Illinois LE want more privileges for themselves...

[Autolycus]

My plan to get CCW in Illinois would be to subject Law Enforcement to the same gun laws as the rest of us. This would force them to either support gun laws or to be against them. If they were forced to use 10 round magazines and were not allowed to carry off duty we would see them lobbying along side us as they feel their safety is threatened.

It would also get some of the LE organizations like the FOP to lobby for progun laws and push for progun politicians. It seems that the majority of LE have a conservative bent and seem to share a lot of the social values, in regards to crime and guns, with Republicans which may cause them to support Republican legislators and some Southern Illinois Democratic legislators who have the same values in regards to crime and guns.

The only hard part would be getting a union to support someone who is not pro-union.

I would also try to unify the gun rights organizations in Illinois under one large banner. The idea of getting advice and advocacy from other successful gun rights groups is an excellent idea. However we have a problem, and that is Chicago. If we could perhaps exempt Chicago from the CCW law, similar to NYC in New York, we may see a change in the gun laws here.

As for getting the politicians we should penalize those who vote anti-gun. Whether they be Republican or Democrat. If we make them believe that gun rights are the only concern and we will vote against them, even if it breaks party lines, we may see them sweat. I dislike single issue voting myself but on a local level it may work and not be as costly in my opinion. Even if we get someone who is not pro-gun and we punish the anti-gun person we could cause the original losing party to run someone who is progun.

Of course fundraising and other things would help us. Perhaps donating services to different organizations and schools. Organize work place events where employees are welcome to shoot. Advocate having everyone teach someone, Each One Teach One if you will. We could also try to recruit ranges into sponsoring tournaments and getting sponsors for these events from manufacturers and holster makers.

Try to help start gun clubs in colleges and advocacy groups. My old college had a candle light vigil against crime, perhaps a well written pamphlet to hand out would be good to pass out. We could start a guerilla style advertising campaign to push for CCW and other gun rights.

Just some ideas.

 

[Deanimator]

My plan to get CCW in Illinois would be to subject Law Enforcement to the same gun laws as the rest of us. This would force them to either support gun laws or to be against them. If they were forced to use 10 round magazines and were not allowed to carry off duty we would see them lobbying along side us as they feel their safety is threatened.

Do you remember back in '96 when the Illinois legislature was debating legislation banning those convicted of domestic abuse from owning or possessing firearms? The loudest and most hysterical opposition came from the police union in Chicago, which DEMANDED the right for cops to be able to own and carry guns AFTER being convicted of domestic violence. They interviewed union officials on National Public Radio. Their comments have to be heard to be believed, and even then they're astonishing. The only thing I've EVER heard on NPR that was more disturbing was their interview of the "roving ambassador" of the Taliban prior to 9/11.

I don't know about the cops anywhere else in Illinois, but the Chicago PD definitely considers itself a class above the rest of society.

 

[Jeff White]

Tecumseh said:

If I was to carry a gun and get arrested in Illinois, I would not blame myself as I have a right to carry that gun.

When you can show me the statute that gives you the right to carry a gun in Illinois or the court decision that has overturned the carrying of firearms provisions in 720 ILCS 5/24, then you can say you have a right to carry a gun. Just because the Second Amendment to the US Constitution says that you have the right to bear arms and you believe like many of us do, that the founding fathers meant that literally doesn't mean that it means that literally anywhere in the 50 states and 4 territories except for Vermont and Alaska. Everywhere else in the country there are laws proscribing who can carry and when and where they can carry. That my young friend is reality. It's not the way that you or I read the constitution, but you know what, neither of us are supreme court justices with the power to change that. So if you are arrested for carrying a gun in Illinois, you will have no one to blame but yourself. You know what the law says and you make your own choice. Does having to make that choice suck? Yes! Is it unfair? Yes. But it's the reality of the situation.

We have a system within which we work to change those laws we feel are unconstitutional or unjust. We can elect like minded people to the legislature who will change those unjust or unconstitutional laws or we can elect people to the bench (here in Illinois) who will rule on the constitutionality of those laws. We can't just decide which ones are unjust and unconstitutional on our own. The system doesn't work that way.

The state is the oppressor in this case by denying me the right to do that and the long arm of the law is what is supposed to keep me from disobeying the law.

