ABL: St. Louis Couple GUNS Taken! Activist Prosecutor Involved?

[VIDEO] If you haven't really been following what's been going on in St. Louis, Missouri. A couple was defending their home in a gated community which had been invaded by a group of "protestors". Even if many on the right agreed with this couple and their attempt to defend their home from any possible damage by anyone among the protestors, they may have discussed their lack of gun training.

As you see ABL discuss in the above video Mark and Patricia McCloskey came out of their home with their guns to defend their property on June 28, 2020 to quell any attempts on their property. And then the St. Louis Circuit Attorney (or their version of a District Attorney or State's Attorney) figures in her statement about this the same day and was alarmed by Mr. & Mrs. McCloskey's actions on June 28th. Recently a search warrant was executed by authorities and the weapons they used that day were to be turned over to authorities.

You might hear that the Circuit Attorney a woman by the name of Kim Gardner had 100% turnover in her office since she took office in 2017. She's said to be soft on crime in STL since she took over that office and she does have a primary coming up next month. Like Chicago, STL is a solidly Democrat city and I don't believe there is any GOP opposition. If Gardner isn't defeated in next month's primary her re-election is a done deal.

On the other hand its come out nationally that the McCloskeys have little issue suing neighbors. Afterall Mark McCloskey is an attorney himself.

Well hopefully we'll hear more about this case as it goes forward. I wouldn't be too surprised if the McCloskeys come out OK in this. Hell, there have been offers to the McCloskeys for a replacement of the AR-15 rifle that the police took with their search warrant.

Hmmm, this gives me an idea at least for a future project for this blog.

How to get the media to ignore a shooting...

Go Falcons!

The shooting that never was from Victory Girls:

“Did you hear about the mass shooting in New Jersey?” asked Victory Girl Amanda Green while I visited her this weekend.

“Shooting?” I hadn’t. There was no news alert on my phone, which I check religiously for updates about what’s going on in the world, so I started searching.

One suspect was killed, and 22 people were injured in a mass shooting at an arts festival in New Jersey yesterday.

Big news outlets did cover it. As of this morning, I’ve seen stories on CNN, BBC, Fox, LA Times, Washington Post, and the New York Times. But what I haven’t seen is any of the usual outrage that accompanies a shooting of this magnitude. There was no David Hogg screeching about stricter gun laws. There were no social media posts virtue signaling their outrage about the mass shooting. My usually well-informed leftist friends remained silent about the violence in Trenton, and there were no heartfelt “thoughts and prayers” from the right.

As of this morning, there’s no trending hashtag on Twitter either, even though a 13-year-old child was injured by the gunfire.

Well a little bit about this incident and the coverage it recieved so what about the media ignoring this?

This shooting – like many other gang-related acts of violence – involved minorities, involved gangs, and supports assessments that show gang members to be responsible for roughly half of the gun-related crimes in metropolitan areas.

For some reason, gun grabbers don’t like that narrative. It’s much easier to just pass laws that have no hope of quelling violence than to acknowledge that there is a serious problem with gangs, that gangs – like other criminal elements – will not abide by the laws, and that said criminals tend to be part of the minority groups that liberals studiously protect from criticism.
...
The Hogglets aren’t staging “die ins” in New Jersey, demanding “universal background checks,” a ban on high-capacity magazines, or “assault” weapons, because New Jersey already has them, and they have no hope of preventing gang violence.
...
This shooting doesn’t support the narrative, so it will be summarily ignored by the gun-grabbing maggots on all sides of the political aisle. They will just wait for the next white Trump supporter to lose his shit, and then blame Trump for the carnage and the failure to disarm us all.

Hmmmmm, so these gun controllers are selective about who they oppose. They're not even thinking about for example violence in the city neighborhoods of Chicago for example.

Via Instapundit!

