EXTRA: Somebody’s been listening to too much Charlton Heston lately

WALSH: Oh, be quiet!

"On Nov. 8, I'm voting for Trump. On Nov. 9, if Trump loses, I'm grabbing my musket. You in?"

  -0-

That Tweet (from a Twit) came from the former member of our very own state’s congressional delegation – Joe Walsh, who served one two-year term as an ideologue from Illinois before the people of his congressional district came to their senses.

Obviously, he’s someone who has been influenced by the NRA rants of the late actor Charlton Heston. Which makes me wonder if next, he’ll come up with some way of shouting at Dems, “Take your stinkin’ paws off me, you damn dirty ape.” Perhaps as they're taking him away for being a crazy person waving around a musket in public?!

Walsh's role model?

  -30-

Keeping Trump quiet? Or they really just despise the thought of Hillary?

Remember back to March when Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump made derogatory remarks about the Ricketts family; implying they ought to keep their opposition to his candidacy quiet lest he start revealing their “dirty laundry” so to speak?
 

TRUMP: Trying to unite Republicans

Well, it appears the family that founded TD Ameritrade and whose members now own the Chicago Cubs are heeding Trump’s advice. Because they’re showing support for Trump in the clearest way possible.

THEY’RE GIVING HIM money.

As in $1 million being donated by family head J. Joe Ricketts to a political action committee that is backing the Trump campaign, according to the Wall Street Journal.

What better way for them to indicate support than to give campaign cash to the guy who theoretically is as capable of self-funding a serious presidential bid as anyone in this country? In fact, to a guy like Trump, cold hard cash probably is the only form of "respect" he appreciates!

Of course, it can be argued that Ricketts is not making the donation to Trump himself. Rather, it is to a political group that will benefit Trump’s presidential aspirations by expressing its belief that we ought to have anybody EXCEPT Hillary Clinton as president resulting from the Nov. 8 elections. So much for Cubs ownership showing its appreciation for one of their most prominent (even if she has claimed New York Yankees fandom during her residency out east) fans.

WHICH IS PROBABLY the best way to describe what the Ricketts family may feel about this election cycle. They probably still don’t think much of the man, but are willing to put their money where their mouth is – so to speak – by expressing opposition for the opponent.

 

RICKETTS: Tom's family in line behind Trump?

In short, the Ricketts answer to “Who do you hate the most?” is Clinton herself.

Either that, or there really are some serious Ricketts family secrets that Trump could have unveiled – which is what he hinted at when the Ricketts family members started making too much noise in his opposition back during the primary election cycle this year.

Of course, Trump tried to play the thing for a laugh by then by saying he’d be airing campaign advertising spots reminding us of Chicago Cubs ineptitude throughout the years and tagging it to the Ricketts family.

 

CLINTON: Cubs fan can't say Cubs owners in her bloc?

WHICH WOULD WIND up being ridiculous these days in light of the fact the Cubs actually were the first team to qualify this season for a playoff spot on the path to the World Series. Although that doesn’t rule out the possibility the Cubs could blow it in the playoffs, thereby creating more ineptitude that can be laid in the Ricketts’ family lap.

Not that the Cubs are really a factor in this political equation. It’s more about the confusion caused by the fact that many people who usually lean Republican don’t have a clue what to do about the garishness that is the Trump persona.

Take former President George H.W. Bush (as in father of “Dubya,”), for whom it became publicly known this week that he will cast his ballot for Clinton. The man who is about as Republican establishment as you can get is just that displeased with the notion of The Donald as The President.

Although I found it amusing that the reason this tip got out was because of a Kennedy family member (about as establishment Democrat as the Bushes are GOPers) let the word leak publicly, according to Politico.

WHICH IS TO say that I doubt Bush himself would ever have said anything aloud, and probably regards the tidbit about his ballot to be as gauche as Trump himself.

It will be intriguing to see how many Republican types Trump can actually keep on board his campaign. Too many defections ensure loss to Clinton come Election Day.

I’m sure there will be many people rationalizing their reasons for voting the way they do. Take the National Rifle Association, which the Washington Post reports says is fully in line with Trump because they’re concerned about the Supreme Court – which they want to remain as a judicial body with conservative political leanings. They want the court biased in their favor.

