Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Sheriff Dart readies concealed carry ordinance

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

* Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart will propose a local concealed carry ordinance in case the General Assembly doesn’t come to an agreement by the court-imposed June 9th deadline…

Dart’s ordinance would give him the power to approve and reject licenses to carry concealed guns in Cook County. Applicants would have to pay a $300 fee for a license. […]

Chicago Police spokesman Adam Collins said: “If a statewide law is not passed, the city is preparing to implement a comprehensive concealed-carry ordinance to ensure that guns stay out of the hands of criminals.” […]

Dart said he recently spoke to elderly people in the south suburbs. They complained that the police were unresponsive. Some said they were regularly burglarized while they attended church.

“It’s a matter of timing,” Dart said, noting that those people could have become homicide victims if they came home during a burglary.

Those are the types of people who might show a need for a concealed-carry permit, Dart said. But someone without a specific need for a gun would have difficulty receiving a license, he said.

Business owners who could hire armed security for protection also might have a hard time getting a license, Dart said.

…Adding… I wish the Chicago police would get a freaking clue. The concealed carry debate is not about criminals getting guns. Criminals cannot legally obtain a FOID card in this state, which is a prerequisite to a concealed carry permit - or even carrying publicly if the state’s unlawful use of a weapon law is finally struck down on June 9th.

* I asked the NRA’s Todd Vandermyde for a response…

One state, one law. They want a no carry zone that encompasses 40% of the population and we won’t budge on it statewide with preemption.

Either by fees or fiat they want their Jim Crow gun laws to deny a fundamental right. What part of the decision do they not understand? $300 for a permit plus what ever other things they pile on top of it– no way

But it lessens any reason to work with Dart on his other legislation.

He added…

So Matt Murphy and Chris Radogno are supposed to go beg Tom Dart for a carry permit? Yeah, I don’t think so.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, May 6, 13 @ 10:04 am

Comments

Don’t quite follow his thinking on CCW for home owners who get burglarized while at church…

Comment by Charlatan Heston Monday, May 6, 13 @ 10:07 am
Bright move by Dart. Now ISRA has an incentive to negotiate in Springfield. They’ve been taking the position that after June, there is NO law in Illinois, so there is no reason for them to compromise. If Cook County adopts a New York-model (already vetted by the courts)ordinance using home rule power, that changes the equation.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, May 6, 13 @ 10:08 am
It’s called the Constitution……. doesn’t anyone in charge in Cook County know what that is?

Comment by anon Monday, May 6, 13 @ 10:12 am
That “Jim Crow” talking point has been coming around quite a bit lately.

Any evidence, at all, that Dart’s proposal would be used to discriminate racially? Or is it just looking for cheap political points to imply that he’s a racist?

Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 6, 13 @ 10:12 am
Chicago Police spokesman Adam Collins said: “If a statewide law is not passed, the city is preparing to implement a comprehensive concealed-carry ordinance to ensure that guns stay out of the hands of criminals.” […]
I didn’t realize they already had that under control…
Cook county, the Capitol of chronyism and corruption want their own rules- who could have guessed…

Comment by Tequila Mockingbird Monday, May 6, 13 @ 10:15 am
There are a few things wrong with dart’s quotes in the articles.

one- he said an elderly couple robbed while they were at church may get a permit. But he also mentions gun free zones which would include churches.

next he says a business owner that COULD hire security probably would not get a permit… So if dart feels you could pay for security for your business you dont get a permit. That guy that got shot defending his store with a bat? probably not eligible under Sheriff Dart.

And 300 bucks a permit? really? Wisconsin and Indiana have permits that cost NO WHERE NEAR that. its a punitive cost. no doubt about it.

Yet another chance for those w/ clout or the hook up to get a permit. Those without…

Comment by RonOglesby Monday, May 6, 13 @ 10:18 am
Word we have been the pnly pnes negotiating. Cook and chicago just want out or to say NO. And thats not gonna happen.

They cant pass what they want. We are a few votes short of what we want.

