Hope for Illinois???


PDA






DKSuddeth
August 13, 2006, 06:18 PM
Just saw this article and a particular statement from the judge should have startling implications for the anti-gunners there.

http://suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-video12.html

The federal judge who ruled an Illinois law banning the sale of violent or sexual video games to minors was unconstitutional has another message for the state: Pay up.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly this week ordered that the state must pay more than $510,000 three business groups incurred in their successful fight over the Safe Games Illinois Act.

In December 2005, shortly before the law was to go into effect Jan. 1, Kennelly ruled in favor of the Entertainment Software Association, Video Software Dealers Association and the Illinois Retail Merchants Association and barred the state from enforcing the law.

Gov. Blagojevich and others who pushed for the measure argued that exposure to games in which characters use violence or engage in sexual acts harms children. But the judge said the law would interfere with the First Amendment and that there was not a compelling enough reason, such as preventing imminent violence, to allow it to go into effect.

I'd say that there has to be a second amendment case somewhere in Illinois that could use this statement, right?

'Irrefutable messages'



In fact, the judge said state officials came ''nowhere near'' demonstrating that the new law was constitutional.

At the time, Blagojevich said he would continue to fight for the ban. Since then, the state has appealed the ruling, Blagojevich spokesman Gerardo Cardenas said.

Despite that ongoing fight, Cardenas said the state would pay the attorneys' fees.

"Judge Kennelly's rulings send two irrefutable messages -- not only are efforts to ban the sale of violent video games clearly unconstitutional, they are a waste of taxpayer dollars," said Douglas Lowenstein, president of the Entertainment Software Association, a trade group of U.S. computer and video game publishers. "The sad fact is that the state of Illinois knew this law was unconstitutional from the beginning. Taxpayers have a right to know that over half a million of their dollars and countless government hours were thrown away in this fruitless effort."

Cullerton's prediction

In a statement released by the Entertainment Software Association, Sen. John J. Cullerton, (D-Chicago) added, "When I spoke against the law in Springfield, I predicted we would have to pay legal fees. The amount ordered paid to the plaintiffs by Judge Kennelly doesn't even count the substantial fees the state will have to pay its own lawyers."

Kennelly wrote, "If controlling access to allegedly 'dangerous' speech is important in promoting the positive psychological development of children, in our society that role is properly accorded to parents and families, not the state."

If you enjoyed reading about "Hope for Illinois???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Malum Prohibitum
August 13, 2006, 06:23 PM
The city of Morton Grove Illinois completely banned handguns within the city limits, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said - No Violation of Second Amendment.

So, no, no application.

Obviously, the Founders wanted to expose children to pornography and violence, which is why they wrote the First Amendment, but they did not wish to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which is why they used the word militia in the Second Amendment.

Right?

DKSuddeth
August 13, 2006, 06:44 PM
Malum, I realize you're being sarcastic with that, but I would imagine that just because the 7th made that decision for morton grove doesn't mean that the issue could be revisited, right? or would 'precedent' be the foregone conclusion for a court that would refuse to admit it made an error?

Malum Prohibitum
August 13, 2006, 06:52 PM
Complaint dismissed. See City of Morton Grove.

Appeal. This issue has been previously decided by this court in, you guessed it, City of Morton Grove.

Appeal to Supreme Court. Certiorari denied (just like every other Second Amendment case).

But, hey, you can always try!

illini52
August 13, 2006, 06:58 PM
Hope for Illinois???

Probably not.:cuss:

ilbob
August 13, 2006, 07:07 PM
There is hope for Illinois. If Chicago slides into Lake Michigan.

Just way too many people on the dole.

popeye
August 13, 2006, 08:47 PM
Please...my tap water comes from Lake Michigan. How about if Chicago fell in Lake Titicaca instead?

The Guy
August 13, 2006, 09:39 PM
Burn chicago I say. Now where is that damn cow at when you really need her!

Other than that, no hope ever!

Can we succede from Illinois and become SOUTHEREN Illinois? Or better yet, make the 4 counties in the north east corner (you know, where all the trouble comes from) NORTHEREN Illinois?

Standing Wolf
August 13, 2006, 10:54 PM
If controlling access to allegedly 'dangerous' speech is important in promoting the positive psychological development of children, in our society that role is properly accorded to parents and families, not the state.

Well, yeah, sure, but aren't parents just unpaid agents of the state?

foghornl
August 14, 2006, 09:24 AM
Hope for ILL-inois, maybe when Chikago Emperor DICK Daley II is wearing broad black-n-white vertical stripes in the Cross-Bar hotel....

Don Gwinn
August 14, 2006, 11:09 PM
As I understand it, the First, Fourth, Fifth, etc. have all been declared "incorporated" under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. The 2nd Amendment has never been so declared by the SCOTUS.

In other words, the 1st and the 2nd are not equally protected.

Henry Bowman
August 14, 2006, 11:59 PM
Correct, Don. The original copy of the 14th Amendment had a clause in invisible ink about how it only applied selectively to a menu of rights that could be selected or deselected at will by the SCOTUS. There is no "select all" button. That part got blurred by spilled coffee or tea on the parchment. :rolleyes: That's the only legal explanation I can find.:fire:

Autolycus
August 15, 2006, 04:47 AM
People who are not from Illinois just cant understand. The politicians here are a breed unto themselves. I heard on the radio that our governor has Presidential ambitions. That scares me more than Hillary, Shumer, and Feinstein all in a row. Our governor hates guns along with his cronie Daley. Actually he is Daley's cronie.

Today I saw a sign with a drawing of hands in cuffs against a cityscape.

The words

Felon + Gun + Crime = Federal Gun Crime and lots of time. or something along those lines. I shudder to think about the mentatlity of the people around here.

I will say it again... you cannot understand until you have lived here. For some reason guns are just bad here. (I dont believe it but the majority of voters here do!)

The Guy
August 15, 2006, 05:00 AM
AMEN BROTHER!

Have you ever seen a political map of Illinois. RED RED RED. Except for Champaign County and the northern counties. Population centers + leftists + corruption on the highest order = DEMOCRATIC BLUE. Affects the entire state. How did West Virgina break away anyhow?

Can we do that? I am not kidding here either. What would it take?

Autolycus
August 15, 2006, 05:38 AM
When I was in Carbondale for school it was not to bad. All of the cops I spoke with down there were very much in favor of CCW laws. They felt that people should have the right to protect themselves. I dont know what really makes the rest of IL so different? I figure something in the water around CHicago. I must be immune to it.

Deanimator
August 15, 2006, 08:36 AM
People who are not from Illinois just cant understand. The politicians here are a breed unto themselves. I heard on the radio that our governor has Presidential ambitions. That scares me more than Hillary, Shumer, and Feinstein all in a row. Our governor hates guns along with his cronie Daley. Actually he is Daley's cronie.
That's hilarious. Of course he doesn't have a snowball's chance in Fallujah. That'd be pretty much a guarantee of 100% gunowner turnout. Even HUNTERS would vote for his opponent.

ilbob
August 15, 2006, 09:14 AM
Even HUNTERS would vote for his opponent.

I would not bet on that. Hunters and skeet/trap shooters would seem to be our natural allies but many of them do not see self-defense as a big issue, and as long as the guns they use are not targeted, they will not consider the gun issue at all when voting.

Blago can trumpet that he signed the handgun hunting bill, and the new Sparta shooting complex as proof he is "pro-gun" , and the hunters and trap shooters will be fooled, at least enough that many will vote for him.

I would bet he will even claim as proof of his fealty to the second amendment that he "fixed" the problem with FOID cards taking 3-6 months to be renewed, even though he was directly responsible for the problem in the first place.

