The Chicago Tribune reports that Mayor Daley is “angry” over the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. He
called the Supreme Court’s overturning of the Washington D.C. gun ban “a very frightening decision” and vowed to fight vigorously any challenges to Chicago’s ban.
The mayor, speaking at a Navy Pier event, said he was sure mayors nationwide, who carry the burden of keeping cities safe, will be outraged by the decision.
The mayor of Peoria isn’t outraged. I asked Mayor Jim Ardis via e-mail today what he thought of the ruling and Mayor Daley’s comments, and he had this to say:
I’m glad they made the decision they did…. It’s too bad the Supreme Court decision was as close as it was. It should’ve been unanimous.
I’m looking forward to Mayor Daley coming here next month and I’m very anxious to meet him. I couldn’t disagree with him more on this issue though. Personally, I would be very supportive of conceal carry in Illinois. We’re one of only a few states that don’t allow it and Conceal Carry has had a positive impact on crime reduction in the State’s that allow it. Having criminals look down the barrel of a gun held by a law-abiding, trained gun owner would make some of these punks think about moving somewhere else. Perhaps if our State Legislators don’t have the guts to allow it state-wide, they’ll allow Peoria County to be a test case for it? I’m pretty sure that both our police chief and sheriff support it.
I haven’t talked to the sheriff, but I did ask Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard what his reaction was. As with Ardis, I also asked how he felt about Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis’s statement, quoted in the Tribune, that “From a law enforcement perspective, this [the Supreme Court decision] will no doubt make a police officer’s job more challenging than it already is … particularly since a firearm is used in 75 percent of all murders committed in the city of Chicago.”
Settingsgaard responded:
I applaud the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe wholeheartedly in a private citizen’s right to own a firearm and to protect themselves when necessary. I disagree that this makes law enforcement more difficult. Law abiding citizens who have clean criminal records and who have no history of mental illness are not the threats our officers and our citizens face every day. I am hopeful that someday Illinois will join the vast, vast, majority of States that have already legalized concealed carry. Want to know what truly can make police work more safe? It is not fewer honest citizens with guns. It is fewer defenseless victims. If these predatory criminals had more cause for concern that a citizen just might be up to the task of defending themselves, if more of these predators found themselves staring down the barrel of a gun when they thought they had found an easy mark, THEN law enforcement’s job would be easier. We have enough laws to demonstrate legislation won’t stop some wolves from being wolves. We need fewer sheep.
Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states that completely disallow conceal carry.
“Having criminals look down the barrel of a gun held by a law-abiding, trained gun owner would make some of these punks think about moving somewhere else.”
Sometimes I really like Mayor Ardis.
I’m renewing my FOID and buying a Glock asap.
The mayor said that? Huh.
Personally, I’d be willing to be part of a concealed carry trial period.
Amen. So what is Kevin Lyons and Darin LaHood’s view on this decision?
“trained gun owner”
There is the problem…. if only all gun owners were trained properly.
Illinos already has a good percentage of trained gun owners,Veterans.We do not have days or weeks of training but years.But if it takes my going thru an authorised training course to get a concealed carry license I would gladly do that.Please make Peoria a test city for concealed carry,if it plays in Peoria is our slogan.For once I would like to be on even ground with the thugs,in an out of my home.
Good breaking news reporting, C.J.
” particularly since a firearm is used in 75 percent of all murders committed in the city of Chicago.”
And please tell us, Jody Weis, how many of those firearm murders were committed by law abiding, FOID carrying firearm owners with their registered weapons? Also, please tell us how many of those firearm murders were carried out by those illegally possessing the firearm.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/06/27/scotus_guns/
“We need fewer sheep.”
Amen and Amen!!!
Police Chief Settingsgaard makes one of the clearest cases for the right to keep and bear arms I’ve ever heard. Good job!
If Daley lost his bodyguards he might think differently.
I don’t get it. While not challenging the “right” provided in the constitution, since when does the intrepretation of this living document not reflect very real national conditions?
The laws regarding gun control do not generally bar law-abiding citizens from ownership. My understanding is local gun control legislation seeks to place controls over access to weaponry. I understand “Reasonable regulation” is retained, even with the 5-4 supreme court decision. The boobs who saw this as a threat to individual gun rights, I think, didn’t fully understand the question being posed to the Supreme Court.
Given the chiefs of New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles said almost exactly opposite as our esteemed Peoria wonk, I wonder if everyone so quickly opining on this “threat to our rights” have reviewed the legal question at-hand.
” particularly since a firearm is used in 75 percent of all murders committed in the city of Chicago.”
I want to know how many of those murders were committed by Chicago Police?
I say let’s buy Ak-47s. Back in 1791, every weapon was an assault rifle.
Some of these comments make no sense especially ones by Eric and the famous anonymous. This Supreme Court case was brought by Richard Heller after Washington, D.C. government refused to grant him a permit to keep a handgun in his home.
He was trained and experienced in security which included the handling of weapons. Everone should know that criminals seldom buy a gun legally.
Anthony Kennedy, who “swings” both ways, swung the right way this time.
The ruling has a number of restrictions, including mental, so guys like some “anonymous”, Eric and Seth would probably not be allowed to legally own a gun.
The problem in our country is not guns, it is fear. Fear of poverty and poor health, fear of not being “in” and “hip”, fear of not being attractive or smelling nice, fear of being alone, fear of powerlessness, fear of being marginalized, fear of being ignored, fear of being invisible…
Watch TV and listen to the radio sometime…
everything is about FEAR
Eric: as for you and your “living” document… plbplbbblpblplbbplbblbblblbblbbbb
It means the same today as it meant 200 years ago:
A well armed populace (militia) is necessary to ensure government doesn’t get too intrusive, so citizens will be allowed.. no, not “allowed”… the government can not do anything about citizens having and BEARING (that means carrying them around, even in public)arms… which would include knives, swords, pistols, guns, even canon… (but not rifles, I guess, they weren’t invented yet)