And we already have a suit pending against Chicago and they no carry ordinance. Its in front of judge Zagle.

One state, one law.

Comment by Todd Monday, May 6, 13 @ 10:28 am
“But someone without a specific need for a gun would have difficulty receiving a license, he said.”

I find that really disturbing. What would constitute a specific need? It seems to give the Sheriff way too much discretion.

Plus, I’m with others here on the $300.00. That’s a lot of money for some people. It sure seems like way to keep guns out of the hands of poor people.

Comment by HenryVK Monday, May 6, 13 @ 10:29 am
Jim Crow gun laws? I see that the moronic rhetoric continues. I understand why nothing is getting done on this topic. It’s hard to have an intelligent conversation with people who spout such nonsense.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, May 6, 13 @ 10:30 am
In order to possess a firearm in Illinois, in almost every circumstance, a FOID card is required. In order to obtain a FOID card, a criminal background check is run which should preclude criminals from receiving the card. So how would creating another card do any more to keep “guns out of the hands of criminals”?

Comment by elginkevin Monday, May 6, 13 @ 10:30 am
“Jim Crow gun laws”

Cute, but nonsense.

This is about “cronyism and corruption”

Not hardly. Please don’t kid yourself with such glosses.

Dart’s comments are like fish flapping on the dock.

Comment by walkinfool Monday, May 6, 13 @ 10:31 am
Wow, I’m tired today. Completely missed that Rich already made this comment right there in the middle. Oops. Ignore me

Comment by elginkevin Monday, May 6, 13 @ 10:32 am
Is Vandermyde taken serious at the Capitol? “Jim Crow gun laws?” What a joke, does he even know the history of Jim Crow laws or did some intern write that talking point for him?

$300 for a permit seems reasonable to me, my question is does it cover the administrative costs? If not, it should be higher.

Comment by Ahoy! Monday, May 6, 13 @ 10:32 am
It is simply amazing to me that so many of you seem to trust the Cook County Sheriff to do the right thing when it comes to issuing permits, and in particular, to do so without any political, racial or other bias.

Apparently, the people here believe that Cook County electeds, or sheriffs generally, have no history of taking action based on political, racial, or other bias. Nope, no sir. An abuse of authority would be the first of that kind ever alleged against a sheriff or a Cook County official. Right?

Comment by HenryVK Monday, May 6, 13 @ 10:38 am
I would like to make clear that I have absolutley no problem with the bill that Todd supports. I wish it would pass. What I have a problem with is the over the top rhetoric on this issue. It would be nice if people on both sides could show a bit of restraint and seek to make an argument based on merit rather than knee-jerk name calling or sky-is-falling nonsense.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, May 6, 13 @ 10:41 am
At least Dart is trying to find some middle ground here. Seems like his reference to the church goers indicates he’s open to giving out permits.

Looks like he’s going for a New York style concealed carry. Given that the U.S. Supremes refused to hear a challenge to the New York law, he might be on to something than could survive a NRA challenge if federal court. I can see Chicago and lots of municipalities in the collars trying to do the same thing if the June 9 deadline is blown.

Comment by Frank Monday, May 6, 13 @ 10:46 am
I believe the conceal and carry law should be passed in illinois, due to tha fact a pregnant women in peoria just got shot in the back. Defenseless people need to protect themselves against “big bullies” with weapons.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, May 6, 13 @ 10:47 am
If it was remotely possible to negotiate with the NRA or the ISRA we’d probably already have one conceal carry law for the state. But they’re too busy yelling “Jim Crow!” to sit down and talk.

Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Monday, May 6, 13 @ 10:48 am
Demoralized–

Short and to the point. They want to mke it expensive so people won’t apply. They want to pile on restrictions amd such so people won’t apply. Just go look at the chicago ordiance to own a gun.

I have to have a foid and show two ids to buy a gun, but showing an id is somehow appaling when we vote. The double standard is appaling.