He will buy off the cop unions with promises of big pay raises and new toys, and they will support his re-election.

ilbob
August 15, 2006, 09:21 AM
When I was in Carbondale for school it was not to bad. All of the cops I spoke with down there were very much in favor of CCW laws. They felt that people should have the right to protect themselves. I dont know what really makes the rest of IL so different? I figure something in the water around CHicago. I must be immune to it.

Outside of the immediate Chicago area, things are not all that bad in Illinois. Keep in mind that in the city of Chicago, something like 30% of the population is dependent on government for their livelihood in one way or another. They are easy targets for voting the status quo, since they want to keep it coming in.

Get away from Cook County and much of the state is actually reasonably pleasant, except for the East St. Louis area. Most of the state outside of those two areas has fairly clean government, and while there is the normal petty corruption endemic to government everywhere, it is not anything like Chicago or East St. Louis.

Get fifty miles away from Cook County and you would almost not believe you were still in Illinois.

Gary G23
August 15, 2006, 09:52 AM
Tecumseh is right. That is why I moved out.

The Guy
August 15, 2006, 09:55 AM
Hey ilbob, don't forget Champaign county and the city of Urbana:barf: in that last one. Where do you think all the mini-lefties go to school to learn how to become socialists, communists, antis, and grown up lefties.

Those dang students and administraters make an otherwise fine place to live into an island of hell in the surrounding ocean of sensibility.

I used to live in Urbana so I know. Not enough of us to offset the influx come November 2nd.

So glad I moved out.

Illinois is truly a house divided.

Deanimator
August 15, 2006, 10:12 AM
Blago can trumpet that he signed the handgun hunting bill, and the new Sparta shooting complex as proof he is "pro-gun" , and the hunters and trap shooters will be fooled, at least enough that many will vote for him.

We just need to properly associate him with Daley. Even the duck hunters will consider him poison.

orionengnr
August 15, 2006, 10:20 AM
You got most of it right.

The proper name of Daley's domain is Crook County.

I lived three years in Arlington Heights, got out in early 04. Enjoyed most everything about it, except the corruption and the totalitarianism. And the outlook for the future....

Autolycus
August 15, 2006, 05:11 PM
I was downtown visiting some schools and thinking about transfering. Parts of Chicago are beutiful but the part around University of Chicago was :barf:

I would not want to be near that area after dark. The area around UIC is beautfiul but the farther out the worse it becomes. I did notice a big police presence which is nice but I still did not feel all that much safer.

I love Chicago because it will always be my home and if they had CCW I dont think I would leave. Its such an uphill battle here in IL. The Sparta complex is great and many will think Blago is pro gun but these are the same people who dont think you need a black rifle. The majority of hunters I have met here in IL do not think you need a AWB or a handgun with more than 10 rounds.

Ilbob said it right that the hunter crowd does not consider guns an issue. Blago has not tried to take away their hunting rifles and shotguns YET. The FOID card is not that big a deal to them because they buy the proganda saying it will lower crime. As long as Blago allows them to keep their shotguns and hunting rifles they will not be on our side. The FOID card issue was a thorn in their side but since Blago fixed it they are quiet.

Pretty much they (hunters and skeet shooters) want to be able to hunt and shoot clays without any government action. Thats the jist of it. And Blago knows that he can count on their support as long as he doesnt touch their guns.

The trick for IL to get CCW would be to get Blago out of office and Daley out. That is obvious. We have to make other issues the focus of why we want them out. Guns are only important to us pro gunners and antis. We need to focus more on the budget, the corruption, the cronie and good ol' boy system, and then we need to keep the voters attention on that and off the gun issue.

In 2004 we had a CCW bill in the state legislature. It was put into committee and killed if I remember correctly. The trick is to get the Agriculture committee (I believe it was that committee) staffed with Pro gunners. We also need politicos who are willing to compromise and trade some key issues in exchange for votes from other politicians to support CCW.

And if we are lucky we can slip it by without to much fanfair.

Autolycus
August 15, 2006, 05:15 PM
This is what is key to winning thehunters:

Pro-hunting does not equal pro-gun.

Phetro
August 15, 2006, 05:57 PM
In fact, the judge said state officials came ''nowhere near'' demonstrating that the new law was constitutional.

At the time, Blagojevich said he would continue to fight for the ban. Since then, the state has appealed the ruling, Blagojevich spokesman Gerardo Cardenas said.

Well of course. A leftist can't just admit he's wrong. That would require abandoning the leftist agenda! To the bitter end, chaps, the bitter end!

Leftists are nothing if not persistent--and being wrong doesn't matter--heh, they've always known they were wrong.

I would not bet on that. Hunters and skeet/trap shooters would seem to be our natural allies but many of them do not see self-defense as a big issue, and as long as the guns they use are not targeted, they will not consider the gun issue at all when voting.

I agree. 90% of hunters are uh...sheep in wolves' clothing. Or camouflage. All you have to do is tell them something about the "right to hunt," and they'll abandon all reason. Fools.

Phetro
August 15, 2006, 06:01 PM
Today I saw a sign with a drawing of hands in cuffs against a cityscape.

The words

Felon + Gun + Crime = Federal Gun Crime and lots of time. or something along those lines. I shudder to think about the mentatlity of the people around here.

Hee hee! Spending time on the CTA, are you? Well, don't despair. Since guns can't commit crimes, Chicago can't be stupid enough to actually blame the guns and their presence for crimes, right? :rolleyes:

(P.S. Not that it matters, but I think their statist slogan is "Federal Time for Gun Crime.")

cherryriver
August 15, 2006, 06:39 PM
A million or more gun owners in Illinois voted Blago into office with no regard to the fact that he:

Only had gun control as an issue when he was in the state legislature. Nothing else.
Is a powerful alderman/bosses' son-in-law.
Has such obvious connections to Daley that they don't even bear mention. Daley put him in the Governor's Mansion.

And yet we voted him in anyway, even if you discount the number of votes that are traditionally stolen in Cook County.

Chicago is one-quarter of Illinois' population, but Cook County is around a third. One person runs the organization that runs Cook County, and that person does not think anyone but his own police should be able to touch guns at all.
The day may come when gun owners vote in favor of gun rights in Illinois, but I'm not sure I'll make it to that day.
One added note- the Republican candidate for governor, while a part of the so-called "combine" that operates Illinois, is actually rated "A" by the NRA and has come out openly against the "assault weapons" ban banging around in the legislature. It's odd, but it may not matter.
Bill

Autolycus
August 15, 2006, 07:10 PM
Phetro not on the bus but on a billboard. I saw it when I was looking at schools. I felt like I was on Mars.

The Guy
August 15, 2006, 10:06 PM
My high school history teacher once said, "After Nixon, and then Ford pardoning him, the democrats could have run Donald Duck for president and won. And basicly they did."

The same held true for Illinois last election. I didn't matter who the democrats ran for govenor, he/she was going to be elected after the George Ryan fiasco. The Republicans did not help themselves by running a poor sot who's last name happened to be Ryan, with no relation. Poor kid could have changed his last name to Hitler and got more votes than he did.

The thing about Illinois is that ALL of our politicians from the upper part of the state are crooked. The dems do not have a monopoly on coruption here.

I voted for a Democrat against Ryan because anyone with an ear to the ground knew he was corrupt. But the Democrat in question was a decent man from down state, so the chicago dems did not support him, and some voted for the chicago man, George Ryan.

What a mess this state is. All because of Chicago. Now where is that cow...

Don Gwinn
August 16, 2006, 05:19 PM
Jim Ryan wasn't some poor kid. He was a crook who hated gun owners and didn't mind sending innocent people to prison if he could look like he was tough on "gun crime."
I know that's not exactly what you meant, but it struck my eye funny somehow.

