Pritzker already upsets Ill. ideologues

J.B. Pritzker is still in the first couple of days of his term as Illinois governor, and he’s already managing to tick off the sensibilities of those people who have a conservative social bent on the way they want to view our society.

PRITZKER: Offends gun-rights advocates

Specifically, Pritzker signed into law Thursday a measure that sets state guidelines that firearms dealers would have to comply with in order to legitimately do business in Illinois.

THE CONSERVATIVE TYPES who believe its their “God-given” right to own as many firearms as they wish are all upset. They’re outraged! They probably, deep-down in their wildest fantasies, probably wish they could respond by going out and shooting up everybody who disagrees with them.

Illinois State Rifle Association officials went so far as to say that federal law already adequately regulates gun dealers. Nobody needs the individual states to get involved.

Although none other than mayoral hopeful Toni Preckwinkle said she thinks federal law has loopholes and that the new state regulations are meant to plug those exceptions. Thereby ensuring that people are following safety-motivated regulations when they go about selling pistols to people.

Of course, the part about this that amuses me is that Pritzker chose this to be amongst the first issues he dealt with as governor – albeit not the absolute first.

PRECKWINKLE: Says federal loopholes plugged

THAT APPEARS TO be the measure involving pay raises for state government employees that Pritzker approved, while claiming that such raises should have been provided in recent years but were denied by now-former Gov. Bruce Rauner.

A politically-partisan pot shot – further differentiating himself from his predecessor who didn’t exactly leave public life on the best of terms with those who work in government.

Now, he’s willing to take on the so-called “gun nuts” who, in fact, were claiming that Rauner would have used his veto powers to kill off this very measure.

Except that the General Assembly that approved this gun-related measure deliberately held off on sending the approved bill to the governor for consideration – UNTIL they had a more favorable governor.

RAUNER: Denied last chance to use 'veto' power

STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION President Richard Pearson went so far as to call it “political gamesmanship” and to say he was “deeply disappointed” but “certainly not surprised.”

Admittedly, there was a certain gamesmanship involved. Had the Legislature rushed the bill over to the governor immediately upon his approval, he would have used his “veto” power, while likely issuing some high-minded rhetorical statement about the redundancy of the state’s actions to federal law.

But it’s also likely he would have waited until it would have been too late for the General Assembly to come back into session during its final days last week to vote to over-ride the gubernatorial veto.

In such cases, what happens when the session ends is that the bill dies with the governor’s veto standing with no chance of being overridden.

MEANING WE’D HAVE the newly-elected General Assembly having to repeat the process of approving a bill this spring so that Pritzker could sign it into law some time during the summer months. 

MADIGAN: Cunning kept bill alive?

We’d still have the State Rifle Association, along with all the other gun groups, issuing their pompous statements in opposition. Which means their real objection is that they don’t have someone with the political cunning of House Speaker Michael Madigan on their side.

So we now have new laws in Illinois giving local law enforcement more authority to inspect gun dealers and their records, and also to keep copies of a gun-buyers’ firearms permits or other identification. It won’t be just a matter for federal Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents to deal with.

And perhaps the ideologues who think President Trump is justified in thinking that conditions along the U.S./Mexico border are worthy of an “emergency order” ought to keep in mind that many people in our society would have an easier time regarding the proliferation of firearms amongst the public as the real “emergency.”

  -30-

“Flash mobs” get redefined by Chicago

Until a couple of days ago, I thought AT&T had a silly commercial – the one that depicts a “flash mob” delayed, and a would-be participant made to look foolish because of his inadequate mobile broadband connection.

You know the one I’m referring to, the guy stripping off his trenchcoat and doing a silly dance, only to discover too late that the “flash mob” he was participating in was delayed by a half-hour.

BUT NOW, I can’t help but wonder if AT&T is grumbling about that ad, on account of the high-profile incidents in downtown Chicago that have been labeled as “flash mobs” and are being considered a high priority by Chicago police to crack down upon.

