Rahm Gets Restrictions on Gun Sales for Chicago

rahm-gun-salesRahm Emanuel’s proposed restrictions on gun sales in Chicago get approved unanimously without alteration.  Yesterday the city coucil ratified the laws which will all but eliminate gun sales in Chicago.  The restrictions include limiting sales to one per person per month, and no sales within 500 feet of a school or park.

One of the most visual restrictions is the requirement that all sales be video recorded, in an effort to prevent straw purchases.  Just watch your evening news, you’ll see crimes being committed on video tape.  The chances of a straw purchaser being intimidated by a video camera, are slim to none.  Chicago has long banned the sale of guns within the confines of the city, but gun violence remains.

Allowing the sale of legal weapons to law abiding citizens of Chicago should not be the concern.  Allowing the gangs to continue to profit from the trafficing of illegal guns should be a primary objective.

The laundry list of restrictions that have been enacted will certainly limit the number of firearms retailers to a mere few.  Chicago’s problem with violence in general is largely a result of the lower income residents, and the street gangs in some neighborhoods.

The hope is for Chicago residents to be able to obtain firearms, training, and the ability to protect themselves and their families.  The politicians and police in Chicago are not getting the job done, so it’s up to the residents to protect their right to life here in the United States.

Chicago Mayor Proposes Gun Sale Restrictions

The city of Chicago is being forced to comply with the constitutional rights of it’s citizens, and allow gun sales within the city.  They have been given 180 to comply, and time will run out on July 14th.  Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel today proposed new restrictions to replace the outright ban on gun sales.

The proposal includes the following prohibited places, and other restrictions on business engaging in gun sales:

  • 72 hour waiting period on handgun sales
  • 24 hour waiting period on rifle/shotgun sales
  • All employees to undergo background checks
  • All employees to be fingerprinted
  • All employees to be trained on identifying gun trafficking.
  • Store must have police approved gun/ammunition storage
  • Store must have police approved exterior lighting
  • Store must have police approved surveillance cameras/security system.
  • Quarterly inventory audits
  • All records available to police for inspection
  • No sales within 500 feet of schools
  • No sales within 500 feet of public parks
  • Limit sales to one per month per person
  • Require videotape of all purchases

While some of these proposed ordinances are fairly benign, others are obviously meant to deter business not crime.  While keeping illegal guns off the streets of Chicago is a real problem, the city wants to keep gun out of the hands of the law abiding masses as well.

Surveying data of the city shows that 99.5% of the city is within 500 feet of a public park or school, leaving only 0.5% available for future firearms retailers.  To further limit business owners, much of the 0.5% is not zoned for commercial use, all but banning gun sales.  The city is sending a clear message, the courts have ruled, but we don’t want legal guns sold in our city.

Illinois State Rifle Association has made it known that a lawsuit and further legal battle with the City of Chicago is a real possibility.  A vote on the proposed restrictions on gun sales has yet to be scheduled.

Chicago’s been limiting the rights of the citizens for years, ordinance by ordinance they are falling.  The fight for freedom is never easy whether that fight is on foreign soil, or here at home.


Illinois School Fudges 2nd Amendment

bor-2aGrant Middle School in Springfield, Illinois gets a little lefty loosey with the 2nd Amendment.  The school is giving the handout pictured above to students to try to “explain” the Bill of Rights to the students.  It features an illustration implying that firearms are constitutional to protect your home.  It features a judicious cat, and a curious neighbor for a little comic relief.

It goes on to explain to our next generation that the “Right to Bear Arms” states that people have the right to certain weapons.  While the 2nd Amendment does not state this, the Supreme Court has defended “reasonable restrictions”.  A restriction on ownership is acceptable, but not a prohibition like has been seen in D.C. and Chicago.

The children are also being taught that you can have one of these allowed weapons, providing that you register them, and you have not been in prison.  Last I checked registration has been rejected on a federal level for fear of confiscation.  Rights guaranteed to Americans don’t require registration with the government, especially when that right is critical protection of the people from the government.

The final sentence reminds that the 2nd Amendment was intended to prevent confiscation of weapons from the people like was attempted by the British.  Interestingly enough, those colonists stood up to their oppressive gun confiscating government to protect thier natural right of self defense.  That is why the framers felt so strongly to protect firearm ownership of the people.

The words of the 2nd Amendment are short and simple to understand to most Americans.  Say them with me, “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.” Understood? I am not sure where the school is finding all these foriegn ideas within the words of the framers.

Illinois Governor Candidates on Concealed Carry


*UPDATE March 18, 2014:

Bruce Rauner has won the republican nomination, and will face the incumbent Pat Quinn in the general election.