If Dart and co. Want to say that if you have enough money for security you probably won’t get a permit and then set fees high enough to discourage lower economic people from beign able to apply, not to mention whqt ever training and such is gonn be required. Finger printing will add another $60 to it.

Cook and chicago think they are oh so,special and diferent. Not on this one.

Comment by Todd Monday, May 6, 13 @ 10:50 am
“I live in the city with some of the worst crime in the nation” should be a good enough reason. We can only hope it’s not a tight process that excludes a vast majority of people.

When it comes to a constitutional right, a 100% arbitrary process for determining who gets to practice it is not right.

Comment by Anon Monday, May 6, 13 @ 10:51 am
Anonymous, while I don’t disagree about concealed carry, I do wonder how a woman shot in the back would benefit all that much. And that’s a real problem with the logic most of you use. Criminals are mostly cowards. They don’t have fair fight showdowns in the street. They sneak up on people and catch them unaware. A gun does you no good if you’re hit in the head from behind or shot in the back.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 6, 13 @ 10:51 am
If some of you people that are criticizing Mr. Vandermyde’s statement on “Jim Crow,” laws would look at the history of gun laws in Chicago and Cook County you would understand what prompted those laws. They are indeed racist laws. It is absolutely beyond me why South Side and West Side Aldermen and State Representatives put up with it. Don’t you guys watch the news, don’t you realize the kind of stuff the Chicago Police Department used to do and the settlements the City has been paying out.

Comment by Graybeard Monday, May 6, 13 @ 10:52 am
Chavez,

That’s just not the case. The Phelps bill has a long list of things that the NRA gave up. Todd negotiated in good faith for years, but Chicago Dems refused to cooperate. They simply said no.

You can say that Todd’s language is over the top on this one (I wouldn’t have phrased it the same way). But that Todd refused to negotiate? That’s simply not true.

Comment by HenryVK Monday, May 6, 13 @ 10:53 am
@Chavez

Uh… the “NRA” as you call it has modified the bill it supports over and over in negotiations.

Comment by RonOglesby Monday, May 6, 13 @ 10:54 am
@Todd:

Three things. First, I said in another post I wish you would get your law passed. Second, I don’t think what Dart proposed is reasonable. Third, I don’t like it that Chicago wants to carve itself out from every state law like they are some sort of separate state unto themselves. I do have a problem with the unnecessary rhetoric from BOTH sides on this issue. If you really are two votes away then get those votes and ignore the other stuff for now. I would rather have a law in place than go through all of this ordinance nonsense when June arrives and no law is on the books. Yes, I know you will fight all of the ordinances but I think it would be better to have one law and I think you agree with that.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, May 6, 13 @ 10:59 am
For those that think 300 is ok… By the time you get the permit you will pay more in fees and training than for the handgun.

lets say you get little .38 or a used glock. You are in for 400 MAYBE 500 bucks.

FOID $10
Chicago handgun registration fee $100
Chicago training class $100-125
Gun rental, range fee and ammo for class $50
Additional CCW training $150 (esitmate)
Cost for Dart permit $300
Add 50 bucks for fingerprinting
and a separate charge for the background checks.

All told: Over $800 for the fees, different training classes and licenses, administration,etc. and this doesnt cover costs of traveling outside of the city for all of this.

Now, I agree to some extent with the CCW class. But you know it will be in addition the CFP class, not instead of.

Cross into Wisconsin or Indiana or Iowa you need the background checks, in Wisconsin and Iowa, you need training. but you are ALL IN for maybe 200 bucks.

Price it out of reach. That is the new mantra

Comment by RonOglesby Monday, May 6, 13 @ 11:03 am
–I have to have a foid and show two ids to buy a gun, but showing an id is somehow appaling when we vote. The double standard is appaling.–

What’s the double-standard? You have to show an ID to buy a lot of things. The motivation is to keep guns out of the hands of those who cannot legally purchase them.