Topinka. . . . well, she did come out against the AWB. I talk her up IRL when I can, but honestly, there's not a lot of good to talk about there. She was part of George Ryan's gang, she has the personality of a rusty cheese grater, and she's a liberal.
Maybe she just reminds me of my mother-in-law too much for me to be objective.

cherryriver
August 16, 2006, 05:56 PM
Well, Don, you're right about Judy Topinka, except that I doubt your mother-in-law plays the accordian half as well. She actually can be fun, but as another Ryan, you're too right. Way too.
Let's say gun rights won't go as far backwards with her down there than with Blago. Apart from that, she at least is a bit less lefty than Rodney.
Bill

Jeff White
August 16, 2006, 06:44 PM
Topinka supported an AWB in the past. As recently as several months ago. She's only come out against it recently. It's all an act. I have no doubt that if the legislature passed it, Gov. Topinka would sign it.

We really have one party government at the state level. The job selling scandal that threatens the Blagojevich administration is nothing more then the republians did for the entire time they held executive power.

Illinois is a pay to play state. The constituional convention in the early 70s have made it almost impossible for grassroots efforts to succeed on any issue. try getting an advisory referendum on the ballot.....

Jeff

ilbob
August 16, 2006, 09:11 PM
Illinois is a pay to play state. The constituional convention in the early 70s have made it almost impossible for grassroots efforts to succeed on any issue. try getting an advisory referendum on the ballot.....

The problem is not the constitution, it is the voters. Illinois gun owners have a lot of clout if they would use it. Look what happened to Blago when he caused FOID card renewals to edge out to more than 3 months.

You want a better Illinois, it is there for the taking, but people have to want it, and be willing to work for it.

I am leery of direct referendums anyway, advisory or otherwise. We live in a republic, and pay legislators to take care of these things for us.

Two things would help immensely. The first is term limits designed to ban career politicians at all levels of state and local government. The other is to make the state legislature back into a part time job. We have plenty of laws already. We don't need anymore laws. What we should be doing is looking to repeal at least one law a week, say for the next 10 years.

Vern Humphrey
August 16, 2006, 09:29 PM
If Illinois gun owners would upset the Democratic Machine in Illinois, it would have repercussions around the country -- it would make gun control the third rail of politics, for sure!!:D

Autolycus
August 16, 2006, 11:28 PM
I am not sure how I feel about Topinka. She seems to be a RINO in disguise. I am tired of the choices we have to make here in IL. It seems that none of the represenatives we have to choose from are worse and worse every year. I want to see a Pro-Gun candidate within the next election cycle.

I am so sick of the mentality of the so called "PRO-Gun" people here. They complained about FOID cards when they tried to raise the price. What they should have complained about was the fact that they exist. That is the problem. They only look at the immediate problem instead of the whole picture.

They also are the same people who believe that we dont need AR type rifles or "NON-Sporting" rifles. The whole "what does a man need more than 10 rounds for?" mentatility is very common here. A big problem is changing the attitudes of our "Pro-Gun Lobby" here. We have a lot of people working hard for us like Sean Kranish. But instead of supporting them we critisize them. We need a unified front to stand up for ourselves.

Edmond
August 17, 2006, 12:22 AM
For your own safety, I would not go to the University of Chicago. It's a great school but the areas surrounding it are horrible. UIC is decent but don't around there at night. I have BA's from there in psychology and criminal justice. We would get pretty much daily e-mails about crime in the neighborhood.

That's the problem with the hunting crowd. I'm not a hunter but I'm on their side to hunt and own firearms because I know that gun owners are in it together whether they be a hunter, target shooter or the self defense types. It's all the same.

We need to get Blago out in November and let the feds take care of Daley. Lisa Madigan didn't show up at the state fair because she's investigating Blago, or so they say. Then again it could all be a political ploy for November.

Soybomb
August 17, 2006, 12:35 AM
Have you ever seen a political map of Illinois. RED RED RED.
Like for what office?
Just for example here's the 2004 senate race for Illinois http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/IL/S/01/index.html

I live in a very rural southern Illinois county and my representative for the Illinois house is democratic (107th).

I think alot of people under estimate how democratic the rest of Illinois is just because there's a lot of hunters.

The Guy
August 17, 2006, 04:35 AM
SOYBOMB

Hey, I know I was exagerating a bit, but the map you showed was the one where Alan Keys got his behind handed to him. ALAN KEYS?!?! The Republican party imported him from somewhere else to be thrown to the dogs against the next coming of christ for the Democratic party, Barrak Obama.

Heck, it was the only time I had ABSOLUTLY no idea who to vote for (so I did my part and voted straight Libetarian:D ). The only reason they brought him in was so Obama had SOMEONE to run against. I don't think the Reps. could have run anyone against Obama and hoped to win, especialy after the whole meltdown of the party with the George Ryan(may he burn in hell) scandal.

The remark about Donald Duck still stands, but in this particular case, the Dems. ran a canidate who would have been a good choice any year. He just had one heck of a lot of good timing to start out then.

Don, I never said I liked the S.O.B., but surely the Republicans could have picked someone with a last name other than Ryan for crying out loud. Talk about a year of political blunders all accross the board!

Edited to add, I would vote for a pro-gun downstate Dem all day long before I would vote for anyone, Rep. or Dem., from the Chicago political machine! And downstate pro-gun Dems. do exist. Glenn Poshard was a fine example of one, and a man I could have been happy with as a gov.

Vern Humphrey
August 17, 2006, 10:23 AM
They only look at the immediate problem instead of the whole picture.

No offense, but those who complain about the candidates also only look at the immediate problems.

If you want good candidates, you have to work to get them. You have to recruit, support and finance them. If you just wait until the primaries, you're skunked. You need to be working years before then.

As for pro-gun Democrats, here's the problem -- a newly-elected Democrat has really very little power. But legislatures (including the Congress) work through committees. The committee chairmen have enormous power -- and the committee chairmen are the senior members of the majority party. So electing a pro-gun freshman Democrat simply ensures that a rabid anti-gun senior Democrat will have extraordinary power.

sctman800
August 17, 2006, 11:10 AM
To go along with what Vern said, there are many fine pro gun Democrats from the southern part of the state and if it wasn't for them our laws would be a lot worse than they are now.
The problem with electing them is that it gives numbers to the democratic party and when they have the majority in either the House or Senate the Speaker of the house and president of the senate allways end up being gun haters from Chicago. So then we have Emil Jones, Senate; and Mike Madigan, House giving out committe assignments and scheduling and routing pro-gun bills where they will die in committe with no hope of seeing a vote on the floor where it may have some chance. Jim.

ilbob
August 17, 2006, 11:14 AM
The whole Keyes debacle had nothing whatsoever to do with the George Ryan mess. The republican senatorial primary winner (another guy named Ryan) dropped out of the race after winning the primary. He was once married to the actress Jeri Ryan (7 of 9 from Star Trek Voyager). Apparently she made some allegations in divorce filings that he liked to go to clubs and wanted her to join him for some escapades at the clubs. Predictably, as soon as he won the primary the stories started cicurlating and it was just a matter of time before he was forced to withdraw from the race.

He might well have beaten Obama. Bringing in Keyes was reportedly the idea of the state republican chair Dave Severson because no one wanted to run and get beat so badly they would never have a chance at political office ever again. I wish they could have talked former governor Jim Edgar into running. He would have handily beat Obama, and instead of a rising star, Obama would have gone back to being a nobody. Edgar is a liberal republican but in the senate a RINO votes republican on partisan issues like committee chairs and the like. A RINO is far better than a radical leftist in any case.

ilbob
August 17, 2006, 11:24 AM
Glenn Poshard was a fine example of one, and a man I could have been happy with as a gov.

I seem to recall he has since changed his tune and is now an AWB fan.

He claimed to support CCW for Illinois when running, but neither the NRA nor the ISRA endorsed him, not that it would have made any real difference when the Chicago Democrats refused to support him.

