Time never right for concealed carry (Chicago Tribune)

[jpak]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-03-28/news/chi-110328thompson_briefs_1_concealed-carry-law-enforcement-legislative-process

In a recent column ("5 reasons why time is right for concealed-carry gun bill," March 16), Eric Zorn lays out a case in support of allowing concealed carry of handguns in Illinois. Mr. Zorn's article is misguided and does not contemplate the perspective of why the time is wrong to pass this legislation. Below are five reasons to consider why Illinois should continue to not allow concealed carry:

1.) Fix the broken background check system: Currently, Illinois has over 120,000 people who should be prohibited from purchasing a weapon because of mental health illness. Although the law was passed in 2007, to date less than 100 of those records were entered into the National Criminal Instant Check System. Additionally, there should be a universal background check on handguns so that private sales receive the same process as other sales. A "shall-issue" situation requires a system where all records are up to date.

2.) History too often repeats itself: The National Rifle Association talks about how concealed-carry permits allow law-abiding citizens to carry a handgun for self-protection, however, the Violence Policy Center has been tracking the issue of concealed-carry permit holders and too often they are abusing the system. The fact is that 288 people (including nine law enforcement officials) have been killed by concealed-carry permit holders. Mr. Zorn questions the data and concludes "there's no good reason for a state not to issue such permits." I, along with the families and friends of those killed believe there are 288 great reasons.

3.) Supreme Court decision: While state Rep. Brandon Phelps included a small portion of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's ruling in the Heller case in his House Bill 148, both he and Mr. Zorn fail to include that the Supreme Court clearly states that the right to bear arms is not unlimited nor does it protect "the rights of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation" (emphasis in the original). Clearly, this is being taken out of context. Remember, Tombstone, Ariz. had an ordinance that prohibited persons from carrying weapons in 1881.

<much more>

:thumbsup:

[gravity556]

1. Right! Because Chicago's ban on handguns

means that there has never been a single murder in that great city!

[damntexdem]

3. A ban won't stop people from carrying, but ...

it WILL allow police to arrest those found to be carrying. And that WILL prevent some of the violence.

[Straw Man]

4. Chicago has had a ban for years.

How's it doing?

[gravity556]

6. Sure, the cops can arrest people

carrying despite the ban. Of course, the ban STILL means that the only folks with guns are politicians, cops and criminals. If someone decides they'd rather be able to defend themselves than be subject to the whim of the criminal element while waiting 5 or 10 minutes for a cop to come help, they're pretty much SOL.

[Callisto32]

8. Got stats...

or just upper case letters?

[GreenStormCloud]

2. Soon Illinois will demand and get the same ability to carry that

40 of the rest of the states do. If the national reciprocity bill passes then the pressure will be on all state to become shall-issue.

[Common Sense Party]

5. Repeats the Violence Policy Center's LIE about 288 people killed.

More like 86...out of six million CCW holders? Wow, that's statistically significant...

[spin]

9. When your argument is based on emotion ...

it really doesn't matter that it's statistically insignificant.

Of course, the Violence Policy Center will never produce a report on the number of times that legally concealed firearms are used to stop an attack.

[DonP]

7. Oh, you mean the poor Brady affiliate response to this?

That letter was buried in the online letter section of the Chicago Tribune. Even the Trib has given up on their gun control mantra. Only the people that dig around in the online letters ever even saw it. The guy who wrote this response, again using the phony 288 people killed by CCW claim, is the fourth person they have had running the Illinois gun control group. Their leadership has become a revolving door.

Eric Zorn (liberal columnist) published an article in his Change of Subject column on March 16th and this weasel from a local gun control group was responding. All of the online responses kick the crap out of this guy's claims.

The original column:

5 reasons why time is right for concealed-carry gun bill

Is this the year when Illinois becomes the last of the 50 states to allow adults to carry firearms in most public settings?
Supporters of the idea are optimistic. Legislation moving through the General Assembly calls for sheriff's departments to issue licenses to qualifying citizens permitting them to carry concealed guns, and backers offer five reasons why prospects for this perennial idea have never been better.

<edit>

Eric also points out that a bi-partisan group of downstate Dems and GOP are sponsoring this legislation.

If anyone would like to see what the original, very well written column was about they can go here.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-03-16/news/ct-oped-0316-zorn-20110316_1_concealed-carry-handgun-permit-holders-gun-rights

[spin]

10. thanks for posting the link. (n/t)

[DissedByBush]

11. Where do we start with this pack of lies and misdirection?

That's a problem with the Brady Bunch.

They can spew out so many lies in a few paragraphs, it takes several pages to properly rebut them all.

[east texas lib]

12. Time never right for concealed carry (Chicago Tribune)...

But anytime is a good time for an unarmed victim to die at the hand of an armed criminal for "safety's" sake. Got it.

[krispos42]

13. So the people of Illinois shouldn't have a right because the politicans won't fix a system?

Gee, then, I guess the politicians responsible for the non-functioning mental-health database will get right on that. Especially if they're also anti-gun.

Imagine if the newspapers in the Civil Rights-era South has proposed that NOBODY could vote because the voting system was broken. :rofl:

Point 2 was rebuked in another thread by somebodies other than me, but I'll re-state the rebuke in brief: in only a handful of those 288 cases was the murder committed while the CCW permitee was carrying in public. In the other ≈275 cases the murders or suicides were committed in the CCW permittee house, where the concealed status of the gun was irrelevant to the discussion. Dad pulling a shotgun down from the closet shelf and blowing away his family has jack-all to do with carrying in public. Finally, not all of the people killed by CCW permitees were killed with a gun. If Dad bludgeons his family to death with a baseball bat, then again that has jack-all to do with carrying concealed in public.

Point 3: Duh. You can't punch a guy, then shoot him when he stands back up and goes to hit you back and hide behind the 2nd Amendment.

Point 4: Why, oh why, are there no anti-gun agencies or groups or organizations able to match the NRA? If a large portion of the population cares enough about an issue to organize and rally, and the rest of the population collectively goes "meh", why is anybody surprised at the relative influence?

Point 5: Hah. So how's that goal to be the leader in gun violence prevention working out for you? :rofl: How's that FOID card working out for you? Chicago handgun ban? Throwing as much bureaucracy as possible in the way of prospective gun owners?