The problem with the voter ID and polling hours cutback movement are that they are specifically motivated to disenfranchise eligible voters of color and the poor. True Jim Crow.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 6, 13 @ 11:04 am
@Word…

and pricing a permit so high that it could be double the cost of the pistol is the same. Trying to keep someone poor (and in chicago most likely of color) from getting a permit.

Comment by RonOglesby Monday, May 6, 13 @ 11:08 am
- You have to show an ID to buy a lot of things. -

My freshman year of college, I too was appalled at the double standard of needing ID to purchase beer but not to vote. Discrimination at it’s worst…

Comment by Small Town Liberal Monday, May 6, 13 @ 11:08 am
RonO is right.

I’m not for broad CCW, but…

Stepping back, it’s clear who has been negotiating in good faith, and has moved the most from previously held positions with the Phelps bill: the gun rights folks. Sometimes their rhetoric distracts us. Give them due credit.

Comment by walkinfool Monday, May 6, 13 @ 11:10 am
One thing about this that we all have to remember is Dart is not a CCW fan. His position is like that of the City, the Mayor, and lots of Reps from Chicago.

Isnt it expected that if no law is passed he is going to try to pass stuff like this locally? Sure.

But imagine again the patchwork of laws that will spring up. Not just this, but imagine places where they limit the type of gun, the rounds it can carry, etc. Then you get to deal with counties and townships creating their own reciprocity for permits like states do today. Nightmare here we come!

Comment by RonOglesby Monday, May 6, 13 @ 11:14 am
–… look at the history of gun laws in Chicago and Cook County you would understand what prompted those laws. They are indeed racist laws.–

There was a citywide ban on anyone possessing a handgun. How was that racist, since it applied to everyone residing within the city (unless you’re under the impression that everyone in Chicago is black)?

Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 6, 13 @ 11:18 am
The problem with the voter ID and polling hours cutback movement are that they are specifically motivated to disenfranchise eligible voters of color and the poor. True Jim Crow.

Word you just made my point, that is what the Dart, Cassidy or Kwame bills are all about.

You may not like the term of anology, but you just proved it right.

Comment by Todd Monday, May 6, 13 @ 11:22 am
What is a good term for a rule or law that would make it more difficult for any group or demographic to exercise a Constitutional right? It seems that there were some historical state laws that disenfranchised groups of our diverse population.

If a person in poverty has trouble obtaining a state issued ID because of the price, then they will likely have a tougher time paying the $300-$800 fee to get CCW.

Comment by Phenomynous Monday, May 6, 13 @ 11:24 am
wordslinger,
of course there had to be a city wide ban the Older Daley could not have possibly gotten away with just banning gun permits on the South side even though he did get away with handing out permits to friends and family. Hey don’t quote me look at the History, the ’50’s the ’60s the ’70s. The Black Panther Party changes in neighborhoods, the history of civil rights in Chicago. Nope everyone in Chicago is not black but you must admit that it is still quite a segregated City.

Comment by Graybeard Monday, May 6, 13 @ 11:25 am
As a Cook County resident, I am alarmed and troubled by Dart’s proposal. We don’t need him picking and choosing who gets to carry, especially on such arbitrary standards such as living in a community with slow police response times.

Comment by Just Observing Monday, May 6, 13 @ 11:25 am
D — i agree with you on that

Comment by Todd Monday, May 6, 13 @ 11:45 am
Don’t agree with him, but good political move by Dart. Seems like a LOT of Chi/Cook residents don’t want concealed carry; many of them will feel safer because he going to take care of the “problem” of concealed carry in Cook County, if the state legislators don’t. As for the people wanting cc in Cook, the rationale will be that they didn’t have the right before, so what’s the big deal…

Comment by downstate commissioner Monday, May 6, 13 @ 12:05 pm
Although I’m not considering Dart a racist (I have other negative adjectives when it comes to him), there is some legitimacy with the phrase “Jim Crow” gun laws.

As liberals tells us again and again, it doesn’t take racist intent to be racist if the disparate impact falls upon minorities.

