.

Patch Flash: Gov. Quinn Wants to Ban Assault Weapons

Chicagoland news to talk about: DePaul study names top transit suburbs

 

Illinois could ban assault weapons under a plan proposed Tuesday by Gov. Pat Quinn, but any gun control regulation would have to clear major hurdles even with a renewed nationwide debate.

The Chicago Democrat used his amendatory veto power to gut a bill related to ammunition sales and add language prohibiting the manufacture, delivery, sale and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons and attachments. Illinois lawmakers could accept or override the changes, or not call a vote at all.

 

The murder trial of former suburban Chicago police sergeant Drew Peterson began Tuesday with dueling explanations of his third wife's death, clashes over evidence and a teary witness describing how she screamed when she discovered her friend's body.

Prosecutors gave jurors an account that could have come from a 1940s pulp novel, in which a man does whatever he must – including murder – to keep his ex-wife's hands off his money.

On the other side, Peterson's attorneys argued the former officer was a victim of something newer: a 24-hour news cycle and cable TV's talking heads, which together created a media frenzy that did not subside until prosecutors had charged an innocent man.

The community of Libertyville was , who fell off an inner tube and was struck by a boat on Petite Lake in Lake Villa, on Sunday.

The best transit suburb in the Chicago metropolitan area was LaGrange, followed by Wilmette and Arlington Heights. Other suburbs that made the list include DesPlanes, Park Ridge, Deerfield, Northbrook, Palatine and Highland Park.

The Lake County Fair wrapped up a successful event on Sunday, but fair season isn’t over.

