What will you do if you are harassed, wrongfully arrested, charged, your property is confiscated, or one day you have to use your firearm in self-defense? You don't have to pay the financial burden alone. We're banding together!!!
20-Year Old U of I Student Sexually Assaulted in Gun Free Zone
On Friday, March 12, 2010, at about 3:02 am, University of Illinois
police and Urbana police responded to a report of a sexual assault in the
campus area. Upon arrival, officers spoke with the victim, a 20-year old
female.
The initial investigation showed the incident occurred in the 1200 block
of West Nevada Street, Urbana. According to the victim, she was walking
home and was in the area of Goodwin Avenue and Nevada Street. As she
paused prior to crossing the street, a male individual tapped her on the
shoulder. This male offender then forced her behind a nearby building
where she was sexually assaulted. The offender then fled.
The offender can be described as a muscular black male with a tattoo on
his left arm. The offender, who has a dark complexion, was last seen
wearing a dark sweatshirt and a necklace described as a wire-wrapped
cross.
The investigation into this matter is ongoing. The University of
Illinois Police Department is continuing to assist the Urbana Police with
this case.
Anyone with information about this incident should call the Urbana Police
Department at 217-384-2320. Information also can be shared anonymously
through Crimestoppers by calling 217-373-TIPS or online at: http://www.champaigncountycrimestoppers.com/ Crimes in progress,
reporting of suspicious individuals or any event requiring a police
response should be reported to our regional dispatch center by calling 9-
1-1.
SPRINGFIELD -- For the second time in a week, a House panel dominated by downstate lawmakers signaled its approval of a law allowing Illinoisans to carry concealed weapons.
The House Agriculture Committee voted 11-2 to endorse the proposed law, which is sponsored by state Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg.
Chicago-area lawmakers are likely to push back if the measure comes up for debate in the full House. The committee has approved similar measures at least five times in previous years, but the concept has not advanced in the full House.
Action on the legislation came a day before gun rights advocates are scheduled to descend on the Capitol for their annual lobby day. Illinois and Wisconsin are the only states that bar nearly all residents from carrying concealed weapons.
While the committee heard testimony on a similar concealed carry measure last week, the focus of the conversation was different Tuesday because of provisions in Phelps' proposal that are absent in the other measure, which is being pushed by John Bradley, D-Marion.
One of the proposals upset retailers and manufactures. It states that if a business prohibits people from carrying guns on their establishment, they are liable for injuries in armed robberies to gun owners who were disarmed.
"If they take my right to self defense.because of their company policy, we're going to make it explicit that they going to be civilly liable for that," said Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. "There is going to be a price tag that comes along with that if I'm injured or killed."
Mark Denzler, vice president for the Illinois Manufacturers' Association, objected to the provision, stating it is bad for the business community.
"I think businesses have the right to set rules for their individual business, if they don't want a concealed carry gun on their premises," he said.
State Rep. Donald Moffitt, R-Gilson, is a strong proponent for concealed carry but agreed the liability provision was unfriendly to businesses.
"I think you're making a big mistake to potentially muddy the waters," he said.
Moffitt voted in favor of the measure, with the hopes that the provision would be taken out before it reaches the House floor.
State Rep. Julie Hamos, D- Evanston, voted against the proposal like she did last week. State Rep. Mary Flowers, D- Chicago, also voted against Phelp's bill.
The legislation is House Bill 5221.
Posted by ShaunKranish on Thursday, March 11, 2010 @ 22:58:44 EST (13 reads)
(Read More... | 1 comment | Score: 0)
Massachusetts highest court backs trigger-lock law on guns in homes
In a case that drew attention from the Gun Owners Action League and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the Supreme Judicial Court yesterday upheld a state law requiring trigger locks on guns kept in people’s homes.
In what was seen by some as a victory for law enforcement and advocates of gun control, the state’s highest court ruled that the Second Amendment does not restrict the right of Massachusetts to impose its own rules on gun ownership.
“We conclude that the legal obligation safely to secure firearms in [state law] is not unconstitutional,’’ Justice Ralph Gants wrote for the unanimous court.
The gunlock case involved Richard Runyan, a Billerica man facing prosecution for keeping a rifle under his bed without a trigger lock. Police in 2007 discovered the firearm as they investigated complaints that Runyan’s then-18-year-old developmentally disabled son was shooting a BB gun at a neighbor’s house.
A Lowell District Court judge threw out the case. Middlesex District Attorney Gerard T. Leone Jr.’s office appealed in 2009.
Leone said in a telephone interview yesterday that the SJC had struck the proper balance between the right to self defense and the right of society to prevent tragedies — such as a child mishandling a loaded firearm.