Added a gun rights page

Go Falcons

The gun rights page is now published. It basically has the text of the 2nd amendment and section 22 of the Illinois constitution with regards to the right to bear arms. Perhaps I can do more work on this page in the future as of now I want to keep it basic. Let me know what you think I should add to it, can even add a comment section there.

I also wanted an excuse to share this article with you with regards to Philando Castile. With apologies to Woodlawn Wonder ;)

I can for others, but...https://t.co/C6mtppZOb3

— WoodlawnWonder (@WoodlawnWonder) February 24, 2018

As of late I'm seeing some anger with the NRA - National Rifle Association. Many companies are cutting ties with the NRA including airlines who are no longer allowing discounts for those members who attend NRA conventions. This reaction is in light of the February 14, 2018 school shooting in Florida, that I avoided really covering here on this blog.

While as of late we're hearing ideas about whether or not trained gun toting teachers should be allow to carry at school. Another fact from that shooting is that there were sheriff's deputies outside of this Florida school who stood outside Parkland High School and did nothing. Those who support gun control and believe guns should only be in the hands of police or military personnel. This is why we need a second amendment and the ability of citizens without badges or military service to use a firearm to protect themselves.

Now as far as Philando Castile I can put this in the same category. The police officer who shot & killed Castile in 2016 is no longer on the police force in St. Anthony, Minnesota although he was aquitted in a trial in 2017. It's imaginable that the police officer who killed Castile might have been nervous during a traffic stop, and shot Castile in front of his wife and child. At that Castile did everything right, he left the officer know he had a gun in the car. Now in that article above Castile's mother believes that the NRA didn't do enough to advocate for her late son.

And the NRA builds itself as the defender of gun rights for Americans right? Well according to his mother the NRA didn't say much when her son was killed by a police officer even though he told the officer of his firearm and went through the process of getting a gun. The NRA didn't real help to speak up for him as he exercised his rights in the correct way.

On the other hand I recognize that this current boycott of the NRA is really about gun control. There is a segment of this nation who doesn't want citizens with guns. A crazy with a gun willing to shoot innocent people is an excuse for not only keeping guns out of the hands of mentally deranged people. It can quickly become a means to keep guns away from those who aren't likely to engage in such an heinous act.

This is why I started the gun rights page, and if there's any further information you think I should add feel free to let me know.

When one asks police a question about gun confiscations...

[VIDEO] I generally try to respect police officers. If we respect them then hopefully they will respect us so long as we're still within the bounds of the law. All the same, police officers while they have authority especially when it comes to enforcing the laws are still human.

Not that I would condone this, because if there is a law out there that you disagree with that's what the court system is for. It's OK to ask questions about certain aspects of the law that we as citizens are unsure about. In this case we may have to ask questions of those people who are on the front-lines, the police officer who would likely come to our homes if we're not within the bounds of the law.

BTW, the video you're watching is a phone call by Ashley to a Lt. Vance of the Connecticut State Police. Lt. Vance apparently was the spokesman during the course of the unfortunate Sandy Hook massacre. After he realized the nature of this call he refers to this caller as "anti-American". Lt. Vance also refers himself as "the master" and at that point he falls off the rails. He shouldn't even be a spokesman for a police agency if he uses such language.

Police officers do already have a tough job, but I'm sure the last thing many of our dutiful officers need are other police officers causing a noose to be tightened around the neck. Besides the beauty of America is that we're free to ask these questions not only of our lawyers but also our leaders and even our police officers. Although if you do question our officers let's hope you're not doing it in a situation where you could find yourself arrested.

Hat-tip Newsalert!

Sun-Times: Cook County sheriff’s team taking guns if FOID card is revoked

I'm no lawyer, but this strikes me as unconstitutional. As in unlawful search and seizure, surely there is someone out there who may set the record straight on this.

A new Cook County Sheriff’s team is crisscrossing the suburbs to seize guns from thousands of people whose Firearm Owner’s Identification Cards have been revoked.

More than 3,000 people in Cook County have failed to surrender their revoked FOID cards to the state. Sheriff Tom Dart said he thinks many of them continue to possess firearms.