Although there are just as many other people who are eager to vote for Clinton solely because they want the shift in the high court’s leanings. Which is to say that anybody who says they know now how this election cycle will turn out is seriously stretching the truth.

  -30-

Trying to ban the un-banable

It will be interesting to hear the debate that comes up Wednesday when the City Council takes up the cause of amending the ordinances that restrict firearm ownership and usage within the city limits.

The City Council will be Windier than usual on Wednesday. Photograph by Gregory Tejeda

 

The outcome is already known. These ordinances are the casualties of the Illinois government effort earlier this year to bring the concept of “concealed carry” to the state – a concept that goes contrary to what the city was trying to accomplish all these years.

SO THE ACTIONS to be taken by all the aldermen (and which were recommended Monday by the council’s Public Safety Committee) on Wednesday will be to repeal much of what has passed for local law in recent decades.

But will we get a collection of aldermen who want to rant and rage and whine and complain about the horrid act they are about to do – but will still do anyway because, in a sense, it’s already done!

The council will merely go along and create an ordinance that complies with state law.

All the rhetoric we’re going to hear on Wednesday is going to be a complete waste of time – except to the political people who just enjoy hearing themselves speak! Almost as if they think they’ll die if they don’t engage in endless debate.

I DO FIND it interesting to learn that the National Rifle Association has its objections to what the City Council plans to pass. Because it seems the Chicago response to having a “concealed carry” measure being rammed down our collective throat is to ensure that the people who feel completely insecure if they can’t have a pistol tucked in their waistband or in a shoulder holster under their jacket don’t get any more use of their weapons in public than the state law requires.

It seems that NRA officials are determined to find ways in which the city ordinance is not as lax as the state law that became official this summer following Gov. Pat Quinn’s unsuccessful attempt to impose tougher restrictions on firearms use.

So we’re still going to get NRA “trash talk” about Chicago not fitting their vision of what our society ought to be like – which probably says more about their vision than it does our desires.

It also was interesting to learn of the council’s actions last week that were meant to ensure that Chicago’s legal attitude toward firearms was more restrictive than the rest of Illinois.

THE STATE LAW approved this year included provisions that require restaurants doing at least half of their business in alcohol sales to post signs saying that firearms are banned from the premises.

Even for those people who manage to get the police-issued permits that say someone can carry a pistol on their person.

The idea is to keep firearms out of taverns – which makes a lot of sense. Although the firearms advocates seem to feel so threatened about life that they even want their pistols on them while becoming steadily intoxicated.

It seems the council is trying to make sure that provision of state law gets strictly enforced by working on a measure that says businesses that get lax about enforcing such a ban WILL lose their liquor licenses!

NRA-TYPES ACTUALLY HAVE their objections to strict enforcement of such a measure – trying to claim that it results in circumvention of state law. “Two classes of citizens” is what they claim is being created.

The bottom line about all this is that everybody is going to be determined to spew their rhetoric. Everybody is going to keep a hard line viewpoint on this issue.

Which might be why it is ludicrous to think that we can ever have a single stance on firearms within Illinois – a state that has quite the urban, suburban and rural mixture of societal elements.

The sooner we can realize we need to agree to disagree, so to speak, the better off we all will be.

  -30-

EXTRA: Perhaps Illinois legislators need a lesson on how to cast a vote

Both the Illinois Senate and House of Representatives gave overwhelming votes of support on Friday for a measure permitting “concealed carry” – the practice of carrying a pistol on one’s person in public for self-defense.

JONES: Meant to vote "yes"

Yet it seems that some legislators don’t want to have to take criticism for how the official record will record their stance. In the Illinois House, the final vote was 89-28.

ONE OF THE people who did not vote was state Rep. Thaddeus Jones, D-Calumet City. Is he really position-less on the matter?

Or is he telling the truth when, as he explained after the vote was taken, he meant to vote “yes” but that the device on his desk that allows him to vote on bills did not function.

Did someone really “turn off” his device to prevent him from being vote number 90? Who’s to say!

Although his explanation bothers me less than that of state Rep. Edward Acevedo, D-Chicago, who is recorded as voting “yes” for the bill, but says he wants to be thought of as having voted “present.”

