Posted on 08/28/2015 5:45:30 AM PDT by rellimpank
Two years after Illinois’ concealed-carry law went into effect, it’s time we took a hard look at whether people who are a danger to themselves or others are getting permits to carry hidden weapons.
Under the law, even people who been arrested for violence are eligible to carry concealed weapons. The law leaves it up to local police to object if someone who shouldn’t be packing heat applies for a permit.
But that extra safeguard apparently is not protecting us the way it should, at least in Cook County, whose residents account for about a quarter of the state’s concealed-carry permit applications, according to State Police numbers released in January.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicago.suntimes.com ...
The article is full of a lot of FUD but does not offer even one example of a CC permit holder then using a concealed firearm to commit a crime. Not one, much less compelling statistical evidence that the rules should be changed.
Their lone example is bull.
He didn’t need a CCW to shoot his girlfriend.
So? One is presumed innocent until convicted. And if one is "convicted" for a crime of violence they are NOT eligible for CCW in Cook Co. I see what they did there.
My understanding is that state also issued drivers licenses to people who later got a DUI.
I bet none of the drive-by shootings and gang slayings were carried out by permit holders.
Yea, the portion that I read sounded like the police department just denied almost everyone. Of course the actual board denied their denials.
Hey, I'm all for denying CCW to racially obsessed nutjobs, and if they're really pazzo, locking them in rubber rooms like the old days. Of course, that would put away not only the Virginia psycho-homo-broadcaster, but 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Dept. of Justice, and a bunch of other places as well. . . So all in all, good thinking, CST!
It seems to me like what we need to look at is publications that print this sort of crap………...
To the left anyone that carries a gun is questionable, except for cops and criminals. Won’t be long before they have the cops disarmed, then the left will be truly happy in their Utopian world where killers have free range and babies get hacked up.
IF the local police ‘object’ to someone getting a CHL, for legal obvious reasons, are they not REQUIRED by law to inform the FBI section performing the NCIS background check?
CC’s go through more of a check than most govmint employees.
WHAT??? That's just crazy talk. Have you alerted Sharpton?
Yes, let’s take a hard look at publications that print this. Certainly the 1st Amendment could stand some edits.
Only a liberal mind could decry the murder of innocents on one hand while working against their right to self-protection on the other.
Kansas just passed Constitutional Carry.
If the rates of homicide go up, they may have a point.
If the rates stay statistically equal or decrease,
THEY NEED TO FOCUS ON THE REAL CAUSE OF VIOLENT CRIME.
(culture)
Questionable people possessing guns don’t worry about CCW laws.
And just who decides who is ‘Questionable’?
Those who would advocate Liberty by any chance?
As I recall,(please correct me if I am wrong) the Second Amendment does not mention the need for permits.
I wonder if they have any clue how many police officers across America this statement applies to?
They are going the Soviet road...mental institutions and classifications and reduced freedom for politically incorrect (mentally ill) “domestic terrorists” as classified by Obama’s Homeland inSecurity. Hillary! is talking about putting these same pepole into “summer FEMA camps” for re-education so they can get along with the Marxists. I tell you, the liberals (and much of GOPe) have gone Stalin!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.