Walter White August 03, 2012 at 12:16 PM
Thank God.
Gus August 03, 2012 at 01:52 PM
I think we all should take an annual psychiatric evaluation to determine which rights and privileges you're allowed to have. Too see if you qualify for your 2nd amendment rights, or 1st amendment rights, for that matter- we need to eliminate these crazy conservative pundits from spouting their dangerous rhetoric. The test can determine if you're allowed to vote, too. Test results can be interpreted by a panel appointed by The President, of course.
G.Ryan August 03, 2012 at 03:17 PM
Bucephalus, he reported to the authorities he was the Joker. It has nothing to do with being naive.
David Greenberg August 03, 2012 at 04:50 PM
@Thomas: "Mr. Greenberg and the ability to stop "any possible" crime at "any possible" cost. " Thomas, it wasn't "bait" that I took. I made comments on this board, in another thread, and I'm not going to deny it or try to hide. I stand by what I said, and I have nothing to be ashamed about for doing so, nor will I allow anyone to make me feel as if I should be ashamed. And please, don't put words in my mouth - I never said we need the ability to stop "any possible crime at any possible cost". I said we need to be PREPARED to deal with situations when they arise. @Walter: "Thomas, you are spot on. He is one dangerous candidate. What's to stop him from advocating that students be allowed to bring guns to school? With all the school shootings, they should be allowed to defend themselves, right? And yes, his comments are all over the Patch. And I'm sure many will come back to bite him if he chooses to run again. I guarantee it!" Walter - What have I said that you believe makes me a "dangerous" candidate? I'm all about PREVENTING problems, not creating them. If we can do that by allowing teachers to help defend their young charges when seconds count, what's wrong with that? What I find most dangerous is restricting civil rights. It was Benjamin Franklin that essentially said "Those willing to give up liberty for security deserve neither." If that makes one of the Founders of this Great Country "dangerous", then I'm proud to be in his company.
David Greenberg August 03, 2012 at 04:57 PM
Actually, the Federal Safe Schools Zone Act doesn't prohibit this: (B)(ii) would seem to allow concealed carry permit holders to carry. (B)(v) would allow a security guard or TEACHER under contract to carry. "The Gun Free School Zones Act states: (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone. (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm— (i) on private property not part of school grounds; (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license; (iii) that is— (I) not loaded; and (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle; (iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone; (v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual; (vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or..."
Walter White August 03, 2012 at 04:58 PM
That's fine, Dave. We'll see how 113 parents feel about their teachers carrying guns. My guess is they will be super supportive of that idea.
David Greenberg August 03, 2012 at 05:01 PM
OK, how about Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny? Pretty violent there - Elmer's always trying to "kill da wabbit!". Actually I say this only partially tongue-in-cheek. Do we have lots of violent movies and shows? Sure. We have lots of NON-violent movies and shows as well. That it's possible that some fool gets ideas that he wants to implement from a movie or tv show is unfortunate, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us have to watch sanitized "G-rated" shows to try and prevent someone from "getting ideas". For all I know, that fool could come up with the idea entirely on his own and implement it - and given that a WRITER of a movie or tv show came up with this concept and put it into a show, it's not a big stretch of the imagination that another fool could come up with the same idea.
Earl Weiss August 03, 2012 at 05:06 PM
"David Greenberg 11:57 am on Friday, August 3, 2012 Actually, the Federal Safe Schools Zone Act doesn't prohibit this:" In Illinois it does since we do not have concealed carry and private individuals are not licensed to carry.
David Greenberg August 03, 2012 at 05:10 PM
If the parent's aren't, then it's likely that the Board wouldn't be either, and it wouldn't happen.
Walter White August 03, 2012 at 05:14 PM
Good thing we have laws to protect us from the likes of you.
David Greenberg August 03, 2012 at 05:45 PM
"Good thing we have laws to protect us from the likes of you.". Please elaborate on the phrase "the likes of you". What precisely is it about me that you believe requires the protection of the Law? Besides being a fiscal conservative and defender of Civil Liberties, I think that most people who know me would consider me a friendly soul.
Walter White August 03, 2012 at 06:40 PM
Extremists who would put guns in our schools and think it would be solving a problem.
Thomas August 03, 2012 at 06:47 PM
Mr. Greenberg, Look, I am sure that you are a relatively normal productive member of the society who loves his wife and children, but that doesn't mean you are'nt incapable of holding some extreme beliefs outside of what some may consider "mainstream" thought. Look at Tom Cruise, John Travolta, and thousands of others who are productive citizens but still believe that someone named XENU was the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of his people to Earth in a DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs.They believe that Scientology scriptures hold that the essences of these many people remained, and that they form around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm.
Nightcrawler August 03, 2012 at 06:49 PM
The posts in this topic just get dumber by the moment. You liberals are all slaves to the government and their ever-growing communist way of thinking. At least during the civil war in the 1800s blacks knew they were slaves before the north thankfully freed them. You Democrats, on the other hand, have no clue and seem to enjoy being enslaved by your own government and its massive amount of freedom stripping rules. Make no mistake, you may not be in shackles, but the government owns you too. You are even renting your property from them even if you own your own home. And to think people were rebelling during the Boston Tea Party over a tax that was the equivalent of less than 4-5 percent. But no, lets make even more rules and tax more things because us liberals are so paranoid....it's a wonder you people can even figure out how to wipe your own butts without someone's assistance. No one is ever going to permit concealed carry by teachers in schools, so shut up already, all of you.
Walter White August 03, 2012 at 07:13 PM
Yes that would be very "dangerous" wouldn't it?
Thomas August 03, 2012 at 07:22 PM
Steve, Looks like its time for you and Mr. Greenberg to get together at the Lake Forest Oasis for a cup of coffee and you can plot your armed civilian uprising against the Commie Pinko government. It would give you both a great opportunity to whip out and show each other your Big...Um....Uh...GUNS! Lets hope the Baristas aren't itchy on their conceal and carry trigger fingers. But seriously Steve, Lifes too short to worry about black helicopters. Sit back and enjoy the anarchy!
David Greenberg August 03, 2012 at 07:26 PM
