Chicago won't help ex-cops carry guns

[Blaster]

http://www.chicagofop.org/Current_Updates.html


Latest news:

At the urging of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Illinois Police Training and Standards Board voted today to begin processing the applications for Retiree Carry Concealed without the endorsement of the City of Chicago. This discussion has been in the works for about 2 weeks now and in spite of the efforts of some individuals who have gone off on their own and contacted the media and have sought other legal advice, the decision of the Training Board is the proper avenue to address the latest roadblock of the City. This is now the 3rd roadblock that has been overcome through the efforts of your F.O.P. working in conjunction with the Training Board to address all concerns. We have sought the patience of all of our members in allowing us to address their interests and we appreciate the patience most of you have shown. Working together is the way to resolve this latest issue and those that may come in the future.

The initial plan is to begin processing the applications that have been submitted after the first of the year. These applications will not need to be processed by the City and any future applications will be processed likewise. The total time element has not been outlined for the process but should not be significant. When the timeline is better identified, we will update this.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Sounds like simple jealousy.

Short history lesson:

Rewind about a year, and LEOs were very visible on all the gun forums urging passage of this law. The story then was, "It's a foot in the door for nationwide CCW. Let us get it first, and it'll make it easier for the rest of you."

Now fast forward to today. The LEOs got their national carry law. The rest of us are wondering where all those LEOs who said they'd support us if we supported them have disappeared to. It has nothing to do with cop hating. It has to do with simple honesty. The LEOs (as a group) promised to support national citizen CCW if we'd help them (as a group) get it. We upheld our end of the deal -- you (as a group) got it. Immediately thereafter, the size of the LEO group supporting citizen national CCW suddenly diminished exponentially in size and vocality.

 

[scout26]

Hawkmoon,

+1 "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."

and I'll reiterate the attitude of the FOP here in Illinois:

"All for me and none for thee." If the rank and file members are so pro-gun/2A/CCW, then they need to change their leadership to reflect/espouse their views.

Both Senators Feinstein and Schumer have (or have had) CCW's. Should I support them because "it's a foot in the door" ???

 

[M-Rex]

Short history lesson:

Rewind about a year, and LEOs were very visible on all the gun forums urging passage of this law. The story then was, "It's a foot in the door for nationwide CCW. Let us get it first, and it'll make it easier for the rest of you."

Now fast forward to today. The LEOs got their national carry law. The rest of us are wondering where all those LEOs who said they'd support us if we supported them have disappeared to. It has nothing to do with cop hating. It has to do with simple honesty. The LEOs (as a group) promised to support national citizen CCW if we'd help them (as a group) get it. We upheld our end of the deal -- you (as a group) got it. Immediately thereafter, the size of the LEO group supporting citizen national CCW suddenly diminished exponentially in size and vocality.

Oh really? What did you do, specifically? And, where was this story?

Simple honesty.

 

[M-Rex]

Hawkmoon,

+1 "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."

and I'll reiterate the attitude of the FOP here in Illinois:

"All for me and none for thee." If the rank and file members are so pro-gun/2A/CCW, then they need to change their leadership to reflect/espouse their views.

Both Senators Feinstein and Schumer have (or have had) CCW's. Should I support them because "it's a foot in the door" ???

FOP can hang for all I care.

http://www.leaa.org/

http://www.leaa.org/righttocarry.html

http://www.leaa.org/Cops Versus Gun Control/copsversusguncon.html

All citizens should be able to exercise the right to carry unimpeded.

 

[Richardson]

Folks, you're still approaching this from an emotional, personal point of view. "If Billy gets cake, I get cake too! If I don't get cake, then don't nobody get cake!"

It's not about whether you trust the FOP or like the FOP. It's not about "creating" any class-based anything. It's about taking a cold, objective look at where we stand and where we want to be. If doing what is best for Illinois citizens who want their rights to be respected also benefits the FOP, that's OK with me. I don't care.
.

I agree.... except that instead of cake, let's substitute "to be in the boat". If you're being kept out of a lifeboat with lots of room just becuase you were never a professional rower, are you going to let the pro's keep getting in while you and your family drown?