NOT THE BOLDEST of actions – although it prevents the National Rifle Association-types from being able to criticize him on the issue.

So now, the issue goes to Gov. Pat Quinn – who likely will sign it to avoid legal catastrophe from being imposed by the federal appeals courts. Although this is a man who has been willing to say “no” to the gambling interests who dream of more and more casinos across Illinois.

ACEVEDO: Pushed the wrong button

And we may soon have a law that allows those people in rural parts of the state to carry pistols for use against anyone they feel threatens them – although the larger municipalities with Home Rule powers will have the ability to push their own restrictions on firearms.

Which will tick off the rural interests; for whom a large part of this whole issue was imposing their perspective on firearms onto Chicago and the whole state.

SO FOR THOSE who are upset that Illinois won’t be in a group with California and New York (states that give their local police great authority to reject applications for firearms permits), keep in mind that the law could have wound up much worse!

Although I’m still waiting for the first incident where someone who is armed gets crocked in a restaurant that serves liquor, then feels threatened by the presence of another patron in the booth two seats away.

  -30-

Split villages know how to deal w/ issues; they can figure out firearms

To listen to the National Rifle Association, the reason there cannot be a bill concerning “concealed carry” that exempts Cook County is because of all the chaos such a measure would create in those communities on the border.

Some of these legislators can't comprehend split (by county) communities.

 

The ones that literally are split down the middle by the county line.

IT’S TRUE. THERE are municipalities that either are Cook County-based, but have newer residential developments that spill over the county line, or are based at the edge of the surrounding counties and have portions that cross over into the Land of Cook!

The NRA-type argue that the potential for chaos is too great – because an individual’s ability to get a permit allowing them to carry a pistol on their person for self-defense (allegedly, although I think it’s more about ego-stroking than anything else) depends on what part of town they live in.

And what happens if, in the course of daily business, a person happens to cross over the county line while remaining in their home town. Is their permit suddenly not legitimate because they happened to come to the attention of police while in the Cook County portion of town?

Theoretically, I suppose it is possible for this kind of chaos to occur. There might well be police officers who will dread the idea of having to pay attention to exactly where an incident occurred. God forbid if it happens that an incident happens RIGHT AT the county line (which usually is a street so innocuous that one doesn’t realize right away that they’re no longer in the civilized land of Cook County and have ventured into one of those bumpkin counties that surround us.

YES, I AM being sarcastic by phrasing it that way. There really isn’t any significant difference between the Cook County portions and the collar county portions of any municipality that happens to be split in such a way.

If anything, the split is a part of the unique character of those communities. Local officials are used to having to deal with different jurisdictions – particularly when it comes to the police having to figure out which state’s attorney’s office to contact and whether they’re dealing with the Medical Examiner’s office on the West Side or one of those coroners in the outer ring of cities at the edge of the Chicago area.

Which means I have faith in the ability of the local police to figure out for themselves how to handle the dichotomy that would occur should it turn out that any “concealed carry” measure winds up exempting Cook County as a political compromise that lets the rural communities of Southern Illinois have their pistol-packin’ mamas while leaving the portion that accounts for nearly half the population of Illinois to decide for itself what sensible restrictions ought to be in place for firearms possession.

The simple fact is that we have many laws in Illinois that are passed with exemptions for any community with 3 million or more people (which means Chicago is exempted) or 5 million or more if the intent is to exempt all of Cook. There even are laws written explicitly for Chicago and Cook County.

HONESTLY, I BELIEVE the fight by the firearms advocates over this issue is that they view it as a way of forcing the rural mindset onto the urban area that accounts for so much of Illinois’ population. An exemption totally undermines that effort!

Which is why the NRA types earlier this year talked of deliberately opposing any Chicago-oriented bills as payback for opposition to “concealed carry” and are now saying they would kill off any bill on the issue that tries to exempt Cook County.

Who knows? They might well find out that those communities that are split between the counties will try to push for local measures that would unify the municipality – most likely in favor of firearms restrictions for the whole community!

Gee, the idea of people realizing that a pistol in the hands of a panicking person who thinks their personal safety is at risk might be just as dangerous as all the “criminals” they want to fear! That probably hurts their ego more than anything else.

