McHenry County Blog

Marshall Lowe has a sign east of the Thornton’s Gas Station in Cary on which he puts pithy comments.

His latest is on gun control.

Politisite.com has an interesting bar chart that might be of interest.

A missive from the McHenry County Right to Carry Association:

Nik Clark, president of WisconsinCarry.org starts his letters to his members: “Greetings in Freedom”. Thanks, Nik.

Two members of MCR2CA were at the gun show on February 17 at the Woodstock VFW and manned a display table with information about membership and the upcoming Massad Ayoob training. We welcome the new members who joined us that day. Welcome aboard!

This Friday, February 22, the Illinois House Judiciary Committee will hold a public hearing in Chicago. If you want to attend, be at the Michael A. Bilandic Building, 160 N. LaSalle St., Room N-600, well before the 10:00AM starting time. Tuesday’s hearing in Springfield was packed. Arrive early. Will you be going? Gus Philpott, MCR2CA Secretary/Treasurer, will be taking the 7:23AM Metra from Woodstock.

Review the names of the Committee members. Decide how you want to dress to impress them. Will a suit or “business casual” be appropriate? We want them to hear us, not just see us. If you go, take something to hand each of the 16 members, whose names you can find here: www.ilga.gov/house/committees/members.asp?CommitteeID=1192&GA=98 If you go, give us feedback on who is favorable toward the laws that are good for gun owners and whom we need to educate more.

Saturday-Sunday, February 23-24. Visit us at Booth 309 at the Great Outdoor Expo at Woodstock North High School.

Are you an expert “salesperson”? If so, the McHenry County Right to Carry Association is in need of your expert help. As you probably know, MCR2CA has a booth for two days at The Great Outdoors Expo this weekend. We need to get our message out more than ever. If you are able to lend a hand signing up new members at the show, please contact MCR2CA president Mickey Schuch @815-690-0248. The board members will be in attendance both days as well.

Don’t forget 2013 memberships are up for renewal. Please pledge your support of freedom and our Bill of Rights, by visiting www.MCR2CA.ORG; click on “Become a Member” and renew or join (use the same form). You’ll see that we launched a new online membership application, so even if you have been a member in the past we need you to renew. Dues can be conveniently paid via PayPal.

McHenry County residents will again have the opportunity to travel by bus to Springfield to lobby legislators on gun legislation. Departure will be at 6 AM on March 6th with a planned return to Woodstock at 9:30.

The contact person is Dave Richards with questions 1-815-236-2039 or email questions to mcsa1776@gmail.com.

This is the second part of my reflections on the Appellate Court’s finding the prohibition against carrying guns to protect oneself outside the home to be unconstitutional.  The first part is here.

“Controversial” could be used to describe the 2002 campaign gubernatorial radio ad about my Personal Protection proposal. It was modeled off an NRA TV ad I saw in 1992 Traverse City at an American Legislative Exchange Council convention.

It featured a woman calling 911 saying, “Someone’s breaking into my home.”

The 911 operator asks typical questions as the woman shouts, “He’s in the house.”

She hangs up the phone and the listener hears her running upstairs.

He goes into her bedroom, slams the door and pushes some furniture in front of it.

She calls 911 again.

“He’s coming up the stairs. Help!

The 911 operator asks the same questions again.

“He’s breaking down the door.”

Then a shot rings out.

The announcer says, “When the police can’t get there soon enough, you need Cal Skinner’s Personal Protection Plan.” Then, “Cal Skinner for Governor. Change you can believe in.”

WGN-radio hosts apologized prior to running the ad, saying it was inappropriate.

Now, Alderman Howard Brookins, Chairman of the City Council’s Black Caucus is quoted in the Sun-Times as saying he is not at all concerned concealed carry would turn inner-city neighborhoods into shooting galleries.

“Those people have a gun now. They’ve just been made criminals because they can’t legally have it. And the gang-bangers and thugs are gonna have a guy regardless.”

Now, let me tell you about Chicago two dinner companions I had at the Annual Conference of the Northern Illinois Conference of the Methodist Church.  Before the speaker at the Northern Illinois Conference Evangelical Association, I asked our African-American brothers if I could ask them a political question.

Having receive permission, I asked their opinion of concealed carry.