“What they did for us as a state is they allowed us to continue to engage a balance between how we provide for our own self-defense and how we . . . avoid tragedy, especially when guns are in the hands of those who shouldn’t have them,’’ Leone said.
Runyan’s attorney, Brenden J. McMahon said he had hoped the SJC would have brought the prosecution to an end. Now the case will limp along, he said.
“It doesn’t really give closure to my guy,’’ McMahon said.
In a companion ruling yesterday, the SJC upheld the conviction of a New Bedford man who had argued that the Second Amendment right to bear arms trumped state law making it a crime for an unlicensed person to have a handgun.
Nathaniel DePina was arrested by gang officers after a .22-caliber revolver fell out of his clothing. Gants said the Second Amendment does not apply in DePina’s case because the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights has never meant that an individual is free to own firearms.
Gregg Miliote, spokesman for Bristol District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter, said the court was right to uphold DePina’s convictions and to leave state firearms laws intact.
The unanimous decisions by the SJC flow from a landmark ruling by the US Supreme Court in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller.
The Supreme Court said for the first time that the US Constitution’s Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own a firearm for self-defense, but the court limited the reach of its ruling to “federal enclaves’’ like the District of Columbia.
Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a gun ownership case in Illinois in which, legal specialists say, the court is likely to determine whether the Second Amendment will now be explicitly extended to the states — and state laws and regulations set up to control the use, sale, and storage of firearms.
In yesterday’s SJC cases, Justice Gants wrote that an 1875 US Supreme Court ruling (called Cruikshank) remains in force and gives Massachusetts the authority to chart its own course when it comes to regulating firearms and ammunition.
“Under Cruikshank, the Second Amendment imposes no limitations on the ability of the Massachusetts Legislature to regulate the possession of firearms and ammunition,’’ Gants wrote. “These cases are the law of the land until the Supreme Court decides otherwise, and we are therefore bound by them.’’
In a statement on the trigger lock case, Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center, applauded the SJC. “Courts must continue to reject efforts by the gun lobby and gun criminals to strike down common-sense gun laws that save lives,’’ he said.
But Edward F. George Jr., attorney for the Gun Owners Action League, faulted the SJC, saying they left intact a confusing law and should have waited for the US Supreme Court to clarify the muddy legal waters later this summer.
“They jumped the gun,’’ he said of the SJC.
Attorney General Martha Coakley, whose office sided with Leone as did county prosecutors, said she approved of the SJC’s findings.
The court is protecting “the public, especially our children, from the risks of unsafe firearm storage practices while also recognizing a gun owner’s right to use a firearm for self-defense in his or her home,’’ she said.
Posted by ShaunKranish on Thursday, March 11, 2010 @ 22:56:11 EST (8 reads)
(comments? | Score: 0)
BBC Article on Open Carry in Wisconsin!!!
Armed and ready to shop
Mark Mardell| 01:27 UK time, Thursday, 11 March 2010
Elm Grove, near Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Other customers stare as Nik Clark and Kim Garny do their weekly shop at a large upscale supermarket. It's hardy a surprise as a TV camera is trailing behind their trolley. But people would do a double-take even if the BBC weren't in tow. In some ways Nick wants them to look.
There's a revolver amid the ravioli, an automatic among the avocados.
Like cowboys out of Westerns, the couple carry handguns on holsters on their hips. She has a Smith and Wesson .38 special with a cute pink grip that makes it look almost like a toy. He has a rather more chunky Glock.
Wisconsin Open Carry. Groups like this have been springing up all over the States in the last year and they've been making an impact in the last week or so, getting Starbucks in California to agree people should be allowed into their coffee shops carrying guns. The groups are made up of people who want to make a point about the Second Amendment right in the Constitution to bear arms, by bearing them openly. Some want to make a point and test whether or not private firms like shops and restaurants recognise that right.
The movement is slightly different in the state of Wisconsin where concealed guns are banned. Nick says wearing a gun in a visible holster is the only way he can carry a weapon legally and he wants others to be aware of their rights: he doesn't want to confront but to convert.
"You have a right to self defence and open carry is a great deterrent. It's about personal protection," he says.
He's a beefy guy, with bulging muscles, so I ask: Isn't he rather intimidating when he's armed as well?
"I've been open carrying for about a year and most people don't notice, or some might make a comment. It's a demonstration I am a law-abiding citizen, you have nothing to hide. Criminals never open carry."
He says that his group respects property rights and if a shop doesn't want their custom and they are asked to leave they are happy to do so: they don't want to patronise that business. But he says most big companies know the law and have a policy that allows them to shop armed.