A Cook County exemption would mean that the largest group of African-Americans in the state would be prevented from having the same ability to defend themselves as other white citizens in the rest of the state.

If that isn’t disparate impact I don’t know what is. It would certainly be more than enough I think to base a constitutional challenge to the law, not using the 2nd, but the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection under the law.

Comment by Downstate Illinois Monday, May 6, 13 @ 12:24 pm
Todd your original analogy was that showing an FOID card and two forms of ID was as appalling as Voter ID efforts.

I don’t think there’s a partisan party plan to keep you from buying a gun for its benefit.

I don’t see Dart’s proposal as Jim Crow in that there’s no racial component to it. He’s looking to put in New York City style regs. in the absence of a state law. The goal is as little conceal-carry as will withstand a court challenge.

That’s what happens when things get decided in the courts rather than the legislatures — one side pushes a ruling to its breaking point. It’s what’s happening with Roe v. Wade in much of the South and Plains.

Who’s on what courts then becomes the battlefield.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 6, 13 @ 12:27 pm
Word… “The problem with the voter ID and polling hours cutback movement are that they are specifically motivated to disenfranchise eligible voters of color and the poor.”

I think that may have been true for the voter ID requirement many years ago; but it seems to me based upon what I’ve read that the bigger problem now is vote fraud. Requiring ID to vote seems a reasonable approach to minimize that. I still think vote fraud would occur (as evidenced by poll workers doing it in Ohio and forging of names to get Obama and Clinton on state ballot in Indiana in 2008); but maybe not to the same extent.

Comment by Logic not emotion Monday, May 6, 13 @ 12:38 pm
RonOglesby actually left out the CPD’s charge for each and every registered gun, but he got the basic thrust of the charges related to the rules. I agree with everything Todd wrote on this issue and I don’t want to get a permit for myself.

On the Jim Crow issue. Many African American families unfortunately have children or other relatives who have convictions these will raise questions about their own moral character and many will incorrectly be denied a permit simply based on blood relationships.

As I have stated many times Chicago’s gun rules are not about promoting compliance, but rather non-compliance.

Comment by Rod Monday, May 6, 13 @ 12:42 pm
–I think that may have been true for the voter ID requirement many years ago; but it seems to me based upon what I’ve read that the bigger problem now is vote fraud. Requiring ID to vote seems a reasonable approach to minimize that. I still think vote fraud would occur (as evidenced by poll workers doing it in Ohio and forging of names to get Obama and Clinton on state ballot in Indiana in 2008); but maybe not to the same extent.–

Despite what Drudge will tell you, voter fraud isn’t historically committed by people putting on Groucho glasses and pretending to be someone else.

It happened when those in control of the voting mechanism would wait until the polls closed and then vote who didn’t show up. That’s the way they did it all over Illinois — Dem and GOP — forever. That’s why results would come in late.

Partisan election judges can challenge any voter’s eligibility. The motivation behind the voter ID law is to make the state, under the color of law, responsible for the nasty business of disenfranchising certain classes of voters.

But don’t take my word for it.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/pennsylvania_gop_leader_voter_id_will_help_romney.php

http://www.thenation.com/blog/169454/ohio-gop-admits-early-voting-cutbacks-are-racially-motivated

Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 6, 13 @ 12:59 pm
@Rod

—As I have stated many times Chicago’s gun rules are not about promoting compliance, but rather non-compliance. —

That is so true. actually word is that the CPD is sending out renewal forms now for people with a registered firearm… And Guess what?

For you 3 year renewal they want you to RETAKE the chicago class again, pay another 100 dollars, go to CPD HQ again, new fingerprints, etc, etc…

They dont want compliance. That is not about safety. That is about making it hard to be legal. Sorry. This is just starting to become a joke that people on both sides should be mad about.

Yes make rules, but making them so expensive and punitive is simply silly.

Comment by RonOglesby Monday, May 6, 13 @ 1:05 pm
Dart deciding who carries and who doesn’t?..Please
“Vote for me and I will give you CC for free!

