1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Richie Daley a Hypocrite?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by fedlaw, Sep 25, 2004.

  1. fedlaw

    fedlaw Well-Known Member

    Richie Daley a Hypocrite? Say it isn't so.

    This morning's Chicago Tribune contained two good letters:


    Protecting the city

    Jerry Pabst

    September 25, 2004

    Amboy, Ill. -- Mayor Richard Daley's letter to the Chicago Tribune, decrying the new federal law authorizing off-duty or retired law-enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms, merely perpetuates his willingness to subordinate the welfare and safety of the citizens of Chicago to his ongoing effort to make his job easier.

    His message was simply that an off-duty or retired officer carrying a firearm could prove to be a legal liability to the city if that officer injures someone with a concealed gun.

    Never does he mention that the additional thousands of trained, effective police officers added to the city's streets certainly would go far toward reducing Chicago's declining, but still outrageous, rate of violence.

    His Honor's words, "This law, as well-intentioned as it is, did us no service by pre-empting our right to keep our residents safe by regulating guns in the way we choose," really should read, "This law, which promises additional security for the residents, could cause me administrative problems, and prevent me from disarming the populace in the way I choose."

    Show us the way, Mr. Mayor: Disarm your 24-hours-a-day bodyguards.

    Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune


    Gun law

    John E. Fitzgerald

    September 25, 2004

    Chicago -- This is a response to Mayor Richard M. Daley's letter to the editor, "Federal law pre-empts city's gun regulations" (Voice of the people, Sept. 19).

    With all due respect to the mayor, I can appreciate his concern for the need to keep the streets of the city of Chicago safe.

    I have had the distinct privilege of being one of the people whose profession was to do just that.

    I have been a Chicago police officer for 34 years.

    I am, unfortunately, out of the game now.

    I am on occupational disability due to a virus acquired in 2001.

    I live in the area that I served for the last four years of my career.

    I continuously run into individuals on whom I had an adverse impact on their lives at the grocery store, the bank, the park, the drugstore, etc.

    I have had many a staring-down contest with these individuals.

    I'm sure if they knew that I am no longer carrying a gun and was out of the game that my life and well-being could be in jeopardy.

    I don't have the luxury of having armed guards follow me around like the mayor does.

    I feel I need to have the immediate availability of a way to defend myself.

    As it appears, so does the U.S. Congress as well as the president of the United States.

    I disagree with the mayor's premise. More guns on the street will cut down on crime as long as they are in the hands of trained professionals.

    I'm sure there are very few retired, disabled or off-duty police officers who will abuse this new law. But the bottom line is that I'm concerned about my life and my well-being. I plan on embracing this new law as soon as I can.

    Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune

    Perhaps the Little King will only give up his armed bodyguards if his esteemed alderman will stop carrying (they voted themselves [through their stooges in Springfield] a special law in order to carry even though they are exempt from training). This might set a good example for Her Royal Highness Feinstein, who can then explain to her constituents why it's okay for her to carry and not her subjects.
  2. Edmond

    Edmond Well-Known Member

    Both Chicago stories:

    Earlier this week, a families home was invaded and the father shot in front of his wife and kids. The invaders just broke in and tied everyone up. I guess the husband was a well to do man and the invaders had cased him. You mean the police couldn't save their lives?

    And a couple weeks ago, some guy knocks the door of a couple (man is a armed security guard, wife is CPD) and tells the couple that their son is outside about to get shot. They go outside with their weapons drawn and get into a shootout. If they weren't armed guards or CPD, their son would've been shot dead right in front of their eyes being that "regular citizens" can't even own a gun in Chicago.


    Why don't you give up your armed guards? Or how about getting everyone in the city armed guards?

    All the talk about the crime rate going down is true, but the general crime rate in the nation has gone down this past decade or so. Chicago's gun ban is ridiculous. Even my bosses that legally carry, who aren't LEO's, don't like doing it in Chicago because of the culture.
  3. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Scratch a leftist extremist, and you'll always find a hypocrite. That's because leftist extremists are self-appointed aristocrats.
  4. Edmond

    Edmond Well-Known Member

    Daley sure is good at passing the buck. When some scandal is discovered in the city, the press hounds him about it. His replies are always, "I'm not gonna answer that question" or "I'll let him answer that question" and has someone else do the dirty work.
  5. lostone1413

    lostone1413 Well-Known Member

    Have to have the CCW like a drivers license were if you have one it is recognized in all states. I for one believe that a CCW holder is just as qualified with a firearm as the LEOs are

Share This Page