Kim says for her it is all about self protection: "I can guarantee if I am going to my car late at night and someone sees me carrying a gun they won't make me a victim."
But Nick says he is also making a point: "I want people to see me and have a level of comfort, to know that if they are out walking their dog it is OK to carry a gun, if they are walking to their car after work it is legal to carry a firearm."
When Obama was elected many gun enthusiasts expected the tightening of laws. Many of those in favour of controls expected Obama to increase regulation. As a senator he had always been in favour of restrictions on guns. But it seems thing are rather going the other way.
Last year a ban on carrying concealed weapons in national parks was lifted. In Virginia politicians are likely to change the law and allow people to buy more than one hand gun a month.
The supreme court is pondering whether to declare the 28-year ban on handguns in Chicago unconstitutional. They will take months before coming to a decision but observers who've watched the case carefully believe they will rule against the ban, with huge implications all around the states.
In Wisconsin, Open Carry is taking legal action against the rule that bans handguns within a quarter of a mile of schools. The supreme court judgement could have a bearing on that.
Still, when I meet around 30 people from Wisconsin Open Carry over lunch at a big restaurant there is a feeling that their rights need protecting. There are grandparents and mums and little children, and all the adults are armed.
Most tell me that this is mainly about protection but what they refer to as civil rights comes a close second. A couple of people tell me it is the other way around: the politics comes first. One man, whose name I don't catch, says he doesn't feel very threatened in suburban Wisconsin but it is about resisting the encroachment of the last two administrations, it's about not giving in to big government.
Matt Slavic, sitting next to his little granddaughter, observes that outside the United Nations is a sculpture of a gun, its barrel twisted in a knot. "The Second Amendment gives teeth to the rest of the constitution, it keeps tyranny at bay. I do feel it is under threat, not just from within the USA but from the UN - their small arms treaty would restrict hand gun ownership in the United States."
Several people tell me the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, underpins the first, freedom of speech. One of those eating with a gun at their side, John Laimon, goes further: "It's not about guns, it's about civil rights. It's growing because of the plain fear about inadequate politicians. They cut down guns but they've got bodyguards. Our rights are under fire."
If you're in the UK, you can see more in my report on BBC News at Ten on Thursday evening.
Posted by ShaunKranish on Thursday, March 11, 2010 @ 17:27:32 EST (12 reads)
(comments? | Score: 0)
Chicago Cops THANK Supreme Court Plaintiffs for Standing Up Against the Handgun
Hi, SCC. My name is Colleen Lawson, and I am one of the plaintiffs in McDonald v Chicago.
I'm writing you to share an incident that occurred yesterday, and in hope that you might allow me to publicly thank and acknowledge those involved.
Yesterday, two Chicago cops pulled up next to me while I was parked at a gas station. I was standing by my car. They got out of their squad car, walked up to me, and thanked me.
I would like those officers to know that their words, and their handshakes, meant more to me than anyone else's have.
I was deeply, deeply touched by the fact that these officers, who place their lives on the line every day for citizens like me and my fellow plaintiffs and every single Chicagoan and visitor, these officers who never can be quite sure where they'll be at the end of the day ... that they had come over to speak to me, and to voice their support.
I apologize for my quick exit -- I was kind of stunned as they continued speaking and probably just mumbled my thanks back to them, then got back into my car and just cried as I drove home. I completely forgot to go into the store and make my purchases; but then, no one has ever flustered me to that extent before.
Truly. Not high-up, celebrity, mucky-muck or thug. Yesterday's cops trump them all, and that one moment with them is my highest treasure.
I am humbled and intensely grateful. You, all of you, have my thanks.
It's just occurred to me that this is the only letter I've written publicly since this case began. That's how honored I feel by the words of your officers :)
Well, for our part, we'd just like to add our thanks to those of our fellow officers. Standing up for your fellow citizens and saying, "Enough!" may not seem like a big deal, but in some countries around the world, it lands you a term in prison, a session with the torturers or even death. Inaction is one of the worst sins any civilized society can commit because it makes it that much easier for the next bad act to occur. It is our hope that by your action, you have inspired countless others to step up when necessary.
We and literally million of others are in your debt.
Note from Shaun from ICarry.org:
I was driving my old car in downtown Chicago one night, in a left-hand turn lane. My car had no fewer than 7 PRO-GUN bumper stickers on it at that time. A cop cruiser was behind me, stuck at a red light, and I could feel them reading my stickers and I was thinking, "oh, no." Light turns green, I start driving in the left lane after the turn, and the cop pulls up right next to me. I ignore him at first, then he's waving at me with his arms so I roll down the passenger window. He goes "hey man, right on!!!" and gives me the thumbs-up sign. This is a true story and after having been wrongfully arrested a couple times already for lawfully exercising my rights, what a relief it was. I kept on driving thinking "that's awesome!"