Also, I have to show a frigging ID to buy cough syrup for my grandkids but showing an ID to buy a gun somehow infringes on my rights?

Comment by Hank Monday, May 6, 13 @ 1:05 pm
@Hank,
poor argument that is short on facts. show me how you can buy a gun in Illinois w/ out ID… its illegal bud and I dont see anyone above saying showing an ID to buy a gun is an infringement.

Nice strawman, sorry that didnt work out for you.

Comment by RonOglesby Monday, May 6, 13 @ 1:18 pm
I am a veteran served my country no questions asked defending this country to the best of my abilities. Now as a tax payer in cook county I am faced with elite officials that do not trust its citizens to protect themselves Tom Dart should resign his post for breakinking his OATH along with the rest of the elite officials such as Donnie Trotter who broke the law and is now voting for me on coneal carry what a JOKE

Comment by crunch Monday, May 6, 13 @ 1:25 pm
Word: It happened when those in control of the voting mechanism would wait until the polls closed and then vote who didn’t show up. That’s the way they did it all over Illinois — Dem and GOP — forever. That’s why results would come in late.

Yes. I’ve read stories including one from a guy who actually did it in Chicago. There is a little truth behind most jokes including the one where the guy talks about his late uncle voting straight republican in every election until 1974 and then voting straight democrat ever since. Other guy asks “what happened in 1974 to change how he votes?” First guy responds, “he died.”

Back to concealed carry…

Comment by Logic not emotion Monday, May 6, 13 @ 1:30 pm
There’s no question that a high fee would make it harder for poorer people to afford a permit. Yet they’re the ones most likely to become victims of violent crimes, not the north shore residents who can easily pay Dart’s fee.

Add on all the associated fees, plus the cost of the gun, and it’s clear the effect of an exorbitant fee — if not its intent — is to discourage African Americans from carrying concealed.

Comment by reformer Monday, May 6, 13 @ 1:33 pm
It’s true that Sheriff Dart has been less associated with cronyism and patronage than his predecessors. But he won’t be in that office for ever. The next sheriff might revert to the hallowed Cook County tradition of handing out deputy badges to political pals.

We wouldn’t leave it up to a sheriff to decide if someone really needed to exercise any other constitutional rights. Why should Second Amendment rights be subject to arbitrary denial? If it’s fine with my Chicago friends, then how about First Amendment rights too?

Comment by reformer Monday, May 6, 13 @ 1:39 pm
===We wouldn’t leave it up to a sheriff to decide if someone really needed to exercise any other constitutional rights. ===

LOL.

You ever try to get a public demonstration permit?

Sometimes, you people are about the most naive naifs I’ve ever encountered. Get a freaking clue. With rights come responsibilities, sometimes onerous responsibilities. Get used to it.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 6, 13 @ 1:40 pm
I like Tom Dart and for a while now have thought him to be one of the least egregious politicians around.

But after reading his statement about essentially granting permits on a case by case basis I have to bluntly ask, “good grief, Tom–who died and left you boss?”

Comment by Responsa Monday, May 6, 13 @ 1:47 pm
@Rich
—-
Sometimes, you people are about the most naive naifs I’ve ever encountered. Get a freaking clue. With rights come responsibilities, sometimes onerous responsibilities. Get used to it.
—-

Yes but does that make it RIGHT that people/groups without clout have a hard time getting a demonstration permit? If its not right or just then arguing against other thing that the powerful can have control over is wrong?

Serious question. I mean shouldn’t we also fight that?

I believe there is a difference between responsibilities and onerous/punitive requirements.

Comment by RonOglesby Monday, May 6, 13 @ 1:56 pm
“But someone without a specific need for a gun would have difficulty receiving a license, he said.”

Who died and made you King, Dart?