IIRC, he is pretty far out there politically, other than the gun issue, and his spending plans were about on par with Blagos.

psychophipps
August 17, 2006, 11:36 AM
And isn't Chicago where the running quote from the police when they shoot the wrong guy basically, "Eh? *shrug* It happens..." and the media just smile and nod?

Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )

ilbob
August 17, 2006, 12:43 PM
And isn't Chicago where the running quote from the police when they shoot the wrong guy basically, "Eh? *shrug* It happens..." and the media just smile and nod?

Pretty much.

The petty corruption in the CPD seems to have been mostly eliminated but not too long ago it was discovered that several hundred officers were gang members. I seem to recall a CPD chief of detectives was running a burglary ring. Drugs, guns, money, etc., seem to disappear from evidence rooms on a regular basis. Was it Chicago where drug bust money supplied by the feds for a sting operation ended up getting "stolen" from the cops?

Severe mistreatment of arrestees seems to have dropped off, although apparently the longstanding practice of "losing" them has not completely ended.

Hk91 Fan
August 17, 2006, 01:28 PM
Don Guinn Said:

"Topinka supported an AWB in the past. As recently as several months ago. She's only come out against it recently."

I agree with your overall sentiment, yet, I would like someone to substantiate this claim. I am friends with a man who knows her and is working on her campaign. He is convinced that her stand on the 2nd is genuine - which is why he is working for her. Yes, I am quite sure that she is another in a long line of crooks. But, as a two issue voter, I want to believe her on this.

In terms of UofC, and Hyde Park, relax. I lived in Hyde Park for some time(by the Pizza Capri) and it is not that bad at all. Only when you get around 63rd and its surrounding area is it troublesome.

By the way, how on Earth do you quote people? Yes, I know that I have been here for years and still can't do it. No one ever said I was smart...

Vern Humphrey
August 17, 2006, 01:47 PM
I agree with your overall sentiment, yet, I would like someone to substantiate this claim. I am friends with a man who knows her and is working on her campaign. He is convinced that her stand on the 2nd is genuine - which is why he is working for her. Yes, I am quite sure that she is another in a long line of crooks. But, as a two issue voter, I want to believe her on this.

In terms of UofC, and Hyde Park, relax. I lived in Hyde Park for some time(by the Pizza Capri) and it is not that bad at all. Only when you get around 63rd and its surrounding area is it troublesome.

By the way, how on Earth do you quote people? Yes, I know that I have been here for years and still can't do it. No one ever said I was smart...

There are two ways to quote. If you want to quote something with no remarks of your own in the middle, you copy the text into your reply, block it, and then click on the quote buttom -- fourth from the right, just left of the # symbol

When you do that, you'll see how it works -- the word QUOTE appears in square brackets at the beginning of the quoted material, and /QUOTE appears (again in square brackets) at the end.

You can also type in the quote beginnings and end if you want to break up the quoted material and insert your own comments.

Try it on your next post.

ilbob
August 17, 2006, 02:35 PM
Cop loses high post over son

August 17, 2006

BY FRANK MAIN AND NATASHA KORECKI Staff Reporters

A Chicago Police commander was stripped of his position Wednesday as the department investigates whether he interfered with officers in the arrest of his son -- and two officers in the Special Operations unit have been relieved of their police powers in a separate corruption probe, sources said.

Cmdr. John Matthews allegedly became involved in a physical altercation with officers over his son's arrest in the Belmont District on the North Side, sources said.

His son, Miles Matthews, 20, was arrested earlier Sunday on a charge of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon after officers stopped a sport utility vehicle in the 3000 block of North Damen and discovered he was carrying a loaded handgun, according to a spokeswoman for the Cook County state's attorney's office.

Reassigned to lower job



Officers stopped the SUV because they suspected shots had been fired from it. Miles Matthews resisted arrest and officers used pepper spray to subdue him, authorities said.

Police Supt. Phil Cline has reassigned John Matthews to a noncommand position, said Monique Bond, a police spokeswoman. He was commander of the Calumet District on the Far South Side. Matthews, who is not charged with criminal wrongdoing, could not be reached for comment.

In 2001, then-Supt. Terry Hillard demoted one of his top deputies, Jose Velez, over allegations that Velez tried to pressure officers under his command to fix a criminal case against his son. Velez was stripped of his command rank, too.

More indictments expected



On Tuesday, meanwhile, two officers in the citywide Special Operations unit were stripped of their police powers, but the officers have not been charged criminally, sources said.

Bond would not discuss the allegations against the officers or identify them. More officers will likely be stripped of their police powers in the investigation of the elite unit, sources said.

The corruption probe comes a year after five Chicago police officers were charged federally with conspiring to rob drug dealers of cash and drugs on the South Side. Officer Broderick Jones, nicknamed "Thirsty" on the street, intends to plead guilty as early as Friday to avoid a prison term of up to 117 years, said his lawyer, Rick Halprin.

"My prediction is, this is a movie that doesn't have an end yet," Halprin said. "Based on all the material I've read, there's many more indictments coming out of this case."

Court documents filed in the case also indicate other officers could be implicated. One of Jones' co-defendants, Officer Corey Flagg, has pleaded guilty.

Physical altercation with cops. Hmmmmm. I wonder what would have happened to Joe Citizen who had such an altercation????

ilbob
August 17, 2006, 02:42 PM
Don Guinn Said:

"Topinka supported an AWB in the past. As recently as several months ago. She's only come out against it recently."

I agree with your overall sentiment, yet, I would like someone to substantiate this claim. I am friends with a man who knows her and is working on her campaign. He is convinced that her stand on the 2nd is genuine - which is why he is working for her. Yes, I am quite sure that she is another in a long line of crooks. But, as a two issue voter, I want to believe her on this.

JBT is a fairly typical Illinois politician.Guns are not a big issue with her. She probably could care less one way or the other, but is vaguely in favor of civillian gun ownership. Which is really not half bad when you think about it.

Her opponent, OTOH, is not only a socialist tax and spend type democrat, but a gun banner of the first order.

ilbob
August 17, 2006, 02:58 PM
They also are the same people who believe that we dont need AR type rifles or "NON-Sporting" rifles. The whole "what does a man need more than 10 rounds for?" mentatility is very common here. A big problem is changing the attitudes of our "Pro-Gun Lobby" here. We have a lot of people working hard for us like Sean Kranish. But instead of supporting them we critisize them. We need a unified front to stand up for ourselves.

I think it is Shaun not Sean.

Gun owners are pretty independent minded. It is hard to get two of us to agree on anything, much less work together toward a common goal.

scout26
August 17, 2006, 07:45 PM
Chicago is a sewer, always has been, and always will be. Just look at the what's been going on with the C(r)ook County Board President, John Stroeger. And the idiots in Cook County will elect his son like the good little sheep they are. And they deserve the government they get, in spades.

The sad reality is that the rest of us get stuck with the muffinheads that Chicago elects and sends to the legislature.

Everyone hopes and prays for the BIG ONE, the federal indictment that names Daley. Ain't gonna happen, and even if it does, Daley would still be re-elected in a Landslide. Besides, there is NOT a pro-gun person or candidate in Chicago or even C(r)ook County waiting in the wings.

Heck, are there even any gunshops left in C(r)ook County ???

Autolycus
August 18, 2006, 08:43 PM
I cant wait to hear that they are charging Daley with something! The man is rediculously corrupt. Though I will give him credit for his ability to avoid indictment for a long time.

I am from the suburbs of Chicago and I noticed a range in Chicago Ridge closed. I know there is a gunshop in the Brookfield area. Other than that I dont know of any others in Cook County.

Thats one of the reasons I am applying to Cook County DOC so I can carry. Its not to bad of a job but it pays well. I want to get on a local police department so I figure Cook county DOC is a good place to start.

