Concealed carry forum - Tuesday night

The Huntley Tea Party will conduct a forum on the right of citizens to carry concealed guns on Tuesday, Sept. 27 at the Codman Cultural Center, 12015 Mill St., in Huntley, Illinois. Planned starting time is 6:30PM.

Joining Illinois State Rep. Mike Tryon (R-64) on the panel will be Huntley Police Chief John Perkins, Richard Pearson (Executive Director of the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA)), and
Bill and Jennifer Jenkins from the Brady Campaign.

I'll be calling State Rep. Jack Franks this morning to ask if he can join the panel tonight. Jack became a supporter of HB 0148 before the May 5th vote and is now in favor of concealed carry in Illinois. If you'd like Jack to be there on Tuesday night, please join me in calling his Woodstock office this morning at 815.334.0063

Concealed carry forum - Huntley - Sept. 27

A forum on the topic of concealed carry in Illinois has been scheduled for Tuesday, September 27, in Huntley. The first panel member lined up is State Rep. Mike Tryon, a representative  Other invited panelists include speakers on behalf of the Illinois State Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

The program is designed to provide a forum for meaningful and respectful dialogue on the subject, and it is being organized by the Huntley Area Tea Party. Following remarks by panelists, there will be a Q&A session.

The event is open to the public and will be held in the Willow Room in the Cosman Cultural Center, 12015 Mill Street, Huntley, Ill. Scheduled starting time is 6:30PM.

I looked on the Tea Party's website for more information but it is way stale, listing on a June 29th event.

Assn. targets Madison (Wisc.) P.D.

The following was received from Nik Clark, Chairman and President, Wisconsin Carry, Inc., an organization dedicated to open and concealed carry. Visit its website at http://www.wisconsincarry.org/

"Wisconsin Carry has filed a second lawsuit in response to the 'Madison 5' Culvers incident from last fall.

"To Recap:

"On Saturday, September 18, 2010, five (5) members of WCI met for dinner at a Culvers Restaurant in Madison, Wisconsin. Each of these individuals was openly carrying a handgun when they arrived at the restaurant, entered the restaurant and ordered and ate their meals. At or about the time that the WCI members finished their meal and left the restaurant, a woman in her car observed them openly carrying handguns and called 911 to report it to the City of Madison Police Department. The 911 caller informed the dispatcher that she didn't know if it was an emergency, the men were doing nothing wrong and appeared totally relaxed, weren't threatening anyone and the restaurant was full of people but they each had sidearms and she didn't know if that was legal.

"Upon being informed by the 911 dispatcher that open-carry is legal the woman stated 'then there is no problem and its not an emergency'. The dispatcher then suggests that if the woman is concerned or disturbed then it becomes a problem and the woman says 'no they weren't threatening anybody or acting threatening'.
When the dispatcher informs the caller they are sending officers she says 'well, I feel bad then because they weren't doing anything wrong.'

"Listen to the 911 call here:  http://www.wisconsincarry.org/video/Madison5-911.wav

"As these WCI members left the restaurant, they were accosted by eight(8) City of Madison police officers, who demanded that they produce identification, and threatened that if they did not do so, they would be arrested. From the time that these WCI members arrived at the restaurant up to and including the time that the police officers confronted them and demanded that they produce identification or face arrest, none of the WCI members violated any law, nor were they involved in any violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct, nor did they through their conduct cause or provoke any disturbance.

"Wisconsin law does not allow officers to arrest for merely refusing to provide ID. 2 days later, Madison Police admitted the error in arresting and charging our members with obstruction, rescinded those tickets and instead, despite there being no disturbance, and no laws broken, issued disorderly conduct charges to all 5 of our members.

"Wisconsin Carry filed our first federal lawsuit against the Madison Police Department 10 days after the original incident to challenge the Madison Police Departments unconstitutional policy of arresting law-abiding OC'ers if a call/complaint comes in.  That lawsuit remains in front of the Federal Court in Madison.

"This second lawsuit is being filed as the disorderly conduct charges against the Madison 5 were dropped this past spring.  In this lawsuit WCI seeks damages on behalf of the Madison 5 for the unlawful detainment/ arrest including legal costs associated with preparing for the defense of the unlawfully issued disorderly
conduct citations.