Chicago politicians, and the politicians-with-badges who are appointed in charge of the police at the highest levels oppose law-abiding citizens having guns. But the cops don't!! That's right - the average cop on the streets of Chicago is supportive of gun rights because they see what happens to people who can't defend themselves. They're sick of the blood and guts on the streets because people don't defend themselves and are outlawed from doing so. They know the gang-bangers have guns anyways and the handgun ban has been a miserable, utter failure!!! They support US and not these boneheaded elitist politicians.
Posted by ShaunKranish on Tuesday, March 09, 2010 @ 21:41:08 EST (23 reads)
(comments? | Score: 0)
Right to Carry Bills Make Progress In Illinois General Assembly
Springfield, Illinois --(AmmoLand.com)- HB6249 A Right to Carry bill sponsored by Rep. John Bradley passed out of the House Agriculture & Conservation committee this past week with a vote of 11-1.
It is now placed on the House calendar for Second Reading. HB462, another Right to Carry bill sponsored by Rep. Brandon Phelps is scheduled to be heard by the same committee on March 9, 2010 and is expected to pass out of committee with the same support.
Click on the bill numbers above to see if your Representative is one of the co-sponsors of these bills. If their name is not listed as a sponsor, call them and urge them to support your right to protect your self and your family. Urge them to show their support by signing on as co-sponsors of these bills.
If your representative does not support your right to carry, be sure to inform him/her they will not have your support in the next election!
Lobby in person for the Right to Carry, March to the State Capitol, and make your voice heard! Don’t miss an important opportunity to show your support for the Right to Carry!
Join the largest group of Second Amendment supporters IL has ever seen.
IGOLD participants will present their message to their state representative, state senator, the Speaker of the House, and the President of the Senate!
Illinois Gun Owner Lobby Day – IGOLD
Wed. March 10, 2010
Prairie Capitol Convention Center, Springfield, IL
Doors open at 10:30, Concessions open all day,
Pre-rally 11:45, Legislative Briefing Noon,
March to Capitol 1:15 pm!
IGOLD.isra.org
Deadline to reserve a seat on one of the many charter buses from around the state is Mon. Mar. 8th!
To expedite security procedures it is best to enter the Capitol with the least number of items that must be opened, searched or screened. If you can narrow that down to a wallet that can be tossed on the scanner bed all the better!
We thank you for your cooperation – and so will Capitol security!
IGOLD Marshals Needed!
Like to help others? Familiar with the State Capitol Complex? Volunteers for the IGOLD ground crew are needed. They are the friendly, smiling volunteers who assist at the Prarie Capitol Convention Center and the march to the Capitol. Once inside the Capitol they help direct attendees to their legislators offices.
If you would like to volunteer, please go the IGOLD Volunteer page for more info.
Posted by ShaunKranish on Tuesday, March 09, 2010 @ 18:49:38 EST (19 reads)
(comments? | Score: 0)
Oak Forest police fired two gunshots at a home burglary suspect Saturday after the man pulled out a gun of his own as he fled, police said.
Deshawn Brown, 19, 16794 Hillside Place, Tinley Park, was arrested a short time later without incident and charged with residential burglary, police said.
The burglary took place just before 11 a.m. Saturday in the 15600 block of South Lamon Avenue. Police said neighbors witnessed a man going into a house and called police.
Oak Forest Police Chief Greg Anderson said police had the house surrounded when a man bolted out a side door.
Two police officers gave chase, Anderson said. When they saw the man reach into his pants and pull out a handgun, two officers each fired one shot at him. Nobody was hit, Anderson said.
Brown was arrested about 15 minutes later at an apartment complex about a block away, police said.
Anderson said he will conduct a routine investigation of the shooting.
"Any time an officer fires a weapon at a subject, you have to do a thorough investigation to determine whether use of force was justified. This is the gravest use of force police can use," he said.
Posted by ShaunKranish on Tuesday, March 09, 2010 @ 18:48:56 EST (15 reads)
(comments? | Score: 0)
Suspect in Grayslake-area dog shooting denied release to see doctor
A Grayslake-area man accused of shooting a dog will not be released from jail so he can see a doctor, a Lake County judge ruled Thursday.
Attorneys for Elvin Dooley, 57, asked Associate Judge Theodore Potkonjak to lower their client's $250,000 bond because he is suffering from complications from diabetes and may have pancreatitis.
Potkonjak refused the request after members of the Lake County jail nursing staff assured him they could provide adequate care for Dooley at the jail.