What would an objective & non-emotional response involve?

 

[lostone1413]

A minor point of information. I work in Chicago, have discussed/debated this issue numerous times with Chicago LEOs , the majority (>50% ) are not anti gun. Have been advised numerous times by LEOs to carry(I do not carry in my field a conviction means NEVER working in the field again ).

Yes there are many LEOs who are anti.( One of whom along with myself got suckered into a 2 1/2 hr debate regarding gun control, I won when he admitted that he just did not like guns. ) But not all by any means.

NukemJim

Ask the so called Pro gun Chicago Police if they have ever worked with the Cage Units in Chicago. They work hand and hand with the State Police. If they say they haven't worked with the Cage Units ask how many have spoke against them.

 

[NukemJim]

Ask the so called Pro gun Chicago Police if they have ever worked with the Cage Units in Chicago. They work hand and hand with the State Police. If they say they haven't worked with the Cage Units ask how many have spoke against them.

Of course CAGE units come up in such debates ( Duhhhhh) The usual response is Either " It's a waste of time" from the pros to "We're taking the streets back"

None of the LEOs I've talked with have worked on such a unit.

Where I work there are procedures done ( No I am not going to specify what procedures) that I believe are wrong. I do not do them. But as long as such procedures are legal and follow policy and procedures they may be done. If I loudly complain about such ( as is my right ) my employer will terminate me ( as is their right ) Where I work I have to act as a professional.

So do the police officers. As long as what CAGE is doing is legal ( and from what I have understood CAGE usually follows the law) and follows the policies and procedure of the CPD there is not much to be done. What are they supposed to complain about, that the law is being enforced ? The law may suck, be stupid and in our opinoin unconstitutional but the courts have ruled them valid ( How they have done so I will never understand ) but legally they are valid.

NukemJim

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

GOOD. With their knightly privileges in the balance, let them see what it's like for the peons.

As for the whole idea that retired LEO carry somehow leads to wider acceptance of arms for the masses, I really don't think so.

For starters, people who aren't sympathetic to the right of arms carve out a great big exception in their minds for the annointed, and the (ret'd) after their name keeps them in that exceptional category, at least as far as the GFWs are concerned.

Furthermore, NJ tried this, passing a "shall issue" permit system for retired LEO's, based on the same theory, with zero result on the normal civilian side.

*********

Summary of thoughts:

1) Agree with posters who point out that the indoctrinated citizens of IL are the fundamental obstruction to shall issue. The situation is essentially the same as NJ in that regard.

2) This is the main nut to be cracked, via public education initiatives.

3) The LEO carry permit is a red herring that makes no contribution one way or the other towards general civilian carry.

It's not a matter of armed and unarmed classes of society, it's a matter of overall hostility to arms in that society.

^^^

Quoted for pure truth and accuracy. I have to agree completely with geek, those of you who believe that handing over priviledges to authorities will somehow lead to civilian concealed carry in restrictive places like Illinois are wrong. Believe what you want, it WILL NOT HAPPEN.

Folks, you're still approaching this from an emotional, personal point of view. "If Billy gets cake, I get cake too! If I don't get cake, then don't nobody get cake!"

Pure nonsense. This isn't about being spiteful... I understand that people in a restrictive state like Illionois are desperate to do anything they can to gain concealed carry, but all they are accomplishing by supporting such measures are to futher the class gap between authority and civilian. Authorities should have no powers, rights or priviledges greater than that of civilians.


The national concealed carry law for active and retired law enforcement has done more to HURT our right to keep and bear arms than most people here can even realize. It distinguishes between civilian and authority and implies so many things based on status or class. It has placed our goals further out of reach by solidifying the concept that only certain attributes permit one to carry a gun.


If people believe this will lead to civilian concealed carry in Chicago or Illinois or other restrictive places, they are sadly mistaken. It is logically flawed in every way. It is based on the idea that government will say "ok, well ex-cops, and cops from other parts of the country carry here in our city, what a good idea carrying guns is, let's extend this now to citizens since it worked so well for the cops"....how absurd.


