Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Will LMadigan’s withdrawal lead to a GOP win?
Next Post: Today’s moment of Zen
Posted in:
* From a Sun-Times editorial…
Houses of worship don’t just accommodate religious gatherings. They also are places where deeply troubled people come to get help. If for no other reason than that, they should be off limits to guns.
Unfortunately, a state law rushed through in the closing days of the spring legislative session that allows the concealed carrying of guns also makes it legal to bring those firearms into places of worship. That’s an alarming prospect that needs to be rectified as quickly as possible.
State Sen. Dan Kotowski (D-Park Ridge) has introduced a legislative amendment that would bar concealed firearms from any building or parking area under the control of a church, synagogue, temple, mosque or other place of worship.
At a press conference on Monday, Philip L. Blackwell, senior pastor of the First United Methodist Church at the Chicago Temple, pointed out that religious workers deal daily with people who are desperate, upset, despairing or on the very of edge a breakdown when they come in for help. Allowing loaded concealed weapons into that environment puts the lives of the staff at risk. Why shouldn’t those workers get the same protection as, say, casino employees, who are safeguarded under the new law? […]
Rev. Liz Munoz, an associate priest at St. James Cathedral, said concealed weapons undermine the very idea of a place of worship, especially in a neighborhood plagued by gunfire such as Little Village, where she lives.
“In these communities, we need a place where people know they can come in and be cared for and loved, and not worried about who is carrying a concealed weapon,” Munoz said.
Those are all decent points. However, there’s a very serious problem with that side of the argument.
* One of the cases used by the 7th Circuit to toss out Illinois’ public carry ban was Shepard v. Madigan.
The case specifically involved an elderly woman who was volunteering at a church when she was assaulted…
…when Mrs. Shepard was working at her church on September 28,2009, she was unarmed. While peaceably performing her duties as treasurer of the church, her life was changed forever when she became the victim of a heinous and unconscionable criminal assault and battery.
Despite her being licensed in two states to do so, Mrs. Shepard was not carrying a handgun on her person, and therefore was unable to defend herself, when she was viciously attacked and brutalized at the hands of a six foot-three-inch 245 pound man with a violent past and a criminal record.
Mrs. Shepard would have been carrying a handgun at the time of this heinous attack had the aforementioned Illinois statutes not prevented her from doing so.
The disturbing post-attack photo…
So, banning carry in a church likely would’ve set off another round of court battles. And since Shepard’s case was used in the 7th Circuit’s decision, a church carry ban would’ve probably been a real problem for the new law.
…Adding… Churches are, of course, allowed to ban carrying on their property, unless they don’t own the property, which was also an objection raised in the editorial.
* Meanwhile, AG Madigan has filed a new motion…
Under the law passed last week, Illinois State Police have about six months to set up a concealed-carry program before accepting applications. Police then have 90 days to process the forms.
Gun-rights advocate Mary Shepard and the Illinois State Rifle Association say that’s unconstitutionally too long and want an East St. Louis U.S. District Judge to allow immediate concealed carry.
But Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s office argued in a filing Thursday that Shepard needs to file a new complaint spelling out why the law’s time allowances are unreasonable.
*** UPDATE *** Shepard has responded to the Madigan filing. Click here to read it.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 1:58 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Will LMadigan’s withdrawal lead to a GOP win?
Next Post: Today’s moment of Zen
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Can’t the individual churches ban them?
Comment by thechampaignlife Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 2:04 pm
A church is also private property. The congregation / members can ban carry. As Mary’s case points out, bad people do come to churches to to bad things (Colorado shooting where a member/volunteer security stopped a crazy comes to mind).
Like any place, if the membership does not want it, it shouldnt be there. But the state imposing a rule on all churches even those whose members decide they are fine with carry in the church?
Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 2:05 pm
Let’s not forget that those Pastors and Priests can still make their churches off-limits to guns. All it takes is a sign and it has the strength of law. I know it has come up at our elder meetings.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 2:06 pm
The literal interpretation of “Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition.”
Comment by And I Approved This Message Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 2:18 pm
The church I go to is a target for thieves. Even though there are security cameras, members have to be aware that people come in to steal women’s purses and there have been break-ins into the office and cars in the parking lot. Unfortuneately, even here in Springfield,churches are a target for crime.
Comment by seebee Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 2:20 pm
Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart was on Chicago Tonight a few days back and said that his reading of the CC law was that prior to the setup of the CC application programs, individuals would legally be able to walk around with concealed weapons throughout the entire state. He said that was an overlooked “window” left open in the legislation that he was extremely worried about.
