Wow--you guys work fast!

Just kidding--I don't actually think that people responded in droves to my post yesterday, and thus inspired, flooded Commissioner Beavers' office with a mighty tide of calls and emails expressing righteous outrage, thus causing him to withdraw his proposal for a virtual ban of firearms in Cook County. Nevertheless, he is supposedly withdrawing it.

Commissioner William Beavers also introduced two other gun-control ordinances in December, but his staff said Thursday he is withdrawing them.

I had actually somehow managed to miss the fact that he had proposed two citizen disarmament ordinances (the other would have banned gun shows in Cook County--as Commissioner Suffredin's will, if passed--and required gun shop employees to undergo background checks; there were some other provisions, as well).

Anyway, although I know better than to try to take any credit for Beavers' retreat, I do believe that the grassroots activism of Illinois gun owners--led by groups like the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA), Illinois Carry, Guns Save Life (formerly Champaign County Rifle Association), etc.--was what forced him to back off. Grassroots works--remember that as we approach March 11th, and IGOLD '08.

The work in Cook County is far from over, of course. Not only does Cook County suffer already under an inordinately heavy burden of egregiously draconian gun laws already on the books, there's still Commissioner (and State's Attorney candidate) Suffredin's proposed ordinance, which would shut down every gun dealer in the county.

In the Daily Herald article I linked to earlier (here's the link again), Suffredin claims to have eight of the nine votes he needs to pass that abomination:

In the past, Suffredin has enacted county ordinances banning assault weapons, and he says he has eight votes for this one, needing just one more to pass it.

Curiously, by the way, in an earlier (Nov. 29th) article, he claimed to already have two more votes than he needed.

Suffredin was joined by Father Michael Pflaeger and the parents of several slain children as he predicted passage of his proposal which he says has 2 more than the 9 votes he'd need for passage.

So, Larry--were you lying then, or now--or have three commissioners stepped away from your citizen disarmament agenda?

We need to keep up the pressure on the Cook County Commissioners. Here, again, is their contact info:

District 1
Earlean Collins
Phone: 312/603-4566
Fax: 312/603-3696
ecollins@cookcountygov.com


District 2
Robert Steele
Phone: 312/603-3019
Fax: 312/603-4055
rsteele@cookcountygov.com

District 3
Jerry “Iceman” Butler
Phone: 312/603-6391
Fax: 312/603-5671
jbutler@cookcountygov.com


District 4
William M. Beavers
Phone: 312/603-6398
Fax: 312/603-4678
wbeavers@cookcountygov.com


District 5
Deborah Sims
Phone: 312/603-6381
Fax: 312/603-2583
dsims@cookcountygov.com


District 6
Joan Patricia Murphy
Phone: 312/603-4216
Fax: 312/603-3693
jpmurphy@cookcountygov.com

District 7
Joseph Mario Moreno
Phone: 312/603-5443
Fax: 312/603-3759
jmoreno@cookcountygov.com


District 8
Robert Maldonado
Phone: 312/603-6386
Fax: 312/443-9531
rmaldonado@cookcountygov.com


District 10
Mike Quigley
Phone: 312/603-4210
Fax: 312/603-3695
commquigley@aol.com


District 11
John P. Daley
Phone: 312/603-4400
Fax: 312/603-6688
jdaley@cookcountygov.com

District 12
Forrest Claypool
Phone: 312/603-6380
Fax: 312/603-1265
fclaypool@cookcountygov.com


District 13
Larry Suffredin
Phone: 312/603-6383
Fax: 312/603-3622
lsuffredin@cookcountygov.com


District 14
Gregg Goslin
Phone: 312/603-4932
Fax: 312/603-3686
commissionergoslin@cookcountygov.com

I've omitted the contact information for Commissioners Peter Silvestri, Timothy Shneider, Anthony Peraica, and Elizabeth Ann Doody Gorman, because they have committed to opposing this ordinance (although I am tempted to ask them how the motion to suspend the rule requiring public notification of the proposed ordinances passed unanimously).

