Saturday, January 5, 2013

Ill. House to try to disarm civilians

Look what's so important to the lame brains (errr, lame ducks) in the Illinois State House of Representatives. Forget the budget crisis. Forget pension reform. Forget crime. Forget helping those with mental illness or who are homeless.

Led by Chicago police officer and state representative Edward Acevedo (D-2 (Chicago office near the War Zone, at 1836 W. 35th St., Chicago, IL  60609)), the gun-grab moves to the House when the current session enters its final days.

I wonder if Rep. Acevedo leaves his duty gun in the station locker and commutes unarmed. Think so? Why do you suppose he doesn't move his official office north and east, deeper into the War Zone? Too dangerous?

I have added the political party and Illinois House District Number (ex., D-57) to the media alert received from ISRA; I've also added the titles of Chair and Vice-Chair. Online information can be read at ISRA.

Remember, these are members of a Committee. If you want to know where their districts are located, go to the interactive map of the Illinois State Board of Elections. Generally, the lower-numbered districts are in Cook County. On this committee are seven Democrats and four Republicans.

From the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA):

LATE BREAKING ALERT – NEXT VOTE ON SEMI AUTO BAN WILL TAKE PLACE SUNDAY
YOUR IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED

After getting nowhere in the Senate, the gun controllers have taken their campaign to destroy your rights to the Illinois House.  Earlier today, Amendment #1 to SB2899 was introduced in the Illinois House of Representatives.  Sponsored by rabidly anti-gun Rep. Eddie Acevedo, the amendment would do two things to you:

1.  It would pick your pocket to pay for the confiscation and destruction of your own guns.

2.  It would ban more than 50% of the rifles and more than 80% of handguns owned by Illinois citizens.

THIS BILL WILL BE VOTED ON BY THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 1 COMMITTEE ON SUNDAY AFTERNOON – YOU MUST ACT NOW!

To help save your guns, please contact the following Representatives and politely tell them that you are a law-abiding firearm owner and that you do not support SB2899 and that you expect them to vote the amendment down.

1.  Rep. Elaine Nekritz (D-57), (217) 558-1004 and (847) 257-0450; Committee Chair

2.  Rep. John Bradley (D-117), (217) 782-1051 and (618) 997-9697; Committee Vice-Chair

3.  Rep. Jil Tracy (R-93), (217) 782-8096 and (217) 223-0833

4.  Rep. Michael Connelly (R-48), (217) 782-8028 and (630) 579-4848

5.  Rep. Dwight Kay (R-112), (217) 782-8018 and (618) 307-9200

6.  Rep. Lou Lang (D-16), (217) 782-1252 and (847) 673-1131

7.  Rep. Sid Mathias (R-53), (217) 782-1664 and (847) 222-0061

8.  Rep. André M. Thapedi (D-32), (217) 782-1702 and (773) 873-4444

9.  Rep. Arthur Turner (D-9), (217) 782-8116 and (773) 277-4700

10. Rep. Ann Williams (D-11), (217) 782-2458 and (773) 880-9082

11. Rep. Michael Zalewski (D-21), (217) 782-5280 and (708) 442-6500

REMEMBER – THE AMENDMENT TO SB2899 WILL BE VOTED ON IN COMMITTEE SUNDAY AFTERNOON. – START CALLING THESE REPRESENTATIVES BEGINNING SATURDAY AND CONTINUE CALLING THRU SUNDAY.

Militia - what's it mean?

A comment to a recent article read this way, "... who is to say what 'well regulated' meant back then. The idea of 'regulation' was repugnant to people back then. I believe the regulation was simply be ready to grab you rifle and go if needed."

The Second Amendment reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

My sense of the meaning of "militia" is that it is the informal mass of people standing by, ready for action, if it is necessary to protect their peace and independence from the government.

In the past we may have thought of the National Guard as the first step in that force. I certainly don't. Considering that the National Guard may be under the orders of the Governor (is it?), and since we have a Governor in Illinois who is trying to disarm the public, why would The People ever depend on the National Guard to stand between the Government and them?

