Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: This Is Illinois (Part 3,648)
Posted in:
* Mayor Emanuel had real trouble today passing a resolution that everybody thought called for support of state legislation requiring mandatory minimum sentences on many first time gun possession violators. Opposition came mostly from African-American aldermen. DriXander was there…
Brookins: Sen. Trotter would've had to do 3 yrs under this State's Attny, for example. Mandatory mins don't work, war on drugs just threw $.
— dri (@DriXander) October 16, 2013
Ervin: This res is policy statement from our body. If it was broader statement, maybe, but solution cannot be lock up more Black & Brown ppl
— dri (@DriXander) October 16, 2013
Burnett: A LOT of old ppl in our communities toting. Out of fear. I think it's wrong. BUT we should give the judge that discretion.
— dri (@DriXander) October 16, 2013
* And then somebody read the actual resolution…
Sawyer stands up, says he read the res & it only refers to sentencing credit. Brookins withdraws roll call. Everyone now voting for it.
— dri (@DriXander) October 16, 2013
Oops.
* Read the resolution by clicking here. It says nothing at all about endorsing the mandatory minimum aspect of the legislation that Emanuel has been touting for days…
WHEREAS, Illinois should strengthen its sentencing laws so that people who commit crimes with firearms face tougher sentencing requirements; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED, That we, the Mayor and Members of the City Council of the City of Chicago, do hereby urge the Illinois General Assembly to take action, in the interest of public safety, by passing legislation that strengthens our sentencing laws for those crimes committed with a firearm, requiring that 85 percent of each sentence be served regardless of the “bodily harm” inflicted
Maybe Emanuel is finally listening. Whatever the case, how do you pass a mandatory minimum bill in Springfield when the Chicago freaking city council won’t even back it?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 1:30 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: This Is Illinois (Part 3,648)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“Whatever the case, how do you pass a mandatory minimum bill in Springfield when the Chicago freaking city council won’t even back it? ”
Yup. It may sound great on TV (to some folks) for the chief and mayor to spout on about tougher sentences. But sound bytes aren’t good law.
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 1:41 pm
Key quote here:
…”strengthens our sentencing laws for those crimes committed with a firearm”…
not just simple possession of a firearm. A crime committed with a firearm. Makes perfect sense to me.
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 1:42 pm
==If it was broader statement, maybe, but solution cannot be lock up more Black & Brown ppl==
I wasn’t aware the law said that it applied only to black and brown people.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 1:48 pm
Why only target firearms in this legislation. I would think anything used as a weapon in a crime should be included. And only 85% of the sentence? Have criminals serve the complete sentence.
Comment by FormerParatrooper Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 1:54 pm
As long as we are talking about increased penalties for using a firearm while committing a crime that’s fine. However some descriptions of this bill are referring to illegal possession of a firearm. I haven’t read the bill so it may just be an issue of reporters writing about things they don’t know about.
I also agree with FormerParatrooper. I know firsthand of a felon who spent less than 50 percent of his sentence behind bars. He just didn’t use a firearm. While he was out early he did use a firearm and killed his wife and shot a police officer.
Comment by Downstate Illinois Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 2:15 pm
It’s funny how few politicians actually read bills. This one took how long to read, and once anyone claimed to actually do so, only then does it pass? That’s absurd. Misinformed grandstanding at its finest.
Comment by Policy Analyst Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 2:23 pm
Ron: “not just simple possession of a firearm. A crime committed with a firearm.”
I don’t see the distinction. Unlawful possession of a firearm, is (1) a crime, committed (2) ‘with’ a firearm. And possession of a controlled substance while in unlawful possession of a firearm, is also a ‘crime committed with a firearm’.
Probably phrased that way to be able to weasel it into the way you read it, but I don’t think that’s the plain meaning.
Comment by Chris Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 4:50 pm
@Chris,
My wife decides to take my truck somewhere that I put a locked pistol in the glove compartment. There you have one.
An out of state permit holder stops for gas on the tollway and a cop sees him “printing” and approaches and asks for a permit. He was fine in the car, get out of the car to fill up… AgUUW Felony.
etc, etc.
as apposed to I robbed a store with a gun (crime with a gun).
or
I assaulted/threatened someone with a pistol in my hand.
I get busted for drug possession w/ intent, with a pistol on me.
A guy shoots at another guy.
A CRIME with a gun. Not simple possession.
Mandatory minimum of 3 years for anyone even possessing a gun, first time offense and no other criminal record. That is what we want to avoid.
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 6:12 pm
That resolution appears to be over a month old.
Comment by Bill Wick Wednesday, Oct 16, 13 @ 8:58 pm