Nope, you are your own oppressor. No one seized power in a coup and imposed these draconian restrictions on you. You (and others) elected those you feel are your oppressors and you have the power to fire them. It just takes a little more effort then most people are willing to out forth. Let me ask you this, are you actually a member of the NRA and ISRA? I belong to the NRA (life), the ISRA and LEAA. Are you a member of the political party of your choice? I am a registered republican. Are you involved with your local party organization? I have served a term as precinct committeeman. Do you regularly contribute money, time and skills to a candidate you back? I do, and it's a pain because once you give money you get all kinds of related organizations calling and showing up at your door with their hands out. Do you call and rite your legislators, even the ones you know disagree with you? I do, and it sickens me to write to Durbin and Obama...but it's important they know we're out here.

So I would feel bitter about being arrested for breaking an unjust law.

Bitter, but guilty non the less.

Now if the officer feels it is unjust, but is exempt from the law I broke, I would feel that the officer is a hypocrite. So who is at fault, me for breaking an unjust law or the state for keeping these laws in the books and having their law enforcement enforce them?

You're at fault. YOU and no one but you made the conscious decision to break that law you felt was unjust, knowing the consequences. I don't think that you understand how things work. There isn't a state committee that meats quarterly to ask which of these statutes does Tecumseh feel is unjust and repeal them. You as a citizen and a voter have to step up and take responsibility. Those laws are still on the books because a majority of your fellow citizens want them there. The political process works by one side convincing enough people that they are right and electing legislators or judges who will change it.

Does it not illustrate hypocrisy to arrest someone for something that is illegal but which you are exempt by virtue of your job which is to arrest people for breaking the law?

No it doesn't. There are all kinds of examples in this world where certain groups of people are given duties that require them to do things that would be illegal for others to do. Attorneys fairly routinely possess contraband items such as drugs or unregistered NFA items in order to surrender them to the authorities. Emergency vehicle operators can under certain circumstances break traffic laws. Is it fair that the law allows me to carry a firearm to defend myself and doesn't allow you to? NO! And I am working to change that.

However I want to ask if someone breaks an unjust law are they a criminal or are they a victim of an oppressive state?

As long as those people elected the government and have the means to peacefully change the government, they aren't victims of an oppressive state. Blagojevich didn't appoint himself governor and Daley didn't appoint himself mayor. They were elected. And if the opposition party would ever get their act together they could be defeated. And in spite of the so called oppressive state, we've managed to hold off any further erosion of our gun rights at the state level for the last five years. If they were truly the oppressive state Blagojevich would just have outlawed RKBA in Illinois by executive order.

My plan to get CCW in Illinois would be to subject Law Enforcement to the same gun laws as the rest of us. This would force them to either support gun laws or to be against them. If they were forced to use 10 round magazines and were not allowed to carry off duty we would see them lobbying along side us as they feel their safety is threatened.

First off, what makes you think we're not lobbying right alongside of you? You fail to take into consideration that overt political activity for the rank and file is restricted by law. HOw do you propose getting around that. We are pretty much limited to mentioning we're police officers when contacting our representatives. We can't lobby in uniform or otherwise claim to represent our agencies.

Outside of off duty carry, we are already following the same gun laws as everyone else in Illinois. No one, except the unfortunate residents of Cook County are limited to 10 round magazines. Heck I carry 8 round magazines on duty. Software, not hardware wins fights.

When you can prove that the rank and file police officers in this state are against CCW we can talk further. But right now, you sound like you're jealous.

Titan6 said;

Good survey. I see 40% believe that concealed carry permits will NOT reduce crime.

Not really doing a bunch to my confidence or make me think happy thoughts. These are supposed to be the experts.

Concealed carry permits don't reduce crime. Study after study is showing that gun laws, both those that restrict access and carry of firearms and those that permit it are at best neutral on the crime rate. The idea that concealed carry laws lower the crime rate is as much propaganda on the progun side as the number of children killed by firearms annually is on the anti side. The numbers just aren't there. You might start by looking at Kleck's research. And read this article, it pretty much backs up Klecks research:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...310367797F8FBB0D862572E700112942?OpenDocument

Streets are neither safer No examples of shootouts on the street. nor more dangerous No reports of permit holders bringing guns into restricted areas.
By Patrick M. O'Connell
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
05/27/2007

It's permit renewal time for a lot of private citizens in Missouri who carry weapons, and the effect of the controversial concealed-carry law remains what it's been from the start: nil.