"A copy of this lawsuit can be viewed here: www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/Madison5/Doc_1_Complaint.pdf

"Wisconsin Carry, a 100% volunteer non-profit corporation, will continue to use the federal court system to seek remedy for and deter instances where the rights of law-abiding Wisconsin residents who carry in the manner of their choosing, open or concealed (as of Nov. 1st when the new concealed carry law goes into effect) are violated."

Prior to the incident involving the "Madison 5" I had read an opinion from the Wisconsin Attorney General that a person carrying openly could not be charged with disorderly conduct just because he was carrying a gun, if he was not himself creating a disturbance. That certainly is a sensible and reasonable position. Open carry is the law in Wisconsin, and concealed carry will become the law on November 1.

Vote today! (readers' poll)

Vote today in the readers' poll about concealed carry in Illinois. The poll is on the homepage of the Northwest Herald - scroll all the way to the bottom. It's on the right.

At this time 74% of 591 votes are in favor.

The Northwest Herald gave top billing to the concealed carry article this morning in its print edition.

There was a reference to the May 5th vote (on HB 0148), but the article failed to mention that the bill is still alive.

I guess I'll pick on almost everyone quoted in the article or mentioned in it.

I'm glad something changed Rep. Jack Franks' mind on concealed carry. Several years ago one of his legislative aides told me that he would never vote for concealed carry. I appreciate that he has, although I wonder how the targeting of Chicago police officers has anything to do with it. They are armed.

Rep. Mike Tryon says the issue isn't guns; it's gun violence. I guess I don't agree that it's like a communicable disease, though. What kind of prevention program is going to stop drive-by shootings, carjackings, ATM robberies? Here's one - just arm everybody! When the shooters drive by, everyone unloads on them. By the time the car rolls to a stop at the end of the block against a fireplug, all the shooters in the car will be dead.

I liked Lou Bianchi's comment.

Last week there was an article about a Chicago murder trial, in which the defendant was acquitted. One of the problems was that he spent a year in Cook County Jail on his way to the acquittal. How does he ever get that year back???

Read this article, which came out right after the February 7, 2010, shooting.

http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/man-charged-with-fatal-woodlawn-shooting.html Read the comments about what a nice guy the assailant was. Then Google "Elliott Mayfield." He was acquitted by a Chicago judge last Friday, but after spending more than a year in Cook County Jail. How does he get that year back???

So, where do we stand on concealed carry? As Chuck Heath, Sr. (Sarah Palin's father) says, "Sarah's not retreating; she's reloading." (pg. 377, Going Rogue, HarperCollins Publishers, New York: 2009).

And that's where we are. We're not retreating; we're reloading!

Concealed carry in Wisconsin

What's a concealed carry permit in Wisconsin going to cost? $50.00. And that's for five years!

There are big (and positive) changes in Wisconsin's gun law. If you plan to carry open or concealed in Wisconsin, read the laws - very carefully. Apparently, beginning November 1 you can carry openly in a vehicle, except in a school zone (and maybe other places).

Read the law carefully.

For beginning information, go to Facebook and then join the Wisconsin Carry group.

But, in the end, read the Wisconsin law itself.

Concealed carry approved in Wisconsin

Yesterday Gov. Scott Walker signed the concealed carry bill into law in Wisconsin. The law takes effect on November 1.

There are limited Gun Free Zones. According to UPI.com "Concealed weapons will not be allowed in law enforcement agencies, prisons and jails, secure mental-health facilities, courthouses and the secure areas of airports. Government buildings can ban them, but they must be allowed in public parks and other public open areas, including the Statehouse grounds."

Legislators and the Governor obviously trust the People of Wisconsin. Wisconsin joins 48 other states in allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves outside their homes.

Read more: www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/07/09/Wisconsin-adopts-concealed-carry-law/UPI-66771310236873/#ixzz1Rdebc3rh

And then there is Illinois.

Will pro-gun crowd kill concealed carry?

Will the pro-gun crowd kill the concealed-carry movement in Illinois?

The Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) publicized this morning's town hall meeting in Highland Park, and my guess is that a bunch of out-of-district pro-gunners showed up. I hope they had better manners than the crowd at Rep. Keith Farnham's town hall meeting in Carpentersville.

The crowd there bordered on rabble-rousers. One man announced it was his GAWD-GIVEN RIGHT to carry a gun. Well, it's not. Another proclaimed that it was his constitutional right to carry a gun. In Illinois, it's not. If he thinks it is, then he should. And I hope he can afford a good lawyer.

Concealed carry is not going to pass in Illinois by intimidating legislators. Strong-arm union tactics (bullying and threats) will not work. Many of the legislators are highly educated and intelligent. They should be approached and dealt with on their level.

Each one of the legislators who voted "No" on HB 0148 on May 5 can be persuaded to vote "Yes". If the pro-gunners show up with their yellow IGOLD t-shirts and their "I Don't Call 9-1-1"-emblazoned t-shirts, all they will do is harden the opposition to concealed carry. The best thing they can do is stay home.

ISRA should be leading the way with plans that will work; right now, it's not.

The 2nd Amendment

Does the 2nd Amendment grant the right to bare arms outside one's home?

Who needs an Amendment for that?

But what about the right to bear arms? Is it really one's constitutional right to carry a gun around town? Or is it more properly a privilege granted by a State?

Of course, I don't like the word "privilege", because it implies that the one granting it has some superiority and also that it can be withdrawn, probably more easily and much faster than it was granted.

I don't mind having the State vet applicants for a concealed carry permit, so long as it is done fairly, impartially, promptly and at reasonable cost. The approval process belongs at the State level, not at a County or municipal level. Just imagine how many years I'd have to wait for an approval of a concealed carry permit, if I had to apply through the McHenry County Sheriff's Department! Do you think I could rely on fairness and impartiality there?

The State's process should be a "shall issue" standard; i.e., the State shall issue the permit, if the applicant meets the standards. Not "may" issue, subject to the whim's of some approval authority. And fees should be reasonable. Right now, there are too high in many states.

Now, back to bare arms. Be sure to apply plenty of sunblock if you are out in the sun and wind!

How you ask, matters

How do you find out what people think about the right to carry a concealed weapon? How you ask the question may often determine the response and the answer you get.

At last week's town hall meeting in Carpentersville, Illinois State Representative Keith Farnham said the response from his constituents in the 43rd District was overwhelmingly against concealed carry.

Let's say you went to the Woodstock Square or Crystal Lake's downtown area or McHenry's Fiesta or any of the Fourth of July parades and began asking people what they think about concealed carry. What would you ask? (Or would you "say" what you think, instead of asking?)

If you were wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with "I DON'T DIAL 9-1-1-" and an image of a handgun on it, what would people think? When I saw that t-shirt at Rep. Farnham's town hall meeting, all I could think of was a .45 cal. bullet going through 2-3 people and zinging down the street through windows and thin walls. And I'm a gun owner and right-to-carry proponent!

How might a question be phrased?

- Do you believe law-abiding, trained, qualified men and women should have the right to carry a concealed weapon for the purpose of protecting themselves outside their home, a right that they have in all states other than Illinois?

Or what if you were asked these questions?

- Should gun nuts have the right to strap on high-powered handguns and strut around town like Butch Cassidy? (No offense, Butch)

- Kids are being killed in Chicago every day; should more people carry guns?

- Should people be allowed to carry loaded, heavy-duty guns out of sight, under their coats?

- Aren't you safe in "gun-free zones" (GFZs) like schools, churches, government offices? Why do people need guns?

- Wouldn't you be worried if the man next to you had a gun?

I recommend two books. The easy one, the fast-read, is From Luby's to the Legislature, by Suzanna Gratia Hupp, a Texas chiropractor whose parents and 20 other restaurant customers were killed in 1991 in a family-style restaurant. She had left her gun in her vehicle, because then-Texas law said you couldn't take it into a restaurant.

The other, harder to read and harder to digest, is Prof. John Lott's book, More Guns, Less Crime. If you like facts and figures, you'll like this one. Read his statements by police officials who at first didn't want concealed carry, but who found that the problems they expected never materialized.

How do legislators learn constituent opinions?