By the way, some of the resistance to Suffredin's proposed ordinance is coming from the big, new Cabela's in Hoffman Estates, which would be forced out of business by Suffredin's ordinance (here's an article about that), which has the Hoffman Estates Chamber of Commerce agitated. The Daily Herald article says that Suffredin might try to take those parties out of the fight by buying them off:

"We're taking it very seriously," said Commissioner Tim Schneider, a Bartlett Republican who represents Hoffman Estates, where Cabela's Outdoor Superstore is located. The store does significant business in guns. Suffredin says he's negotiating with the store on a possible exception.

I hope Cabela's knows better than to sell the public's good will so cheaply.

Laura Washington: Sure, Suffredin is a political whore, but he's my political whore

Rabidly anti-gun columnist Laura Washington wrote Monday of her support for rabidly anti-gun Cook County (Illinois) Commissioner Larry Suffredin in his bid to become the next Cook County state's attorney. This is in spite of Suffredin's other job as a lobbyist.

Larry Suffredin's fatal flaw may be his longtime lobbying for gambling, tobacco and drug interests. It raises conflict of interest questions that are tough to set aside.

A list of his lobbying clients can be found here.

Why, despite Suffredin's "fatal flaw," would she support him?

Still, Suffredin has made fighting gun violence a signature initiative. He's got the NRA and its minions in a frenzy. His plan to go after gun shop owners and others who are peddling death on our streets will save our children.

In other words, so what about the clear conflict of interest--as long as it serves my pet agenda? By the way, does this make me one of the NRA's "minions"? Does Laura consider herself one of the Brady Bunch's minions?

Looking at that list of lobbying clients, we see that one of them is Illinois Citizens for Handgun Control, which, according to this, is another name for the rabidly anti-gun Illinois Council against Handgun Violence. Suffredin is also a longtime board member of yet another rabidly anti-gun, group, the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

So let's see, a commissioner of a county board, who pushes every restrictive gun ordinance he thinks he can manage to impose on the county (in addition to his latest attempt to shut down every gun dealer in the county, he was the author of Cook County's huge expansion of their ban of so-called "assault weapons"), and now is running for State's Attorney, is also a paid lobbyist for anti-gun groups, and is a board member of one such group. This goes beyond conflict of interest--this is closer to incest.

But never mind that, Laura Washington says--it's OK, because he's going after "gun shop owners and others who are peddling death on our streets . . . "

Let's just put the fox in charge of hen house security, while we're at it.

Cook Co. 'out-D.C.-ing' D.C. Part I

I'll post more on this later, but I wanted to get this out as fast as possible:

ISRA Alert:
TOTAL COOK COUNTY GUN BAN CLEARS FIRST HURDLE

Rabid gun-grabbers on the Cook County Board came one step closer last week to instituting a total ban on firearm ownership in the county – except for police and military personnel.

Introduced by Commissioner William Beavers, the so-called “Safe Streets/Weapons Registration Ordinance” appears on the surface to be some sort of gun registration scheme. However, closer examination reveals that the only people who could comply with the registration requirements would be Chicago residents who had previously registered their guns with the city. Everyone else in Cook County would have to turn in their guns to the police. The ordinance would certainly ban all handguns as the ordinance disallows registration of handguns that do not have a “chamber load” indicator. Few, if any, handguns could comply with this requirement, so they would have to be surrendered to the police.

The full text of Beavers’ proposed ordinance may be found here. To learn more about William Beavers, click this link: http://www.co.cook.il.us/district04.htm .

William Beavers is an enemy to our Constitution and an enemy to all freedom-loving people of the United States. Call him at (312) 603-2065 and also call his other office at (773) 731-1515 and tell them exactly what you think of Beavers and his plan to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Another gun-hater on the Cook County Board is Larry Suffredin. Suffredin has fielded a proposed ordinance that would shut down all gun shops in the county. You may read about that ordinance by clicking here.

Larry Suffredin is an enemy to our Constitution and an enemy to all freedom-loving people of the United States. For full information on Larry Suffredin, click this link: http://www.co.cook.il.us/district13.htm . Call Suffredin at 847-864-1209 and 312-603-6383 and tell them exactly what you think of Larry Suffredin’s plan to punish law-abiding gun owners.

Even if you don’t live in Cook County, or even if you don’t live in Illinois for that matter, call anyway. Freedom is at stake here.