The first to answer was a retired Chicago Policeman who revealed that President George W. Bush had signed a bill that allowed him to carry his weapon. He said the Federal statute required him to take training, but that was no problem

The second man was an attorney. He was at least six feet tall.

He said he carried a gun.

He related seeing some “punks” coming down the sidewalk toward him.

He said he put his hand in his pocket and they crossed the street in order to avoid walking by him.

Yesterday afternoon, WBEZ’ afternoon interview program discussed the decision with a young upwardly mobile professional who lived in Bronzeville. The purpose of her being on the show was to preview the NPR story she had done, which was to be aired this morning.”

She said she didn’t know anyone who carried a gun.

Let me reveal one other interaction with a representative of the black community.

And, by “representative,” I mean State Representative.

We were voting on a bill to restrict gun rights in the Illinois House.

As the roll call was being taken a black representative walked across the aisle and told he he/she had to vote in favor of the bill, but hoped I would vote against it.

I wonder if that legislator will have more courage now that the Appellate Court decision has been rendered.

“Concealed carry.”

What a public relations disaster that label has been.

When I ran for Governor on the Libertarian ticket in 2002, I certainly supported the concept, but I knew it was a kiss of death for those advancing the right for people to protect themselves with guns outside the home.

I referred to the concept as being a “personal protection” measure.

In 2001, Michigan had approved such legislation.

Similar state, similar problems, but no experience by the time I was running.

I remember reading that the Sheriff of Wayne County predicted shoot-outs on the streets of Detroit.

A year later, he admitted he had been wrong.

Ten years later, the Detroit Free Press ran an article entitled,

10 years after concealed weapons law, unclear why many in state were gun-shy

Another article is here.

If you are a liberal who believes approval of this concept of personal protection is the beginning of the ending of your world, please read the article.

Only about 4% of adults have licenses in Michigan. 2% of them have been sanctioned for misbehavior by law enforcement officials.

My argument eleven years ago was that a very small percentage of individuals could act as a deterrent to crime.

Let me give you my theoretical argument first and then a real life example from the streets of Chicago.

While I was running for Governor, there was a serial rapist on the North Side.

I argued that rapists are basically chickens.  They are too afraid of women to ask them for a date.

So, if even a small, but well-publicized percentage of women in an area were able to protect themselves with guns, I figure that there would be less instances of sexual assault.

That approach would work on college campuses, too, but my guess is that the Illinois General Assembly will continue to make them “Protection Free Zones.”   (Think back to the Northern Illinois University massacre. There was a woman killed sitting in the second row of the auditorium.  She was a former member of the Armed Forces.  Although she served in a supporting role, she would have been trained and capable of taking out the gunman on stage, had Illinois allowed her to carry a weapon.)

More tomorrow.

A press release from Congressman Joe Walsh:

Rep. Walsh Statement on Reversal of Illinois’ Ban on Conceal Carry

Ruling is a Victory for Illinois Residents

WASHINGTON – Congressman Joe Walsh (IL-08) released the following statement today after a Federal Court of Appeals struck down Illinois’ ban on carrying concealed weapons. Illinois is currently the only state in the nation that has not passed a conceal and carry gun law, and this ruling directs Illinois lawmakers to put in place legislation that allows Illinois residents to exercise this basic constitutional right.

“This ruling is a victory for Illinois residents and will give them the constitutional right to defend themselves, as has been established in every other state in the country.

“Illinois has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and yet crime rates have soared, including a 49% jump in shootings in Chicago this past November.

“The right to possess and carry weapons is enshrined in our Constitution, and I am glad that this has been recognized by the Federal Courts.”

Walsh has been on the front lines of the Second Amendment debate.

In June, Walsh and three other Members of the Illinois delegation sent a letter to Governor Pat Quinn urging him to give residents their constitutional right to protect and defend themselves.

“I respect the right of gun ownership, and I will remain steadfast in protecting all Americans’ Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

= = = = =
A Daily Herald article suggested that Walsh might run for Governor. The reference to Pat Quinn in this press release might support that suggestion.

Read the decision if you are really interested.

This decision comes with the backdrop of Chicago Police being incapable to stop people from getting shot on the street.