The Chicago Police Department conducts regular missions to recover revoked FOID cards and seize guns from the holders, but there wasn’t a concerted effort to do that in Cook County’s suburbs, Dart said.

“The system is broken,” the sheriff said. “The system revokes cards, but the guns are of no consequence. . . . Our strong hope is that we will eliminate tragedies.”

FOID cards are supposed to protect the public from dangerous people. Mental illness, felonies and protection orders are grounds for the state to revoke the cards from their holders. It’s illegal to buy guns or ammunition without one.

In February, Dart assigned a sergeant and four investigators to a gun team that has recovered about 160 FOID cards and taken more than 160 guns from the cardholders.

In one case, the team recovered more than 35 firearms, including four AR-15 assault rifles, from a suicidal man whose card was revoked.

Eliminate tragedies, sounds like good propaganda for gun grabbers. Although let me take a breath, of course the last thing we would want is someone who is mentally ill have posses a gun and potentially use it. Here's another breath:

People with revoked FOID cards can’t buy guns from federally licensed firearms dealers. For any gun sale, a store must conduct a background check that will uncover a FOID revocation.

But background checks aren’t required for ammunition. Someone buying bullets must simply show a FOID card. A person with a revoked card probably would still be able to buy bullets because the salesperson wouldn’t know it was revoked, Dart said.

The sheriff said the bigger problem is that most revoked FOID card holders continue to possess guns. Dart said he persuaded the General Assembly to include new language in the FOID law that would allow sheriffs and municipal police to obtain search warrants to look for guns in the homes of people with revoked FOID cards. Dart called the provision a “hammer” for police to wield when investigators suspect people with revoked cards have guns — but the people insist they don’t.

OK, they do have a warrant to conduct a search for a weapon, but shouldn't there be a probable cause for any violent episode. I'm sure in some way doing so is justifiable.

Reason: Battlestar Galactica Actress Tweets About Gun Safety, Loses Half Her Twitter Followers

Ya know, it's too bad that people have an adverse reaction to an opposing point of view. OK so I may not support the President or I may support gun rights. An actress - Katee Sackhoff - known for being on Battlestar Galactica learned that lesson the hard way. And all she had to say was practice gun safety and some of those who removed her from their twitter list would likely prefer no guns. Just let's you know how passionate this debate is on both sides.

Meanwhile back in Illinois the debate continues to rage over concealed carry. Both sides still trying to maintain their positions and policy goals as a result of a court decision although the deadline has been pushed back. The debate over home-rule with regards to assault weapons, the death of Chicago's gun registry, private party transfer of firearms, and how a local prosecutor plans to handle conceal carry.

The last two items are as common sense as we should get. Make sure that dangerous persons can't get their hand on a firearm and therefore the seller or transferer must trust and verify and also some guidelines from a prosecutor. At least this prosecutor isn't from Cook County because she's already stated her belief no one should own a gun! ;)

Update on conceal carry in Illinois

From yesterday's syndicated column from the CapFax's Rich Miller. Talks about the conceal carry debate that's raging in Springfield:

During the Illinois House’s floor debate last week over the concealed-carry bill backed by the National Rifle Association, I was told by an intimate of House Speaker Michael Madigan that Madigan wanted to make sure the bill received no more than 64 votes.

Because the bill pre-empts local government home-rule powers, the bill required a three-fifths majority of 71 votes to pass.

The anti-gun forces were demoralized the day before when their highly restrictive concealed-carry proposal got just 31 votes, so Madigan (D-Chicago) wanted to do the same to the NRA’s version, I was told.

The idea, the source said, was to show both sides that they couldn’t pass their bills on their own and needed to get themselves to the bargaining table and work something out.

Right now the discussion is over a bill blogged about earlier here about having Cook County become a may issue county while the rest of the state is shall issue. It's possible this bill won't be successful either as indicated this morning at CapFax:

And [Steve Brown, IL House Speaker Michael Madigan’s spokesman] comments about not finding consensus on concealed carry may be telling. Could they be waiting until after the June 9th federal court deadline to act?