I wonder if the ISRA can cite his opinion in their court complaint to actually support their argument.
Comment by Reader Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 2:20 pm
Why is any place other than a Court Room, a jail or a prison any more ’sensitive’ than anywhere else.
The mere presence of a gun, especially one that you are not even aware of being present, poses no threat of any kind.
And if someone were going to come into a place and start shooting, a ban on guns in that place wouldn’t stop them. At least it hasn’t yet.
Sheesh!
If only Common Sense were as common as it’s supposed to be.
Comment by Keith E. Turner Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 2:25 pm
–Mrs. Shepard would have been carrying a handgun at the time of this heinous attack–
Unless of course the church did not allow it. I’m not near as concerned about the allowing/not allowing conceal/carry in church, but I thought the opt-in provision was a better option than the opt-out for all property owners, I believe this would have satisfied property rights concerns better than the opt-out provisions, including churches.
Comment by Ahoy! Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 2:36 pm
I read the editorial what i am trying to understand is if the concern is people will ignore the signs telling them not to why would those same people pay attention to the law in the first place?? As for the church owning the building or not. As long as the church is the tenant shouldn’t they still be allowed to post their signs??
Seems to me this is a “solution” in need of a problem. 99% of churches are going to have the option to ban guns with the full authority of law. The only ones i see that aren’t going to have the option are places that rent space for services. If there needs to be an exception for temporary tenants we can work that out.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 2:37 pm
Ahoy
As for opt-in versus opt-out either way someone is putting up a sign. The difference is in how you see things happening in your area. Where i live i suspect that signs prohibiting will be in the minority. Where as in cook county i am sure, at least at first, they will be in the majority. Since, IMHO, it was the downstate members who had the votes to kill what they didn’t like and had a lot of support at home for this they got their way.
Don’t forget from a business point of view putting up a no gun sign has a lot less impact with those who are uneducated on the issue than a guns welcome sign.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 2:49 pm
Yeah, she would have been carrying a gun. In her purse, locked in her desk. Fat lot of help that would have been.
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 2:56 pm
@Chavez
—
Yeah, she would have been carrying a gun. In her purse, locked in her desk. Fat lot of help that would have been.
—
Yeah… much better to not give her a chance. Even in her purse at her feet she may have grabbed it or put her hand on it as the giant that beat her walked in the door.
Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 3:00 pm
How can the Sun-Times write the editorial without mentioning Mary Shepard, her experience or her lawsuit?
Is it possible they didn’t know about it? That would be bad enough. But if they did know the background, and chose to leave it out, that’s just dishonest.
There’s an obvious and specific reason why churches were included.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 3:05 pm
because the sun-times doesnt care about reality only stuff to create a unwanted bias. its also required by sikh churchs for males to be armed. Kotowski is diving head first into a seperation of church and state issue that is not needed. by law a church can already ban it..
Comment by c Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 3:20 pm
Word I agree with you
Comment by Todd Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 3:26 pm
===Todd - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 3:26 pm: Word I agree with you ===
The world may be coming to an end.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 3:32 pm
As has been pointed out, if someone is intent on shooting up a place of worsbip, I hardly doubt that a law prohibiting concealed carry will stop that person.
Comment by Just Observing Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 4:00 pm
RonOglesby–every time someone walks into your office you pull a gun on them?
What happened to that woman shouldn’t happen to anyone. That doesn’t mean having a gun on you is always going to protect you from the bad guys.
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 4:17 pm
Chavez
You are absolutely right there are times when having a gun will not protect you. Congratulations. Now when would a 70 yr old woman not having a gun protect her from a 6′ 3″ 245lb man intent on beating her senseless??
Maybe Mary’s gun would have been in her purse locked in her drawer but for Darn sure it did her no good at home locked in her dresser.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 4:30 pm
==If only Common Sense were as common as it’s supposed to be.==
Yeah, if only the Great Milwaukee Highway Shoot of 2013 would’ve featured some common sense.
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/writers/steven_elbow/concealed-carry-permit-holders-shoot-it-out-on-a-milwaukee/article_2ffe8fb2-400e-511d-bf5e-c88994f4b4be.html
As for Shepard, the rabid pro-gun folks says we shouldn’t be making policy based on one case? Where are the other people with out-of-state permits who would have stopped a “bad guy”?