Comment by I'm Strapped Monday, May 6, 13 @ 1:57 pm
==Add on all the associated fees, plus the cost of the gun, and it’s clear the effect of an exorbitant fee — if not its intent — is to discourage African Americans from carrying concealed. ==

African Americans are the only ones who might not be able to afford the fees, etc.? That’s not a stereotype at all.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, May 6, 13 @ 2:00 pm
I would add, Demoralized, that comparing this issue to Jim Crow laws will not make African-American legislators all that happy.

Just sayin…

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 6, 13 @ 2:03 pm
–They dont want compliance. That is not about safety. That is about making it hard to be legal. Sorry. This is just starting to become a joke that people on both sides should be mad about.–

Ron, Todd, what’s your proposal for determining mental health and guns?

The NRA, rightfully and truthfully, have stated that a lot of lunatics have legally gotten their hands on guns and committed these massacres. They were law-abiding nut jobs until they started spraying.

You ain’t necessarily born crazy. How, in the interest of public safety, do you review and determine who is mentally healthy enough to keep guns; who does it and pays; how do you take away guns from “law-abiding” mentally ill people; and who pays what?

Furthermore, is an advocate of sedition an enemy of the Constitution and can they be deprived of possessing weapons?

Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 6, 13 @ 2:20 pm
===the least egregious politicians around===

Perhaps not egregious but certainly a media darling who gets out front on softer issues

Comment by Charlatan Heston Monday, May 6, 13 @ 2:22 pm
===I believe there is a difference between responsibilities and onerous/punitive requirements. ===

It depends on your perspective.

Some folks who want to march up Michigan Ave. might believe that strict time constraints on their permit are onerous. Those who would be driving on Michigan Ave. at that time might feel otherwise.

Government is a balancing act. I get you guys are radicals, but balance is what government does. And you’d better learn that pretty soon.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 6, 13 @ 2:29 pm
“I get you guys are radicals, but balance is what government does.”

Budgets not included…or up until this point, CCW.

And I’m seriously not trying to be snarky…

Comment by Phenomynous Monday, May 6, 13 @ 2:44 pm
@Word

I think that some of the existing laws are what needs to be enforced there. I mean for years county courts haven’t passed on mental adjudication findings to the criminal system. The question there is why not?

Do the above, someone found legally to be a danger to themselves or others, put them on the NICS database (used for every gun sale and foid card)

If this does happen that should be forwarded to the FOID folks or local LE (or both).

And require that Mental health professionals report people that are a danger to themselves and others. I mean that Aurora Colorado shooter was seeing a shrink… And last I heard she warned the campus police who did: nothing.

How do we pay for this? we stop chasing crap that we now call crime. We have an over criminalized society where importing a lobster in the wrong packaging can land you in jail. Or some of the drug laws, and not incarcerating simple users.

You’re right. not everyone is “born” crazy (though some are). Most succumb later in life. But we have a judicial process and mental health resources. The government does a terrible job of dealing with that though. No new laws would fix that, they need to decide to do what they have already.

now should I have to prove my worthiness infront of some shrink? no.

Comment by RonOglesby Monday, May 6, 13 @ 3:02 pm
As a former Chicagoan and a person who has lived in several states with liberalized “shall-issue” laws, I must say that there is a great deal of provincial thinking in Chicago. In fact, the lack of perspective is amazing.

In other words, those folks worried that a concealed carry law will diminish public safety are seriously out-of-touch with the reality that is most of the United States.

In my view, opposition to folks bearing arms is mostly about some perceived “cultural aversion” and little about a realistic look at public safety impacts. If concealed carry doesn’t increase crime (and it doesn’t) then why are folks so worried? It makes no sense, other than to suppose that those opposed just don’t know the stats from the rest of the nation.

All this ado from the LAST state to prohibit carriage of guns is laughable.

Comment by Former Chicagoan Monday, May 6, 13 @ 3:12 pm
@ Former Chicagoan

from a current Chicagoan…bravo

Comment by Charlatan Heston Monday, May 6, 13 @ 3:27 pm
Dart’s argument would work a little better if he spelled out a specific good use for the money collected. Otherwise the $300 looks like a simple deterrent for lower-income people who probably have a greater need for personal security.