As stated earlier any restrictions on carrying in this state will be null & void after this date as per a federal court ruling last year. Illinois is currently the only state that doesn't allow for conceal carry permits. A bill to consider such a practice had been vetoed by Governor Pat Quinn long before that ruling!

Second City Cop: Screw Chicago

Well the rest of the state is going to have "shall issue" conceal carry permits. Cook County/Chicago on the other hand has the ability to deny conceal carry permits. Needless to say 2nd City Cop isn't happy and throws their ire at a state Senate Republican who helped write this bill with a state Senate Democrat. In fact that Democrat, succeeded President Obama to his old state Senate seat.

All the same, there was a bill in the state House that would have made the whole state "shall-issue" but it failed there. It was because of the compromise bill that was revealed during the course of the house vote that caused that bill to fail.

June 9th is an important date as far as conceal carry goes. The rush is thanks to an earlier federal ruling that deemed unconstitutional the state's ban on conceal carry. The ruling that came down in February gives state lawmakers 180 days to craft a constitutional law permitting conceal-carry with some restrictions.

This AP article aptly puts the issue in perspective in this state:

Gun laws have long divided Illinois along geographical lines, not necessarily political ones. Democrats in Chicago worry about street violence, while Democrats and Republicans in other parts of the state stand by the 2nd Amendment.

And of course, there are the avid hunters and sports shooters.

And another perspective from the Capitol Fax:

Nowhere has it been shown that violent crime increases after concealed carry laws are passed. I wish opponents would start arguing facts instead of emotion here. The liberals are guilty of doing precisely what they constantly accuse conservatives of doing on things like climate change. 

You know what's also correct, both sides are able to block the efforts of the other side. This is where this state is at as far as conceal carry:

That’s pretty much where the gun votes are right now. Both sides have enough votes to block what the other side wants. So, either we’ll get a negotiated solution, or it’ll stalemate. It’s likely that the Democratic leaders will try to ram something through that neither side will love. We’ll see. 

Well, making Cook County a "may-issue" county and allowing the rest of the state to be "shall-issue" may be something that no one is happy about. It may make some of the legislators from Cook County/Chicago very happy however!

Ward Room: Poll states Illinois is more anti-gun than rest of the nation

This is interesting:

Illinoisans are much more supportive of gun control than the rest of America, according to a poll out Tuesday from the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University.

Here in the Land of Lincoln, 59 percent of respondents think controlling gun ownership is more important than the right to own guns -- 10 points higher than the nation as a whole, according a recent Pew Research survey.

And 72 percent of Illinoisans think gun laws should be more strict, compared to 58 percent nationwide. Fifty-eight percent favor banning high capacity ammunition clips, while 62 percent want to ban assault weapons, and 92 percent want background checks at gun shows -- three cornerstones of President Obama’s gun control plan. However, only 33 percent would like to see a ban on handguns.

Granted Illinois is a state where most of the population is located near a major city, Chicago. Of course it's stated that this state is mostly urban. That's besides the point it makes me wonder if this poll measured only a certain segment of the population in this state. Perhaps out of Chicago or those who may be more favorable to gun control.

Who knows, I wish I was more of a statistician than I am now. In order to conduct this poll what questions where asked. There's a way to manipulate the results to produce what's desired.

Anyway, another question to ask. If the results of this poll are correct, then what's different about Illinois than the rest of the country? If Illinois is more reasonable on gun control or gun rights surely there are other states that feel as strongly about gun control as this state does.

Conceal carry ban overturned...

I was slow on this story in fact had no idea this was even pending in federal court. On Tuesday, a federal appellate court strikes down Illinois' ban on concealed carry.