  -30-

What kind of “God” do we back?

I wonder if the conservative ideologues of our society envision “God” as packing some sort of powerful pistol (or maybe an assault rifle) underneath his robes, with which he uses as part of his efforts to punish the wicked amongst us.

Personally, I find that image to be appalling – bordering on sacrilegious! But some of the nonsense-talk I hear on many issues makes me wonder.

WE DEFINITELY HAVE a difference of perspective amongst us when it comes to the concept of God and organized religion and its role on so many issues.

For when it comes to anything related to gay people, we often hear how religion is the reason why we should be opposed. Their behavior is an abomination, we’re told. It is the factor that will bring down the very fabric of our society.

Because, as we always hear from the Rev. Fred Phelps at his group’s outrageous protests and pickets outside of funerals, “God hates fags!”

Which is why I was pleased to learn of a group of clergy members – including many from Chicago – of many denominations who on Sunday came out in support of having the Illinois General Assembly pass changes in the law to allow gay couples to marry just like straight ones have been able to for generations.

THEIR LETTER, AS reported by the Chicago Sun-Times, said, “We dedicate our lives to fostering faith and compassion, and we work daily to promote justice and fairness for all. Standing on these beliefs, we think that it is morally just to grant equal opportunities and responsibilities to loving, committed same-sex couples.

“There can be no justification for the law treating people differently on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity,” the letter read.

Yet I notice that some of the responses I’m reading on the Internet to this action implies that these religious leaders are not being legitimate. If they were, they’d be opposes – is what the ideologues seem to want to believe.

It actually reminds me of an old Doonesbury comic strip in which the “B.D.” character is arguing with the “Rev. Scot Sloan” character about whether a “God of Compassion” or a “God of retribution” is more legitimate.

I’M NOT ABOUT to get into a theological dispute over whether God exists to punish the wicked. Although a part of me thinks that such a god is not one really worthy of our respect or worship. Maybe our fear and/or contempt, but little else.

But it has me wondering how the role of the clergy will play in the upcoming political debate concerning gay marriage – which in Illinois is likely to be a hot-button issue at some point during 2013.

I’m not about to say that only the absurd people who have managed to get themselves ordained as ministers are going around speaking out against homosexuality. We’re far from that point.

I don’t doubt that many of my fellow Catholics will come up with their own arguments – although it should be noted that there are many Catholics who disagree with the church’s official teachings on the issue.

BUT THE IDEA that the masses among the clergy are a little more concerned with equality, rather than punishment, is a sign that we really are changing as a society.

And maybe the Illinois legislators who are preparing to bring up gay marriage as an issue will actually have a chance in the near future of getting a favorable vote on the cause – which many people really view as being solely the business of the individuals involved; and no one else!

It may also be the reason why the ideologues who also are concerned about firearms and their all-consuming “right” to possession may be taking to that issue so much in recent days.

Why else would we have National Rifle Association officials going around talking about the need to have armed guards in the public schools, if not arming the educators themselves?

THEY REALLY DO think it would be an “ideal” if a teacher could pull out her pistol and shoot dead the mentally ill individual such as the man who walked into a Connecticut school building earlier this month and caused the deaths of 26 individuals.

Somehow, I’d like to believe that God almighty (in whatever form you conceive of him to be) finds that image to be as horrific as I do.

  -30-

Will gun control be the new “gay marriage” issue that divides us?

To watch the superficial evidence around us, along with assorted polls, the public is more accepting of the concept of gay couples being able to marry. Even those people who are appalled at the concept seem to be conceding – on some level – that the battle is lost and it eventually will become legally acceptable everywhere.

EMANUEL: The 'face' of gun control?

Which means we now need a new “issue” that divides us as a society and gets everybody all ticked off into a frenzy. A new dividing line that cannot be crossed!

AND I’M SUSPECTING that it’s going to be firearms and gun control.

I look at the situation in my home state of Illinois, which is the only state that tries to completely restrict the ability of people to carry firearms in public. Some other states have such harsh restrictions on who can get the permits letting themselves carry a firearm that they might as well just ban them like we do.

But the ideologues always like to claim Illinois is the exception. And now, they have a federal Appeals Court panel saying that Illinois’ restrictions are too harsh.