Q. Why does the law-abiding public need banana clips that hold 30 rounds or a detachable drum for a rifle that will hold 100 rounds?

A. Because of the awesome firepower already in the hands of the National Guard and in the hands of sheriffs' deputies and police officers. They are agents of the government.

Does anyone around here think that Sheriff Nygren would not like to disarm the law-abiding public? He will mouth the words "Second Amendment", but he has never said that he is in favor of concealed (or open) carry. Pretty soon it will be time to start asking Bill Prim, Jim Harrison and Andy Zinke exactly where they stand on the Second Amendment, concealed-carry, and ownership of semi-automatic rifles and pistols with magazines of any size and of any design or appearance.

Even when Nygren was allowed to speak at the first meeting of the McHenry County Right to Carry Association, he did not say that he favored concealed carry. I was sitting only 2-3 chairs from him and listening very carefully. I doubt that Nygren even intended to be there, because he had not accepted the invitation to speak and was not listed on the program.

When the Illinois Sheriffs' Association voted on its Resolution to favor concealed carry, was Nygren even at that Sunday morning meeting in January 2009? Unfortunately, no record of the vote survives. It was a voice vote by those present, and I haven't found anyone who remembers Nygren's being there. And if he was there, how did he vote?

Is it time to create a "well-regulated militia" in McHenry County? Where do we meet? The Woodstock Square? The front parking lot at the McHenry County Government Center? Would Woodstock North High School make its fancy auditorium available?

Plea deals - how square?

Steven Henshall was sentenced to six years in IDOC yesterday by Judge Prather. He's the guy who tried to strangle his ex-girlfriend in Crystal Lake. He had pled guilty to two count of aggravated battery (at least one against a police officer) and one count of misdemeanor domestic battery as part of "Let's Make a Deal".

And what got dropped in the deal?

Attempted murder
Unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia
Unlawful possession of cannabis
Driving on a revoked license

Henshall was convicted previously, on May 27, 2009, for driving on a revoked license. At that time three charges were dismissed:

Aggravated DUI, license suspended or revoked
Possession of drug paraphernalia
Resisting a police officer or corrections officer


He had public defenders both times.

Is there a mandatory minimum on the six years? Or will he be out in three? in two? in maybe only one year?

Maybe by that time Illinois will have a concealed carry law and his ex-girlfriend will be packing. And I don't mean her suitcase.

Where did escapees get clothing change?

Remember the Chicago story of the two Federal inmates who (okay, hum a few bars of Alice's Restaurant here) broke through an outside wall of their cell and slid down a "rope" of bedsheets about 15-20 floors?

They were caught on a street camera climbing into a cab about 2:00AM, and I had wondered why a cabbie would pick up a couple of guys wearing jailhouse orange.

A reader took me to task for wondering that.

In today's Northwest Herald is a story about the capture of the second escapee. Well down in the story it reads, "They had changed out of their orange jail-issued jumpsuits" before entering the cab.

How come no one is asking where they go a change of clothing at 2:00AM? Was a Loop army-surplus store open really late? Did they steal clothing out of a parked car? Or, maybe, did someone know they were going to break out and leave a bag of clothing at a pre-arranged location for them.

I was surprised that the Feds decided not to prosecute the first escapee on the escape charge. Now there's a case that "shouldn't be all that complicated". But, since he is looking at a 26-year sentence anyway, I guess they think they are saving an hour in court. By not prosecuting him, though, what will the real deal be when he escapes from the next place?

Friday, January 4, 2013

Woodstock PD destroys old guns

This morning's Northwest Herald carries an article about $75,000 worth of old guns and weapons in the possession of the Woodstock Police Department that were shipped to Rockford to be destroyed. The article said "there were 150 to 170 guns (why not use an exact number?) and an additional 200 knives, with a total value of about $75,000", some dating back to seizures in the 1970s.

Did the City of Woodstock pay to have these weapons destroyed? Or did the City give them to Behr Iron & Metal in Rockford for destruction, and Behr got the value of the scrap metal?

Why didn't the City consign them to a Federal Firearms Licensee for legal sale to the public?