As it stands I want to see Illinois become a CCW state soon. I think that Topinka will sign the legislation if we can get it to her. Getting it to her is the big problem now.

Edmond
August 18, 2006, 08:51 PM
I am from the suburbs of Chicago and I noticed a range in Chicago Ridge closed. I know there is a gunshop in the Brookfield area.

The one that closed was Southwest over on Southwest Highway just east of Harlem. I think they did themselves in. They started mandating that you shoot "clean fire" ammo, which they conveniently sold at very high prices. If you didn't want that, you could've bought their reloads, which were also ridiculously priced. I know the reloads weren't clean fire...

The one near Brookfield is Midwest, I believe. I've shot there before. If you can get a bunch of people together, rent the upstairs range. It's open as opposed to being in a booth and I like the setup.

There is also Sporting Arms in Posen. We shoot there at least once a month. It's on Western Avenue and roughly 143rd south.

There is also Chuck's in Riverdale but I wouldn't venture into Chuck's or into Riverdale...

If you're a little west, check out Rink's in Lockport. I bought my G30 from them, they're good people.

BTW, if you need a good FFL, PM me and I'll hook you up with my FFL. He's a great guy to deal with, been dealing with him for years now. He charges $20 and wants you to pick items up the next day at the latest!:D

Well, it's time to get ready for work. Gotta go sweep an apartment complex full of drug dealers, it's going to be a fun night...:rolleyes:

GoRon
August 18, 2006, 08:53 PM
I am from the suburbs of Chicago and I noticed a range in Chicago Ridge closed. I know there is a gunshop in the Brookfield area. Other than that I dont know of any others in Cook County.

Midwest Guns (http://www.midwestguns.com/) in Lyons is in Cook County.

Autolycus
August 18, 2006, 10:16 PM
I didnt know the name of the Chicago Ridge shop except that it used to be a gunstore. The guy who bought it was a former Marine and was giving instruction. He is no longer there anymore.

I bought my first gun from Midwest. They are extremely high priced for guns but their range prices are more than fair. The staff is pretty nice but the selection is somewaht limited. You are right [B]Edmond]/B] that Midwest is in Cook County.

I have been to Rinks. I live in Orland Park so it is very close. However the last time I was there the kid behind the counter was hitting on this girl and saying some rather innapropriate things to her. Apparently they were dating but I didnt want to discuss it. I got a lot of dirty looks in there by some of the staff when I asked about CCW training for an out of state permit. They wanted to know if I was a LEO. Once I told them no it was pretty much shock that I would want to carry.

My best experiecnes have been at Megasports in Plainfield. Awesome prices and friendly staff. Best selection I have ever seen. I highly recomend it to anyone.

Overall though I feel that IL is a hard egg to crack when it comes to CCW. We really need to revamp the gun rights movement out here and to get some gun friendly legislators. Its a long hard battle out here under Daley's shadow.

GoRon
August 18, 2006, 10:55 PM
The one near Brookfield is Midwest, I believe. I've shot there before. If you can get a bunch of people together, rent the upstairs range. It's open as opposed to being in a booth and I like the setup.

Better yet take Jacks class(es) and he will probably invite you to shoot in his practical pistol shoot training he holds twice a month. Check out his resume at the website, the man knows his stuff.

Cellar Dweller
August 19, 2006, 12:46 AM
Mannheim Road, just south of O'Hare over the railroad bridge. Indoor pistol range, time limited, with their ammo only. Limited selection.

Irving Park Road, west of O'Hare, east of the tracks. 25-yard indoor RIFLE range, unlimited time, no steel jacketed ammo. Decent selection, especially C&R handguns that I couldn't afford (Mausers, Lugers, P-38s, Inglis Hi-Powers)

Prices: didn't ask if it included Crook County extortion fees; if so, reasonable. If not, unreasonable. "Deadly Weapons License," daily reporting of all transactions, bribes (I mean, "political contributions"), there's a couple other things that I can see adding to overhead.

edit: Bell's is the first, in Franklin Park. GunWorld is the second, in Bensenville.

PCGS65
August 19, 2006, 03:35 AM
No hope for Illinois. Never has been and never will be.:barf:

PCGS65
August 19, 2006, 03:39 AM
Overall though I feel that IL is a hard egg to crack when it comes to CCW. We really need to revamp the gun rights movement out here and to get some gun friendly legislators. Its a long hard battle out here under Daley's shadow.
Daley reminds me of Joseph Stalin. The iron grip on everything.

Don Gwinn
August 19, 2006, 02:11 PM
Couple points to clear up:

1. Jeff was the one who said Topinka used to favor the AWB. I wouldn't doubt it, since that was George Ryan's stand, too, but I don't remember it. I do remember George Ryan doing photo ops with tables of full-auto weapons that were illegal for him to touch and opining sagely that he never needed an AR-15 to hunt squirrels in Kankakee as a boy. :rolleyes:

2. To quote someone, you copy the text you want to quote (the easiest way is to highlight the text with your mouse, and just hit Control and "C" at the same time.) Then you bring up the reply box and click the "quote" button. Then paste the text (Control + "V" is the simple way) and hit the quote button again.

3. Topinka looks pro-gun standing next to Blagojevich for the same reason Michael Jackson might look like a black guy standing next to Carrot Top.

Autolycus
August 20, 2006, 12:51 AM
Does anyone think that IL will have CCW within the next 2 years?

And does anyone think that Topinka will actually win or will the people of this state reelect Blago?

PCGS65
August 20, 2006, 12:55 AM
Deleted duplicate.

PCGS65
August 20, 2006, 12:57 AM
Does anyone think that IL will have CCW within the next 2 years?
Not by a long shot.

And does anyone think that Topinka will actually win or will the people of this state reelect Blago?
Sad to say Blago wins easily.:barf: Not to say Topinka is much better. Illinois is just in deep :cuss: for a long time.:eek:

Edmond
August 20, 2006, 09:53 AM
Does anyone think that IL will have CCW within the next 2 years?

What you don't know is that people who have money, but not necessarily politicial influence, already have CCW's.

Don, care to explain what the "tan card" is all about. If you have the money, you can go get one from an agency that is willing to get you one, if you have the money. :rolleyes:

Jeff White
August 20, 2006, 02:39 PM
Edmund,
Perhaps you'd like to explain a tan card to me. I'm an Illinois peace officer and I'm unaware of any tan card that allows someone to CCW.

Jeff

Autolycus
August 20, 2006, 08:23 PM
I know security guards and IL DOC officers can carry on their way to and from work. I believe they have one hour before and after work to do this.

I have never heard of this tan card either. Please explain it to me. There are many people who think IL is a may issue state but that simply is not true.

isp2605
August 20, 2006, 08:31 PM
I know security guards and IL DOC officers can carry on their way to and from work. I believe they have one hour before and after work to do this.
Nope, not for IDOC officers. If they need a firearm then they draw if at their institution.
There are some jobs with IDOC that have armed officers, ie, Internal and a few others. But that's not the guys you see in the light green shirts.

Edmond
August 20, 2006, 08:42 PM
The tan card is the card issued to those who qualify under the Private Detective Act to carry a firearm. It's technically called a FAC (firearms authorization card) but is called a tan card because it is tan in color.

Around here, in the Cook County area, it's common for those who have money (mostly wealthy business owners) to approach a detective/security agency, give them some business and request a tan card. Money talks, you know and the agency feels obligated to give a tan card to the wealthy person.

The tan cards are only ordered through an agency that has the proper licenses to have their personnel work armed. The tan cards are property of the agency, those with a private detective license can order their own tan card which is their property. But if the agency orders a tan card for someone, it is property of the agency.