At Wednesday night's town hall meeting in Carpentersville, the heat was on Rep. Keith Farnham from the first question. In fact, I thought the man who stated his opinion on concealed carry might rise out of his seat and confront Rep. Farnham nose-to-nose. I felt he might have to be restrained before the meeting ended.

I admired Rep. Farnham for standing his ground and listening in an open manner to the question and to the man who was asking it. That man, who I think did not live in the 43rd District, addressed Rep. Farnham in an antagonistic, brash, aggressive and almost-threatening manner - totally out of place for the first question of the evening, before Rep. Farnham explained his position on concealed carry.

Rep. Farnham said that he had learned the opinions of his constituents by walking his district several times. One woman announced, "Well, you never came to my house!" Was she even home, when he walked her block?

One member of the audience respectfully suggested that Rep. Farnham might have a survey printed and mailed to every house in his district. We've certainly seen those surveys (occasionally) from Rep. Jack Franks' office, although not recently.

The advantage of a printed survey are several:
1. The survey can be sent to every household in the District;
2. Everyone gets asked the same question, in the same way;
3. Most bias in a question can be removed (or will be clearly evident);
4. Prepaid-postage return often assures a higher return rate;
5. Tear-off address portion may increase return rate, if respondent wants to remain anonymous;
6. Short response time may increase response rate, as it can reduce the survey's getting "lost" before being returned.

Electronic surveys are good, too, although they might draw responses from a small audience in some districts. And you have to get the word out, so that those with internet connection can respond.

Jack Franks' only website now is at http://www.franks4illinois.com/, and this is the one that is paid for by his political campaign, not by his State office budget. Would it be nice for his legislative office to maintain a official web presence with information about his official position on bills, laws and issues? If you would like to be on Jack's e-mail distribution list for Jack's political activities in the 63rd District, you can sign up for his e-mails on that website.

Jack cast a "Yes" vote on HB 0148, the concealed-carry bill in the most recent legislative session. Sixty-third District gun owners and concealed-carry (right-to-carry) advocates should continue to stay in touch with Jack to thank him for his support and to solicit his continued support of this legislation.

Illinois is now the only state to forbid its law-abiding, trained, qualified citizens the right to carry. Gov. Walker is expected to sign Wisconsin's law shortly after July 4th.

State Rep town hall in Carpentersville

Illinois State Representative Keith Farnham (D-43rd District) conducted a town hall meeting last night in the Village of Carpentersville Board Room. The room was packed, including standees. Of the more than 80 persons there (men and women), only about a dozen were from Rep. Farnham's own district.

The town hall meeting was not an anti-concealed-carry meeting. Rep. Farnham wanted to know what the people in his district want him to do in the next session. But word had gotten out through the gun groups that the

Rep. Farnham conducted a good meeting. It got off to a rocky start, when the first speaker was brash and belligerent in his remarks. He was seated in the first row and he almost shouted that it was his RIGHT to carry a gun. There were other remarks that followed his that demonstrated, to me, that the person speaking had closed his mind and had no ability to or interest in considering any other point of view.

I recall a remark by a mediator in Colorado who was giving a talk about negotiation. One member of the audience argued with her, and he had only one point - nothing else mattered. When she said, "So, in a negotiation, you lose," he repeated his one point. "See?" she asked. She said she would cut him up in little pieces, figuratively, and beat him because she had many arguing points, not just one.

Rep. Farnham explained that he had walked his district many times, and the majority of residents in his district did not want a concealed carry law in Illinois. He himself is not anti-gun; he mentioned he grew up with guns in Maine, but he is not a gun-owner now.

It's clear that what we, being law-abiding citizens who want the right to defend ourselves outside our homes with loaded handguns (and that's what this law is all about), must do is educate those who do not want such a law. They must be shown that they are safer, when law-abiding citizens have the right to carry a concealed gun.

Rep. Farnham acknowledged the passion of the audience last night. But there were people in that audience last night, about whom I would worry, if they were "packing". It is an awesome responsibility to carry a concealed weapon. One must know, absolutely, that he will never brandish it or ever threaten anyone with words that he is "packing." A concealed weapon is for self-defense and, under extremely limited circumstances, protection of another person.