If the few seized weapons couldn't be sold (there must be some way to get rid of evidence no longer needed), then why weren't seized weapons separated from turned-in weapons (however few of those there were)? And then just destroy the seized weapons.

Did anyone see action by the City Council to direct or allow the Police Department to dispose of $75,000 worth of weapons from its evidence room, just because a different use for the space is desired?

Woodstock is no safer because of the destruction of those guns, weapons and any memorabilia that might have been among them.

Criminalize the law-abiding?

Is this the plan of Illinois State Senator John Cullerton? To make criminals out of law-abiding citizens? Let's help that guy pack and send him back to wherever he came from! Please read the following statement from Richard A. Pearson, Executive Director, Illinois State Rifle Association.


ISRA NOTICE:
A SPECIAL MESSAGE FROM ISRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RICHARD PEARSON

January 4, 2013 - The Week in Review – The Unabashed Arrogance of the Gun Control Movement

As most of you know, this has been a very tense week for the law-abiding Illinois firearm owner.  As most of us were getting ready to ring in the New Year, Senate President John Cullerton and his band of gun controllers were secretly preparing a major offensive against your gun rights.  We got wind of the pending attack on your 2nd Amendment rights early in the week and immediately called together our lobbyists and strategic planners to build a defense.

When we finally saw the public release of the Cullerton plan mid-week, we were shocked at what we saw.  Based on recent events, we fully expected to see legislative proposals to ban so-called “assault weapons,” and so-called “high-capacity ammunition feeding devices.”  However, those affronts to your rights paled in comparison with what Cullerton’s proposal entailed.  Here is a sampling of the extremist proposals advanced by Cullerton’s gun-grab plan:

-          The Illinois State Police would be given full control over the design and operation of commercial gun ranges in the state.  That control would extend from the design of the bullet backstops to qualifications of range employees and even to the color of the paint on the walls of the men’s room.  The State Police would determine the hours of operation, what types and calibers of firearms could be discharged at the range, and even a minimum number of square feet.  Every range customer would have to undergo a background check and each customer’s visit would be logged by the range operator.  Any Illinois law enforcement agency could conduct unannounced and warrantless inspections and searches of ranges at any time.  Those searches and inspections would extend to range customers and their property.  That means that the Chicago Police Department would have the authority to raid a range in Peoria and roust the customers of that range.  The bottom line is, this range regulation proposal has the sole objective of running commercial shooting ranges out of business.  We had never seen anything like this before, but the intent was clear.

-          All semi-automatic firearms would be either banned outright, or be so severely taxed and restricted that ownership would be impractical.  We expected to see attempts to ban or regulate AR and AK type firearms, but what we saw in Cullerton’s proposal carried that to an extreme.  Cullerton’s gun ban would extend to all semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns.  Additionally, many pump action rifles and shotguns would be banned as well.  This ban would include such classics as the 1911 and the M1 Garand.  Of course, all Glocks, Sig-Sauers, and other popular pistols would be banned as well.  Estimates are that about 50% of rifles and 80% of handguns lawfully-owned by Illinois citizens would be subject to ban and confiscation under the Cullerton gun ban.

-          A bizarre and convoluted scheme to register all “ammunition feeding devices” capable of holding more than 10 rounds – including magazines, stripper clips, drums, etc.  Since none of these devices possess serial numbers, owners of these devices would essentially register them under the “honor system.”  Of course, we all know how well criminals stick to the honor system.

The two bills containing these provisions, HB0815 and HB1263, were both assigned to the Senate Public Health Committee for review.  This committee is notoriously anti-gun and is stacked 6 to 4 with antigun Democrats under Cullerton’s thumb.  On Wednesday night, the two bills came up for hearing before the Senate Public Health Committee.  During debate of these two bills, we heard straight from the horses’ mouths what the intents and purposes of these bills were.  Sitting there listening to the sponsors and their supporters was a very maddening experience.