Even though the General Assembly is majority Democrat a bill allowing for concealed carry had passed unfortunately it was vetoed by Governor Quinn. Quinn really believed that having concealed carry was more dangerous for this state. He's not alone btw, Chicago and Cook County are full of politicians who believe in gun control.

Here's a case in point in fact and I linked to this video earlier this week [VIDEO]

Over at The Sixth Ward yesterday, I had posted about a Chicago alderman's - Howard Brookins - response to this ruling. He ran against the woman in the above video four years ago and on that same program indicated that he didn't mind if responsible people owned handguns. His ward isn't a high crime ward, however, many Black alderman in the city do. It also might help that he is the chairman of the Chicago City Council's Black Caucus.

In any event I do wonder if there will be any action on conceal carry in this state in 180 days as was ruled in this judgement. It makes sense to me to allow individual counties or municipalities to have their own restrictions or at least to opt-in or out. The state itself has to decide whether they want to appeal or craft some reasonable concealed carry legislation.

An assault weapons ban in Illinois...

In noting an attempt by Gov. Quinn to use as amendatory veto powers to slip in an assault weapons ban in Illinois, Rich Miller yesterday accused him of pulling a media stunt. The underlying bill's purpose:

The governor used his amendatory veto authority to rewrite National Rifle Association-backed legislation that had passed overwhelmingly last spring to permit Illinois gun owners to buy ammunition from in-state manufacturers or retailers and have it shipped to their homes.

Miller explain why he considers this a media stunt:

The Senate bill in question is sponsored by Sen. Dave Luechtefeld, a southern Illinois Republican. As the sponsor, he controls the bill’s fate. And there’s no way Luechtefeld will ever move to accept that amendatory veto. Not gonna happen. Not even if Hell freezes over.

This amendatory veto is merely a way to get the governor’s name in the headlines yet again. Nothing more, nothing less.

Click for larger resolution

Today he writes a post asking for comments about whether or not this proposed AV would affect a friend of his who just so happens to own an assault weapon specifically an AR-15 (pictured to the right). Miller asks:

So, for those of you who support the concept of an assault weapons ban and a ban on big bullet clips (if not the actual way the governor has gone about it), I’d like you to explain to me why Rob, specifically, should be prohibited by law from buying another rifle or clip like the ones he already has.

My two cents: well it seems sometimes those who are in favor of gun control likes to overthink the people. If one law-abiding citizen has a gun that means a pyscho can get one too. Thus the pyschos will make it hard for everyone else. And ya know I understand that we need to protect pyschos from guns but the answer isn't necessarily keeping guns away from law abiding citizen.

This means either assault weapons or handguns. I suppose background checks before the purchase of a gun. As a matter of fact in Illinois we have a FOID card. Let's say before you get a FOID card you get a background check to see if  you've either had a mental evaluation or a felony record. Hopefully that will solve the problem of psychos getting guns. Then again if someone is determined to have a gun they will find a way to get one whether there's a law in place or not. Or whether they get a background check or not!

All the same if Miller's buddy wants to own an AR-15 and shoot it on his property using in-animate objects for target practice, that shouldn't be a problem. It should be a problem if he elects to use such a weapon to commit murder.

Negroes with Guns - A documentary

[VIDEO] I tweeted about being at ICE Theaters when I saw The Dark Knight Rises one night. Early next month well August 1st at their Lawndale cineplex and then August 2nd at their Chatham location they will show a documentary about Robert F. Williams entitled Negroes with Guns: Rob Williams and Black Power as part of their monthly Black World Cinema series.

While in general the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s were often portrayed as non-violent - even when they were attacked by a power structure that sought to keep the movement from succeeding - there are those activists who were at odds with the movement. It seems people like J. Edgar Hoover back then wanted to talk Williams in the same vein as Malcolm X or even Dr. King. Now I wonder how many people know who Williams is.

This ought to be something worth watching and it was also noted at the blog Concerned Citizens of Chatham.

I didn't completely read Tejada's piece...