Police say it hasn't increased crime, nor reduced it. People don't seem to be shooting others, or themselves, by accident in any greater numbers.

Perhaps most telling is that the St. Louis County Police Department has no record of ever responding to a single call that someone had carried a gun into one of the many restricted locations. City police keep no record of that but didn't remember any.

"When they were debating this, one side was saying it was going to reduce crime and another was saying it was going to cause gunfights in the streets," Franklin County Sheriff Gary Toelke said.

"I really haven't seen either. It's really a nonissue right now. You're not having fights in the streets, but it's not saving the world either."

His office received 853 initial applications for the three-year permits and rejected about 20 based on the required criminal background check.

Missouri's first permits were issued in 2004, although because of litigation, they were not available everywhere that soon. St. Louis and St. Louis County did not begin issuing them until 2005.

Toelke's department has received about 220 renewal applications with more coming in. Two of them have been rejected so far.

Maj. Mike Copeland said most of the applicants he knows never carried a gun, and he figured many wouldn't bother to renew. "But most people seem to be saying, 'Well, I went through the trouble of getting one, I want to keep the right to do that,'" he noted.

In Jefferson County, Sheriff Oliver "Glenn" Boyer said permits were issued to a wide array of people — young and old, men and women, doctors and real estate agents. He said women are heavily represented among renewals.

Boyer suggested that his initial qualms about ordinary people with guns had settled. "I feel a lot more comfortable now that we haven't seen the 'John Wayne syndrome' in effect."

Toelke can recall only one confrontation between police and a permit holder. That man lost his firearm privilege by brandishing a knife; he had left his gun in his car.

There have been other isolated incidents involving legally carried weapons.

In March, for example, a visitor from Florida with a valid permit from that state was lauded by police after he wounded a would-be robber who approached him with what turned out to be a pellet gun outside a motel in Bridgeton.

But in May 2006, another man with a Florida permit was charged with first-degree murder in St. Louis for fatally shooting someone in a street quarrel.

Missouri honors other states' permits. Some Missourians hold permits from more than a score of states that will license nonresidents, finding them easier to get.

Illinois and Wisconsin are the only states that do not allow some form of concealed carry for ordinary people.

Missouri law bans even permit-holders from carrying firearms onto trains or buses, or into courthouses, churches, sports stadiums or any property where a notice is posted. Violators face fines and possible revocation of the permit.

In St. Charles County, sheriff's Lt. Craig McGuire said that while there have been no reports of such infractions there, by its nature a concealed weapon would not be obvious anyway.

More than 3,000 concealed-carry permits have been issued by the St. Louis County police in about two years, officials said. About 10 percent of applicants were rejected.

In St. Louis, a small number were rejected from 780 applications, said city sheriff's department Maj. Randy Lynch.

The Missouri concealed-carry law allows someone 21 or older with no criminal record to keep a loaded firearm inside a vehicle without a permit.

[email protected] | 314-863-2821

pacodelahoya said;

While speaking of the unconstitutionality of enforcing gun laws while being allowed to carry a gun, a right denied at GUNPOINT to the citizens of his state.

See my reply to Tecumseh above. The sooner you guys stop the pity party that your rights are being stolen from you by an oppressive government that you elected, and stand up and take those rights back through the political process, the sooner things will change.

Politics is the art of the possible. If I had a magic wand I could wave and change things I would. But unfortunately, I'm left to fighting within the system. It's hard, dirty, ugly work and it would be a heck of a lot easier if we could stop wasting energy on these unproductive fights among ourselves. When we reach our goal of CCW, it won't be because the "we live under an oppressive government and life is so unfair crowd" did anything special. It's be because those of us who are fighting within the system one baby step at a time finally wore them down.

I'm done with this thread.

Jeff

 

[PPGMD]

I agree that tough gun laws are more effective at reducing gun crime, Florida had it's biggest violent crime drop when it passed 10/20/Life.

But statistics do bear out that many states with shall-issue concealed carry laws have lower rates of confrontational crimes.

Anyways I think we need to pull the same stunt that they did with the FOPA, you want officer concealed carry, we need concealed carry with citizens, all in the same bill.

The Stats:
Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws severely limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense. (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1992) -

The total Violent Crime Rate is 26% higher in the restrictive states (798.3 per 100,000 pop.) than in the less restrictive states (631.6 per 100,000).

