This morning's Northwest Herald carried an article titled "At odds over handguns". You can view it at www.nwherald.com/articles/2010/03/01/r_zvugl9q3qaqtdawwadkanw/index.xml There were 50 comments, when I added this one:
"Keith Nygren's 'if' is a huge and dangerous word. That's exactly why many states have "shall issue" laws, not "may" issue. The legislatures were smart enough to take the decision out of the hands of sheriffs and police chiefs. The checks-and-balances are in place to keep permits out of the hands of the excluded classes."
When Sheriff Nygren read the February 2009 Resolution of the Illinois Sheriffs' Association to the crowd of 500 at the first meeting of the McHenry County Right to Carry Association, he never once said that he supported right to carry. He read the Association's position, taken the previous year.
If you'd like to hear exactly what Sheriff Nygren told the crowd at the McHenry County Right to Carry Association's meeting, go to www.illinoiscarry.com/
Nygren said that 90% of those that voted were in favor. That was incorrect. The "90%" was the percentage of the 79 sheriffs who returned the survey that led to the Resolution. That's 71 sheriffs who favored right to carry. The other 31? They either didn't respond or didn't favor it.
Only sixty (60) sheriffs (out of 102) attended the 2009 meeting. According to the Illinois Sheriffs' Association, the vote on the Resolution at the 2009 conference was unanimous. The ISA has no record of those sheriffs who were present and voted for the Resolution.
Nygren wants conditions on a permit. Some are reasonable, like State-issued and training, including live fire.
For a sheriff or police chief to have "input" into the State's decision? No way! And his wish for a legend on a driver's license to indicate that the driver has a concealed carry permit? I don't think so! Already, some cops in McHenry County are reportedly already making life difficult for FOID cardholders.
Same with his restrictions on locking up a weapon and ammo, when the permitholder is not "in possession" of his weapon. Suppose I'm home alone and my weapon is on the dresser or desk. Should I be in violation?
And "NO" to his idea about a "flash" law. To lose forever the privilege/right to a permit is wrong.
And then he said, "We trust our law-abiding citizens." No, I don't think this is the case (yet) in McHenry County.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I read this in the NWH comments section. I thought it was funny. I wrote it down.
A armed man will kill and unarmed man with monotinous regularity, and when seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.
Sheriff's are political and they will express the views of the peoeple that vote them in. Most only tyell people what they want the hear. A Sheriff in a heavily liberal, democratic county will be all for gun control, A Sheriff is a mostly republican county will be for gun ownership.
As a note. Since the gun ban in Washington DC was overturned and citizens have armed themselves, the murder rate has gone down. Criminals don't want to attack anyone that may be able to defend themselves.
IN Florida the rental car agencies had to take the stickers off the cars indicating they were rentals. Criminals knew THESE people were unarmed due to the CCW of local citizens allowed in Florida. Criminals targeted the SAFER rental cars filled with out of staters. Soon they took rental stickers OFF the cars.
Concealed carry prevents crime.
Post a Comment