Concealed Carry in Illinois

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Now that's going to take some work!

excuse me back to CC carry . I promised to stay on topic.

So do you think that if many of the law abiding citizens had guns it would help?

I am in favor of a fairly robust background check and screening process for CC.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Not sure where I stand. I support owning guns, and I support legally and morally responsible adults carrying concealed if they wish. But I don't think CC reduces crime as much as some may like to think.

Take AK for example... #3 state for violent crimes overall. #2 state for gun violence. People don't need a permit to own, carry concealed, nor to carry open. If carrying guns reduced crime, why isn't AK lower for crime?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

why isn't AK lower for crime?

Northern latitudes and cold weather produce their own psychoses, plus add on the skewed gender population and heavy consumption of alcohol and various drugs, with folks running around with fistfuls of dollars that haven't been laid in 6 months suddenly airdropped back into civilization, you have what you have up there.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Northern latitudes and cold weather produce their own psychoses, plus add on the skewed gender population and heavy consumption of alcohol and various drugs, with folks running around with fistfuls of dollars that haven't been laid in 6 months suddenly airdropped back into civilization, you have what you have up there.

Not sure I would call it psychosis, living in cold climates. Sure, moods fluctuate with sunlight, and for 3-4 months of the year, AK has a lot of darkness. Alaska has the highest male-to-female ratio, but it's not all that different from the norm... 103.2 for AK vs. 95.8 for the rest of the US (males to 100 females).

And if your claim that they "haven't been laid in 6 months suddenly airdropped back into civilization".... wouldn't the crime he higher wherever they landed, and NOT in AK? (I won't even touch how you claim to know the guys up there aren't getting laid)

And AK isn't exactly a rich state. Sure, wages are higher up there than the federal average, but so is the COL.

States with higher annual salaries than AK (# of cities): (Halibut Cove, AK comes in at #60 of the top 100 cities for annual income)

New York 16,

Florida 15,

California 14,

Texas 6,

Illinois 5,

Missouri 5,

Pennsylvania 4,

Michigan 3,

Minnesota 3,

New Jersey 3,

Wisconsin 3,

Delaware 2,

Indiana 2,

Kansas 2,

Kentucky 2,

Maryland 2,

North Carolina 2,

Ohio 2,

Washington 2

Alaska 1

ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_places_in_the_United_States

Edited February 9, 2014 by DavenRoxy

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I am talking about a subset of the population. Most folks anywhere lead fairly normal lives. That 2% difference in females vs males is probably not dispersed evenly across the state, and would likely be exacerbated in the areas which most likely have the most problems. I have been in the military and I have worked on overseas contracts. The folks coming off the oil fields are most likely same-same, and the ones without families to run back to, will look for the first opportunity to get their wick wet.

Of course, if you do look at the states demographics more closely, you will notice the Asian population (and I am sure RUB population), tends to skew the other way, not that there is anything wrong with that.

ETA: My Freudian slip was showing.

Edited February 9, 2014 by The Postmaster

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Since Spooky is not answering and no longer banning the entry of "off topic" posts...here is an on topic item to consider...

The IL law which was ruled unconstitutional and the convictions reversed on was at one time a law which carried a ,misemeanor penalty. Later, the vehemently anti-rights IL governemnt increased the penalty for "Unlawfull Use of Weapon" to a felony. What this meant was that any gunowner who carried a gun illegally and was convicted LOST their right to own firearms. Not many people actually were imprisoned for this but they all lost their right to own firearms anywhere in the USA.

This highlights a couple of things. A person doing something which is perfectly legal in one state, becomes a felon, no tby their actions, but by their location. In IL a felon, In Vermont...just another Walmart Shopper. A person with a CC license in IN who makes a wrong turn can cross a bridge and become a felon. A person convicted of this crime in IL lost his right to own a firearm evenb if he moved to another state. Clearly this was to force compliance with an unconstitutional oppression of rights.

But now the law has been determined to be unconstitutional (which is why they are not enforcing it and allowing people to carry concealed since the ruling...what coice do they have?). The law was ALWAYS unconstitutional. The constitution did not change, it was simply until now that it was challenged at the proper level.