As election season closes in, and concealed carry is the law in the Land of Lincoln, many wonder about potential  Illinois governors.  The candidates, two Democrat and four Republican, are all anxious to weigh in on the new concealed carry legislation and the roll-out to the gun owners of Illinois.  The candidates response to the new court mandated legislation will be a defining point to many voters on both sides of the aisle.  Let’s break down some statements from each gubernatorial candidate, some more telling than others.

First up the incumbent governor of Illinois who attempted to veto the concealed carry legislation, Pat Quinn.

Pat Quinn (D):

The Illinois governor fought the concealed carry bill throughout the process, delaying, vetoing, and attempting to exclude Chicago from the effects of the new legislation. He was quoted in saying:

“This is about public safety. I think that public safety should never be compromised, never be negotiated away.”

Quinn’s “common sense” changes to the concealed carry bill were overturned, and now gun owners have a legal option of concealing a handgun alongside the criminals.

Tio Hardiman (D):

Democrat candidate Hardiman is as close to a liberal who supports concealed carry as you get in this primary race. He understands that the crime statistics don’t support the opinions of many Illinois democrats, and that Illinois gun owners to have a legitimate right in the 2nd Ammendment. He was quoted in saying:

“I cannot penalize, not with a good conscience, penalize legal gun owners for the violence problem in Illinois. There’s no data to back it up. So if people would like to exercise their right to the Second Amendment, they should be able to do so.”

In stark contrast to Quinn’s “common sense” statement, Hardiman shows his willingness to use his own common sense and stray from the party line as Illinois governor.

Bill Brady (R):

Republican candidate Brady wants Illinois legislators to take a step back and relinquish some freedom back to the citizens of Illinois. He was quoted in saying:

“We also have to understand that this is about public safety and driving down crime. We know that in every state where concealed carry took place, crime went down. And we need to give our citizens the opportunity to protect themselves and watch crime go down.”

Brady supports legal gun owners in Illinois in being able to protect themselves and families against violent crime.

Kirk Dillard (R):

Republican candidate Dillard wants Illinois citizens and legislators to “wait and see”. He was quoted in saying:

“Illinois is the last state in America to allow people to protect themselves. It took the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to force the state of Illinois to allow people to have the same right they had in all 49 other states, … I think we ought to wait and see how this law unfurls for a while before we make any changes, pro or con, to it.”

Dillard has yet to make up his mind on which way to go with concealed carry in Illinois. His neutral stance aims not to offend, yet doesn’t attract voters from either side of the aisle.

Bruce Rauner (R):

Republican candidate Rauner supports Illinois citizens right to own firearms. He was quoted in saying:

“I think concealed carry was long overdue. Gun ownership is an important constitutional right. We should end the approach that many politicians take in Illinois and that is to blame our crime problems on gun ownership.”

Rauner recognizes our crime rate is a result of Illinois’ high unemployment, understaffed police stations, and poor schools, not legal gun ownership.

Dan Rutherford (R):

Republican candidate Rutherford recognizes a problem for Illinois gun owners and wants to correct find a solution. He was quoted in saying:

“If I was king of the forest or if I was the governor and I was able to help influence it, it would be a different bill than what it was. I think what we need to be very, very sensitive to, though, is the evolution of this. The evolution could be, as you suggested, perhaps making it better and more enhancing. But as well an evolution could also put us backwards if we don’t have the right people in the governor’s office, we don’t have the right people in the General Assembly. One of the performance reviews that I will be doing is with regards to State Police. Why does it take so long to process a FOID card? Why does it take so long to process the application for your concealed carry? Those are unacceptable.”

Rutherford realizes the concealed carry debate and legislation is a work in progress for both sides. He proposes having him in the governors office will move things in the right direction.

This is a very brief outline of one issue on the minds of many Illinois citizens from the left to the right. Illinois faces many tough issues in the coming election and concealed carry will be one of the defining issues along with the budget, pension reform, and unemployment. Incumbent Illinois governor Quinn has a lot to answer for, huge debt, failing pension system, all time high unemployment, and failing his party on concealed carry.

Remember the fight for and against concealed carry in Illinois is NOT over.  Both sides are continuing the fight to further their agenda, while both sides are on the side of safety and protection of Illinois citizens.  Who will you vote for, and who stands to best support your view of Illinois concealed carry?

Gun Free Zones by Default

no-guns-signIllinois senate bill SB2669 is an attempt to restrict your right to carry in businesses by default, making all businesses gun free zones.  Changing the current law that requires business owners post a No Guns sign if they wish to refuse patrons who carry a concealed firearm.

Those who support the bill are offended by the thought that we need the No Guns signs, and would rather not have them, but also don’t want you to carry your firearm. This restriction would require business owners to opt out of 2nd Ammendment protections. Opponents of SB2669 reinforce your right to self defense is a natural right, and should not be denied by default.

The courts have upheld law abiding citizens right to carry a firearm in public, the law should respect this ruling. The current law does, while still respecting the propriator’s right to restrict you while on his property.