Comment by L.S. Monday, May 6, 13 @ 3:52 pm
=== But someone without a specific need for a gun would have difficulty receiving a license, he said. ===

So nice to see that Dart has a crystal ball.

He knows who is going to get mugged, raped, assaulted, etc. and who isn’t?

How long before a concealed carry applicant Dart rejects for lack of “a specific need” is later harmed as the victim of a crime?

Judging by the statistics out of Chicago, not long.

Just imagine those headlines, Tommy Boy.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, May 6, 13 @ 3:54 pm
For those of you snarking about the use of the term “Jim Crow laws”, it would seem there is a decent, accurate basis for using it here. The Jim Crow laws were designed to abuse the legal process by keeping poor Southern blacks “in there place” (to use a common phraseology of the day). Literacy tests for voting an onerous gun restrictions (at least as applied ot the poor) were among them - keeping the poor minorities unable to vote or defend themselves.

Comment by titan Monday, May 6, 13 @ 4:15 pm
Word my iPad died so on the phone and answering your question is more than in are to ty

Comment by Todd Monday, May 6, 13 @ 4:26 pm
Urgggg why I don’t post from my phone will answer later

Comment by Todd Monday, May 6, 13 @ 4:27 pm
Todd, I hope you are typing with your trigger fingers…Yikes!

:)

Comment by Phenomynous Monday, May 6, 13 @ 4:34 pm
Sigh…

I meant “Aren’t”. Jokes on me.

Comment by Phenomynous Monday, May 6, 13 @ 4:35 pm
First it’s Todd writing that the Black Caucus should be concerned about guns being kept from them by a may issue system involving law enforcement, now he talks about Jim Crow laws. what an offensive way to try and court the votes of legislators.

Comment by Amalia Monday, May 6, 13 @ 5:04 pm
Thank you Amalia for telling me how to do my job

Comment by Todd Monday, May 6, 13 @ 5:29 pm
Thank you Todd for showing us how you really think.

Comment by Amalia Monday, May 6, 13 @ 6:01 pm
Sorry if it was already mentioned elsewhere, but there’s already (free) CCW in Cook Co. It’s just not for those who obey the law.

Comment by Pffft... Monday, May 6, 13 @ 6:29 pm
Yep, that new NRA President is a real peach when it comes to understanding the Civil War:

In a June speech, Porter noted the NRA was “started by some Yankee generals who didn’t like the way my Southern boys had the ability to shoot in what we call the ‘War of Northern Aggression.’ ”

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nutty-new-nra-president-jim-porter-war-guns-article-1.1333864#ixzz2SZKLHQT4

Comment by Amalia Monday, May 6, 13 @ 9:11 pm
Amiia, I’m with you. God help those who are not!

Anyone in 2013 that talks about “The War of Northern Aggression,” gets this Yankee’s ears popping.

It was and has been the Yankees, the men and women from the 1800s on up North, who have built and saved Western Civilization.

And we didn’t do it so a bunch of boo-boos could yank their johnsons on guns. Jesus H Christ, where is the sense of responsibility on these zealots?

If you care to read the declarations of secession from the Southern states, they lay it all down that it was all about keeping their black slaves.

Don’t underestimate what Lincoln, Grant, and the boys and girls from Illinois did. They changed the world, these Yankees, with their War of Northern Aggression.

Seriously, take a look around the world. It doesn’t happen anywhere else.

How many massacres do we have to endure to let these boys play with their guns?

Comment by Anonymous Monday, May 6, 13 @ 9:45 pm
@Anonymous, does not sound like you and I think alike.

Comment by Amalia Tuesday, May 7, 13 @ 7:01 am
Is this the same sheriff that will not sign off on his retired officers to carry retired? If so then what citizen will he deem permit approvable?

Comment by concern citizen Tuesday, May 14, 13 @ 11:05 pm