Police officers know the rules. Non-police persons who will carry must know the laws. Considerable time in training classes for concealed-carry permits is devoted to those situations where you might lawfully use a weapon and the situations when you must not.

Talk up concealed carry Wed. night 6/29

Look! It's close by!

Rep. Keith Farnham (D-43rd District) will hold a town hall meeting in Carpentersville tomorrow night, (June 29) and invites the public to show up and tell him what they want from him in the next session.

We gunowners can tell him what we want, whether we live in the 43rd District or not. Farnham is one of the "No" votes on May 5, when HB 0148 (concealed carry) came up for a vote. Fifty-two State Representatives either voted against the bill or did not vote; one Rep voted Present. Only six (6) of those needed to vote "Yes" for the bill to pass. [Sixty-five Representatives voted for passage. (Seventy-one (71) votes were needed to prevent home-rule city watering down of the bill and to get it past Gov. Quinn's anticipated veto.)]

Wisconsin's concealed-carry bill has either been passed or is awaiting Gov. Walker's signature. This makes Illinois the only State that renders its law-abiding citizens defenseless outside their homes. Can 49 States be wrong and Illinois be the only state that is right. I don't think so!

Show up tomorrow night and tell Rep. Farnham that you want a concealed carry law to pass in the next session. Ask him what it will take for him to vote "Yes" this time. Will a call from Jack Franks help?

When? Wed., June 29, 7:00PM

Where? Carpentersville Village Hall, 1200 L.W.  Besinger Drive (that's just west of IL 25)

Illinois wins the race for last place

I'll admit it. I'm a poor loser.

With Wisconsin's very likely passage of a concealed carry bill, Illinois now becomes the single state to prohibit law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves outside their homes. (And in Chicago, thanks to former Mayor Daley, "home" does not include the yard or garage. You have to be "in" your home, if you want to carry.)

The Wisconsin State Journal (Madison, Wisc.) reports the passage of a concealed carry bill by the Wisconsin State Assembly (68-27) (or what we in Illinois would call a House of Representatives). http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_77facad6-9c4a-11e0-bd18-001cc4c002e0.html

The bill heads to Gov. Walker's office for expected approval.

From that newspaper, "Wisconsin would become the 49th state to legalize the carrying of concealed guns.

"The legislation would require those who want to carry concealed firearms to obtain permits. It would allow people to carry concealed weapons in the state Capitol and other public buildings but not places like police stations and courthouses. Weapons also would be prohibited in buildings where posted notices bar them, and in places like Summerfest music festival at Milwaukee's lakefront.

"Backers say it will help people protect themselves; detractors worry that it could escalate tense situations in public."

Yep, I agree about the possibility of "tense situations". When some scumbag attempts to rob a person and suddenly finds himself facing a loaded firearm, yes, indeed; the situation will be tense.

FOID cards, anyone?

With gunshots ringing out in McHenry County in the past two weeks, notice how no one has mentioned FOID cards? Those pesky Firearms Owner Identification cards?

Why not?

Did Timothy S. Smith have a FOID card on May 29, when he allegedly shot and killed Kurt Milliman? Did Kimberly A. (Holian) Smith have a FOID card? Whose gun was it that was used to shoot Kurt?

And in the Feldkamp case? Did Jack Feldkamp, 84, or Audrey Feldkamp, 81, hold a FOID card? Was it their gun that their son, Scott Feldkamp, 54, used to defend his parents and himself?

Scott was visiting from Florida, where many residents have concealed carry permits. Did he have such a permit? Had he brought one of his guns with him?

Unfortunately, one of the questions that needs to be asked is, was he illegally in possession of a firearm in McHenry County since, as a Florida resident, he would not have had a FOID card and any Florida concealed-carry permit would not be valid in Illinois.

No one questions his defense of his parents and himself. I'm glad he had the gun. I wish it had been closer.

It's the stupid laws in Illinois that I question.

Charges dismissed against "Madison Five"

Last September 18 five men were enjoying a meal in a Culver's Restaurant in Madison, Wisconsin. Enjoying it, at least, until a squad of cops showed up in response to a customer's call about five men in the restaurant with guns.