Here are some snippets:

“Even carrying an unloaded gun in public, if it’s uncased and immediately accessible, is prohibited, other than to police and other excepted persons, unless carried openly outside a vehicle in an unincorporated area and ammunition for the gun is not immediately accessible. 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(4)(iii), (10)(iii), -1.6(a)(3)(B).” (Page 2)

“But the Supreme Court has not yet addressed the question whether the Second Amendment creates a right of self-defense outside the home.” (Page 2)

“Nor can we ignore the implication of the analysis that the constitutional right of armed selfdefense is broader than the right to have a gun in one’s home.” (Page 4)

“Heller explored the right’s origins, noting that the 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right to keep arms for self-defense, 554 U.S. at 593, and that by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right to keep and bear arms was ‘one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen,’ id. at 594.” 130 S. Ct. at 3037. And immediately the Court adds that ‘Blackstone’s assessment was shared by the American colonists.’” (Page 4)

“The Second Amendment states in its entirety that ‘a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ (emphasis added). The right to ‘bear’ as distinct from the right to ‘keep’ arms is unlikely to refer to the home.” (Page 5)

“And one doesn’t have to be a historian to realize that a right to keep and bear arms for personal self-defense in the eighteenth century could not rationally have been limited to the home.” (Page 5)

“Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower. A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim, while compelled by McDonald to honor the latter. That creates an arbitrary difference.” (Page 8)

“A gun is a potential danger to more people if carried in public than just kept in the home. But the other side of this coin is that knowing that many law-abiding citizens are walking the streets armed may make criminals timid. Given that in Chicago, at least, most murders occur outside the home, Chicago Police Dep’t, Crime at a Glance: District 1 13 (Jan.–June 2010), the net effect on crime rates in general and murder rates in particular of allowing the carriage of guns in public is uncertain both as a matter of theory and empirically.” (Page 8)

“Concealed carriage of guns might increase the death rate from assaults rather than increase the number of assaults. But the studies don’t find that laws that allow concealed carriage increase the death rate from shootings, and this in turn casts doubt on the finding of an increased crime rate when concealed carriage is allowed; for if there were more confrontations with an armed criminal, one would expect more shootings. Moreover, there is no reason to expect Illinois to impose minimal permit restrictions on carriage of guns outside the home, for obviously this is not a state that has a strong pro-gun culture, unlike the states that began allowing concealed carriage before Heller and MacDonald enlarged the scope of Second Amendment rights.” (Page 12)

“Charles C. Branas et al., “Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault,” 99 Am. J. of Pub. Health 2034, 2037 (2009), finds that assault victims are more likely to be armed than the rest Nos. 12-1269, 12-1788 13 of the population is, which might be thought evidence that going armed is not effective self-defense. But that finding does not illuminate the deterrent effect of knowing that potential victims may be armed.” (Pages 12 + 13)

“David Hemenway & Deborah Azrael, “The Relative Frequency of Offensive and Defensive Gun Uses: Results from a National Survey,” 15 Violence & Victims 257, 271 (2000), finds that a person carrying a gun is more likely to use it to commit a crime than to defend himself from criminals. But that is like saying that soldiers are more likely to be armed than civilians.” (Page 13)

“In sum, the empirical literature on the effects of allowing the carriage of guns in public fails to establish a pragmatic defense of the Illinois law…Anyway the Supreme Court made clear in Heller that it wasn’t going to make the right to bear arms depend on casualty counts.” (Page 13)

“Illinois has not made that strong showing—and it would have to make a stronger showing in this case than the government did in Skoien, because the curtailment of gun rights was much narrower: there the gun rights of persons convicted of domestic violence, here the gun rights of the entire lawabiding adult population of Illinois.” (Page 14)

“A blanket prohibition on carrying gun in public prevents a person from defending himself anywhere except inside his home; and so substantial a curtailment of the right of armed self-defense requires a greater showing of justification than merely that the public might benefit on balance from such a curtailment, though there is no proof it would.” (Page 14)

“Illinois has lots of options for protecting its people from being shot without having to eliminate all possibility of armed self-defense in public.” (page 15)

“Remarkably, Illinois is the only state that maintains a flat ban on carrying ready-to-use guns outside the home, though many states used to ban carrying concealed guns outside the home…Not even Massachusetts has so flat a ban as Illinois, though the District of Columbia does…” (Page 15)