In addition to calling these gun-hating stooges, please do the following:

1. Post this alert to any and all Internet bulletin boards of which you are a member.

2. Send this alert to all your gun owning friends and ask them to call Beavers and Suffredin too!

This, folks, is a treasonous attack on the Constitution. As I understand it, the penalty for treason can be rather harsh.

Updates to follow.

A bit of good news regarding the proposed Cook County ordinance?

I considered posting this update as an edit to today's earlier post, but such updates can get kind of lost in the shuffle, so I decided a new post was in order. What this is about is what looks like some good news for Chuck's Gun Shop, and bad news for Cook County's aspiring tyrant, Larry Suffredin.

Remember what Suffredin smugly and pompously stated (also remember that the lack of spaces between many of the words isn't my fault):

"As a home rule unit, Cook Countyhas the legal right to regulate where these establishments are allowed tooperate. Chuck's Gun Shop is within one mile of a school which will not beallowed once this ordinance passes."

Fellow Illinois gun rights activist GarandFan discovered the following in the Illinois state constitution (in SECTION 6. POWERS OF HOME RULE UNITS).

(c) If a home rule county ordinance conflicts with an
ordinance of a municipality, the municipal ordinance shall
prevail within its jurisdiction.

So now the question is whether or not Riverdale has an ordinance that conflicts with Suffredin's new pet tyranny. Let's take a look. I couldn't find anything about proximity to schools in Riverdale's municipal gun laws, which might spell bad news for Chuck's after all, but I did find this (click to enlarge):

So it would seem that Riverdale intends to be protected from Cook's draconian gun laws (Riverdale has some fairly draconian laws of its own, but that's another matter), but I wouldn't be surprised if Cook County took Riverdale to court in order to impose Chicago-style tyranny on Riverdale (arguing that Riverdale has no ordinance that directly conflicts with the provision that imposes a minimum distance from schools), and not much more surprised if Cook won. Just to be safe, I think Riverdale ought to pass a new ordinance, specifying that gun shops must be a minimum of one inch (maybe one angstrom) from a school--now that would indisputably put their ordinance in direct conflict with Suffredin's proposal, giving Riverdale the upper hand.

I realize, of course, that this proposed ordinance goes well beyond Chuck's, and needs to be fought tooth and nail regardless, but a chance to defeat this portion of it is still good news--especially given my sneaky suspicion that Chuck's was to a large degree the target of this abomination. I would certainly like to see "Snuffy" Pfleger's face if it does turn out that Chuck's is safe after all.

Cook Co. 'out-D.C.-ing' D.C., part IV

In Parts I, II, and III, I talked about the appalling nature of these two ordinances, especially the "Safe Streets/Weapons Registration Ordinance," introduced by Commissioner Beavers. Part IV is probably the most important of this series, because this one is a call to action. Whether you live in Cook County or not, please keep their phones/FAX lines/email service busy.

By the way, it would seem that they tried to sneak this past without the public's knowledge. At the very bottom of the text of the bill, you'll see the following:

In accordance with Cook County Code Section 2-108(z)(1) Amendment or suspension of rules, Commissioner Suffredin, seconded by Commissioner Collins, moved to suspend Section 2-108(h)(1) Prior notice to public; agendas. The motion carried unanimously.

In accordance with Cook County Code Section 2-108(z)(1) Amendment or suspension of rules, Commissioner Suffredin, seconded by Commissioner Collins, moved to suspend Section 2-108(g)(1) Order of business. The motion carried unanimously.

What does that mean? Let's see.

First, a motion was passed to suspend the rule that the public be notified of this ordinance proposal....(h) Prior notice to public; agendas .
(1) No less than three full business days before any meeting of the Board or of a committee or subcommittee, notice and an agenda for such meeting shall be provided to the President, all Commissioners and all news media that have requested notice of meetings, shall be posted in the Office of the County Clerk and at the location where the meeting is to be held, and shall be made available to the public in the office of the Secretary. In addition, notices and agendas of all meetings shall be posted on the County's website.