Committee testimony given by the anti-gunners confirmed that the gun control movement holds firearm owners in deep contempt.  During testimony, the gun controllers claimed that the range restriction bill would actually preserve 2nd Amendment rights while providing public safety.  The gun controllers acknowledged that most semiautomatic firearms would be banned, but that people who wished to shoot semiautomatics should be reassured because they would be able to go to an approved range and legally rent semiautomatics to shoot.  In other words, you should not be upset about surrendering your $5,000 target rifle because you can still go down to an approved range and get a junker out of the rental case to plink with.  This was one of the most condescending lines of testimony I have ever heard levied against the right to keep and bear arms – and the anti-gunners uttered it with completely straight faces.  The gun controllers really need to keep in mind that the 2nd Amendment says "keep and bear arms,” not "rent arms.”

Of course, nowhere in any of the testimony given by the bills’ supporters was there any mention of how these restrictions and bans would affect criminals.  In fact, the bill proponents became extremely defensive when pro-gun witnesses mentioned anything about violent gun-toting criminals.  It was clear that the proponents’ focus was solely on lawfully held firearms.  In not so many words, the supporters of these bills claimed that they were good “first steps” to achieving a “civil society.”  In the twisted world-view of the anti-gunners, law-abiding citizens are standing in the way of a civil society, not criminals.

As most of you may know, the two bills passed out of the Public Health Committee by 6-4 and 6-3 votes.  The next step would be a vote on the floor.  Late Thursday, the newspapers were reporting that the sponsors are delaying a vote on the bills because they do not have enough support for passage.  Please, don’t be fooled by such claims.  These bills are alive and well and can be called up for a vote at any time.

In writing this note, I thought I’d give you a taste of what the ISRA lobbyists experience every day in Springfield.  We could not continue to do what we do without knowing that you, the law-abiding citizen, has our back.  Your support is crucial to our success – we do all we do for you.  So, with that in mind, there are a few things I’d like you to do:

1.  Remember that these anti-gun bills are eligible for a full vote of the Senate at any time up through next Wednesday.  Do not be lulled to sleep by media claims that the bills are dead.

2.  Keep an eye on your email for any alerts the ISRA issues regarding these bills or any other anti-gun activity.

3.  Please consider giving the ISRA a generous monetary donation so we may continue the fight for your rights.

Thursday, January 3, 2013

Knee-jerk reactions - alive & well in Illinois

Man, oh man. Look at the eagerness in the Illinois Senate to rip guns away from law-abiding citizens.

Illinois legislators can't figure out how to end homicides (506 in 2012) in Chicago (Chicago is still in Illinois, isn't it?), so their solution is "Take the guns away from the people who obey laws."

At 5:30PM yesterday Illinois Senators in a sub-committee jumped on bills and passed them, because the Democrats held the majority in the sub-committee. The bills could be voted on as early as today by the full Senate.

I'm sure each is well thought out, well worded, carefully considered, fully researched. Yeah, sure... Like about everything else that the Illinois legislature does.

What if all the law-abiding people in Illinois just packed up and left? Go on; abandon homes and jobs. Pack up household furnishings and guns. Move out-of-state. Just mail the deed on the house (that's underwater) back to the bank with a Good Luck note.

Let the criminals take over. Let Rahm Emanuel have his Chicago full of criminals and their illegal guns. He has his bodyguards; former Mayor Daley has his armed bodyguards (why?). I'm sure Gov. Pat Quinn has State Police bodyguards.

Many of the aldermen are packing. I wonder how many of them could hit the broadside of a barn, even if they were standing inside it.

Do Cullerton and Madigan have protection? Why? You and I don't.

These bills (HB0815 and HB1263) by Sen. Dan Kotowski (D-33 (Park Ridge)) and by Sen. Antonio Muñoz (D-1 (Chicago)), respectively, are nothing but a blatant attempt to seize the guns owned by law-abiding citizens. Those guys, and many of their buddies, are dangerous to your health.

Former Texas legislator Suzanna Gratia Hupp said it correctly. If you don't know her story, watch it below. Her parents were murdered in 1991. She had left her gun in her car, to avoid violating Texas law. The Second Amendment is to protect us from them (the legislators). She was referring to members of a Congressional sub-committee, but her words apply equally to Kotowski, Muñoz and their ilk.