This will be a can of worms for IL and BATFE to now sort out all the people who have been denied their rights due to an unconstitutional law. It will end up costing IL millions more $$$. I think some sort of reparations are due, similar to what has been proposed for black people for the losses due to slavery except that in this case the people who were wronged are actually still alive and suffering the injustice of their rights being curtailed because of unconstitutional acts of the government of IL. And except that slavery WAS constitutional at the time, and except that...oh NM. Bad comparison. Decendents of former slaves are not entitled to anything...but gunowners oppressed by by this law ARE.

I think Obama and Eric Holder need to step in and direct the BATFE to restore the rights of everyone wrongly oppressed. Obama needs to use his pen and phone to fix this, restore their rights and offer payment for their losses. It is not enough that Obama has increased firearms sales and NRA membership and helped raise the money that paid for this litigation to be successful...he needs to extend an olive brfanmch to those Americans who have been wronged.

Oh, and Spooky, I drove to Boston last night. You guys are paying about 12 cents more for gas than we are. I filled up before leaving Vermont. Had a little business to care for and just got back. Why you guys doing all that construction work in winter? Not enough problems with snow removal, you have to add detours and tunnel closings? Jeezum

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Good to see we are back to the "crime is caused by everything BUT guns" subject. It always devolves to this. I love it. It is, in fact the best reason for Vermont to exist. To prove that guns are not the cause of crime and force people who want to oppress rights to admit it. Mention Vemront and suddenly the "cause" of crime is high population density, poverty, lack of magic unicorns, northern latitudes (a new one) and winged frogs...not to mention the REAL reason, What was the real reason, Spooky? Would you like me to link to that?

I agree. Whatever you want to attribute crime to EXCEPT guns...I agree with. It is why I am against gun laws of any type, they cannot address the REAL reasons for crime.

Now lets get on with paying reparations to oppressed IL gunowners.

Edited February 9, 2014 by Gary and Alla

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

excuse me back to CC carry . I promised to stay on topic.

So do you think that if many of the law abiding citizens had guns it would help?

I am in favor of a fairly robust background check and screening process for CC.

Not for Chicago. Because you're not dealing with crime in the sense that you're talking about. A large amount of the victims are children under the age of 18. I think I posted a link where more kids have been killed there than most adults in Iraq and Afghanistan. CC isn't going to stop that. If you look at most sites that track it, you'll see most murders are random, meaning the person killed didn't see it coming. This is why the CC will reduce crime rhetoric is horse #######. There's a different type of mentality in these places. It's not run of the mill criminals, these are folks who don't care if they live, let alone you. This is the root of the problem.

CC is like putting a bandaid on a puncture wound that's 12 inches deep. You'll get a few drops of blood in the adhesive, but the rest is going to gush out, and the person is going to bleed to death.

Since Spooky is not answering and no longer banning the entry of "off topic" posts...here is an on topic item to consider...

The IL law which was ruled unconstitutional and the convictions reversed on was at one time a law which carried a ,misemeanor penalty. Later, the vehemently anti-rights IL governemnt increased the penalty for "Unlawfull Use of Weapon" to a felony. What this meant was that any gunowner who carried a gun illegally and was convicted LOST their right to own firearms. Not many people actually were imprisoned for this but they all lost their right to own firearms anywhere in the USA.

This highlights a couple of things. A person doing something which is perfectly legal in one state, becomes a felon, no tby their actions, but by their location. In IL a felon, In Vermont...just another Walmart Shopper. A person with a CC license in IN who makes a wrong turn can cross a bridge and become a felon. A person convicted of this crime in IL lost his right to own a firearm evenb if he moved to another state. Clearly this was to force compliance with an unconstitutional oppression of rights.

But now the law has been determined to be unconstitutional (which is why they are not enforcing it and allowing people to carry concealed since the ruling...what coice do they have?). The law was ALWAYS unconstitutional. The constitution did not change, it was simply until now that it was challenged at the proper level.

This will be a can of worms for IL and BATFE to now sort out all the people who have been denied their rights due to an unconstitutional law. It will end up costing IL millions more $$$. I think some sort of reparations are due, similar to what has been proposed for black people for the losses due to slavery except that in this case the people who were wronged are actually still alive and suffering the injustice of their rights being curtailed because of unconstitutional acts of the government of IL. And except that slavery WAS constitutional at the time, and except that...oh NM. Bad comparison. Decendents of former slaves are not entitled to anything...but gunowners oppressed by by this law ARE.