Second, a motion was passed to suspend the rule that the board meeting proceed on a standard plan of events....
(g) Order of business.
(1) At each regular meeting of the Board, the order of business (unless otherwise directed by the Board) is as follows:
a. Approval and correction of minutes of previous meetings.
b. Old business.
c. New business.
d. Consent calendar.
e. Committee reports:
1. The first section of the committee report as set forth in Section 2-105(h) of this division.
2. The second section of the committee report as set forth in Section 2-105(h) of this division.

The only reason to suspend the first section of rules is to avoid the public knowing about what's going on, until it's too late. I'm not as sure about what the other suspension of rules does, but I suspect it's meant to help them fast-track this abomination. Their attempted secrecy indicates that they know full well that what they intend to do is deeply offensive to the public.

It's up to us all to let them know that their perfidious skulking in the shadows has failed. In communicating with the commissioners, tell them of your strong opposition to Commissioner Beavers' "Safe Streets/Weapons Registration Ordinance." If you're feeling ambitious, ask them to oppose Commissioner Suffredin's "Deadly Weapons Ordinance," as well.

District 1
Earlean Collins
Phone: 312/603-4566
Fax: 312/603-3696
ecollins@cookcountygov.com


District 2
Robert Steele
Phone: 312/603-3019
Fax: 312/603-4055
rsteele@cookcountygov.com

District 3
Jerry “Iceman” Butler
Phone: 312/603-6391
Fax: 312/603-5671
jbutler@cookcountygov.com


District 4
William M. Beavers
Phone: 312/603-6398
Fax: 312/603-4678
wbeavers@cookcountygov.com


District 5
Deborah Sims
Phone: 312/603-6381
Fax: 312/603-2583
dsims@cookcountygov.com


District 6
Joan Patricia Murphy
Phone: 312/603-4216
Fax: 312/603-3693
jpmurphy@cookcountygov.com

District 7
Joseph Mario Moreno
Phone: 312/603-5443
Fax: 312/603-3759
jmoreno@cookcountygov.com


District 8
Robert Maldonado
Phone: 312/603-6386
Fax: 312/443-9531
rmaldonado@cookcountygov.com


District 9
Peter N. Silvestri
Phone: 312/603-4393
Fax: 312/443-1154
cookcty9@aol.com

District 10
Mike Quigley
Phone: 312/603-4210
Fax: 312/603-3695
commquigley@aol.com


District 11
John P. Daley
Phone: 312/603-4400
Fax: 312/603-6688
jdaley@cookcountygov.com

District 12
Forrest Claypool
Phone: 312/603-6380
Fax: 312/603-1265
fclaypool@cookcountygov.com


District 13
Larry Suffredin
Phone: 312/603-6383
Fax: 312/603-3622
lsuffredin@cookcountygov.com


District 14
Gregg Goslin
Phone: 312/603-4932
Fax: 312/603-3686
commissionergoslin@cookcountygov.com


District 15
Timothy O. Schneider
Phone: 312/603-6388
toschneider@cookcountygov.com


District 16
Anthony J. Peraica
Phone: 312/603-6384
Fax: 312/603-4744
ajperaica@cookcountygov.com

District 17
Elizabeth Ann Doody Gorman
Phone: 312/603-4215
Fax: 312/603-2014
eadgorman@cookcountygov.com

Cook County (Illinois) slides a little further into decay

David Codrea (and others) got to this story well ahead of me, but since it's in my state (not that I'm happy to claim it), and since my old pal "Snuffy" Pfleger is involved, I feel kind of compelled to take a look at Cook County's latest outrage. Cook County (for those with the good fortune of living far enough away to be unaware) is the county in which Chicago festers in its combination of anti-gun tyranny and rampant violence (a combination that probably strikes many Chicago residents as incongruous, but is actually par for the course, and fairly predictable). By the way, the Reuters article in the link not only uses the wrong spelling of "reign" (for this usage, they mean "rein"), but apparently putting spaces between words was something the authors could only be bothered with when it suited them.

Anyway, it seems that Cook County Commissioner Larry Suffredin (author of Cook County's ban on so-called "assault weapons") has now decided to go after gun shops--shops that are not even accused of breaking any laws.

Citing the senseless loss of liferesulting from random gun violence, Cook County Commissioner Larry Suffredintook a giant step today toward reducing the number of handguns on the streetsof Chicago and Cook County by introducing an ordinance that would restrict thelocation where gun shops in suburban Cook County can operate.

