Look out, gun owners; here they come

A few weeks ago I wrote about expected efforts by municipal law firms on new local gun laws. I think I referred to the proposed law as the Lawyers' Relief & Retirement Plan. Today's Northwest Herald puts it in writing for more people to see.

The Crystal Lake Mayor, Aaron Shepley, has got it exactly backwards. The headline on Page A10 over the continuation of the front-page article reads, "CL mayor: Debate should be public."

BUT, and this is a huge "but", he thinks that public meetings "...on the pending legislation [meaning, adoption of local ordinances [not to be confused with State legislation]] should be done in public, 'so people can hear what our views are'."

wrong, Wrong, WRONG. There should be public meetings, so that CITY OFFICIALS can hear what the views of the people are!

One of the problems is that most of the Sheeople don't even know what reasoned views are on the topic of "assault" weapons. First of all, the term is wrong. "Assault" (fully automatic) weapons have been banned since about 1934.

What the anti-gunners want is to ban weapons that look like "assault" weapons.

You know the saying, "One picture is worth a thousand words"? The picture that sticks in my mind is the man standing on the roof of his building during the L.A. riots with an "assault" (-type) rifle, protecting his business from rioters.

Could this happen here? Picture if you will, Mayor Shepley, gangs roaming downtown Crystal Lake, setting cars afire and looting jewelry businesses and restaurants, terrorizing citizens. Picture your able police being over-whelmed or, worse, incapacitated. Now picture law-abiding citizens with AR-15s with 15- and 30-round magazines protecting lives and property.

Still want to take away "assault"(-type) weapons? You'll be passing out medals, not tickets.

Not mentioned in the article is the City of Woodstock. As late as Friday, I was told that Woodstock has nothing on its radar for any weapons ban. That, from the person who should know. Hopefully, no elected official has gone around him to the City's law firm, the same one mentioned in the news article.

The comments from McHenry's Deputy Police Chief are worrisome. First of all, why is he even speaking out? His language to the reporter should give McHenry (City) residents great cause for concern, when they apply for their concealed carry licenses. Deputy Chief John Birk apparently said something about "who can successfully receive a permit (license)" and his worries about who shouldn't have one.

Those who "shouldn't have one (a concealed carry license)" are spelled out in the bill that will become Illinois law, when the governor gets back from Gold's Gym and has worked up the strength to lift his gold pen and sign HB 0183.

Look at Deputy Chief Birk's list:
"criminals who haven't been caught committing a crime"
"(criminals) who haven't been found guilty of a felony"
"a person who has no documented history of their mental illness"
"someone with a pending court case"

Birk is a danger to liberties and freedom. Is he making his own laws? His job is to enforce laws as they are written. He is certainly entitled to his private opinions, and he should not be expressing them as McHenry's Deputy Police Chief.

Harvard's Police Chief, Dan Kazy-Garey, is the only voice of reason in the article. He knows that anyone could be carrying a loaded, concealed firearm right now. If they are, they are breaking the law. Police will have nothing to fear from the law-abiding, licensed person carrying a loaded, concealed firearm, and it sounds like Kazy-Garey already knows that.