I think Obama and Eric Holder need to step in and direct the BATFE to restore the rights of everyone wrongly oppressed. Obama needs to use his pen and phone to fix this, restore their rights and offer payment for their losses. It is not enough that Obama has increased firearms sales and NRA membership and helped raise the money that paid for this litigation to be successful...he needs to extend an olive brfanmch to those Americans who have been wronged.

Oh, and Spooky, I drove to Boston last night. You guys are paying about 12 cents more for gas than we are. I filled up before leaving Vermont. Had a little business to care for and just got back. Why you guys doing all that construction work in winter? Not enough problems with snow removal, you have to add detours and tunnel closings? Jeezum

Maybe that's because you've gotten posts in his own thread removed and then you run to the mods and complain when you can't get any leeway. Stop baiting when you have no intentions of backing up your claims. Man up or go home.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Not sure where I stand. I support owning guns, and I support legally and morally responsible adults carrying concealed if they wish. But I don't think CC reduces crime as much as some may like to think.

Take AK for example... #3 state for violent crimes overall. #2 state for gun violence. People don't need a permit to own, carry concealed, nor to carry open. If carrying guns reduced crime, why isn't AK lower for crime?

There are 50 states. There will always be 50 "places" and there will always be a "number 1" unless ALL states have exactly the same crime rate. And then they will ALL have the "highest crime rate" What you look at are the rates of crime before and after CC. AK has a lower crime rate that before it introduced CC. It also points out that LOW populations due not benefit a state when discussing crime RATES. Ignorant people will say "Vermont has a low crime RATE because it has a low population" They are mathmatically dysfunctional. A single homicide in Vermont,,,ONE,,,can raise our homicide RATE 40% or even more in some years. A single homicide in Massachusetts isn't even a blip on the radar. A low population, and AK has a low population, goes against a state when calculating RATES. Heck, if Vermont had 20 homicides we would be the "murder Capital of America" Chicago can have that many in a weekend.

Louisiana has "high crime" but it is 55% LOWER than when CC was implemented in 1996. EVERY state that has implemented CC has had a reduction in crime. They have not all had EQUAL reductions in crime.

Now people will jump in and say "AH HA! Gary that is what we say, other things affect crime" Of course they do. But the CONSTANT is that CC reduces crime and other things cannot be addressed by GUN LAWS. CC does not eliminate crime, it REDUCES crime. If there were 92 LESS young black men killed in Chicago in 2013, then WHY would you say "But a baby was killed in a drive by shooting, CC doesn't work!" ??? Nonsense, 92 LESS people were killed. That baby was not one of them. That baby's parents will tell you that CC doesn't work, and someone that knows little about anything will say CC doesn't work. But anyone who knows anything will be HAPPY that 92 LESS people were killed.. Then someone who claims to be for reducing crime will post article after article of this or that person killed "by a gun" and never post articles that at the end of the day (year) 92 LESS people were killed and that is a 30% reduction and it is the lowest rate in 40 years...they do not mention THAT.

there will always be a state that is the highest crime, lowest crime, richest, poorest, etc.One one improves it simply moves others below it. 46 become 33 and 33 becomes 34...etc. They could ALL have less crime and remain in the SAME relative position. Would you say CC doesn't work when they ALL have less crime after implementing CC? Of course not.

An interesting read for you would be the 7th circuit ruling as ot looks at this quite thoroughly. Spooki posted ot and I posted excer[ts which address this very issue.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Anyone expecting, or applying as a standard, that CC eliminate ALL crimes is an idiot. Even expecting or thinking it will reduce all forms of gun crimes is moronic. Even expecting it would eliminate MOST crimes is imbecilic. That standard would not and could not be applied to ANY other plan for fighting crime. Anyone with a functioning brain will acknowledge that REDUCED crime is a benefit. A 30% e=reduction in crime is GOOD, It means that 70% of the people that were killed before are STILL going to be killed and some of them may be BABIES! OMG! But 30% less is good.