Comment by Precinct Captain Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 4:32 pm
Mason, if I were as frightened of everyone as some gun supporters seem to be, I’d never leave my house, even with my gun.
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 4:33 pm
Chavez
You seem to be confused between Prudence and Fear.
Had Mary been able to carry and she ran him off would you call her unreasonably frightened or simply prudent??
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 4:38 pm
@Mason
there is no arguing with people who believe that you really cant defend yourself and its better left to the police.
Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 4:45 pm
I’ve never understood why in more liberal states pro gun groups never used the protecting kids and women argument as their big move which would seem to resonate with your suburban women theory. For the people in the middle, this might resonate more. Hey your sister is alone with her small kids 20 miles from a police station + someone breaks in, you want them with self protection or left to devices?
If there is one plus with the wonkier fiscal issues over the social issues, it’s that the imagery is less intense. People say mean things to each other-which isn’t right, but they don’t show images like this or of fetuses and generally argue with their feet, not pictures or threats of weaponry.
Comment by shore Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 4:48 pm
Ron
Oh i could never convince Chavez. However he is a convenient foil. Most people on his side would wisely leave any comments about the whole Mary Shepherd case alone. After all Law abiding senior citizen, beaten by a physically intimidating criminal, and in a church. No way to blame Shepherd for what happened to her or say she should have known better than to be there.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 4:50 pm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F07E4D91631F933A25750C0A96F9C8B63
2009 Maryville IL church pastor shot during service!!
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/more-charges-announced-in-east-st-louis-church-robbery/article_365020d0-210a-56f5-b585-c4d2b6d6b7f2.html
2013 Four people were charged Friday in connection with an armed holdup at an East St. Louis church.
http://www.kfvs12.com/Global/story.asp?S=5374598&clienttype=printable 2006 robbing several women at gunpoint at a Goreville IL church.
MARY SHEPPARD All in Southern ILLINOIS. What happened in the rest of the State? NEED I SAY MORE
Comment by More on churches Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 5:09 pm
Hey Word, Did I mention I agree with you…
Comment by Todd Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 5:11 pm
i think you made him have a heart attack Todd.
Comment by c Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 5:42 pm
Precint do you see anyone defending the two idiots in wisconsin??
Better yet want to show me two concealed carry permit holders from illinois shooting it out? i guess maybe i shouldnt of put that trick question at the end.
Comment by c Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 5:44 pm
LOL, Todd I just spotted that. Don’t make a habit of it, it would be bad for business.
–Hey your sister is alone with her small kids 20 miles from a police station + someone breaks in, you want them with self protection or left to devices?–
Shore, I don’t think having some kind of gun in the home has been an issue for a long time, if it ever was one. Having a handgun in the home was only an issue in a few jurisdictions in Illinois and DC, and was settled with Heller and McDonald.
When it comes to carry, just about anywhere in the United States where someone is 20 miles from a police station, or only has a couple of deputies or troopers patrolling at night, you’ll find a higher percentage of folks supporting carry laws.
On the flip side, in many Northern areas of highly concentrated populations, you’ll find higher percentages opposed.
That’s what makes it a tough, one-size fits all issue in some minds, in some places.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 5:54 pm
Word — what do you make of Alderman Burke’s attempt at blackmailing businesses in to banning carry?
Comment by Todd Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 9:01 pm
It’s, nonetheless, on the whole a LONG-Overdue and wise suggested addition to add places which should be exempt from concealed handguns. If it’s good enough for the list of all the other legitimate Places in Illinois where they will be banned, there’s no place for guns in Churches or Other Houses of Worship as well–a place which both embodies and symbolizes, and where people GO TO experience such realities, Peace, Harmony and the presence of God Almighty, despite a rare, tragic, freakish, unfortunate exception. Hats off to Sen. Kotowski–I, and every OTHer person I’ve discussed it with–earnestly hope (and pray) that this Bill passes!!!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 9:10 pm
As someone who has lived 4 years in a state with liberal gun laws (no permission needed to carry in public), I tend to find most of this IL discussion rather silly. Routine and rather widespread carriage of guns by average folks here just isn’t a problem, whether it is in churches, places serving alcohol, museums, or public transit. I don’t know why Chicagolanders think they are so special. I lived there 4 years and for the life of me can’t understand what is so special about Chicago or its people that would make carriage of guns a problem. I guess I largely chalk it up to inexperience, ignorance, and a good deal of provincialism.
Comment by Carl from Chicago Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 10:38 pm