The one I had linked to this morning in fact. My apologies for that, I read it some more earlier today and found this near the end:

After all, we allow for people to lose their driver’s license if they show they can’t be trusted. Why should a firearm permit be any different? The circumstances that led to firearms being included in the constitutional amendments (cars didn’t exist back in the late 1700s) have changed so much that I will always believe the Second Amendment is the one obsolete provision.

OK, the beginning of this paragraph I was with that. The third sentence uhhhhhhh....

I can agree that the circumstances that lead to the creation of the 2nd Amendment is much different back then than it was today. Still it doesn't mean that that amendment is obsolete, especially if that amendment could also be used by citizens for their own defense.

Chicago Argus: If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again, and again, and again, and …

Gregory Tejada gives his thoughts on a measure that passed through a Chicago City Council committee which is designed to restrict the possession of guns by ex-cons. While I generally support anyone's rights to own a gun at home, if you've committed a crime of any time type then yes you should be looked at differently especially when it comes to guns. I would especially point a finger at violent offenders!

Bills to Tax Ammo, Register Guns Pass Illinois House Committee

This is really nothing new. Just a reminder there are still people skiddish about the idea of allowing citizens to have their own firearms. 

Handguns would have to be registered and a new tax would be imposed on ammunition sales under bills approved Wednesday by the Illinois House Executive Committee.

With Democrats voting “yes” and Republicans “no,” the committee approved House Bill 5831, which requires handgun owners to register their weapons with the state. The bill is an initiative of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanual.

The Executive Committee frequently approves gun bills that are later defeated in the full House.

“Handgun registration laws provide the cornerstone of responsible gun policy,” said Rep. Will Davis, D-Hazel Crest, the bill’s sponsor. “It provides law enforcement with essential information about crime guns, reduces illegal firearms transfers and creates a fair system of accountability for gun owners.”

More details about the bill:

Illinois gun owners must obtain Firearm Owner’s Identification Cards, but are not required to report the number and types of weapons they own. Under Davis’ bill, gun owners would have to report the handguns they own, where they were bought and other information.

The bill carries a $65 registration fee for each gun. Davis said that might be changed to $20.
...
Republicans also opposed House Bill 5167, which would place a 2 percent surtax on ammunition sales in the Illinois. Rep. Kelly Cassidy, D-Chicago, said the tax would raise $800,000 to $1.2 million, which would go to hospitals that treat gunshot victims. Cassidy said the tax would amount to one penny a bullet.

[Todd Vandermyde of the NRA] said a tax on ammunition sales is the same as taxing the right to vote.

Is it about the revenue? Or is it about not allowing citizens to own guns? In that SJ-R article you will see both sides offer their arguments for and against.

BTW, I would have no problem if the city decided in the near future to allow gun shops. Even though citizens can now own guns at home, they still can't buy a gun within the city limits. If this bill that would be considered in the state house could be about the revenue then so could allowing gun stores into the city. That could be even revenue!

Via Newsalert!

Concealed-Carry Myths

Been wanting to do a gun post and here's a good one. And a pertinent quote:

In the United States today, there is little doubt concealed carry is one of the hottest topics, at least for gun owners. Sales figures for compact, concealable handguns bear out this argument. Furthermore, at last count, there was a grand total of one state that had absolutely no provision to allow their citizens to carry a concealed handgun. In the other states, the majority have shall-issue laws on the books.

And if you read this blog, we already know what that one state is. Thank you Gov. Pat Quinn!

Anyway, there are people like my mother who can't reconcile the right to bear arms without thinking all the bad that could happen. Especially someone who really shouldn't be anywhere near a gun and they get their hands on one. They shoot someone they felt were dangerous but were completely innocent.

Not that this piece answers that point. Of course this piece let's you know what you can do to use your privilege to conceal-carry with great responsibility. Let's not forget guns are very dangerous tools and is certainly for only the level-headed.

Oh and here's to the state of Illinois to one day join the rest of the United States in allowing for conceal carry without the irrational fear of those who absolutely believe in gun control!