(See what I mean about spaces between words?) Anyway, let's take a look at this "giant step," shall we? How would placing more restrictions on Cook County gun shops keep guns out of Cook County? Does anyone really believe that someone who wants a gun will decide to do without, simply because he can't get it without leaving the county? Anyone who does believe that, perhaps I could interest you in a great deal on a pair of breeding mules.

"I am tired of business as usual. I am tired of picking up the paper orturning on the news to see reports about innocent children gunned down in coldblood, because some gang member bought a gun at their local gun shop,"Suffredin said.

Letting slide, for the moment, Suffredin's rather . . . interesting assertion that gang members are buying many of their guns in gun shops, are we to understand that it's the fact that the guns are bought (according to Larry) at local gun shops that offends him? I guess now we know why he thinks getting the shops out of Cook will help--it's apparently not the fact that armed thugs are killing people that bothers him--it's the fact that they're acquiring the guns locally (again, according to Larry).

"For nearly thirty years, I have fought for sensible gunlaws. Whether it was against the NRA or legislative leaders, I fought to passlaws to keep guns off our streets."

And a marvelous job you've done, Larry--which is why Chicago is so admired as an oasis of peace and domestic tranquility.

Here are the particulars of the proposed ordinance.

The proposed ordinance would amend the Cook County Deadly Weapons DealerControl Ordinance and would:

-- Remove the exemptions for municipalities, like Riverdale, that passed

less restrictive ordinances in order to avoid the provisions of the

existing Weapons Ordinance;

-- Extend the restriction on gun shops within one mile of a school or park

to all municipalities within Cook County.

-- Increase the distance required between licensed weapons dealers from

five to ten miles

-- Ban gun shows completely in Cook County.

By the way, does Cook County even have gun shows (I honestly don't know)?

Father "Snuffy" will be especially pleased, I'm sure, that Chuck's Gun Shop's location within a mile of a school makes it one of the shops threatened by this latest attack on freedom (has anyone ever explained why a gun shop near a school is so terrifying--is there a lot of shooting near gun shops?). According to another article, along with Chuck's, three other gun shops (of the twenty or so in the county) are on the chopping block.

I'm fascinated by the provision of the ordinance that overrides municipal ordinances less strict than the proposed county ordinance. Every time statewide firearms preemption laws are discussed, the citizen disarmament zealots launch themselves into hysterics because local control is being usurped (interestingly, though--these same people seem very keen on the idea of restrictive federal gun legislation). Now, though, we see Cook County proposes to attack the local laws of municipalities like Riverdale (where Chuck's is located).

In talking about the resolutions supporting the Second Amendment (most recently here), that are sweeping the state, county by county (and I'm overdue for another update on that--maybe later today), I have mentioned Cook County's growing isolation from the rest of the state. Judging by Suffredin's proposal, maybe that's how Cook likes it (as long as downstate taxpayers continue sending tribute up north).

UPDATE: More at Days of Our Trailers

Alert: Cook County, IL needs help

Almost a year ago, I discussed here and in subsequent posts a campaign on the part of the most rabidly pro-citizen disarmament Cook County Commissioners (which is rather a lot of them) to make Cook County's gun laws even more insanely draconian than they are now (it actually takes some imagination to even come up with ways for that to be possible--but they're creative when it comes to disarming the law abiding).

That endeavor didn't go anywhere, thanks in large part, I have to believe, to the resistance of concerned citizens.

Now, however, the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) reports that they're trying again, but on a different tack:

ISRA Alert: County County Phone Poll For Gun Control Ordinance Is Still Active

Larry Suffredin and his cohorts on the Cook County Board are up to their old tricks again.

In order to justify passage of gun control ordinances designed to close all gun shops and ban and confiscate most guns owned by citizens of the county, the Cook County Board is conducting a telephone poll where callers can vote for or against the gun control ordinances.

Like everything else in Cook County, this poll is probably rigged. So, it’s very important that you do the following:

1. Call 1-312 -603-6400 and select Option #1 when prompted. At the next prompt, select Option #1 again. Then, when prompted to vote on the gun control ordinance, press #2.