If someone wants to say "CC doesn't work because 70% of victims are still killed" then please DO SO! Please.

Anyone saying "But CC carry cannot solve...(enter nonsense here)" os desparate and unable to form cognizant arguments

It is applied as a means to make CC look useless or without benefit. It is desparate and only works with people unable to think and do simple mathmatics.

Edited February 9, 2014 by Gary and Alla

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

If you're going to argue with me, at least have the balls to respond to the post and bring it to my face. Have the balls you say Obama doesn't.

CC has it's benefits, no one is saying it doesn't, but to say it will reduce crime alone is a crock. There hasn't been a single link you can post that says CC has reduced crime.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/what-you-dont-know-about-crime-chicago

Using an analysis of crime data from the past three years, the police department identified 20 targeted geographic areas that make up just 3% of the city but account for about 20% of violent crimes. Since Feb. 1, when McCarthy flooded those areas with additional officers, the 20 neighborhoods have seen a decrease in murders of 44% and 45% in shootings, McCarthy said.

The department has also expanded walking beats, a practice largely abandoned years ago as officers switched to patrol cars to cover more ground. The department expects to spend $93 million in overtime by year’s end.

It has also worked to better respond to gang flare-ups in real time.

“We did an audit of all the gangs in the city, all the turf that they claim, all the membership of those gangs and who they are in conflict with,” McCarthy said. “We were running into a scenario where the retaliation shootings were happening at a pace we could not keep up with. If we have the intelligence on the ground, if someone gets shot here, we can right on the ground determine who they are in conflict with and respond accordingly.”

Another strategy came from culling arrest records to determine relationships among repeat offenders to determine who might become a target. According to McCarthy, associates in circles of active gang members and criminals are “about 100 times more likely to be involved in gun violence.”

Using the people on the so-called “heat lists,” district commanders go to each individual’s home and warn them to stay out of trouble, that cops are watching.

Nothing about CC here, post a link that says CC has reduced crime in Chicago.

[GandD 5,966]

The real question at hand here, is what happens when a law is struck down by a high court, which then issues a stay of the ruling. They had a 180 day stay which was later extended by another 30 days. Gary maintains the day the law was struck down, it became legal to cc in Illinois. Spooky maintains the law remained in effect during the stay.

Spooks, can you show Gary an example of what happens when a newly unconstitutional law is broken during a subsequent stay period? Is the law enforced in its original, new, or hybrid state?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

If you're going to argue with me, at least have the balls to respond to the post and bring it to my face. Have the balls you say Obama doesn't.

CC has it's benefits, no one is saying it doesn't, but to say it will reduce crime alone is a crock. There hasn't been a single link you can post that says CC has reduced crime.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/what-you-dont-know-about-crime-chicago

Using an analysis of crime data from the past three years, the police department identified 20 targeted geographic areas that make up just 3% of the city but account for about 20% of violent crimes. Since Feb. 1, when McCarthy flooded those areas with additional officers, the 20 neighborhoods have seen a decrease in murders of 44% and 45% in shootings, McCarthy said.

The department has also expanded walking beats, a practice largely abandoned years ago as officers switched to patrol cars to cover more ground. The department expects to spend $93 million in overtime by year’s end.

It has also worked to better respond to gang flare-ups in real time.

“We did an audit of all the gangs in the city, all the turf that they claim, all the membership of those gangs and who they are in conflict with,” McCarthy said. “We were running into a scenario where the retaliation shootings were happening at a pace we could not keep up with. If we have the intelligence on the ground, if someone gets shot here, we can right on the ground determine who they are in conflict with and respond accordingly.”

Another strategy came from culling arrest records to determine relationships among repeat offenders to determine who might become a target. According to McCarthy, associates in circles of active gang members and criminals are “about 100 times more likely to be involved in gun violence.”

Using the people on the so-called “heat lists,” district commanders go to each individual’s home and warn them to stay out of trouble, that cops are watching.

Nothing about CC here, post a link that says CC has reduced crime in Chicago.

We don't know what effect CC will have in Chicago and the state of IL at this time since no permits have been issued yet and CC was illegal in all of 2013 regardless of what Gary thinks. I have provided indisputable proof of that.