Do you know what is preventing concealed carry in Chicago? Corrupt, statist, elitist trash mayors and politicians. That's what. They hate guns in every way. They don't even want ex cops carrying because that's how authoritarian minded they are. They only want THEIR cops, to carry. That is the ultimate in authoritarianism. And some people think that the leadership of such places will be convinced of the positives of restrictive/licensed concealed carry if retired cops or other state LEO's carry there? LOL.


Now, these guys aren't dictators, people actually elect them to office. That's frightening if you ask me. NY, NY, CA, IL et al are so anti-gun, and it is because the politicians are, and someone puts these people in office. Which gets to the root of the matter. Culturally, these regions of the country are DOOMED. Unless you can change the majority of people's minds towards pro-RKBA, nothing will change. And that isn't easy to do in a two party system, where issues like the 2nd Amendment are grouped against welfare/abortion/unions/ and other issues. So to get someone to vote for pro-2nd Amendment issues in Illinois, you have to take a leftwing minded person and ask them to reject 100 other more important issues they support in favor of the 2nd Amendment. I've succeeded in convincing many anti-gun liberals, Democrats, leftwingers that gun ownership is a good thing. Many of them are very pro-civil liberties. When the RKBA argument is made to them in a logical and decent way void of lies, they actually accept that. But they will never stick up for that in the face of environmentalism, welfare, unions, affirmative action or whatever else they deem more important.


Bottom line - the situation is unworkable.


It's why I say to people in California "just move to a better State"...I know they hate that, and I know it is rude. Weigh it all out. Is carrying a gun more important than where you live? If so, no problem moving then. If living there is more important that your RKBA, then there isn't much you can do, because you choose to live among a community that despises the 2nd Amendment. Yes, I know the Bill of Rights is suppose to protect the minority, no matter what the majority thinks. Pro-RKBA folks in these states are truly the minority. However, it is being naive and idealistic to think that the minorities rights will be protected in such places, especially with what I've mentioned above. Don't shoot the messenger, I don't like this cultural divide anymore than anyone else. I certainly don't approve of the majority abuse, and the stripping of anyones rights.


This is precisely why some of the most horrendous, and horrible national "pro gun" laws are often supported by gun owners in States like California and Illinois. Like national concealed carry reciprocity....another terrible idea that will ruin it for everyone. It is their only hope, and I can understand that, but I resent being called spiteful or selfish because I don't want a division of classes in this country by letting officers have a right I don't, if anything, these people who are so desperate to achieve concealed carry in their states through national measures and round about ways (other than doing it themselves in their own states) they are the one's being selfish because they will tank the hard work others have done in other states.




National carry for LEO's has done unmeasurable damage to our RKBA by undermining the fundamentals of a free society. Good job.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Now fast forward to today. The LEOs got their national carry law. The rest of us are wondering where all those LEOs who said they'd support us if we supported them have disappeared to. It has nothing to do with cop hating. It has to do with simple honesty. The LEOs (as a group) promised to support national citizen CCW if we'd help them (as a group) get it. We upheld our end of the deal -- you (as a group) got it. Immediately thereafter, the size of the LEO group supporting citizen national CCW suddenly diminished exponentially in size and vocality.

I know where at least one of them is. His name is Jim Butler. He's a retired Illinois State Police officer. He carries concealed because he's able to do so under 218. And he's the President of the Sangamon County Rifle Association. He does more than I do for the RKBA in terms of pure work and showing up (though in fairness I hasten to point out that he's retired!)

He didn't decide to throw us to the wolves because he gets to carry a gun.

If people believe this will lead to civilian concealed carry in Chicago or Illinois or other restrictive places, they are sadly mistaken. It is logically flawed in every way. It is based on the idea that government will say "ok, well ex-cops, and cops from other parts of the country carry here in our city, what a good idea carrying guns is, let's extend this now to citizens since it worked so well for the cops"....how absurd.