2. You should also forward this alert on to all your gun owning friends and have them vote too.

3. You should also post this alert to any and all Internet bulletin boards or blogs to which you belong.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE A RESIDENT OF COOK COUNTY TO VOTE!

Let’s beat Suffredin at his own game! And, save your guns.

Your help would be much appreciated.

Out of the frying pan (into the fire?) for Cook County gun owners

Cook County (IL) Commissioner Larry Suffredin, one of the most vocal enemies of private gun ownership in the Chicago area (and that's saying something), lost his bid in last Tuesday's primary to become the Democratic candidate for Cook County State's Attorney. While, as ISRA reports, this is good news, it's not unadulterated good news.

As it happens, the winner of the Democratic primary, Anita Alvarez, is no prize for gun owners, either. In fact, she is anything but.

Any doubts about that can be quickly dispelled by watching this video of her Dec. 9th interview on "Public Affairs with Jeff Berkowitz" (a Chicago area political talk show on cable TV). It's a half-hour program, with the gun issue not brought up until very near the end, so some might prefer to watch just that segment, rather than the whole thing in the above link, so here it is truncated to just the relevant portion:



Then again, some might just prefer to read a transcript:

Jeff Berkowitz: You’ve heard the saying, “More guns, Less crime.”

Anita Alvarez, Chief Deputy to State’s Attorney Dick Devine: Um-um.

Jeff Berkowitz: Make sense to you?

Anita Alvarez, Candidate for State’s Attorney, Democratic Primary: More guns, less crime?

Jeff Berkowitz: Yes, [the book with that title by] John Lott. Criminals…if they are in an area like Chicago where it is illegal to what, own a handgun?

Anita Alvarez (D-River Forest): Yes, it is.

Jeff Berkowitz: A bad guy goes up to a good guy and if the good guy is following the law, the bad guy knows the good guy doesn’t have a gun, and the bad guy has kind of an advantage. If [on the other hand], the bad guy thinks the good guy does own a gun, he is going to be more careful. Do you think that makes sense?

Anita Alvarez: No, I think—I believe in gun control. I believe less guns is better.

Jeff Berkowitz: And, you believe…people in Chicago not being allowed to own a handgun is fine.

Anita Alvarez: Yes.

Jeff Berkowitz: And, if somebody is in a home that is in an area that is somewhat crime ridden, and he would like to own a gun to protect himself (or herself) in his house, you say, “Nope, you don’t get to.”

Anita Alvarez: No, not at all [he should not own a gun].

Jeff Berkowitz: Call the police, they’ll get there in time, right?

Anita Alvarez: Well, that’s right. I don’t believe that people should be able to---

Jeff Berkowitz: But, you know that police often won’t get there in time.

Anita Alvarez: Well, it happens, sometimes. But, I believe in stricter gun control.

Jeff Berkowitz: And, in these cases for women who are being battered by their husbands, they can’t own a gun; they sometimes can’t get a protective order, they can’t get the police there in time—your answer is? Tough?

Anita Alvarez: I still would not—

Jeff Berkowitz: Because you just told me as a female, you can identify with women and so forth—would you identify with a female in that kind of situation?

Anita Alvarez: No, I don’t think that anybody should own guns.

Jeff Berkowitz: So, no concealed carry?

Anita Alvarez: No, absolutely not.

Jeff Berkowitz: If a woman is going down a street in a tough area and she would like to have a gun in her purse, just in case [a bad guy tries to assault her]-- it’s a felony [for her to have a gun in her purse], right?

Anita Alvarez: That’s right. I believe in gun control and I don’t believe that—and you are pointing out very specific cases that again if in fact a woman is murdered, I understand that. However, I think we are all safer in our society without guns.

Jeff Berkowitz: Should we have more gun control? Some people say we should have an assault weapon ban. We had it on the federal level and it lapsed. Should the state of Illinois

Anita Alvarez: I think we should

Jeff Berkowitz: Have an assault weapon ban? Some people say we should restrict the number of guns people can purchase. Some say restrict it to one a month, maybe one a year. Does either sound good to you?

Anita Alvarez: I agree with that.

Jeff Berkowitz: One a year? You would favor a law that said you could only buy one gun a year?