Via Instapundit!

Concealed carry in Illinois...

State Rep. LaShawn Ford is a west side Democrat with a significant Black constituency. Earlier this year concealed carry legislation passed in the General Assembly only to be vetoed by Gov. Quinn who said he had no problem with Illinois being the only state in the union to not have this provision. So while Ford is ok with supporting concealed carry if it comes up for a vote he wants to add something to it:

Rep. La Shawn Ford, a third-term Democrat, told me he is prepared to become the first black legislator from the city to vote for a concealed carry law — if sponsors of the bill will add a provision requiring the National Rifle Association to pay for sensitivity training for police officers.

Not sure what that's supposed to do, perhaps only to put to rest this fear:

[NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde] said he understands the concerns of some African Americans “about what happens when you have a black man with a gun” stopped by police, assuming that individual was legally permitted to carry a gun under the proposed law.

I'm not sure making an advocacy organization pay for that will solve this problem at all. It's more reasonable to let the individual counties in this state decide how to issue concealed carry permits:

Two Republican lawmakers from Morris, state Sen. Sue Rezin and Rep. Pam Roth, both think there is a strong possibility of yet another concerted effort by the General Assembly to revisit the controversial issue this fall or in early 2012.

Rezin said one plan being considered is exempting the Chicago area, or perhaps Cook County, entirely from any concealed carry legislation.

OK I recognize that this is a long way from letting counties decide on concealed carry. New legislation to allow the collar counties around Chicago and Cook County to be exempted from concealed carry legislation.

Either way perhaps this legislation should make Illinois a "may-issue" state and at that giving counties latitude to determine how they should issue these permits if at all.

You can read a round-up of stories about this issue over at The Capitol Fax!

Man wins handgun lawsuit in Chicago...

[VIDEO] I think this story should go over to The Sixth Ward. This past Saturday a neighborhood organization was expected to play host to the new Chicago Police superintendent Garry McCarthy. He never showed however and in his place a local district police commander fielded questions of course some questions were fielded to McCarthy.

In any event one question that this police commander wouldn't touch is one about concealed carry. It was an issue that recieved a vote in the state legislature in Illinois but there are many who continue to believe concealed carry is still dangerous and Gov. Quinn vetoed the measure this year.

Of course while Chicago's gun ban was repealed last year after the US Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. This story underscores how difficult it still is to legally own a firearm in Chicago. There are no gun ranges here and no gun shops. Even though there was a recent move to allow gun ranges this story indicates there are some difficulty in even that as well the city wants gun ranges away from residential areas, schools, and located in mostly industrial areas.

Well industry is no longer king here in Chi-town so it would be difficult to find such sites here anymore unless they had been long vacant and undeveloped for years.

Either way it's safe to say even under a new Mayor Chicago may well continue to be unfriendly to anyone who wishes to own a gun at home.

Via Instapundit!

NBC Chicago: How Flint Michigan Proves Mayor Daley Right on Gun Control

Almost sounds like a justification, but all the activity isn't thanks to Flint's lack of gun control. The availabilty of guns aren't causing people to use their guns to commit crimes:

In Flint, it's hard to make the case that liberal gun laws and a well-armed populace have made it a secure place to live. Last year, the impoverished city, which has lost more than 70,000 auto industry jobs, laid off a third of its police force. Homicides jumped from 36 to 66, breaking a record set in 1986, when Flint had nearly twice as many people as its current population of 102,000. Flint is the deadliest city in America, with a murder rate four times as high as Chicago’s. Some killings were in self-defense: an elderly woman shot a teenage boy who broke into her home. But most were drive-by shootings, robberies and drug murders.

Residents say the understaffed police force takes 50 minutes to respond to a shooting. Which inspires people to take law enforcement into their own hands.

“If you know no one’s going to show up for 50 minutes, that’s plenty of time to get away,” a young African-American man told me. “I’ve got a Glock in my house. If they’re not going to have my back, I’ve got to have my own.”