The knucklehead element that populates our metropolitan area has managed to redefine the word in a way that I doubt anyone will ever think fondly about the concept of “flash mobs.”

They probably won’t even think of it in a trivial way, which is the way I always viewed the concept.

For what police have labeled “flash mobs” in Chicago really isn’t what was meant by the people who came up with that term.

IN THE STRICTEST terms, a flash mob is where a group of people suddenly break out into a mass action. Some consider it a display of public art.

You could be walking around the street when, suddenly, everybody around you starts doing a funky dance for a few seconds. Before you fully comprehend what is happening, everybody disperses.



"Flash mobs" in Chicago of late haven't been anywhere near this colorful. Or entertaining. Photograph provided by Denver Public Library.



What makes these acts unique is the use of cellphone communications to let people “in the know” know exactly when they’re supposed to act.

Just like the guy in the commercial, who would have known that his “flash mob” was delayed if he had a decent portable phone service.

BUT IN CHICAGO, “flash mobs” have become a form of crime.

The groups get their signals through their cellphones, then suddenly swarm on the victim – who is walking along when batches of people beat upon him (or her).

Before the person can really get their bearings and respond, the swarm suddenly dissipates – and the person gets to sort through their newly acquired bruises and figure out what got stolen from their person.

The Chicago-style flash mobs have focused their attention on the downtown shopping districts, which means it is likely that the tourists will wind up being the victims. This particular type of nonsense could wind up besmirching the city’s reputation far worse than the Chicago Cubs’ losing ways ever have.

WE LITERALLY HAVE Mayor Rahm Emanuel saying this is a priority, and his new police Superintendent Garry McCarthy saying his officers are now working undercover at mass transit stations and other potential “choke points” in hopes that they can “flash” the “flash mobs” and swarm on them when they try to swarm on a would-be crime victim.

Because the problem for police is that these attacks are so coordinated and quick that the perpetrators are long gone by the time police arrive at the would-be crime scene.

There have been a few stray arrests. But it seems that the mentality has become that so many people get away undetected that it becomes worth the risk that one will get arrested by participating in such an incident.

There are those who are trying to use these incidents to their benefit.

THE ILLINOIS STATE Rifle Association issued a warning to its members saying they should avoid traveling to Chicago because of the chance they will get assaulted by a “flash mob.”

Of course, what they argued is the real problem is that people in Chicago don’t like the idea of concealed firearms. These people seem to think the solution to “flash mobs” is to let them carry their pistols tucked in their waist belt so they can whip it out and shoot anyone they think is about to flash them.

Not that these people want to hear fact. But in these incidents, the attackers aren’t carrying weapons. Which would mean that the person pulling out a pistol would  be committing a criminal act far worse than anything he thinks is about to be done unto him. It also makes their statement nothing more than politically-partisan trash-talk.

In fact, confusion about what constitutes a “flash mob” may well be a sticking point.

McCARTHY ON WEDNESDAY said one problem is that some incidents are being lumped into the “flash mob” category when they’re really not.

The Chicago Sun-Times reported about one incident that was a pickpocket incident resulting in a fight by a person who wanted his wallet back. With some bystanders getting caught into the brawl, it has been mistaken for something more significant than it was, in McCarthy’s opinion.

Which means we may have to take into account the motivations of those people who talk about how severe this new “flash mob” trend is in Chicago. Some people may well be looking to stir up trouble.

Then again, if the whole idea of “flash mobs” being criminal causes AT&T to stop airing that television commercial, then perhaps there is a positive element to all of this. Because that ad really is stupid.

  -30-

What constitutes bigoted thought?

It always makes me laugh whenever people whose basic thought process is less than enlightened on social issues try to accuse their critics of being the real racists.

You know, the conservatives who want to believe it is progressive elements of our society that place non-white people into negative niches from which they cannot escape.

BECAUSE WHENEVER THESE conservatives try to trash their opposition, usually by accusing them of playing the “race card,” it usually comes across as bigots trying to distract people from looking too closely at their own bigotry.