Anita Alvarez: Actually, I would favor a law that no one could ever buy a gun.

Jeff Berkowitz: So, you would take the guns away from people who own them legally now?

Anita Alvarez: I think we would be a safer society if people didn’t own guns.

Jeff Berkowitz: Do you think the 2nd Amendment [to the U. S. Constitution] has anything to say about that? I mean, should we follow the 2nd Amendment?

Anita Alvarez: I think—we have put more danger in the street with people owning guns and the cases that I have seen and the children that I have seen get killed because of guns. It’s just too dangerous. I would favor—

Jeff Berkowitz: But, do individuals have a right to own a gun from the 2nd Amendment [to the U. S. Constitution]?. You have read the 2nd Amendment?

Anita Alvarez: I have read the 2nd Amendment.

Jeff Berkowitz: You believe in the 2nd Amendment?

Anita Alvarez: People do interpret that way. I don’t believe I do. I don’t think people should own guns. I really don’t.

So, an aspiring State's Attorney who "doesn't believe" in part of the Bill of Rights--not exactly encouraging.

There is a ray of hope on the Cook County State's Attorney score. The Republican candidate, Tony Peraica (like Suffredin, currently a Cook County Commissioner) has a record of consistently opposing Chicago-style draconian gun laws.

He'll have a high, steep hill to climb, as a Republican in Cook County, and will need the support of every Cook County gun owner.

Cook Co. 'out-D.C.-ing' D.C., part II

OK, a bit more on the proposed Cook County Ordinances. I'll deal with Suffredin's proposal first. I've already mentioned this proposed ordinance, and the fact that it would force several Cook County gun shops out of business (although I still have doubts that the county would have the authority to do that). According to ISRA, though, it's much worse that I had thought, in that it would force the closure of all Cook County gun shops, including the brand-new Cabela's "super-store" in Hoffman Estates, with all the loss of jobs and massive tax revenue that entails. I haven't really analyzed ISRA's claims with regard to that, but it seems plausible. As bad as this ordinance would be, it's kind of mild compared to the other one.

Commissioner William "Busy" Beavers' proposed ordinance has so many horrid provisions that I'm not even trying to make a comprehensive summary here--it would take all day. Still, I can come up with plenty of fascist provisions in pretty short order.

First, look at the following provision about what can be registered (and remember that possessing an unregistered gun will be illegal):

No registration certificate shall be issued for any of the following types of firearms:

(b) Firearms other than handguns, owned or possessed by any person in the County prior to the effective date of this Ordinance which are not validly registered prior to the effective date of this Ordinance;

(c) Handguns, except:

(1) Those validly registered to a current owner in the County prior to the effective date of this Ordinance . . .

That seems to be saying that any gun not registered before the effective date of the very law that establishes the registry, cannot be registered. That begs the question of how to register a gun before there is a registry. The obvious answer is that you cannot. Gun owners in Chicago itself, of course, already have to register their guns, so this part would not seem to make their legally owned guns subject to confiscation--but it would seem to treat long guns just like handguns--the only way to have them is if they're "grandfathered." All other Cook County residents (as I don't know of any other municipality within Cook that maintains a gun registry) would seem to be in even worse shape, because even every gun they already own would seem to be impossible to register. To be fair, an Illinois gun rights advocate and blogger for whom I have a great deal of respect doesn't think it would work quite that way (thinks it's basically a grandfather clause)--but I'm not sure I agree. It would certainly seem to ban the registration of guns that aren't already owned in Cook County on the effective date of the ban--basically, no more guns in Cook County.

Let's assume that there is some way for Cook County residents outside of Chicago to register their guns (the ones they already have), to avoid the guns' confiscation and destruction--what else do they have to deal with? Well, for one thing, very few handguns will be possible to register, because of the following provision (in reference to the requirements a handgun must meet to be "registerable"):

(i) A safety mechanism to hinder the use of the handgun by unauthorized users. Such devices shall include, but shall not be limited to, trigger locks, combination handle locks, and solenoid use-limitation devices; and,

(ii) A load indicator device that provides reasonable warning to potential users such that even users unfamiliar with the weapon would be forewarned and would understand the nature of the warning;

As far as I know, no one makes a handgun with a "combination handle lock" (although a fellow Illinois Carry member came up with this prototype), or a "solenoid use-limitation device," so the only way to meet that requirement is with a trigger lock. Several manufacturers do offer guns with those--all recent Smith and Wesson's, I believe, have such a mechanism. Springfield Armory, I believe, still offers their Internal Locking System (ILS) on at least some of their handguns, and I might have read somewhere that Walther has a trigger locking system. There may very well be others.