Dooley is charged with shooting a dog that had run away from the Save-A-Pet No Kill Animal Shelter near his home on the 24000 block of Townline Road on Jan. 26.
An employee of the shelter who was chasing the dog told police she saw Dooley firing at the animal with a rifle that had a scope mounted on it.
When police went to question Dooley, they said they found thousands of rounds of ammunition in his house. Later, he led them to 17 firearms he had stashed at a friend's house.
Dooley is not allowed to have any weapons because of a 1978 burglary conviction in Alabama.
Dooley pleaded not guilty Thursday to charges of animal torture, animal cruelty, possession of a weapon by a felon and possession of a weapon without a state Firearm Owner's Identification card.
Potkonjak scheduled a trial of the case for April 1. He told Dooley he faces a mandatory prison sentence of three to 14 years if convicted of all the charges against him.
Posted by ShaunKranish on Tuesday, March 09, 2010 @ 18:42:52 EST (13 reads)
(comments? | Score: 0)
Walsh to Bean on Health Care Vote: Vote your district not your party
ChadSpark writes:
I received this email from the Joe Walsh Campaign.
(Lake Zurich, Illinois) - 8th District Republican congressional nominee Joe Walsh today called on his liberal Democrat opponent Rep. Melissa Bean to swallow her pride and vote "No" on the Obamacare federal takeover of health care legislation nearing a vote in the House.
"For the first time in a long time Melissa Bean needs to listen to her constituents and vote her district," said Walsh. "A government takeover of health care is absolutely the wrong approach to fix what ails with health care in America- and 8th district voters know it. Melissa Bean was not elected to represent public sector unions and march in lockstep with her party. She was elected to represent the interests of 8th district families and support policies that speak to their very real economic insecurities. This legislation will worsen the quality of care we have access to and increase unemployment," Walsh said.
The proposed takeover of health care that would cost Illinois 169,000 jobs, $4,418 per person, and shrink Illinois' economy by 5.1 percent, according to a study by the Illinois Policy Institute (http://www.illinoispolicy.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=1924). This is against the backdrop of a state with 11% unemployment.
"A vote for this health care bill is vote against the economic interests of 8th district families, plain and simple," Walsh added.
The legislation would also drastically reduce senior citizens' access to the popular (and private) Medicaid Advantage program.
"I'm not in the camp that says the president is overly ambitious to take on health care," said Bean, who voted for the federal takeover of health care late last year that passed the House by a slim 220-215 margin despite a sizable Democrat majority. (http://www.melissabean.com/news?id=0089)
Prior to her vote last year, Bean, unlike most members of Congress (Republicans and Democrats), declined to hold any town hall meetings or public forums where residents could weigh in and ask questions about this legislation.
"Melissa Bean has made it very clear that if she is not interested in the opinions of concerns of those she was elected to represent," said Walsh.
In his keynote address to the McHenry Medical Society at their annual meeting, Walsh said there is no way the country can afford the trillion dollar takeover of one-sixth of our nation's economy.
"There are other ways to reform health care without sending our children and grandchildren into even greater debt and forever altering the doctor-patient relationship," Walsh said.
Walsh said incremental reforms such as allow the sale of insurance plans across state lines increase competition among insurers and passing meaningful tort reform are key to reducing costs while protecting quality of care.
Posted by ShaunKranish on Tuesday, March 09, 2010 @ 16:09:27 EST (10 reads)
(comments? | Score: 0)
Report on 2008 NIU shooting to be released March 15
DeKALB – The official comprehensive report from Northern Illinois University about the February 2008 campus shooting will be released in mid-March, the school’s president said Friday.
John Peters said that the report would be released the week of March 15.
“I don’t want to release it during spring break,” he said during a phone interview, noting that he wanted to ensure that there were counseling services on campus available for students who might need them.
Friday was the last day of classes at NIU before spring break. Classes resume March 15.
When the report is released, hard copies will be made available, and it will be put on the school’s Web site, Peters said.
The report will be on how the entire university reacted, including the police, Student Affairs and Information Technology Services departments.
The report is about the Feb. 14, 2008, shooting at Cole Hall.
Five students were killed and at least 19 others were injured before the lone gunman turned the gun on himself.
In a Dec. 11, 2009, news release, NIU announced that the “final police investigation report of the February 14, 2008, tragedy will be completed and released in February of 2010.”
In a Feb. 9 interview with Peters, the NIU president said he expected to release the report by the end of the month.
But in late February, NIU spokesman Brad Hoey said officials had to push back the report’s release into March due to several unexpected events at NIU during February.
On the morning of Feb. 19, the campus responded to a shooting outside of the Stevenson North residence hall towers.