The five were seated and wearing their handguns openly in sight, as required by Wisconsin law. The caller told the police dispatcher that there was no disturbance; she was just "concerned" that something "might" happen.

When the cops showed up, they demanded identification, and two of the men refused. According to a blog on the website of Wisconsin Carry, Inc., "Wisconsin law does NOT allow officers to demand ID from individuals who have done nothing wrong. Wisconsin law also specifically does not allow officers to arrest an individual who has done nothing wrong for merely refusing to show ID."

The two who refused were arrested for obstructing justice. How's that for bullying (by police)? Two days later, those charges were rescinded. Then the P.D. mailed disorderly conduct charges to all five.

And the fight was on.

Again from the same website, "According to Attorney (Chris) Van Wagner (representing Wisconsin Carry, Inc., and its members): 'The Madison City Attorney agreed after a full review of the police investigation and 911 call that there was absolutely no disturbance created by our members and that the disorderly conduct citations were inappropriate'." Wisconsin Carry, Inc. learned on May 5 that all five disorderly conduct charges were dismissed.

If you are going to carry openly in Wisconsin, read the law carefully, especially as to being inside your vehicle. Since a motorcycle is a vehicle, I presume the operator or passenger cannot wear a firearm openly. There is an opinion from the Wisconsin Attorney General that the peace of an "anti-gunner or do-gooder" (my words) cannot be disturbed by a person who is merely wearing a gun openly, absent any disorderly manner of that person.

If you are not a Wisconsin resident, find out in advance whether a non-resident can carry openly.

What this country needs is concealed carry in every state and then uniform laws, not laws that change at the state line. Wisconsin permits open carry, but not concealed carry.

The website for Wisconsin Carry, Inc. is http://www.wisconsincarry.org/

Illinois sued over gun ban

From a press release of the National Rifle Association. ISRA is the Illinois State Rifle Association. Some people think that the Illinois legislators who are blocking concealed carry (or open carry) ought to be sued. I wonder if that's next.

NRA & ISRA File Suit Against Illinois' Ban on Carrying Firearms for Self-Defense

Fairfax, Va. -- The National Rifle Association is funding and supporting a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of Illinois' complete and total ban on carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home. The case, filed today in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, is Shepard v. Madigan. The lead plaintiff is church treasurer Mary Shepard; joining her as co-plaintiff is the Illinois State Rifle Association, the NRA's state affiliate. Mary Shepard is an Illinois resident and a trained gun owner with no criminal record, who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun in two other states. Because Illinois remains the only state that completely prohibits all law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home, Mary Shepard also became a crime victim. While working as the treasurer of her church, Mrs. Shepard and an 83-year-old co-worker were viciously attacked and beaten by a six-foot-three-inch, 245-pound man with a violent past and a criminal record. Mrs. Shepard and her co-worker were lucky to survive, as each of them suffered major injuries to the head, neck and upper body. Mrs. Shepard's injuries required extensive surgery and physical therapy. "Mary Shepard isn't just a victim of the violent criminal who attacked her," said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "She is also a victim of anti self-defense activists in the Illinois legislature who have consistently refused to recognize that good people have the right to protect themselves when they go about their everyday business. We're pleased that the legislature has come closer this year than ever before to changing the law, but close isn't good enough for Mary Shepard and the thousands of other Illinois residents who are prohibited by statute from defending themselves outside the home." Because Illinois statutes prohibit the right to keep and bear arms and the ability to carry handguns in Illinois, they infringe on the right of the people, including Mrs. Shepard, members of the ISRA and other law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and are thus null and void. Cox concluded: "In its historic Heller and McDonald decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. Mary Shepard's story highlights the need for law-abiding citizens to be able to fully exercise their Second Amendment rights. Whether through the legislature or through the courts, we won't rest until that happens."

Who shot down the right-to-carry bill?

On May 5, 2010, the Illinois House of Representatives voted on HB 0148. The vote was 65-52-1, and the bill was pulled for future consideration in order to avoid being flushed down the drain completely. Pulling it meant the vote wasn't recorded - officially. But you can see a photo of the vote board on this blog and in other places on the web. The goal was 71 votes, to prevent tampering by home-rule cities and a veto by Gov. Quinn.