They have to go!

THE ILLINOIS GENERAL Assembly has six months to figure out a new law that will let people have permits allowing people to pack a pistol in a shoulder holster, or a purse, for their personal protection.

The firearms proponents are taking this as justification that they were right all along, and that Illinois is going to have to start doing away with its restrictive attitude – brought on largely by city officials in Chicago.

These NRA-types were the ones who were constantly demonizing former Mayor Richard M. Daley and weren’t the least bit sorry to see him go.

And I’m sure they’re equally appalled by Mayor Rahm Emanuel. Who is turning out to be equally hard-headed with regards to the issue.

HE’S MADE IT clear the city will cooperate with any effort by the state Attorney General’s office to appeal the Appeals Court ruling – even though Attorney General Lisa Madigan herself has been reluctant to say she would take such action.

And on Monday, Emanuel took aim (yes, it’s a tacky use of  cliché) at the NRA types. Speaking to the new graduating class of the Police Academy, Emanuel said he wants both state and federal laws banning assault weapons.

He also said he wants a “vote of conscience” by the Congress on some sort of action in response to the shooting of schoolchildren in Connecticut.

He’s out for the kill against the weapons with their large magazines that are capable of taking out dozens of people in a matter of seconds! He’s looking to assess blame against people for the rising level of violence in our society.

AND HE’S POINTING the finger at the very people who last week probably thought they were getting a legal victory that would let them start chipping away at gun control measures in general!

It isn’t going to be that simple.

The firearms proponents (who like to think they’re portraying the views of hunters and ‘sportsmen’ who enjoy the technical abilities of certain firearms) are going to find a stone wall more impenetrable than the one many of them probably fantasize about building along the U.S./Mexico border when it comes to this issue.

Much of the opposition isn’t going to die down.

I’M ALSO NOT convinced that in six months, Illinois will be in contempt of a federal appeals court for not being able to come to some conclusion on what should be done with the “concealed carry” aspect of the whole firearms debate.

A part of me wonders if the tactic by which the entire 7^th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (based in Chicago) could be asked to review the opinion reached by a three-member panel – of whom two agreed and one dissented – could wind up turning back this fight.

Or are we destined to have a new issue that will arouse the anger of just about everybody – albeit in differing fashions – whenever it is brought up for discussion?

And if the ideologues can come up with a catch phrase anything along the lines of "Adam and Steve" in terms of complete vapidity when they talk about firearms?

  -30-

Packing a pistol on college campuses?

The University of Illinois "quad" is the new battleground in the state's political fight over firearms. Should people be allowed to carry holstered firearms while walking amidst the students studying under a tree, lying in the sun, or playing frisbee? Photograph provided by University of Illinois.

Although it has been nearly 28 years, there are two moments I remember clearly from my “freshman orientation” session just before I began college.

One was the cute blonde sitting a couple of seats from me (who wound up having next to no interest in me whatsoever during the course of the next four years), while the other was the moment that we were all told that any firearms we might own were not allowed on the Bloomington-based Illinois Wesleyan University campus.

“DON’T BRING YOUR guns,” we were told. “You won’t need them here.”

That actually turned out to be the case, as the only violent crime I remember occurring in Bloomington, Ill., during my time living there as a college student involved the death of the Hendricks family, for which husband/father David Hendricks was tried, convicted, sent to prison, then later acquitted once the appeals courts overturned his conviction (It remains officially an unsolved crime).

The idea that I would have required a pistol in order to keep me safe is just downright absurd. The very real argument could be made that anybody packing a pistol on campus would have been a threat, instead of a protection.

And no, I don’t remember anybody, not even my fellow students who came from rural communities who had hunted in their lifetimes, actually bringing their shotgun – or any other weapon – to campus. A firearm would have been out-of-place.

SO IT IS from that perspective that I ponder the political people who seriously are debating whether or not people should be able to carry a pistol on their person when they’re on a state university property.

It is all part of the “concealed carry” legislation now pending in the Illinois General Assembly. A legislative committee dominated by rural members gave the bill its recommendation, and there is some belief (including reports by the Capital Fax newsletter) that the urban majority that controls the state Legislature is going to throw the “blue dog” Dems this one “bone” as compensation, of sorts, for the fact that we now no longer have a death penalty in Illinois and that the income tax is going up this year.