Technically, those with tan cards are permitted to carry to and from work, one hour to and from the work site. However, some agencies label those wealthy business people as "supervisors" when in fact they're not really working for the agency at all and claim that they are on call 24 hours a day so they need to carry 24 hours a day. And there you have your CCW for wealthy private citizens.

ilbob
August 20, 2006, 08:56 PM
I doubt the tan card scam would work. Most cops would probably laugh at the idea that some rich guy was a security guard supervisor as they carted him off to jail.

I did not even know they issued tan cards anymore. When I worked as a guard like a million years ago, it was blue, and changed to tan shortly before I left the business to find a real job.

I was a supervisor and I can assure you that while I often had a uniform and gun in the trunk when I was off duty, I would not have carried it concealed just wondering around. Back then the CPD was not anywhere near as anti-gun as these days, and I probably could have talked my way out of any problems just with a FOID card. It was not uncommon for CPD cops to let people go who they found with guns if they had a FOID.

I do not believe the claim of being on duty 24/7 would ever hold up in court, or with any cop on the street for that matter, nor would a claim of being an employee of the agency unless there was a legitimate employer/employee relationship.

There is some legitimacy to the idea that a tan card might allow a PI to carry pretty much as he pleases, as it is very difficult to say when he is or is not working.

I thought I read somewhere that the one hour was changed to two hours. I was often in violation of the one hour rule if I took public transportation.

Edmond
August 20, 2006, 09:49 PM
You are right in some ways. The blue card is still issued but that is for general work, it does not allow you to be armed. The tan is for working armed.

They would lie and falsify documents to make the guy seem like he was at work. I know you find this hard to believe and that someone would actually try it but...

Autolycus
August 20, 2006, 10:39 PM
Anyone want to start a Detective agency?;)

How does one get a PI license?

I heard tat these cards were called PERK cards? PERK being some sort of acronym. Anyways I just wish they would give up their antigun agenda and become a shall issue state. It just seems to me that they are holding out to be the last state in the country without some sort of permit system. I am tired of this state and really desperate to leave it.

My mistake ISP2605. Does that mean IL DOC cannot carry off duty?

ilbob
August 20, 2006, 10:43 PM
There was an interesting scam that was an offshoot of something legit. Back many years ago, like in the 70s and 80s, it was not uncommon for LE agencies to have all manner of "sort of" cops associated with the agency.

They had all kinds of names such as special deputies, auxiliary police; one PD (Harwood Heights IIRC) called them reserve marshals.

Some of them were legitimate part time employees of the department (still not unheard of in places like Rosemont), others were little more than security guards that had been deputized for reasons that often were political or convenience oriented in nature. Sometimes sheriff's departments deputize corrections officers, sometimes not. Sometimes the evidence technicians are allowed to carry, I don't know whether they carry off duty.

The Cook County sheriff's department had hundreds of part time jail guards at one time, all of them deputized and allowed to carry off duty. They also snuck in a bunch of people who never actually worked. The corrections union raised a big stink about the part timers and got them all fired because they were not in the union and did not pay dues.

I think most of the part time employees are no longer allowed to carry off duty in most departments, but there is an interesting aspect to the LEOSA (aka HR218) in that respect. This highly dubious law (from a constitutional standpoint) does not require that the LEO in question be a full time employee. I read somewhere that some CA sheriff's have stopped issuing CC permits to some of their reservists as apparently at least some of them qualify under this law and thus no longer need them.

It might be against department policy, but some of these "sort of" cops, may well have been given nationwide CC. Perhaps inadvertantly. There are all kinds of other "sort of" cops that may be in the same position.

It is just a matter of time until some cop or retired cop carrying on his ID card in another state shoots someone. The feds are not going to pay the legal bills or the settlement. My guess is the department he works for or retried from is going to be stuck with permanent liability for their employees after they retire, as well as while they are employed.

ilbob
August 20, 2006, 10:47 PM
Anyone want to start a Detective agency?

How does one get a PI license?

Used to be you just had to pass the private detective test and have some experience, like 3 years. The big security guard companies wanted to change the way it worked to get rid of the small time operators. Many of the small time operators were cops running 20 or 30 security guards on the side. As long as you stayed under some magic number, and some of the rules and regulations that applied to larger companies did not apply to these smaller outfits.

Funny, but true story. There was an oral and written part to the private detective exam. There was an old geezer on the board who always asked the same question on the oral part of the exam. It was about the Mann Act.

PERC = Permanent employee record card.

Originally, the blue card was issued along with the certificate from the department of registration and education after you took the 30 hour course to work as an armed guard. The guard agency would send in fingerprint cards and 6-10 weeks later an ID card would come back saying he had passed the background check. It was not clear whether it was legal for the guy to work armed before the ID card came through.

Later they stopped issuing the blue cards and started issuing tan cards but only if the company you worked for requested them, and only after the fingerprints cleared. This was obviously a huge problem since it could take months after you hired a guy to get a tan card and ID from the state. In the meantime they could work, but since the blue card was no longer valid, they could not work armed.

Eventually they came up with the PERC card which is issued to the employee and they keep it. I am not in the business anymore so I am not sure just how this helped any. maybe as long as the card is valid no fingerprints are required or something. I just don't know.

I think there is now a requirement to have 20 hours of training to get the PERC card and 20 additional hours to work armed.

One of the big problems in the business is the rapid turnover. State law did not allow you to work for more than one detective agency simultaneously, and the state would not issue you an ID card if you had not turned in the card to the previous employer or the previous employer had not bothered to send it back to the state. It was a huge mess.

Autolycus
August 20, 2006, 11:02 PM
Well I have heard that people who estimate the price of real estate qualify as private investigators. And that you have to work 2 cases a year. There seems to be all kinds of rumors about ways to legally carry in IL.

ilbob
August 20, 2006, 11:10 PM
Well I have heard that people who estimate the price of real estate qualify as private investigators. And that you have to work 2 cases a year.

The law regarding private detectives was always pretty vague as to what type of activities required one to be a private detective. There were all kinds of exemptions for people like insurance investigators stating they did not have to either be a PD or work for a PD agency.

The only thing I recall for sure was if you wanted to have a private security agency (rent-a-cop) you had to be a PD.

I seem to recall the state would not issue tan cards to security guards who worked directly for a company (not an outside contractor) unless a PD was somehow in the supervision chain, although ironically, the PD did not have to reside in Illinois, just have an Illinois license.

Jeff White
August 21, 2006, 02:24 AM
You can find everything you want to know about the qualifications to get a private investigator's license in Illinois here:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=2474&ChapAct=225%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B447%2F&ChapterID=24&ChapterName=PROFESSIONS+AND+OCCUPATIONS&ActName=Private+Detective%2C+Private+Alarm%2C+Private+Security%2C+and+Locksmith+Act+of+2004%2E

Here are the requirements to get a Firearms Authorization Card:

(225 ILCS 447/35‑35)
(Section scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2014)
Sec. 35‑35. Requirement of a firearm authorization card.
(a) No person shall perform duties that include the use, carrying, or possession of a firearm in the performance of those duties without complying with the provisions of this Section and having been issued a valid firearm authorization card by the Department.
(b) No employer shall employ any person to perform the duties for which employee registration is required and allow that person to carry a firearm unless that person has complied with all the firearm training requirements of this Section and has been issued a firearm authorization card. This Act permits only the following to carry firearms while actually engaged in the performance of their duties or while commuting directly to or from their places of employment: persons licensed as private detectives and their registered employees; persons licensed as private security contractors and their registered employees; persons licensed as private alarm contractors and their registered employees; and employees of a registered armed proprietary security force.
(c) Possession of a valid firearm authorization card allows an employee to carry a firearm not otherwise prohibited by law while the employee is engaged in the performance of his or her duties or while the employee is commuting directly to or from the employee's place or places of employment, provided that this is accomplished within one hour from departure from home or place of employment.
(d) The Department shall issue a firearm authorization card to a person who has passed an approved firearm training course, who is currently employed by an agency licensed by this Act and has met all the requirements of this Act, and who possesses a valid firearm owner identification card. Application for the firearm authorization card shall be made by the employer to the Department on forms provided by the Department. The Department shall forward the card to the employer who shall be responsible for its issuance to the employee. The firearm authorization card shall be issued by the Department and shall identify the person holding it and the name of the course where the employee received firearm instruction and shall specify the type of weapon or weapons the person is authorized by the Department to carry and for which the person has been trained.
(e) Expiration and requirements for renewal of firearm authorization cards shall be determined by rule.
(f) The Department may, in addition to any other disciplinary action permitted by this Act, refuse to issue, suspend, or revoke a firearm authorization card if the applicant or holder has been convicted of any felony or crime involving the illegal use, carrying, or possession of a deadly weapon or for a violation of this Act or rules promulgated under this Act. The Department shall refuse to issue or shall revoke a firearm authorization card if the applicant or holder fails to possess a valid firearm owners identification card. The Director shall summarily suspend a firearm authorization card if the Director finds that its continued use would constitute an imminent danger to the public. A hearing shall be held before the Board within 30 days if the Director summarily suspends a firearm authorization card.
(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act to the contrary, all requirements relating to firearms authorization cards do not apply to a peace officer.
(Source: P.A. 93‑438, eff. 8‑5‑03.)


(225 ILCS 447/35‑40)
(Section scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2014)
Sec. 35‑40. Firearm authorization; training requirements.
(a) The Department shall, pursuant to rule, approve or disapprove training programs for the firearm training course, which shall be taught by a qualified instructor. Qualifications for instructors shall be set by rule. The firearm training course shall be conducted by entities, by a licensee, or by an agency licensed by this Act, provided the course is approved by the Department. The firearm course shall consist of the following minimum requirements:
(1) 40 hours of training, 20 hours of which shall be
as described in Sections 15‑20, 20‑20, or 25‑20, as applicable, and 20 hours of which shall include all of the following:

(A) Instruction in the dangers of and misuse of
firearms, their storage, safety rules, and care and cleaning of firearms.

(B) Practice firing on a range with live
ammunition.

(C) Instruction in the legal use of firearms.
(D) A presentation of the ethical and moral
considerations necessary for any person who possesses a firearm.

(E) A review of the laws regarding arrest,
search, and seizure.

(F) Liability for acts that may be performed in
the course of employment.

(2) An examination shall be given at the completion
of the course. The examination shall consist of a firearms qualification course and a written examination. Successful completion shall be determined by the Department.

(b) The firearm training requirement may be waived for an employee who has completed training provided by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board or the equivalent public body of another state, provided documentation showing requalification with the weapon on the firing range is submitted to the Department.
(Source: P.A. 93‑438, eff. 8‑5‑03.)

You might note part C which I have highlighted. A Firearms Authorization card is not, I say again is not a way to CCW. As for getting appointed as an Auxillary Police Officer, an auxillary officer only has peace officer status when on duty and in uniform. So that's not a legal way to CCW either.

Jeff

Autolycus
August 21, 2006, 04:16 AM
Well it seems that Jeff White has destroyed any hopes I have of CCWing here in IL. :mad:

As it stands we really need to get some changes made here in IL.

Jeff White
August 21, 2006, 07:18 AM
Tecumseh,

I didn't make the law....Just looked it up :uhoh: I refuse to accept any responsibility for things the legislature does ;)

Jeff

popeye
August 21, 2006, 08:19 AM
Well, Illinoisans: I'm glad I've got a carry permit more than ever now. Daley's gentrification of Chicago has eliminated quite a lot of low income housing. So now Chicago's trash is now my trash. They move here in droves (mostly in the middle of the night, I could never figure that out). I rarely carried a gun before, but now it's a constant companion.

ilbob
August 21, 2006, 10:42 AM
One other true, but downright weird CCW story in Chicago. Back when I was living there, a municipal court judge used to issue judicial orders purporting to give the right to carry concealed firearms to certain people. I doubt they had any legal weight, but they did look quite legal. I actually saw one once. Was on legal size paper and had some kind of seal embossed on it.

Another scheme in Chicago up through the early to mid seventies. High ranking city officials would issue some kind of letter directing city employees to "extend every courtesy" to the holder of the letter. I never actually saw one of those, so I am not real sure they actually existed, and by the time I moved to Chicago they supposedly had fallen out of favor. But a retired CPD officer told me about them, so I suspect there was at least some validity to the story.

isp2605
August 21, 2006, 10:55 AM
My mistake ISP2605. Does that mean IL DOC cannot carry off duty?

Correct.
They can't carry on duty unless their institution assigns them to a location where there's a need. You won't find IDOC people walking around the institutions carrying firearms. Once they're off duty and leave the institution they are not permitted to carry.

Jeff White
August 21, 2006, 11:15 AM
Sometimes the IDOC guys can't carry on duty when they should. Had members of the Tac team from the local medium security prison show up at the PD one afternoon, looking sharp in their orange coveralls. They had been sent to check the home of a close relative of a man who had walked away from a minimum security unit. The asst warden refused to authorize firearms for that job because the prisoner escaped from a minimum security institution and had no history of violence.

The DOC guys wanted a couple officers to go with them, just in case. Said they'd feel better if they had some armed people present.

Jeff

isp2605
August 21, 2006, 11:33 AM
Yup, Jeff, been on a few of those with IDOC.
I worked quite a bit with their Internal and some of the parole agents. The ones I dealt with were generally a pretty good bunch.
Worked quite a few cases on the green shirt IDOC smuggling contraband into prisons. Some of those weren't much different than the ones on the inside. And that's where we put them.

ilbob
August 21, 2006, 11:38 AM
Worked quite a few cases on the green shirt IDOC smuggling contraband into prisons. Some of those weren't much different than the ones on the inside.

Did they start out bad?

Did they go bad just because of their exposure to evil people?

Or was money the issue?

isp2605
August 21, 2006, 11:54 AM
Did they start out bad?
Did they go bad just because of their exposure to evil people?
Or was money the issue?

Yes to all 3.
Some were Chicago gang members hired by IDOC as COs. Some had prior problems of obeying the law. Very poor background checks were done.
Some listened to the line of BS from the inmates, felt sorry for them, and agreed to help them by bringing in things.
Some did it for the money.
Got them doing everything from trying to smuggle in drugs to one guy who almost got in a sawed off 12 ga. Had another trying to hire a hit man and a hit man case where I ended up being the case agent after the case occurred.
I ran that detail for almost 2.5 yrs where we traveled the state working IDOC COs. I had informants at almost every prison. We would arrest about 1 CO a week.

Don Gwinn
August 21, 2006, 06:35 PM
Another scheme in Chicago up through the early to mid seventies. High ranking city officials would issue some kind of letter directing city employees to "extend every courtesy" to the holder of the letter. I never actually saw one of those, so I am not real sure they actually existed, and by the time I moved to Chicago they supposedly had fallen out of favor. But a retired CPD officer told me about them, so I suspect there was at least some validity to the story.
No, that totally happened. I saw it in The Untouchables.
OK, but seriously, I have no problem believing it. It's plausible, if not true.

Edmond
August 21, 2006, 06:41 PM
A Firearms Authorization card is not, I say again is not a way to CCW. As for getting appointed as an Auxillary Police Officer, an auxillary officer only has peace officer status when on duty and in uniform. So that's not a legal way to CCW either.

Like I said before, companies that can order FAC's do so for wealthy clients that bring business to the agency. The agency will even back them as a supervisor. Since they are a supervisor, they can carry 24/7. I know it's not right but it is done.

Some small towns have deputy marshall programs where the person can carry in that town and only on duty. But have I seen them out of their jurisdiction, not on duty and carrying? Plenty of times...