“It is not that all states but Illinois are indifferent to the dangers that widespread public carrying of guns 16 Nos. 12-1269, 12-1788 may pose. Some may be. But others have decided that a proper balance between the interest in self-defense and the dangers created by carrying guns in public is to limit the right to carry a gun to responsible persons rather than to ban public carriage altogether, as Illinois with its meager exceptions comes close to doing. Even jurisdictions like New York State, where officials have broad discretion to deny applications for gun permits, recognize that the interest in self-defense extends outside the home. There is no suggestion that some unique characteristic of criminal activity in Illinois justifies the state’s taking a different approach from the other 49 states. If the Illinois approach were demonstrably superior, one would expect at least one or two other states to have emulated it.” (Pages 15 + 16)

“If enough private institutions decided to do that [ban guns from their premises], the right to carry a gun in public would have much less value and might rarely be exercised—in which event the invalidation of the Illinois law might have little effect, which opponents of gun rights would welcome.” (Page 17)

“Recently the Second Circuit upheld a New York state law that requires an applicant for a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public to demonstrate “proper cause” to obtain a license.” (Page 17)

“…though we need not speculate on the limits that Illinois may in the interest of public safety constitutionally impose on the carrying of guns in public; it is enough that the limits it has imposed go too far.” (Page 19)

“…only legislative facts are relevant to the constitutionality of the Illinois gun law. The key legislative facts in this case are the effects of the Illinois law; the state has failed to show that those effects are positive.” (Page 20)

“The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense. Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions. Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.” (Pages 20 + 21)

Justice Williams filed at 25-page dissent.

I feel left out.

With redistricting, both Republican candidates for the Illinois General Assembly are running unopposed.

That’s what happens when the party in control determines legislative boundaries based on past voting behavior rather than more logical geographical and political lines.

Now, I have often said that I think every candidate should have an opponent.

Tough to get because Illinois has more local governments, hence, I guess, more locally elected officials than any other state in the union.

But, competition forces incumbents to find out what constituents what now, not the first time they ran for office.

With Wheaton resident Congressman Peter Roskam being given part of McHenry County in order to fulfill Mike Madigan’s first priority in congressional gerrymandering–creating a district where Tammy Duckworth could not lose–I have received some mail from the Republican.

None from Demcoratic Party opponent Leslie Coolidge.

And, until Monday, nothing this fall from any McHenry County Board candidate.

Then came the piece you see below from County Board Chairman Ken Koehler:

The back says that Koehler is “protecting our 2nd Amendment Rights.”

There’s not more indication on the mailng of what gun rights have to do with McHenry County government than the Social Security-Medicare issue has to do with State government in the mailings that Mike Madigan is making on behalf of Independent Dee Beaubien’s campaign.

You Don’t Know Jack!State Rep. write-in candidate Joe Rosner has a page on his web sitethat lists the violations of the United States Constitution which he believes incumbent Democrat Jack Franks, an attorney, has violated.

His Second Amendment observation is reproduced below:

You Don’t Know Jack!

Constitution Edition

Think you know Jack? Here are Jack Franks’ actions and positions on YOUR Constitutional Rights:

The Second Amendment clearly states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

After 12 years of Jack Franks, Illinois is the only state in this nation that denies its citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

Rep. Franks has served 6 terms without ever proposing any pro 2nd Amendment legislation. In an example of political gamesmanship, Rep. Franks waited for four full months to come out in support of the Family and Personal Protection Act, which would let county sheriffs issue concealed carry permits for firearms.

Only when the Madigan-Emanuel anti-gun cabal saw that there were not going to be enough votes for passage did he scurry for political cover and vote for the bill.

Joe Rosner believes self-defense is a basic human right. He will propose and support concealed carry legislation.

Since the political reality is concealed carry may take years to pass, he will propose legislation clarifying existing law to specify that hip sacks, fanny packs and similar purpose-built cases be considered a “case, firearm carrying box, or other container.”

This will then allow persons who have been issued a valid FOID card to transport a firearm anywhere in their vehicle or on their person as long as the firearm is unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container. This is a stopgap measure until a real concealed carry bill is passed.

= = = = =
More tomorrow.