Of course, the key to reviewing the effectiveness of any piece of legislation is to study how many exemptions exist. The General Assembly may have approved a tougher Freedom of Information Act to make it easier for people to get public information. But they also have been creating many exemptions that some people now believe the FOI act to be weak and toothless.

So in the spirit of exemptions, the universities are saying they want to be exempted from the “concealed carry” act – should it become law.

THAT PERSON WALKING down the street with a pistol in a shoulder holster would find that his concealed carry “permit” would not be worth the cardboard it is printed on once he sets foot on university property.

That has the National Rifle Association upset. The Bloomington Pantagraph newspaper (the hometown publication for the communities that host my alma mater AND Illinois State University) reports that the NRA is determined to fight the idea of a total campus ban on weapons.

They want to create the image of some person bringing their child to college, and having to fight off a vicious attack – but being unable to because their holstered pistol would suddenly become illegal.

That last sentence creates such an absurd image that it ought to be readily apparent. About the biggest conflict I could see occurring on that college “move-in” day is a fight for the best parking spot while the family unloads junior’s belongings from the van or rented truck.

THERE IS SOME talk of political “compromise” on this issue, although the compromise being discussed comes across as ridiculous – allow the exemption inside university buildings, but not for the entire campus.

How many exemptions will be granted here?

Firearms proponents argue that many college campuses are extensive properties that dominate their host cities, and some are adjacent to major thoroughfares through town. In short, an outright ban could also restrict firearms possession and movement in their municipalities.

Which wouldn’t be the worst thing possible, if one looks at the issue rationally. But I don’t know how one says that the holstered firearm is illegal inside the university building, but becomes legal once one walks out the door.

Do we really need students walking across the quadrangle at the University of Illinois while packing “heat?” Would we require students who are carrying a pistol to check it in once they enter an academic building?

IT’S ALSO NOT like an exemption for academia is unheard of. The bill being considered by the General Assembly already exempts elementary and secondary schools, and childcare facilities, among other types of places. Does that mean that once a person turns 18, they lose the right to be protected from armed people?

This argument is more about scoring ideological points. The NRA types who are trying to push this down academia’s throat likely are more interested in telling university officials what they should be doing, rather than trying to do anything that would bolster campus security.

  -30-

Is gun ownership a public issue?

I wish the ideologues would make up their minds, when it comes to the new “hot-button” issue in Illinois over whether the list of people who have permits to legally own firearms ought to be public information.

MADIGAN: Making names public



Personally, I see no reason why it shouldn’t be. But it doesn’t surprise me that it isn’t, and under typical conditions, I’d be inclined to find other issues to comment on – figuring there are more important things in my life to worry about.

YET IT IS a contradiction in the arguments I have heard all week that makes me now want to chime in. Supposedly, the reason why it is bad policy to make the list of legal gun owners public is that the “criminals” will now have a checklist of which homes to hit so they can steal guns.

Or, is it that the criminals will now have a checklist of which homes to avoid because the owners could be upset enough to shoot them. The would-be burglars will focus their attention on the rest of us.

Make up your mind people, which is it?

Personally, I don’t think it would play much of a factor in a thief’s decision where to hit. Most of them go for convenience and take whatever is in front of them at the moment they get the urge to steal. No state-sanctioned list is going to play that much of a role in the decision.

IN CERTAIN CIRCLES, this issue has been ongoing for some time now. There are various groups that have been trying to get the Illinois State Police to release their records of who has been issued Firearm Ownership Identification Cards.

The state police, being like other police, are taking a cantankerous attitude, figuring they’re not releasing nothing unless they have some explicit court order telling them they have no choice but to make the information public. That is a law enforcement mentality on so many issues that it doesn’t phase me much anymore.

Which is why law enforcement-types are now upset that the Illinois attorney general’s office is getting into the mix. Because their actions of late are a step toward that court order telling them that this list of gun owners is something they don’t have any business keeping private.

Specifically, state Attorney General Lisa Madigan had her staff issue a legal opinion on this issue. In and of itself, this is not unusual. The attorney general’s office issues legal opinions all the time on various issues, and they are taken as her opinion only.