"It" is absolutely not based on that idea. Did you read the rest of the thread? I've explained several times why I support this action. I will explain it again, I suppose, since it seems to be important to people:

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with hoping that some government official will suddenly wake up one day with a new understanding. The point is that what we need above all else in Illinois is to give the people, especially the people of Chicago, experience dealing with concealed carry in some form. I know some of you are talking about CCW in a year or two. That would be fantastic, but it's not very likely and even if it were, it shouldn't keep us from taking the long view as well. The long view demands that we maneuver for POSITION.
Now, you can disagree with my assessment of what Illinois needs; that's honest debate. But the continuing insistence that my position in this matter is that LEO concealed carry will magically lead directly to civilian carry betrays a lack of effort put into understanding.

At this point it's moot anyway. We're arguing about this as if we had some influence, but it appears the FOP just went out and got it done on their own. I suppose the question remains whether this will be a good thing or a bad thing. We shall see whether it really contributes to preventing CCW in Illinois. I tend to agree that its impact will be small either way, but one of the things gun owners have got to grasp is that those small things add up over long periods of time, and we have all the time in the world.

With all due respect, if your contribution to the discussion is that the situation is unworkable and there's no point in fighting, you're talking to the wrong bunch.

 

[PCGS65]

I saw Daleys opinion on the news of this matter. The hypocritical thing about it is he mentioned he was concerned about the city being liable should something happen with one of the retired police with a gun. Now a short time ago(I love this)he was lobbying to hold gun manufaturers liable for crime!!!:banghead: Someone needs to make a commercial showing this.
If I ever become that disoriented it's time to close the coffin!

 

[lostone1413]

Of course CAGE units come up in such debates ( Duhhhhh) The usual response is Either " It's a waste of time" from the pros to "We're taking the streets back"

None of the LEOs I've talked with have worked on such a unit.

Where I work there are procedures done ( No I am not going to specify what procedures) that I believe are wrong. I do not do them. But as long as such procedures are legal and follow policy and procedures they may be done. If I loudly complain about such ( as is my right ) my employer will terminate me ( as is their right ) Where I work I have to act as a professional.

So do the police officers. As long as what CAGE is doing is legal ( and from what I have understood CAGE usually follows the law) and follows the policies and procedure of the CPD there is not much to be done. What are they supposed to complain about, that the law is being enforced ? The law may suck, be stupid and in our opinoin unconstitutional but the courts have ruled them valid ( How they have done so I will never understand ) but legally they are valid.

NukemJim

So I guess your saying what the cage units do is in accord with the Constitution. Guess the the 2nd amendment and the rest of the Constitution apply to only certain people. I can say living in Illinois for over 50 years that is a very common belief with the majority of LE in Cook County and the surrounding counties.Far as the Cage units being legal I can think of allot of times that was said. Lets see Hay Market Square, lidlow massacre, WW1 vets in DC,Ruby Ridge,Watco,New Orleans. Funny the reasons I stated are why the founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with hoping that some government official will suddenly wake up one day with a new understanding. The point is that what we need above all else in Illinois is to give the people, especially the people of Chicago, experience dealing with concealed carry in some form.

Right, that's great an all. But what is the purpose of that? To change hearts and minds. Is that a worthy cause? Yes [despite my pessimism about it being unworkable] Go for it.


There's one problem, you're never going to convince anyone of anything concerning concealed carry when the word "cop" is attached to it. Goes right smack dab back into the seperations of class. Authority vs. civilian. If I were a fence riding moderate in Chicago, that argument would make no sense. By default I would already accept the fact that I can't get a CCL, and by default I accept that police officers carry guns on duty. Those are the givens. There is no way people are going to rationalize concealed carry in a positive light due to the experience they've gained with concealed carry by cops. Why? Because that's concealed carry by cops. Cops are different. It is really, really that simple.


You convince people that civilian concealed carry works by showing them that civilian carry has worked and IS working in other places. Not by showing them police carry is ok. If that isn't working now, eventually it will. You have no other options.


99.99% of anti-gunners when asked why they think it's ok for cops to carry guns say "because they're cops." That's the mentality at work here.


I honestly understand your point of view. Right now, Chicago is very extremist and has no concealed carry. Not even for retired authorities. At least this will attempt to change that strong gun-hating mentality by getting the CONCEPT of concealed carry IN ANY FORM into Chicago. Good idea. Like getting your foot into the door. Wedging the fundamental idea into practice in some form at least. Make the gun hating, elitist statist mayor eat it. He hates guns so badly, he doesn't even want retired LE's or out of state LE's to carry there.


