every day when they punch in.
I was a cop reporter for 10 years. There are some cowboys and crooks, like in any profession, but the great majority are the salt of the earth, your neighbors, and don’t deserve that kind of grief for the doing the job of the thin blue line.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 2:26 pm
==remember this law wont enable the south or west side banger to get a permit… they carry anyway right now as shown by the shootings in Chicago.==
So how would legal conceal carry stop the ’south or west side banger’ from carrying a gun and committing a crime?
Comment by late to the party Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 2:29 pm
Word,
I happen to agree with you on the merits of CPD.
But I don’t think that perception is widely held.
A more common perception is that CPD picks on innocent kids and is incompetent when it comes to stopping crime. I just don’t know many others who trust the department.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 2:30 pm
Another thing worth pondering is the impact that JCAR will have on whatever type of bill is eventually passed.
Comment by Mr. Wonderful Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 2:32 pm
“[The response to] this poll just seems like more evidence that people make judgments on serious policy issues while being disconnected from facts and reality.”
Fixed it!
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 2:33 pm
aldyth-10 years, that’s all? LOL in my neck of the woods it may take three generations to accept ANY outsider:) then you are still looked at with suspicion on occasion.
rick, we often disagree but i never doubt your honesty. will also get a permit, but will probably rarely carry.
Comment by wizard Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 2:49 pm
sorry should be rich at 2:49 my apologies rich
Comment by wizard Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 2:50 pm
@wordslinger- I work in those neighborhoods everyone else is afraid to enter. I have had occasion to call 911 for the CPD when I was either a victim of a crime or witnessed one. It’s rare for the police to show up in a timely manner. I’ve waited hours and sometimes they don’t show up at all. Once I reported a burglary in progress, CPD showed up 50 minutes later - 5 minutes after the perps had left. I know several Chicago cops and they’re good people but they are overwhelmed in those neighborhoods. I don’t live in a particularly bad neighborhood but there’s been 1-2 murders per year within 2 blocks of my house in the 9 years I’ve lived here. I don’t vwant cc
Comment by Chicago Gun Owner Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 2:58 pm
Henry: “I find that response to this poll odd.” I don’t. Based upon the question wording, I’m surprised it isn’t higher. That said, I thought the wording on the first question was very good.
Todd: What is the likely real world impact of the AG’s request?
Comment by Logic not emotion Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:00 pm
@ Rich Miller - I know you may like to think you are neutral. On this issue you actually may be. You did state you would apply to carry which is fine with me.
But, overall I do think you lean left. And as such, you seem to overreact when anyone calls you on anything. To be the Administrator if a Blog with the Street Cred of Capital Fax, I would have thought better of you than “Bite Me” as a recent response.
I used to enjoy looking up info on Capital Fax. Back in the day, I thought you were more neutral. Not so much any more.
Go ahead and “Ban me for life”. As a matter of fact, Double Secret, Prohbation Secret” ban me as well. I saw your role as moderator when people got out of line. You jumping into the fray has cost this site Street Cred. Think about it.
Comment by Fan Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:30 pm
@wordslinger- I work in those neighborhoods everyone else is afraid to enter. I have had occasion to call 911 for the CPD when I was either a victim of a crime or witnessed one. It’s rare for the police to show up in a timely manner. I’ve waited hours and sometimes they don’t show up at all. Once I reported a burglary in progress, CPD showed up 50 minutes later - 5 minutes after the perps had left. I know several Chicago cops and they’re good people but they are overwhelmed in those neighborhoods. I don’t live in a particularly bad neighborhood but there’s been 1-2 murders per year within 2 blocks of my house in the 9 years I’ve lived here. I don’t want cc to go on a shooting spree, I just want it for defense.
Comment by Chicago Gun Owner Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:30 pm
===You jumping into the fray has cost this site Street Cred===
Only among people who live on streets that I would never travel.