I know all this sounds crazy and like a big conspiracy but it's true. Trust me, I work in the PI and security field and you see this stuff happen all the time.

Autolycus
August 22, 2006, 05:17 AM
I will say it again...

if your not from IL you just really cant understand.:mad:

NukemJim
August 22, 2006, 08:11 AM
A question for those with more legal experiance than I.

I've heard of the "tan card" and the "supervisor" carrying 24/7. The way the lawyer (who had both card and gun ) explained to me was that he carried a beeper that and was "On Call" in case of an emergency. Seems the agency had a llist of emergency numbers to call and his name added to the list. Since the agency ran 24/7 he was "On Call" 24/7.

Does that sound legal?:confused:

Or is it still low quality BS :scrutiny:

Doesn't affect me either way just curious.

NukemJim

Deanimator
August 22, 2006, 08:47 AM
No, that totally happened. I saw it in The Untouchables.
OK, but seriously, I have no problem believing it. It's plausible, if not true.
A while ago, I read about one of Daley's henchmen getting stopped by the cops. If I remember correctly, he was driving drunk and carrying an unlicensed, concealed handgun, WITH THE SERIAL NUMBER FILED OFF.

The guy mouthed off to the cops, demanding that they release him. The arrest was called in, and before they could leave the scene, orders came down to release the person in question AND RETURN HIS GUN.

Yep, that's Chicago...

ilbob
August 22, 2006, 11:09 AM
A while ago, I read about one of Daley's henchmen getting stopped by the cops. If I remember correctly, he was driving drunk and carrying an unlicensed, concealed handgun, WITH THE SERIAL NUMBER FILED OFF.

The guy mouthed off to the cops, demanding that they release him. The arrest was called in, and before they could leave the scene, orders came down to release the person in question AND RETURN HIS GUN.

Yep, that's Chicago...

I vaguely recall the story, but not the details.

ilbob
August 22, 2006, 11:21 AM
A question for those with more legal experiance than I.

I've heard of the "tan card" and the "supervisor" carrying 24/7. The way the lawyer (who had both card and gun ) explained to me was that he carried a beeper that and was "On Call" in case of an emergency. Seems the agency had a llist of emergency numbers to call and his name added to the list. Since the agency ran 24/7 he was "On Call" 24/7.

My personal opinion is that this would be a very good way for a private detective to lose his license. However, I also suspect there are a fair number of people in Chicago who carry illegally. It is entirely possible a few have tried to get some cover story in case they get caught that might potentially get them off the hook.

It is also entirely possible this scheme was used to get his handgun legally registered, since only cops and guards are allowed to have handguns. But I think once it is in the registry you can keep it even if you no longer qualify.

When I worked for a security guard company (back in the dark ages), I heard this 24/7 story from many a guard supervisor. I never knew any of them that actually carried on that story, "although they could if they wanted to". I think they knew it was rail thin and dependent on their company backing them up, and the chance of a security guard company backing up a low level employee like that is near to zero.

A fair number of us did keep a uniform and gun in the trunk of our vehicles when out and about because you never did know when that miserable beeper would go off. I had a small duffel bag that the uniform shirt, belt, gun and holster went in. We wore black pants, and over time I gravitated to wearing black pants all the time. Was easier than changing. I must have had 5 or 6 pairs of plain black slacks.

Deanimator
August 22, 2006, 12:25 PM
I vaguely recall the story, but not the details.
I think he was an Hispanic guy in the Public Works Dept.

Edmond
August 22, 2006, 06:17 PM
dependent on their company backing them up

There you have it. Those wealthy businessmen will get backed up by the company because of the way their money talks to the company. It's an outright sham and a lie but they'll back them up.

Autolycus
August 22, 2006, 10:17 PM
Lets start our own company and make everyone a supervisor. We can get Nextel phones and the whole shebang. I will say I may be paged by ilbob and he by me. We are on call 24/7 its just finding work that is the problem... (not that we are actually looking;) ). It could be like a second job you know? Just when we are needed.

ilbob
August 23, 2006, 12:01 AM
better to spend our time changing the law than spending our money on lawyers getting us out of jams we got ourselves into trying to skirt that law.

stlgunfan
August 23, 2006, 02:57 AM
Here is my question. Why in DC, as well as CHI Why isnt there court challenges to the US Supreme Court? How can a city go against the Bill of Rights, and over ride Federal Law?

I also recall not long ago a Missouri State Trooper off duty in IL saw a car crash, and assisted a motorist. He informed the IL officers he was carrying, and they still arrested him, and charged him despite HR218 federal law! I dunno what happend with the case. It appears IL, gov blowjo, and Sir Daley think they are higher than the Feds.

Also about a little over a year ago There was a major bust in East stl I think like 40 people who were felons, were trying to become East St. Louis reserve officers, even took the 40 hour firearms course required. People mention CHI as crooked, but East Stl is a total corrupt trash dump. Their police chief, asst cheif have been arrested by the FBI, the Police station raided, as well as MAJOR voter fraud going on. lets hope this makes its way to CHI and bring down the Kingdom of Dalyestan. However Blojo will have to be out of office first! We all know hes not going to do anything.

Autolycus
August 23, 2006, 03:07 AM
Think Blago will be out of office soon. I really believe Topinka will get the governor position. As for Daley that is another matter all together. I dont know what is wrong with the majority of Chicagoians. It seems that they do not care enough to do anything other than complain about stuff. Lots of people here complain about stuff but refuse to do anything about it.

Soybomb
August 23, 2006, 03:15 AM
Why in DC, as well as CHI Why isnt there court challenges to the US Supreme Court? How can a city go against the Bill of Rights, and over ride Federal Law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights) will sum it up far better than I can.

Autolycus
August 23, 2006, 03:42 AM
We all know the founding fathers would not have stood for this kind of crap. Even if some judge feels that it is legal. You all know that I am right.:cool:

Deanimator
August 23, 2006, 08:38 AM
Think Blago will be out of office soon. I really believe Topinka will get the governor position. As for Daley that is another matter all together. I dont know what is wrong with the majority of Chicagoians.
Watch "Schindler's List". Note the little Polish girl saying, "Goodbye Jews!" She's the embodiment of a Chicagoan.

She may be on the verge of being deported to Germany as a half-starved slave laborer, but there's somebody else worse off to dump on.

In Chicago, it doesn't matter if you're up to your neck in sewage, so long as there's somebody you can pull under first.

isp2605
August 23, 2006, 10:01 AM
I also recall not long ago a Missouri State Trooper off duty in IL saw a car crash, and assisted a motorist. He informed the IL officers he was carrying, and they still arrested him, and charged him despite HR218 federal law!
Please verify. If you can you'll be the first who has been able to. This story keeps getting repeated on the internet yet no one has been able to come up with a name of the officer arrested nor even a verifiable newspaper story. Until someone does it's no more than another internet rumor.
If you do any research on it you'll find that IL was one of the first states to get a system in place to implement HR218 and the process used in IL was copied by a few other states.

Edmond
August 23, 2006, 09:22 PM
I think Chicago is under home rule, which would allow something like that to happen.

stlgunfan
August 23, 2006, 09:42 PM
Yep, hone rule! I remember a few years ago Home rule was on the ballots here. Thank got we dont have it still! If that happend good bye guns in the City of Stl!

DKSuddeth
August 23, 2006, 10:12 PM
I know that I've read about home rule before, but there has to be documentation somewhere that explains how IL came up with that, how it got voted in, and how it was allowed to be 'constitutional'. anyone? bueller? bueellleeerr??

ilbob
August 23, 2006, 11:35 PM
Home rule is constitutional in Illinois because it is written into the Illinois constitution.

Some municipalities automatically have home rule based on population, others can be voted in by referendum.

In any case, it can also be voted out by referendum.

See article VII, section 6.

If you enjoyed reading about "Hope for Illinois???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!