This is just the wrong approach. What you're up against isn't just the politicians, but the people. What will prevent you from getting concealed carry in Chicago will be the people. The majority doesn't want it, regardless of statistics, or examples in other states. People aren't going to cozy up to even the concept of concealed carry by cops, because cops are the ones doing the carrying. The people, and those who they elect, don't believe that guns belong in civilian hands, only in authorities hands.


So what is Step #1 for Chicago getting concealed carry? In my humble opinion, it is BREAKING the idea that authorities are the only ones who should carry firearms. You can argue that they aren't more qualified, that civilians are just as safe etc...people don't care about those ideas. It falls back on the moral level. It falls back to the concept of authority. The people, from generatons of government education no longer believe in the individual, but in the collective. As you can see, this ties into many other things...


It is a long, long road for Chicago. While I am a pessimist, I don't think it's not worth fighting for. I just am pessimistic at the approach people are taking. A lot of folks have seen tremendous concealed carry reform across the nation in a matter of just 2 decades and want their piece of the pie. That's wonderful, but the reality is, many parts of the country will not fall like dominoes. The folks in places like Chicago will probably have to come to terms with the fact that they may never see concealed carry in their lifetimes. It takes a long time to set the groundwork for that sort of thing. We're talking cultural change.



Here's a summary of what I think:

1] Concealed carry for cops is one of the most damaging pieces of legislation to our RKBA battle in recent history. It might even be worse than the AWB. It cements the idea that guns are ok in cops hands only.

2] By all means try it out in Chicago if you think it will actually bring change faster than creating a cultural shift in thinking. This is one argument I'd LOVE to lose and be proven wrong. I'd love to carry my pistol when traveling to Chicago. I can't see a single way this would work, but I've been wrong before, and if this actually worked to gain some form of civilian concealed carry, go for it.

3] Personally, I think it is better that Chicago is denying police concealed carry. Why? It is better that the ideological lines are consistant. IE, ban all guns, or free all guns. Concealed carry for all, concealed carry for none. Because that still leaves the avenue open (in the distant future) to be able to say "let's try concealed carry for everyone", but with cop carry you won't because they'll just think - only cops should carry! People will relate concealed carry to something only police should have...The leadership of Chicago is doing us a favor by preventing cops from carrying. They are keeping everything on the extreme, where we WANT it. Don't you think it is so much better that the leaders of Chicago are marginalized by rejecting even cop carry? Makes them look like extremists. Besides marginalizing the extremists against the rest of the nation, keeping the status of the issue on the extreme ends is a good thing. It is as if you haven't lost anything yet by conceding to cop carry. You still have the philosophical, fundamental ability to pursue carry for all civilians.



Go ahead and give ex cops the right to carry, once you do, you've sealed the fate of civilian carry forever. Again, I hope that I am wrong and that someday you can rub it in my face.

 

[Jeff White]

I've been watching this one from the sidelines, because being an Illinois peace officer, I have a direct interest in this and that will render my opinions invalid to many participants in this discussion.

Quite frankly I'm getting sick and tired of of the sanctimonious attitude that many members of THR have towards those members who live in less free states.

Don't Tread On Me,
Would you care to relate your political experience for us? Where were your during the Florida CCW fight? Were you in the trenches? Did you personally lobby the state legislature? Did you do grass roots work, mobilizing the shooting public? Or is your diatribe motivated by hatred and distrust of the police?

Another thing that I am sick and tired of reading here is that cops are in favor of gun control and against concealed carry when it's simply not true. While some cops are for gun control and against concealed carry, the majority of them think like we do here at THR. It is the political appointees who run the agencies who are for gun control and against concealed carry. Rank and file officers are often restricted by department policy from becoming publically involved in issues like that. Official statements are issued to reflect the feelings of the politically motivated leadership, not of the rank and file. There is a thread here making fun of a very stupid statement issued by the PIO of the Chandler AZ PD. The poster even gave contact information for the PIO.