What’s interesting is the following:

Three Republicans voted against the bill.

Fifty Democrats voted against it.

Of the 53 House Districts voting against the bill, only nine (9) were not in Cook County! Forty-three (43) Representatives – from Cook County – voted against this bill.

More Whites voted against this bill than all other races combined.

The NO vote was divided almost evenly between men and women in the House.

The vast majority of NO votes came from those who became Representatives since 2000.

Illinois legislators are, for the most part, a pretty well educated bunch – on paper. What I wonder is why, when 48 other states trust their law-abiding citizens to use firearms responsibility, do they stick their heads in the sand and fall back on “We don’t want the Wild, Wild West here.” What? They’d rather have men, women and kids being killed almost every day in Chicago? In Cook County?

It’s the elected representatives of the people who are being killed who are preventing the passage of this bill.

Retiring Mayor Richard Daley is apparently afraid to live in his own city without armed police protection. He wants three police officers assigned to him for his safety after he retires. What’s that going to cost? $300,000 or more a year? If he lives 20 years, that’s $6,000,000 (without adjustment for increases). Gee, now who would want to harm Daley? But he wants the protection (and he’ll probably get it).

Did Daley, Emanuel and Madigan put the screws to the legislators to prevent them from representing their own voters? How did they do that? House Representatives should not be controlled by the Democratic bloc in Chicago politics, but it sure looks like they were. And are. Or is it “only” a coincidence?

Chicago Dems killed concealed carry

Just like the criminals who are killing Chicago children and other residents with illegal use of weapons, the Chicago Democrats killed off HB 0148, this year's concealed carry bill, last Thursday. Want proof?

Take a look at this Illinois House District map: http://iecam.crc.illinois.edu/gis-user-guide/house_districts-2009.pdf Note where the numbering of districts starts. Try read the numbers of the first 45 districts, out of the 118 districts in the State of Illinois. It's a .pdf page; if you want to enlarge it, just click on the + sign at the top of the map page.

I made a list today of all the NO votes, which would include those who didn't vote, since a "not voting" vote is the same as a NO vote. I re-ordered the list to see how the votes were cast (or not cast) by District Number.

Of the first 44 districts, by number, four (4) representatives voted YES. House Representatives from Districts 20, 37, 41 and 42 voted YES. All the rest from Districts 1-44 voted NO.

Look at it this way. Here are the Representatives from the lowest-numbered 44 districts who voted against the right and privilege of carrying a loaded gun under your jacket or in your purse or car, while you are away from home. The following voted NO: Representatives from Districts, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44.

I simply cannot believe that those who live in those districts do not want the right to defend themselves. Could not 6-7-10 of those be persuaded to vote YES?

YES!

Concealed carry vote 5/5/11

If you'd like to see how your Illinois Representative voted on House Bill 0148 yesterday, check out this immage. Somebody there was fast enough with his camera to snag this photo. Click on the image to enlarge it; then click on the Back button on your browser to come back here.

Green means a Yes vote; Red means a No vote (or didn't vote). Rumor has it that 21 Representatives did not vote.

Chickens!
Thanks!

What happened yesterday with HB 0148

Richard Pearson, Executive Director of the Illinois State Rifle Association sent out a message to ISRA members after yesterday's vote on HB 0148, the concealed carry bill. Some fluke in electronics prevents my re-posting the message here, but you can probably read it on www.isra.org/ Monitor progress on ISRA's website and on Facebook at "Illinois State Rifle Association".

Basically, some legislators got muscled by Mayor Daley and Gov. Quinn. That seems to be the bottom line. Some who had said they would vote for HB 0148 changed their minds at the last mind. And some who had said they wouldn't, did vote for it.
You probably heard that Daley wants three cops and two vehicles after he retires. What a self-serving jerk! I hope he reads this!

You and I can't protect ourselves outside our homes, but Boss Daley wants the taxpayers to foot his bill for protection. Does the City Council have any guts? Probably not.

The fight is not over. This bill can be recalled for a vote anytime until the second Wednesday in 2013.

For some, that will be too long. Maybe their survivors should sue Quinn and Daley.