The Homicide Rate is 49% higher in the restrictive states (10.1 per 100,000) than in the states with less restrictive CCW laws (6.8 per 100,000).

The Robbery Rate is 58% higher in the restrictive states (289.7 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states (183.1 per 100,000).

 

[Titan6]

Jeff- Concealed Carry Studies- From where I sit I can see all kinds of studies other than Kleck. Some point to a reduction in crime some don't. Some studies attack the studies that show a crime decrease.

This part is important though:
None of them show an increase. I guess you have to pick the horse you want to back since lying with statistics is second nature to many researchers.

You sadly seemed to have picked your side. I guess you don't see how this has not helped your case.

 

[Art Eatman]

Titan6, what appears to be the main factor in violent crime (regardles of weapon) is the demographics of age. The rate rises and falls with the number of young males between (roughly) 16 and 24. That factor showed as a decline from 1994 - 2005; it's now rising.

CHL laws can definitely affect the style of violent crime. For instance, in Florida after the passage of CHL, attacks on people at highway rest areas and on people exiting airports increased, while attacks on obviouly-native Floridians dropped off. Interviews with those arrested for such attacks claimed that it was much safer for them since tourists didn't have guns--and there was uncertainty as to natives being armed.

Art

 

[PPGMD]

They also attacked rental cars because they used to keep stickers on them identifying which company the car came from. They stopped doing that of course, though residents are able to identify rentals pretty easily even still.

 

[JCF]

When we reach our goal of CCW, it won't be because the "we live under an oppressive government and life is so unfair crowd" did anything special. It's be because those of us who are fighting within the system one baby step at a time finally wore them down.

The idea that concealed carry laws lower the crime rate is as much propaganda on the progun side as the number of children killed by firearms annually is on the anti side.

Etc...

Outstanding post Jeff.

 

[Autolycus]

Jeff White: I did not vote for the oppressive government in the form of voting for anti-gun politicians. It was forced down my throat like many other gun rights groups. And at times it was forced down on us with help from LE organizations, Anti-Gun organizations, Religious organizations, advocacy groups, political groups, medical associations, and numerous other organizations that take any anti 2nd Amendment approach.

I am an NRA member, just sent away for the ACLU, and I am a member of the Libertarian Party. I plan to get my ISRA membership once I know a little more research. I do plan on joining the SAF before though because I believe in their no compromise approach to the 2nd Amendment.

I do my part for the 2nd Amendment. I am not as financially well off but will be once I graduate. So I do my part by representing the 2nd amendment and guns in a positive manner whenever possible. I also try to maintain a professional demeanor and attitude when discussing these thing.

However once I am more able to do more I intend to.

I dont feel it is whining to ask for my rights and to be angry that these rights are granted to members of government organizations while denied to citizens. I understand the Illinois state government created these laws which strip of us of our rights but they do it with the consent of LE. LE grants this help by carrying out actions they know to go above the supreme laws of the land (THE BOR).

 

[Thin Black Line]

Has anyone in the ISRA leadership actually contacted their counterparts in
MI and said "Tell me --what worked for your guys? How did you get it done?"
Has anone in IL brought in some of their MI brethren and had them do some
presentations/workshops at the county level for a start? Apparently, MI did
something right and the guys in IL could use some pointers. Like I said, put
the pride aside, quit bickering, and ask for some outside help.

Tecumseh? Jeff? Don?

Mmmmkay. Hope I'm not writing the same post in 2017.

Yep, a couple more pages of the same old stuff.....

 

[Don Gwinn]

You might have missed this post, but I did address that question.

There have been some attempts to work with Michigan people and emulate them where possible, including the attempt to create an "ICRGO" organization to mirror the "MCRGO." Unfortunately, ICRGO didn't get a lot of support, and as far as I know, it's over.

How much anyone high up in ISRA has tried to work with MCRGO veterans, I couldn't say. I've advocated the same thing for a long time right here at THR, but the upper ranks of the ISRA don't hop to when I snap my fingers.

Anyway, as I said, the thread officially ended for me at the "No More Privileges For Thugs With Badges" comment. This thread has been off the High Road for a long time. I didn't want to take the last word, but since there's now an additional page of comments, I'm going to assume everyone's had his say. Maybe next time we can do it without cop-bashing.