Perhaps guns haven't made Flint safer, but the people don't feel safe anyway. Perhaps the people of Flint feel safer with their own guns because their police department doesn't have decent responses to incidents. I can also point out, that it also depends on who is holding the gun and every individual shouldn't have a gun. Does that really mean that no one should ever handle a gun?

Let's talk about guns...

Before the Illinois General Assembly ended their regular session last month one of the items considered was concealed carry. Alas, Illinois is home to Chicago which just so happens to be the state's largest city by a mile. Many of this state's most powerful politicians hail from the Chicago area. At that, many of those politicians are loathe to see conceal carry in this state.

There is a continued push for it and we can see how well that'll go in the future. Gov. Quinn who said he would veto any conceal carry legislation said recently he had little problem with Illinois being the only state in this union without any provision for conceal carry. Wisconsin recently adopted a law that allows dairyland citizens to conceal carry.

This time around in Illinois the push is to allow individual counties to decide whether or not they should allow for conceal carry.

Republican state Reps. Bill Mitchell of Forsyth, Adam Brown of Decatur and Chapin Rose of Mahomet held a news conference Thursday in Clinton about their proposed legislation. They also made stops Thursday in Decatur, Tuscola, Monticello and Mahomet.

The trio criticized Chicago politicians, especially Democrat House Speaker Mike Madigan, for blocking the passage this spring of House Bill 148, which would have allowed people to carry concealed weapons throughout the state.

The new proposal is the same as HB 148 except it would give each of the state’s 102 counties the authority to decide.

“Our ultimate goal is to have conceal-and-carry throughout the state,” said Mitchell.

He said he doubts the new bill will come to the House floor before January, however.

The law which failed in the recent legislative session was due to the fact that it would've restricted the regulatory powers of municipalities. Thus in the state legislature a "super-majority" is needed to pass a statewide conceal carry law.

In other news our new Chicago Police superintendent, Garry McCarthy, is making his rounds in our fair city. McCarthy a former NYPD officer and the former Newark Police Director was at St. Sabina Catholic Church (do I have to say who is the pastor of that church?) to talk about how gun laws are racist:

The pervasion of illegal guns in America's black and Latino communities is a result of "government-sponsored racism," akin to "slavery, segregation, black codes [and] Jim Crow," Rahm Emanuel's new police chief, Garry McCarthy, told parishioners at St. Sabina's Church earlier this month.

"This is sensitive. You know, because everybody’s afraid of race. Have you noticed that? Everybody’s afraid of race. I'm not afraid of race," said McCarthy, who told of growing up in the Bronx with guns, gangs and drugs plentiful.

"Let’s see if we can make a connection here. Slavery. Segregation. Black codes. Jim Crow. What, what did they all have in common? Anybody getting scared? Government sponsored racism."

"Now I want you to connect one more dot on that chain of the African American history in this country, and tell me if I’m crazy: Federal gun laws that facilitate the flow of illegal firearms, into our urban centers across this country, that are killing our black and brown children," he said.

WOW! OK well I don't necessarily disagree with him. Well there is an argument out there that suggest that during the time of Jim Crow and segregation and all attempt to keeps Blacks as 2nd class citizens one thing to do was to control their ability to own guns.

I wonder if it was OK to say this at an infamous Catholic Church in Chicago. I also wonder if the people either gasped at this assertion or believed it. Hopefully some of them will do some research on the history of racism and gun control and come to their own conclusion. Now in taking a shot at how illegal guns are coming into "minority" communities he takes a shot at gun-rights advocates.

Didn't McCarthy say that there needs to be a middle ground on the issue of guns? To me that means we can't keep honest citizen's away from guns no more than we need to gun-nuts to use over the top messaging to advance their cause.

So does McCarthy's statements help the cause to allow citizens in Chicago - especially in Black or Latino communities - to be able to own a gun for their own protection?