You can bite me, too.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:32 pm
Late to the Party asks:
“So how would legal conceal carry stop the ’south or west side banger’ from carrying a gun and committing a crime?”
It won’t.
And it also won’t mow your lawn. And when your sitting on the couch after a long day, it won’t walk over to the fridge and grab you a beer.
But it will allow people to carry a gun if they’ve met certain criteria, which is what the cc carry law was denied to do.
Comment by HenryVK Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:35 pm
Rich, there is no doubt you lean left. That said, I have not known you to publish untruths and unsupported information. You don’t “suffer fools gladly” to plagarize from a master and out of context. Can’t figure out why someone would be opposed to you posting your own opinion on your blog:)
Comment by wizard Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:50 pm
Rich, my opinion is that you lean left, but you attempt to keep the blog neutral. On this gun issue, I believe that you have bent over backward to allow the anti’s their say. In fact, until you said that you would probably get a permit, I actually believed that you actually favored the anti’s somewhat. I think that you are doing a good job with this issue; I don’t agree with the Chicago anti’s, but from this blog, I can understand a little better where they are coming from.
Comment by downstate commissioner Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 4:07 pm
=== I try to be, but I will be applying for a permit if the law passes. ===
Now *THAT* is truly scary. Now I understand what all the shrieking was about!
Comment by Ned Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 4:31 pm
Fan
I don’t think Rich leans left, but I’m reminded of two observations made by Mike Royko. When accosted in public about why “the media is liberal” (after replying “it’s ‘the media are liberal’”), Royko would speak about the Civil Rights Era, where to do something was seen as “liberal” and doing nothing was seen as “conservative.” Can’t find that column online.
IF that’s too wordy, based upon Rich’s support of Lutheran Social Services, consider this:
“It’s harder to be a liberal than a conservative, because it’s easier to give someone the finger than a helping hand.”
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/mike%20royko
For all that, still don’t think Rich leans left.
Comment by Anyone Remember? Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 5:04 pm
===I believe that you have bent over backward to allow the anti’s their say===
Actually, what I’ve done is allow the ISRA to slit its own throat by reprinting their idiotic press releases. I don’t think you’ve seen all that much from the antis without my own commentary disagreeing with this or that.
People see what they want to see. Until I noted in comments that I was planning to apply for a ccw permit, many of the hardcore gunners thought for sure I was completely opposed. Not true at all. I just despise their stupid public rhetoric.
In reality, I’m a pickup truck owner, love country music, was born in Downstate and own a gun. But I respect both sides in this debate (except for the rhetoric), and that drives people on both sides up a freaking wall. Deal with it. It’s your problem, not mine.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 5:17 pm
@ Anyone Remember 9:49
“What makes you think the Chicago / Cook County proposal would fail judicially?”
Sometimes, the SCOTUS will bide its time. If two or more states adopt a position, the court will sometimes choose to act. The New York law may be revisited if Illinois and other states follow the New York approach.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 5:22 pm
===If two or more states adopt a position, the court will sometimes choose to act.===
That’s already the case.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 5:23 pm
Fine, informative piece-thanks. Boy, the difference in philosophy on a variety of matters so often intrigues me when you see the breakdown on the stark differences of opinion in this State–even just between Chicago residents and its’ SUBurbs, let alone folks in reference to Downstate!
And, as such, these Poll numbers really seem to lend credence to the idea that at LEAST Cook County ought to be able to independently grapple with regulating C & C–if anything, because the citizenry there just plain looks at the right–and how to administer it–far differently and more strictly overall–than the rest of Illinois!
If they don’t separate it out and compromise along these lines somehow, this legislation may otherwise drag on, becoming hopelessly logjammed…!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 6:40 pm
Rich frequently leans, particularly after about 3 or 4 pm
Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 12:30 am
Anonymous 5:22
New York City concealed carry restrictions were originally enacted in 1911, and has withstood all legal challenges in the intervening 102 years … .
Comment by Anyone Remember? Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 9:20 am