SOMETIMES, THEY INFLUENCE the way the courts ultimately rule. Other times, they get ignored.

DILLARD: Can he win this fight?

This one is not going to get ignored. State Sen. Kirk Dillard, R-Hinsdale (the guy that the Bill Brady backers were convinced was way too liberal to be Illinois governor) is now sponsoring a bill in the Illinois General Assembly that explicitly makes the gun ownership list private information. Activists plan to turn out in force on Thursday at the Statehouse in Springfield to muscle their own view into prominence.

If the Legislature and Gov. Pat Quinn were to go along, it would have the effect of nullifying any legal opinion that Madigan’s staff might have. Of course, I take some relief in the fact that I know how ornery and disagreeable our legislators can be, and that it is a long-shot that Dillard’s bill will become law anytime soon.

Now in what some think was her gesture of compromise, the opinion written in the name of Madigan says that only the names (and no other personal information) of gun owners would be public.

OF COURSE, TRYING to craft a compromise on this issue is as ridiculous as anyone who thinks Quinn can find a way to please everybody with regards to the bill he is considering to abolish capital punishment in Illinois (within 13 days, we’ll learn whether the governor has enough backbone to sign it, but that is a commentary for another day).

The people with rifles and pistols, some of whom are just a little too eager to find an excuse to shoot another human being for me to be comfortable around them, are going to start behaving like the late Charlton Heston waving around that musket at a National Rifle Association gathering.

I’ve always been skeptical of the idea of people truly using that pistol to defend themselves, because I can easily envision so many circumstances where something goes wrong and they wind up shooting themselves – with the would-be burglar getting yet another “item” for his booty.

So I just don’t see some “noble” reason why this information collected by the state ought to be kept private, particularly if the real key data of street addresses or specific types of firearms owned won’t be part of the record.

I KNOW SOME people will disagree with this statement, but I have always viewed the ability to own and use a firearm as being comparable to being able to own and drive an automobile. We don’t have any problem with licensing drivers, and penalizing them severely if their driving gets reckless and someone gets hurt.

To my knowledge, the state doesn’t hesitate in providing information about us gathered from our driver’s licenses to certain entities. So I really can’t comprehend how this is any different, just because some people want to have delusions of rural hunters living off the land in a state that is two-thirds Chicago-area, with just over half of the people of the state living in a suburban environment.

  -30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Differing opinions on this issue? Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass on Friday came out in opposition to publicly identifying firearms owners (while also telling us about his own hunting experiences), while the Chicago Sun-Times this week threw the muscle of its scrawny 60-page newspapers in support of Madigan in taking an official editorial stance to make the names public.

Chicago officials are going to have to fight for the right to keep their firearms ban

Social conservatives from rural communities like to say they are trying to protect their approach to life from outsiders, particularly urban types who they think show disdain for their beliefs.

Yet it often turns out to be just the opposite, as evidenced by the reaction of the activists who get worked up over firearms ownership issues. When the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the handgun ban that exists in the District of Columbia, the activists' first reaction was to say they were now going to go after the gun ordinances that exist in Chicago.

THE NATIONAL RIFLE Association says it considers the gun ordinances in Chicago and San Francisco to be just as onerous as what existed in the national capital. They are hoping that federal judges appointed by decades of Republican presidents will strike down the gun bans that exist in our city and others of likeminded views.

Insofar as Chicago is concerned, the City Council’s knee-jerk reaction to the assassination attempt on then-President Ronald Reagan was to ban the sale or ownership of handguns within city limits.

Basically, anybody who lives in the city of Chicago who has acquired a firearm since 1982 is in violation of the law. City residents who go to gun dealers in the inner suburbs to purchase firearms commit a crime when they bring the weapons home – similar to how Illinois residents can legally purchase fireworks in neighboring Indiana but cannot legally have or use them in their homes.

I can remember my days as a police reporter for the now-defunct City News Bureau when a police sergeant explained that an outright ban made it easier for police to control gun-related crime by eliminating various categories by which some firearms would be legal under some circumstances, but not others.

IT ELIMINATED LOOPHOLES by which people might try to claim their weapon is legal, while their neighbors’ is not.