Let me ask you this, are all of you so out of tune with how things work that you actually believe that anything a Public Information Officer for any agency says, actually reflects his or her personal opinion on a topic? Those releases reflect the official position of an agency, not the personal position of it's employees. I'm sure that the political leadership at the Chandler AZ PD directed that that statement be prepared and approved it before it was released. Yet in that thread, you're on a crusade to shoot the messenger.

Believe it or not there are plenty of active and retired police officers fighting the good fight for CCW in Illinois. And I know that the support of rank and file officers has pushed CCW legislation over the top in other states. That support often comes at a cost. It isn't easy to go against the politically correct leadership of an agency.

As for the FOP. The FOP is a union. It's politics are the same as any other union. Left wing socialist. It's no more right to say the cops don't support concealed carry because the FOP doesn't then to say truck drivers don't support concealed carry because the Teamsters doesn't.

Now here is another shocker. CCCW is only an important issue to us. The general public, including many in the sport shooting community couldn't care less. Here in Illinois many people actually think we have CCW. At least once a month I run into someone who asks me what they have to do to get a permit. They are incredulous when I tell them there is no provision for that. The general public get's most of it's information about firearms from the entertainment media. The average person who isn't in the so called gun culture thinks that we register our guns. Why? Because TV cops are always tracing guns back to the criminal by the non existant registration. Thats why the average person who's not involved thinks that even states that don't have CCW do. How many times have they seen the hardbitten PI or the evil politician's thugs tell the police officer; "It's legal, I've got a permit for that!" When the hero pulls the gun out his waistband.

That's why this public fight for retired Chicago officers is so important. It brings the issue square into the public's eye. People who may not ever have thought about it are now thinking about it.

Our elected leaders are nothing more then whores (sorry to any legitimate ladies of ill repute I may have just insulted) who will only give the public what it clamours for. Well to have a chance to get CCW in Illinois, we have to get the public clamouring for it. Or at least get enough of them aware that it's even an issue. Thanks to Daley's antigun bigotry, people who might not ever have thought about concealed carry are now thinking about it after hearing about this on the news. And I'm sure many of them are shaking their heads in wonder because they believed retired cops already could carry. A lot of them on TV do....It's the first step to getting them to think about carry for private citizens.

If the cops and the private citizens in the RKBA movement can't stop this insane bickering, then we'll surely hang seperately. If you think that we didn't take a chance of screwing up our own off duty carry by supporting HR218, then you're wrong. There are already agencies that have dropped the requirement for offices to be armed off duty and made it at the officer's discretion since HR218 became law. There are other administrators who would love to take HR218 and use it as an excuse to have us draw our weapons from the arms room at the beginning of the shift and turn them in when it's over. It was a double edged sword and the perceived liabilty could be enough to make some department take that step.

We're all in this fight together. I really don't know why so many of you want to push us out of the fight. Did you really think that within a year HR218 would lead to reciprocity for CCW? Do you know how many years it took us to get HR218 into law? It is the first step toward a national CCW. It's not going to happen overnight though.

Jeff

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Don't Tread On Me,
... is your diatribe motivated by hatred and distrust of the police?

Diatribe?

I am insulted and offended by this comment. Please cite where I said that I hate cops, or that I believe cops are working against your concealed carry efforts. I believe it is other people in this thread that mentioned that now that cops have concealed carry nationally, that they've abandoned civilians.

I never contributed this idea, I don't agree with it, and it's not something I've discussed here. I know very well that many officers are working hard to get civilian carry because they understand our cause.


I think you've misread my arguments. Perhaps it is my fault for not being able to articulate my thoughts well. My apologies for that.


My heart is 100% with and for the RKBA. I believe your approach serves the RKBA movement nothing. In fact, I believe it is a blunder that is doing more damage than good. Cop carry is a bad deal, we took a wrong turn. I bet you folks would think of this as insanity, but believe it or not, if we were true to our movement, the NRA would have come out in rejection of the cop carry bill. Imagine that! And no, nothing personal against cops. I don't reject cop carry because I don't like cops, but because I don't believe cops should be viewed as different from civilians in respect to off duty rights/priviledges.