NIU student Zachary Isaacman has been charged with shooting Brian Mulder, 24, of Marengo, in the leg about 3:30 a.m. that day.
ICarry is planning a demonstration in DeKalb on or near the NIU Campus 30 days after this report is released, assuming the report neglects to point out the students were defenseless and unable to fight back. The report will assuredly also neglect to mention that DeKalb has a handgun ban and that the campus also is a "gun free zone." How many years do we keep having to tell them this stuff? Every one of these shootings is in a "gun free zone" where remarkably the victims can't fight back (coincidence?). Any wonder why there aren't massacres at shooting ranges, gun stores, gun shows, police offices, etc? Even a GUN FREE military base became the sight of a massacre this year. We don't even trust our soldiers on their own military bases, and so they become fish in a barrel for madmen.
Posted by ShaunKranish on Tuesday, March 09, 2010 @ 13:46:08 EST (12 reads)
(comments? | Score: 0)
A legal gun, the usual motive, and 3 dead in Darien
The coldblooded Darien killer wasn't so tough that he couldn't shop for a good deal on a murder weapon.
The 40-caliber Glock pistol used to kill Jeffrey Kramer, his wife Lori, and their son Michael was on sale a week ago when it was purchased, according to police detectives.
It's on sale all this month at Midwest Guns in West suburban Lyons. Regularly $649. Special early spring discount of just $625.99.
Investigators say they have videotape from the store security camera of Jacob Nodarse, 23, purchasing the gun a few days before the killings.
Considering that Midwest has been in business for 47 years, has a reputation as a well-run store, and is a supplier to many law enforcement agencies and officers, Mr. Nodarse would have been required to show a valid Illinois Firearm Owners Identification Card as proof that he was entitled to buy and own a gun.
The murder plot, with a legally-purchased semiautomatic pistol, was carried out just a few hours before Chicago's handgun ban was argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
A pure coincidence of course, but the timing is notable.
The city's 28-year old ban on handguns has been as ineffective in stopping violent crime as Illinois' FOID card system was in preventing the Kramer's from being killed in Darien.
Also, the shiny new and perfectly legal Glock wasn't the only weapon carried to the Kramer house in Darien. The shooter also brought along a hammer to smash a window so he could get into the house. That item required no permit.
Over the weekend, prosecutors revealed details of how the murders were accomplished. They said that Nodarse of Countryside and his best friend Johnny Borizov, 28, of Willow Springs, had met the previous week to figure out the details. Borizov was locked in a dreadful child custody fight with his ex-girlfriend, Angela Kramer, 25, and allegedly wanted her and her entire family dead.
According to DuPage County states attorneys, after Nodarse broke into the home at 3 a.m., he first fired a shot at Michael Kramer, 20, who was asleep with his 17 year old girlfriend on a couch.
Nodarse then moved onto Kramer's parents - murdering both of them according to investigators. He then returned to finish off Michael, who had grabbed a knife, which proved no defense for the .40 Glock.
Angela Kramer, one of the intended targets, never was found by the shooter. Having heard the commotion she burrowed herself in a closet and called police. Before Darien authorities arrived, the gunman escaped the slaughter scene.
For several days, police and DuPage County prosecutors kept saying "we don't know the motive."
Such a proclamation has always puzzled me.
First, because the discovery of a motive never brings anyone back from the dead.
But more important - they did know the motive. They always know the motive. It is always the same in every murder.
Selfishness is always the underlying explanation. Doesn't matter whether there is also a robbery, a rape, a bad divorce or if it is an Outfit hit.
Selfishness is the motive.
"I am more important than you." That is what every murder comes down to.
When DuPage County State's Attorney Joe Birkett said Saturday that "the crime was born of hatred," he almost got it right. Hatred is a subset of selfishness.
Regardless of the armchair criminal psychology that plays out after every horrific crime such as Darien, this is one case where you can't blame the gun for three dead people any more than you can blame the hammer for the broken window.
Posted by ShaunKranish on Tuesday, March 09, 2010 @ 13:37:05 EST (16 reads)
(comments? | Score: 0)
Arrested Open Carrier Sues City of Racine and WINS!!!
On September 9th, 2009 Wisconsin Carry member Frank Hannan-Rock of Racine was
unlawfully arrested while open-carrying on the front porch of his home in
Racine.
On January 8th Wisconsin Carry filed a federal lawsuit against the State of
Wisconsin, City of Racine, 2 Racine Police officers, The City of Milwaukee and
one Milwaukee Police Officer. In this lawsuit we challenge the constitutionality
of Wisconsin's Gun-Free-School-Zone Act. In this lawsuit we also brought on 2
Wisconsin Carry Members as co-plaintiffs. Frank Hannan-Rock of Racine was one of
these co-plaintiffs.