As police explained it to me back then (and which they have a legitimate point), no one in an urban environment seriously is going hunting for sport. People who seriously see something “athletic” about firearms and competitive shooting are going to want more space than can be found in an urban environment.

The argument that legitimate sportsmen are having their rights impinged upon was absurd. Police in general, and the cops of Chicago in particular, are never going to be mistaken for some liberal-minded organization.

To me, the fact that legitimate law enforcement personnel are in support of these extreme firearms bans is the evidence that it is the people who oppose bans who are the radical fringe of our society – and not the norm, as the NRA would have us think.

I’M SORT OF willing to concede that in a rural community near open areas, the hunting aspect of firearms creates a different situation. While a part of me subscribes to the old joke that hunting will be a sport the day that deer are armed with an AK-47 and can shoot back at the hunters, I’m willing to admit that those rural communities might have some reason for having differing laws than the urban areas.

That is the case.

These are city-only ordinances that ban firearms sales, although select suburban towns in the Chicago area (most notably, Morton Grove, Ill.) have gone so far as to impose their own bans on firearm ownership within their boundaries.

That’s why the fact that the NRA and its allies are eager to shoot down Chicago’s gun ordinances strikes me as perverse. It’s almost like they want to impose a small-town, rural mentality that is completely inappropriate to the third-largest populated city in this country.

THEY DEFINITELY WANT to play politics with the issue of firearm ownership, hoping to score a few more rural votes by bashing around what they want to perceive as the “big bad wolf” of Chicago.

Why else would Republican presidential hopeful John McCain have bothered to bring up the issue on Thursday, praising the Supreme Court’s ruling and reminding people that his likely opponent, Barack Obama, hails from Chicago.

It’s probably just a matter of time before GOP aides remind us of ties between Obama and the Rev. Michael Pfleger, who has devoted years of his life as a priest to trying to fight the spread of firearms in his Gresham neighborhood parish and surrounding inner-city neighborhoods.

For his part, Mayor Richard M. Daley is bracing himself for a fight with the NRA, as he wants the courts to ultimately maintain the city’s gun sale ban. He is skeptical, as are many law enforcement personnel, that it is realistic to expect people to be able to protect themselves by allowing them to carry handguns on their person.

“DOES THIS LEAD to everyone having a gun in our society? If they think that’s the answer, then they’re greatly mistaken,” Daley told reporters. “Why don’t we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West? You have a gun and I have a gun and we’ll settle in the streets.”

Specifically of the Supreme Court’s action, Daley said, “They’re changing the rules. Why should we as a city not be able to protect ourselves from those who want guns in our society?”
Basically, Chicago is going to become a new legal battlefield for people who want to have the courts impose rules that somehow maintain a rural sensibility to this country – even though this country has long ceased to be urban-oriented (the typical American these days lives in a suburb of a major city).

THAT IS WHY towns like Kennesaw, Ga. – the town that reacted to Morton Grove’s gun ownership ban by imposing its own law requiring all households to own at least one firearm – are just ridiculous.

Kennesaw officials like to spew statistics claiming their crime rate has declined. When one considers how small the population is in that Southern town, it doesn’t take much of a drop to create a large percentage decline in crime.

It also would mean that differing circumstances exist there than in Chicago. Trying to move Chicago more in the direction of Kennesaw is just misguided.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: The right-leaning Supreme Court’s elimination of the District of Columbia’s gun ordinances (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/23/ST2008062300649.html?hpid=topnews) are giving activists motivation to go after Chicago’s bans on handguns within city limits.

Chicago and San Francisco are getting ready to fight in court to keep their gun sales (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27React.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) restrictions in place.

Supporters of the handgun sales bans in Chicago want to believe that the now-invalid Washington, D.C. law (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/26/usa3) was so much stricter than what exists anywhere else that there will not be a large-scale legal effect by Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling.

The far right has been demonizing Rev. Michael Pfleger since before his comments about Hillary R. Clinton’s presidential campaign (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2008/06/26/abcs-robin-roberts-ignores-radicalism-maverick-priest-pfleger), as he has long taken an active role in trying to fight the spread of firearms in the city from suburban gun dealers.