That is how I view the recent actions of the Illinois State Rifle Association, which in its role of trying to advocate for changes in state law to benefit firearms owners has managed to make itself look downright absurd.

Even more ridiculous than the bill they supposedly are against.

What has the state rifle association all hot and bothered this time is a bill by state Rep. Harry Osterman, D-Chicago, that purports to be a tough-on-crime measure. It would make it a crime for any gun dealer to sell a firearm of any type to a person whom they know to be a member of a street gang.

THE PURCHASE WOULD be a criminal act, even if the so-called gang member was able to pass all the criminal background checks now mandated by federal law.

The state rifle association is trying to stick up for the gun dealers, and I can understand that. They have a cause (even if it is one that I usually oppose), and they’re exercising their right to freedom of expression.

But the rifle association has managed to cram that combat boot-clad right foot of theirs straight into their mouth with the way they tried to spin the issue. For their statement issued this week that tried to shine light on the issue was headlined, “Bill that would effectively prohibit African-Americans and Hispanics from buying guns advances in the Illinois General Assembly.”

The statement goes on to read that gun-dealers fearing prosecution under this new law would wind up refusing to sell firearms to anyone who isn’t white, then tries to say that the supporters of the change in the law are calling for actions that cause, “the calendar on race relations will be turned back 70 years.”

ACTUALLY, THE PROBLEM in our society these days is that we still have people who would think that “gang member” is somehow synonymous with someone who is Latino or black, which is this particular attack’s clear implication.

They want to lambast people who are trying to do something about the flow of firearms into the community and are willing to stir up ethnic and racial tensions to try to do so. That is the actual bigoted act. The idea that this measure (if it were to become law) somehow stirs up the tensions is as “vile” as the state rifle association claims the proposed law is.

Despite my complaint, I will agree with the overall stance that this particular measure is a flawed gesture – primarily because it is trying to appeal to the “law and order” types who usually are among the gun lobby’s biggest boosters.

I’m not going to deny that there haven’t been instances where people who are involved in street gangs somehow get their firearms through legitimate sources.

BUT IT IS these same firearms advocates who always claim that the criminals won’t pay attention to gun bans because they obtain their weapons through illegal means that ought to realize that so-called gang members (I’m not even going to get into the potential vagueness of defining what constitutes a street gang) will have their own measures – even if such a bill ever became law.

My biggest problem with this idea is the fact that it would apply even if someone somehow qualified under the Brady Law restrictions on firearms purchases – which means we’re now talking about making judgments over who should be able to have a firearm.

I wonder if the true purpose of this bill is to give a legislator a so-called accomplishment he can include on his campaign literature even though the practical effects of the bill (I doubt many licensed gun dealers would ever be prosecuted under such a measure) are nil.

But I think these firearms advocates do realize all this. They’re just looking to stir up resentment through cheap tactics such as this, and if it means injecting ethnic and racial issues into the debate, I’m sure they truly don’t care.

NOW I REALIZE that when it comes to politics and lobbying for a cause, there are times when one goes all out and hits hard and doesn’t particularly worry about who gets hurt. So if they want to use such tactics, I understand why.

I just don’t want to hear them cry and whine when sensible people call them out on their trash talk and point out that this is nothing more than a lame attempt to shift the focus in our society away from the people with real racial hang-ups.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: The Illinois State Rifle Association’s image of a street gang member trying to con a firearms dealer (http://www.your-story.org/bill-that-would-effectively-prohibit-african-americans-and-hispanics-from-buying-guns-advances-in-the-illinois-general-assembly-142522/) into selling him a weapon by wearing a Brooks Brothers suit and speaking proper English is laughable on so many levels.

I doubt that Harry Osterman seriously is trying to stir up racial tensions, as much as he’s just trying to “look tough” (http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?MemberID=956) on crime so he can get re-elected to the Illinois House of Representatives.