Frank was lawfully open-carrying on his own porch when Racine Police, who were
summoned to his neighborhood on an unrelated call, observed and questioned Frank
because he was open-carrying. After a few minutes of increasingly aggressive
questioning Frank exercised his right to remain silent and was subsequently
unlawfully arrested for obstruction of justice for refusing to give his name. In
the state of Wisconsin no law allows officers to arrest for obstruction on a
person's refusal to give his or her name. "Mere silence is insufficient to
constitute obstruction. Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802
(1995)"
Details of Frank's encounter can be viewed by going to our website http://www.wisconsincarry.org and clicking on the October 16th blog entry.
Frank was unlawfully arrested and his firearm illegally siezed. He was later
released without being charged.
Wisconsin Carry filed suit on Frank's behalf for his unlawful detainment,
arrest, and seizure of his firearm.
On behalf of myself, the board of Wisconsin Carry Inc. and all of our members,
we are pleased to announce that The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin has entered a judgment in the amount of $10,000 in favor of
Wisconsin Carry, Inc. and Frank Hannon-Rock and against the City of Racine and
two Racine police officers.
We look forward to the precedent that this case will set for other
municipalities who's police officers operate outside of their legal authority
and unlawfully detain, arrest, and seize property of law-abiding open-carriers.
If you haven't already done so, please consider joining Wisconsin Carry today and help us advance and protect the right of Wisconsin residents to keep and bear arms!
With many people predicting that the Supreme Court will overturn Chicago's ban on handguns following arguments heard Tuesday, Mayor Daley expressed outrage.
His voice "dripping with sarcasm," the mayor ripped SCOTUS on Wednesday. The Sun-Times reports:
"Why can't I go to the Supreme Court and sit there with a gun and listen to the arguments? If a gun is so important to us on the street or someone's home, why can't I go to the Supreme Court and sit there with a gun? I'm not gonna shoot anyone. But, I have a right to that gun," Daley said.
"Why can't I go see my congressman who doesn't believe in gun laws? Why can't I carry my gun into congressmen's offices or go to his home and knock on his door and say, 'Don't be worried. I have a gun. You want me to have a gun.' Why is it they want to be protected by all the federal money ... to protect all the federal bureaucrats, but when it comes to us in the city" there's no protection?
Handguns have been outlawed in Chicago for 28 years. But in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court reversed a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., emboldening gun-rights activists to challenge the Chicago law. Suburban Oak Park, which has even stronger gun legislation, is also involved in the lawsuit.
Daley called the 2008 ruling "frightening," the Sun-Times reports.
"When a child gets shot or killed, that is a failure of society," Daley said. "Adults should stand up and say, guns don't solve things in homes or streets. If it was, then everyone here would be carrying a gun in our own corporations."
Following the DC ruling, the D.C. Council replaced its ban with regulations that require gun owners to receive five hours of safety training, register their firearms every three years and face criminal background checks every six years, according to the Sun-Times.
Though a decision is not expected until June, those familiar with the case predict that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Scalia, Alito, Kennedy and Thomas would favor overturning the ban, for a 5-4 majority.
Posted by ShaunKranish on Saturday, March 06, 2010 @ 19:51:43 EST (24 reads)
(comments? | Score: 0)
Update on Pending Anti-Gun Legislation in the Land of Lincoln
A handful of anti-gun bills continue to pose threats to law-abiding gun owners in Illinois.
House Bill 6123 remains in the House Judiciary II - Criminal Law Committee, but could be taken up next week. This bill, introduced by anti-gun State Representative Harry Osterman (D-14), seeks to create a confusing new felony offense for "knowingly" supplying a "street gang member" with a firearm. A "street gang member" is vaguely defined in the Illinois Streetgang Terrorism Omnibus Prevention Act, and this new legislation is undoubtedly intended to capitalize on the fears the general public has for words like "street gang" and "terrorism."The language contained in HB6123 is also incorporated into Senate Senate Bill 3632 and Senate Bill 3709 by State Senator Dan Kotowski (D-33), and they also may get a push next week. Senator Kotowski's bills go even further than Representative Osterman's, though, as they would also outlaw most private transfers of handguns, requiring they be processed through a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL). Both SB3632 and SB3709 had been assigned to the Senate Criminal Law Committee, but have been reassigned to the Senate Public Health Subcommittee on Special Issues.
Representative Osterman also has House Bill 5480, which has been reported out of the House Executive Committee and is now on the House floor. HB5480 contains language to prohibit most private transfers of handguns, like Senator Kotowski's bills, but removes the "street gang" language. Similarly, House Bill 5495, introduced by State Representative William Burns (D-26), has also been reported out of the House Executive Committee, and is now on the House floor. HB5480 would prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one handgun in a 30-day period.