But there's another requirement--a loaded chamber indicator. I don't think any revolver has one (and I don't know how it could be done), so this would seem to be an outright ban on all revolvers. As for semi-autos, how many have both the trigger lock and the loaded chamber indicator? Very bloody few, I'd guess.

No "assault weapons" can be registered, and remember that Cook passed (last year, I think) a vast expansion of their definition of "assault weapons"--the AWB of '94 was extremely permissive, by comparison. As it turns out, though, it doesn't really matter what is currently defined as an "assault weapon," because both the sheriff (Tom Dart) and the county board president (Todd Stroger) have the authority to unilaterally define any firearm they choose as an assault weapon (from definition of assault weapon):

(3) Any weapon that the President, the Board, or the Sheriff defines by regulation as an assault weapon because the design or operation of such weapon is inappropriate for lawful use.

Don't worry, though--Stroger and Dart are friends of gun owners, as will be their successors. Yeah, right.

That's all I have time for at the moment--more updates to follow.

Cook Co. 'out-D.C.-ing' D.C., part III

Time for a bit more on the Cook County ordinance proposed by Commissioner "Hog with Big Nuts" Beavers (see Part I and Part II for background).

There is simply too much that his horrible about this bill for me to possibly cover it all. But here are a few more absurdities, in no particular order:

To register a gun, the person registering must have "vision better than or equal to that required to obtain a valid driver's license under the standards established by the Illinois Vehicle Code of the State of Illinois, as amended"--no word on whether or not a vision screening is part of the registration process.

The registration application must include "Two photographs of the applicant taken within 30 days immediately prior to the date of filing the application equivalent to passport size showing the full face, head and shoulders of the applicant in a clear and distinguishing manner"

When necessary to establish the identity of any applicant or registrant, such applicant or registrant shall be required to submit to fingerprinting in accordance with procedures and regulations prescribed by the Sheriff. Why do I have the sneaky suspicion that fingerprints will always be considered "necessary"?

The above applies for each firearm, by the way, and the term of the registration is only one year, with the entire process repeated for renewal. Missing renewal once makes the firearm "unregisterable."

Registration fees for firearms shall be as follows:

1 firearm . . . $20.00

2--10 firearms . . . $25.00

More than ten firearms . . . $35.00

It will be illegal to own any ammunition that cannot be used in any gun you have registered.

Laser sights are banned, county-wide.

If caught with an unregisterd gun (or a laser sight) in your car, the car is subject to seizure.

Etc., etc.

Some of this, I have to believe, will not pass muster when (inevitably) challenged in court, and I think the board knows this. I think they're just throwing everything they can think of at us, and seeing what sticks.

Fighting it, though, will be expensive, and tie up a huge amount of ISRA's resources. And when any one provision of the law is struck down, its loss doesn't affect the rest, because of this:

If any provision or term of this Division, or any application thereof, is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other applications of the provisions or terms of this Division which reasonably can be given effect without the invalid provision or term for the application thereof.

In the meantime, any confiscated firearms are destroyed, so even if they were confiscated on grounds that are later overturned, that gun is gone forever.

Days of Our Trailers has more--pay special attention to the following:

So, along w/ Commissioner Suffredin's attempt to ban all gun shops, are "authorized journalists" from ABC complicit in this to stir up support?

Cook County says there is no Second Amendment. I say it's time they find out how wrong they are.

Oh--almost forgot. Few, if any, of these restrictions apply to police officers--so the only people with guns will be the criminals who ignore the law . . . and Chicago's finest:
$20 million police brutality settlement advances in Chicago City Hall
Sergeant convicted of rape
City settles with family of paralyzed man . . . to name but a few (but all those shootings are justified, right?).