Do you know how many years it took us to get HR218 into law? It is the first step toward a national CCW. It's not going to happen overnight though.

I hope national concealed carry NEVER EVER HAPPENS.


I don't hope that because I don't want you to have a concealed carry license in Chicago. That is absurd and insulting. If you want carry, you'll have to get it done in your state. Nationalizing will lead to federal regulation which will torpedo the whole thing for everyone.


I reject the argument that national concealed carry with have no negative effects on my state license. This is gateway legislation towards future centralized regulation due to the inherent problems with such a plan. The general movement in our nation is towards centralization, why on Earth did congress finally pass the national ID act a few years ago? Because they prefer ID's to be done on the state level? Oh please.


Being that I reject that apologists argument, I am not willing to concede or forfeit any of the hard work we've done in our states so that you can carry a gun. That's what's going to happen. We will end up with federal guidelines for concealed carry due to state disputes. MARK my words. In order to compromise with the stupid rabid anti-gun polticians in your state, everyone's standards will have to be lowered to a more restrictive level by the federal government. Why?


I've heard all the arguments PRO national carry. I know that different states have different laws and guidelines for marriage, and that states have to accept other's licenses. Well, that doesn't work for gays despite the massive national attention to that issue, with the bias against guns - do you really believe that's going to work for concealed carry? Not a chance. Things aren't that ideal in this country. Hetero marriage is accepted across state lines regardless of standards because that's a right that everyone cares about. People tend to only care about the rights which they actually use or need. Guns are often not included.


Chicago is going to sit pretty while I carry my 9mm with Florida license around on the Navy Pier? Oh yeah right! What will the people of Chicago say? We demand to carry too! Of course they will. They will either say, no, we don't want Floridians carrying their guns in our state, or they will accept it, and say - "how can we allow others to carry here, but not our own citizens?"


The politicians will be 2 steps ahead and already know this, and IF we ever gain the enough national support to seriously consider a bill like that, passage will depend on the representatives from these states. And they'll be damned if they will let our standards for carrying a gun be theirs.


After considering all of this, the only conclusion that I can come to, is that people in places like IL are either ignorant of what will surely happen to concealed carry standards once federally regulated due to state disputes, court battles etc, or they are willing to screw the rest of the nation to get a piece of heavily restricted carry.


Reciprocity is a long-shot, work around way for RKBA doomed places like Illinois to weasel concealed carry into their state. The dangers outweigh the positives. You know what's funny? Most of us here are enranged when anti-gun states, and their legislators try to take the anti-gun laws in their states, and impose them onto the rest of the nation. Quite frankly, during the AWB I was irritated beyond belief that idiots like Feinstein believe I in Florida should not be able to own a magazine with greater than 10 round capacity. The people in those states, who are overwhelmingly leftist and anti-gun put witches like her in office who impose their influence and power to create tyranny in my state, my home. You know what? I've come to the conclusion that if places like California want an AWB so be it, just don't bring your garbage to my State please. I can't expect to demand that the AWB of California be repealed when places like San Francisco vote, through public referendum - to disarm themselves!!!!! Unworkable, you better believe it. Remember, the Cali ban was worse than the federal, the anti-gunners were willing to compromise on the AWB to get it passed, the same way idiot gun owners will compromise on national concealed carry terms to get it passed. Feinstein didn't mind that Florida had a weaker AWB than Cali, so long as they did. Same way many gun owners won't care that concealed carry is screwed so long as they get it in some form. Sad.

Why should we compromise for a right? We should get concealed carry with no compromises. We have the moral high ground, we have history and righteousness on our side. We have the Constitution on our side.

And no, I am not being selfish or inconsiderate. I am certainly not being insensitive to your rights in Illinois.

Thankfully, I don't have to worry about national CC. Because my state and it's pro gun legislators will never forfeit our system in lieu of a federal one. I'll fight tooth and nail to reject such ludicrous ideas.