Finally, House Bill 5849, introduced by Representative Osterman, may be heard in the House Executive Committee next Wednesday, March 10, which is the same date as IGOLD-the Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day. This bill seeks to overturn last year's Illinois Supreme Court ruling that held the storage boxes built into vehicles qualified for storing unloaded firearms for lawful transportation under Illinois law. This bill would change the law to make it more difficult to lawfully transport unloaded firearms.
Other bills, both good and bad, remain viable, but those mentioned above are of the greatest concern at this time.
Posted by ShaunKranish on Saturday, March 06, 2010 @ 19:16:59 EST (21 reads)
(comments? | Score: 0)
Lee Lexow spent 28 years in the U.S. Army and Air Force. He served on President Reagan’s and Vice President Bush’s security detail.
“I’m probably pretty qualified to carry a firearm, don’t you think?” said Lexow, of Bull Valley.
Not according to state law.
Lexow can’t keep a handgun with him in public because Illinois is among two states that prohibit carrying concealed weapons. However, he and other gun rights supporters are optimistic that a case to be heard today by the Supreme Court could prompt changes to those laws.
This morning, the high court is expected to hear oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago, a case challenging the city’s gun ban.
Gun rights supporters are optimistic that when the court issues its decision in June, it will rule that state and local governments can’t supersede the Bill of Rights. And although the case deals with a city ban, they are counting on a ripple effect.
“The best case is that ... they find the Second Amendment to be a fundamental right,” said Todd Vandermyde, a state lobbyist for the National Rifle Association.
Supporters also are hopeful that a ruling against the ban could pave the way for an open or concealed carry law in Illinois. But opponents of gun rights are keeping just as close of an eye on the case – for opposite reasons.
“It’s almost inconceivable to me that any level of government would allow people to carry guns at all,” said the Rev. Dan Larsen, recently retired minister at Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Woodstock.
Wisconsin is the only other state that prohibits residents from carrying concealed weapons, and supporters in McHenry County and elsewhere long have called the law unfair.
“I think everybody pretty much wants the same rights as other states have,” said Lexow, vice president of the McHenry County Sportsmen’s Association.
What was particularly interesting about the other states was that in many cases, crime went down when concealed carry laws were passed.
Consider Washington D.C., where the Supreme Court in 2008 struck down legislation barring handguns, requiring licenses for pistols and mandating that legal firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled or trigger locked.
Since the ban was lifted, the homicide rate reached its lowest point in at least 20 years, according to the district police department Web site.
The number of homicides in the district decreased by about 23 percent between 2008 and 2009, from 186 to 143, according to the Web site.
John Lott, a leading researcher on the relationship between gun bans and crime rates, said he expected that result after the District of Columbia v. Heller ruling.
“The fact that a would-be victim might be able to defend themselves will deter criminals from attacking,” said Lott, who also authored “More Guns, Less Crime.”
“Every place in the world that has had a gun ban has seen an increase in murder rates,” he said.
Lott said the primary reason was because gun laws stopped only law-abiding citizens – not criminals – from carrying weapons.
“We all want to try to keep guns from criminals,” Lott said. “The problem is … who is most likely to obey the law?”
McHenry County Sheriff Keith Nygren agreed with Lott.
Nygren said he supported a concealed carry law if certain provisions were met, such as a state-issued permit, training in handling and use of firearms, experience on a range and the ability of local law enforcement to recommend reasons a permit should be denied to particular people, among other provisions.
“Concealed carry should be a privilege, not a right,” he said.
Private citizens who have guns could prove especially helpful in circumstances in which police were not instantly at the scene of an incident.
“When something happens to you or your family … the likelihood that there will be a policeman standing next to you is probably not very great,” he said.
But Larsen said regardless of the research and lines of thought such as Nygren’s, an area like McHenry County did not need concealed carry laws.
“There’s plenty of police protection and people looking out for each other,” he said. “To bring about a law like that would just violate that whole sense of community that we have out here.”
Still, those on the front lines of the debate said it isn’t a matter of guns and feel-good politics; it’s a question of American principles.
“It isn’t so much a gun issue as it is a constitutional issue and a rights issue,” Lexow said. “It’s basically just supporting the U.S. Constitution and the Illinois Constitution.”
Posted by ShaunKranish on Saturday, March 06, 2010 @ 19:15:57 EST (22 reads)
(comments? | Score: 0)
Newsletter
Legally Carry Today in IL and WI
Use these guides to discover how to legally carry a firearm in Illinois and Wisconsin today!