Moving forward, we will have statistics for at least part of 2014. The first permits should be issued sometime in March or April. I for one am interested in seeing what effect this will have. We all know that the criminals have plenty of guns in Chicago, now for the first time ever, the average citizen will be able to make the choice to carry for themselves. It's been a long time coming in IL and IMO it's only right that every citizen of the US has the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

We don't know what effect CC will have in Chicago and the state of IL at this time since no permits have been issued yet and CC was illegal in all of 2013 regardless of what Gary thinks. I have provided indisputable proof of that.

Moving forward, we will have statistics for at least part of 2014. The first permits should be issued sometime in March or April. I for one am interested in seeing what effect this will have. We all know that the criminals have plenty of guns in Chicago, now for the first time ever, the average citizen will be able to make the choice to carry for themselves. It's been a long time coming in IL and IMO it's only right that every citizen of the US has the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

I'll say that it might help on the aft chance of a simple robbery, assault, home invasion, etc. If the average person is armed, it might be the difference between life and death. The only downside is, if you look at where people are being killed, it's the poorest areas of Chicago. Most of them folks can't afford to keep the lights on in their homes, or food on the table. So I don't know how they'll get the money to buy even the cheapest hand gun and ammo.

It's like when India designed that hand gun for women, but the price was over 2000 dollars. If I remember correctly, the annual capital for the average Indian person doesn't even break into the 1000 dollars range.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Since Spooky is not answering and no longer banning the entry of "off topic" posts...here is an on topic item to consider...

The IL law which was ruled unconstitutional and the convictions reversed on was at one time a law which carried a ,misemeanor penalty. Later, the vehemently anti-rights IL governemnt increased the penalty for "Unlawfull Use of Weapon" to a felony. What this meant was that any gunowner who carried a gun illegally and was convicted LOST their right to own firearms. Not many people actually were imprisoned for this but they all lost their right to own firearms anywhere in the USA.

This highlights a couple of things. A person doing something which is perfectly legal in one state, becomes a felon, no tby their actions, but by their location. In IL a felon, In Vermont...just another Walmart Shopper. A person with a CC license in IN who makes a wrong turn can cross a bridge and become a felon. A person convicted of this crime in IL lost his right to own a firearm evenb if he moved to another state. Clearly this was to force compliance with an unconstitutional oppression of rights.

But now the law has been determined to be unconstitutional (which is why they are not enforcing it and allowing people to carry concealed since the ruling...what coice do they have?). The law was ALWAYS unconstitutional. The constitution did not change, it was simply until now that it was challenged at the proper level.

This will be a can of worms for IL and BATFE to now sort out all the people who have been denied their rights due to an unconstitutional law. It will end up costing IL millions more $$$. I think some sort of reparations are due, similar to what has been proposed for black people for the losses due to slavery except that in this case the people who were wronged are actually still alive and suffering the injustice of their rights being curtailed because of unconstitutional acts of the government of IL. And except that slavery WAS constitutional at the time, and except that...oh NM. Bad comparison. Decendents of former slaves are not entitled to anything...but gunowners oppressed by by this law ARE.

I think Obama and Eric Holder need to step in and direct the BATFE to restore the rights of everyone wrongly oppressed. Obama needs to use his pen and phone to fix this, restore their rights and offer payment for their losses. It is not enough that Obama has increased firearms sales and NRA membership and helped raise the money that paid for this litigation to be successful...he needs to extend an olive brfanmch to those Americans who have been wronged.

Oh, and Spooky, I drove to Boston last night. You guys are paying about 12 cents more for gas than we are. I filled up before leaving Vermont. Had a little business to care for and just got back. Why you guys doing all that construction work in winter? Not enough problems with snow removal, you have to add detours and tunnel closings? Jeezum

I tried to keep this thread on topic despite your efforts to derail it. You still haven't admitted that what you posted about CC in IL was not correct, even though I have proved it many times over. Why the deflection? This wasn't a topic about opinion. CC was either legal in 2013 or it wasn't. We all know it wasn't despite you repeated insistence that it was. Now you waltz back in here all gung ho to discuss the crime rate? And won't even be a man and admit you were wrong, whether it was intentional or otherwise? Priceless.