Our priorities shouldn't be on getting pro-gun legislation with anti-gun strings attached. WE LOSE EVERY SINGLE TIME ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL. Since we can't get clean bills, we might as well just seek repeals of old ones. If they don't have a prayer, at least we aren't digging ourselves into a grave that way. No compromise. Remember that. No one won their rights back by being wussy. States that won CC did so by demanding it for civilians, not by hanging their hopes on cop carry or national carry.



Fortune favors the bold.

 

[Don Gwinn]

So, it's your position that most of the states that have shall-issue carry today did NOT get it by moving to shall-issue from some more restrictive format like "may issue?" And those with loose or no training requirements did NOT get there by first accepting more stringent requirements and then loosening them from there? And those with low fees and short/no wait for the license did NOT get there by moving to that status from the more restrictive requirements of high fees and/or long waits?
We're talking about the United States here, right?

The VAST majority of the good traits you're so happy about in those states represent incremental progress from compromise positions. You don't have to like it, but you have to admit it.

Honestly, is it possible you expect all cops to tell other gun owners they're on their own because "I got mine" for no better reason than that it's your own personal policy? Maybe I'm being unfair, but to me, living in one of the states you dismiss as not worth saving unless it can be done all at once at no cost, it sure sounds like I'm hearing "I got mine, get yours if you can."

If that's your position, that's your right. I won't beg you for help. But if that's your position, you've basically written off any credibility when it comes to arguments about what Illinois should or shouldn't do.

 

[Don Gwinn]

States that won CC did so by demanding it for civilians, not by hanging their hopes on cop carry or national carry.

I am NOT suggesting that Illinois can win CCW by hanging its hopes on cop carry. I am suggesting that it's silly and counterproductive to spend our time actively antagonizing the average police retiree by telling him he's part of the only group of law-abiding citizens we don't want to be allowed to carry a firearm.

I would never suggest that not cutting off your index finger will make you a great pianist, either, but I do think it makes better sense than the alternative.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

I am NOT suggesting that Illinois can win CCW by hanging its hopes on cop carry. I am suggesting that it's silly and counterproductive to spend our time actively antagonizing the average police retiree by telling him he's part of the only group of law-abiding citizens we don't want to be allowed to carry a firearm.

I would never suggest that not cutting off your index finger will make you a great pianist, either, but I do think it makes better sense than the alternative.

That's where I differ in opinion from you. I don't see retired police as a different group. There are no different "groups"...there are only law-abiding American citizens. Are we not all equal under the law?

Furthermore, I really do not appreciate the premise of your statement. I am not telling anyone they can't carry, or shouldn't carry. What I am saying is, we should ALL carry, and that when only certain classes of people can carry -it isn't really concealed carry is it?


I don't differentiate between cop carry and civilian carry. There is only 1 type of concealed carry, and that is for all law-abiding citizens regardless of what their past career was.

 

[NukemJim]

Loston 1413, you might want to read my reply rather than just cut and paste it, just a suggestion of course.

"So I guess your saying what the cage units do is in accord with the Constitution. Guess the the 2nd amendment and the rest of the Constitution apply to only certain people."

That is NOT what I said. What I said was.

"The law may suck, be stupid and in our opinoin unconstitutional but the courts have ruled them valid ( How they have done so I will never understand ) but legally they are valid."

Please do not ask me to explain the situation from the legal viewpoint because I do not understand it.

The fact is neither my opinoin or your opinoin matters, it's the courts opinoins that matter no matter how much you and I think it is wrong.

NukemJim

 

[Cellar Dweller]

Question for Chicago LEOs

Couldn't Daley manuever into a de-facto ban, or at least a severe restriction on retired Chicago LEOs that remain city residents?

Handguns must be registered by the city. Richie won't sign off on new registrations, so nobody is allowed to keep a new handgun in the city; exemptions for ACTIVE-DUTY of course.
Retired officers have their old carry piece, which is normally a full-sized .38spl revolver or 9mm semiauto. One who would want something smaller in size for easier concealment or a different caliber or if the old piece is lost or stolen, they're SOL.

After all the teeth-gnashing and hand-wringing and turning red and stuttering that he does so well, he'll be forced to accept retired LEO CCW - but thanks to home rule, he can still play his games.