@Earl: "In Illinois it does since we do not have concealed carry and private individuals are not licensed to carry." - not yet, but it'll happen. If Wisconsin could pass concealed carry, so can Illinois. It's been proven to reduce crime in every State it's been implemented in. @Walter: "Extremists who would put guns in our schools and think it would be solving a problem." - Sorry Walter, this thought isn't unique to me - it's present in other school systems throughout the country. "...three school shootings have ended when teachers or other responsible adults had firearms: in Edinboro, Pa.; Pearl, Miss., and Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Va. Earlier this year, the Colorado Supreme Court unanimously enforced the Concealed Carry Act, ruling that the University of Colorado could not prohibit licensed carry on campus. " (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_21168162/no-state-gun-laws-do-job)
David Greenberg August 03, 2012 at 07:26 PM
@Thomas: "<comparison about Scientology>" - Sorry if we disagree Thomas, but my thoughts are hardly outside of the mainstream, Millions of citizens in 49 other States would beg to differ about firearms, carrying concealed, possession, etc. That I happen to agree with the Founders of this Country that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed doesn't make me an extremist, it makes me an American Citizen. I am not a Scientologist, so I'm unable to comment on their beliefs. Others would also agree with me, and disagree with you regarding firearm possession in school by Teachers/Security guards - again, that doesn't make me an extremeist by any stretch of the imagination. What I consider extreme are people like Gov. Quinn, Mayor Bloomberg, Sen. Diane Feinstein, Sen Barbara Boxer, Sen Chuck Schumer, Sen. Garrett, Rep. May, Pres. Obama, Pres. Clinton - who have been opposed to the right to keep and bear arms, and who work to violate their Oaths of Office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution - but that's just me, you may of course disagree.
Walter White August 03, 2012 at 07:31 PM
OK then I'll restate. Good thing we have laws IN ILLINOIS to protect us from the likes of you.
David Greenberg August 03, 2012 at 07:31 PM
Where do you come up with these fantasies Thomas?
B August 03, 2012 at 07:32 PM
I think something we can all agree on is stronger regulations for gun owners and those looking to purchase guns, i.e. thorough background checks when registering for a firearm, regulating sales at gun shows, and more education regarding firearm safety. Although guns bans have proved effective in places like Great Britain (in a year when 5,000 U.S. teens died from gun wounds, only 19 died from gun wounds in G.B.) I do think it would be difficult to maintain that ban here.
Chris K. August 03, 2012 at 07:33 PM
@Mark - I urge you to read some of the links I have posted earlier. Here's a new one I just came across on suntimes.com: http://www.suntimes.com/opinions/letters/14160460-474/cdc-exposes-gun-control-myths.html I don't even need to comment about the 'contained space' becaues Steve and David did a fine job, however check this out: http://www.resist44.com/aurora-theater-shooting-armed-response-analysis
David Greenberg August 03, 2012 at 07:38 PM
There's already 20,000+ laws on the books regarding firearms. We don't need more regulations. There's already background checks when purchasing a firearm. For handguns you have to wait 3 days before picking up your gun. Sales at gunshows are regulated between firearm dealers. If you want education regarding firearm safety - simply google for an NRA-certified Firearms Instructor, and go take a class. And yes, even the Police take classes from NRA certified instructors, so taking the class won't automatically make you a member of the NRA (if that's something which bugs you). Gun Bans are not effective. They do not decrease crime because criminals will always find a way to commit a crime if they want. In GB, they have high incidences of knife attacks because of their gun ban - so many in fact that the GB's considered banning "sharp pointed" knives...
B August 03, 2012 at 07:56 PM
David, I do not have an issue with educated gun owners who use their firearms in an intelligent, non violent manner (people who don't go on shooting rampages). I do think that most people have a problem with those who wish to use their gun in an inappropriate manner. If someone really wants to own a gun for the right reasons, 3 whole days and mandatory gun education courses isn't that much to ask, but I can see why someone who wants to go around shooting people (not saying that you do) would have an issue with waiting that long. Also, last time I checked, a gun can kill someone a little bit quicker than a knife. You do make some very good points though.
David Greenberg August 03, 2012 at 08:17 PM
I have no problem with people who use firearms in a defensive manner (obviously, the military is excepted during lawful operations), for target shooting, or hunting either. I do also have a problem with criminal misuse of a firearm, or using it in an offensive manner (except military). But I have to ask:Who defines what a "right" reason is for owning a firearm? It's not the Government, it's the individual. Waiting 3 days can endanger someone's life, if they decide they want or need a firearm, and it's not going to be a deterrent against someone who wants to commit a criminal act with a firearm because either they'll commit the act in 3 days after they pick it up, or they'll just get one on the black market and commit the act immediately. There's documented cases of women with restraining orders against violent boyfriends/spouses-they went out to get a firearm for self-protection, weren't allowed to pick it up for 3 days, and the violent 'other' came back-in some case they were beaten, killed, or they called the cops while they hid in a closet and hoped the offender didn't find them. There's other cases as well. Regarding mandatory gun education:Education in and of itself isn't a bad idea, but again, who gets to set the terms of what constitutes a "valid" course of study? If it's the Government, the risk is of ever expanding and changing requirements that ultimately can't be met. So again, the individual should determine the education needed for safe operation.
B August 03, 2012 at 08:37 PM
David, I didn't mean to say that the government gets to choose what the 'right' reason is but I believe the wrong reason is when you have the intent to hurt innocent parties. As a female, I completely understand and sympathize with people in that position but I think that owning a gun without real knowledge on how to use it in a high stress situation like that is a waste of money and people can end up injuring themselves when they mean to protect themselves or others. In response to mandatory education, I think that a certain amount of time and competence with the weapon should be shown. Like I said, anyone can buy a gun and learn how to pull the trigger but unless they know how to use it, I consider that dangerous.
David Greenberg August 03, 2012 at 09:12 PM
"I didn't mean to say that the government gets to choose what the 'right' reason is but I believe the wrong reason is when you have the intent to hurt innocent parties." - I agree. "...I think that owning a gun without real knowledge on how to use it in a high stress situation like that is a waste of money and people can end up injuring themselves when they mean to protect themselves or others." - I agree with you again. "In response to mandatory education, I think that a certain amount of time and competence with the weapon should be shown." I agree that people should be competent in the operation and maintenance of the firearms they own - but that's the slippery slope of "defining competence". Every firearm owner I've ever known has practiced many, many times with their firearm; learned how to strip it down and clean it, maintain it; how to load it safely, and the most important of all - to never point it at anything they didn't want to shoot. This isn't hard to learn - some people take a class, for some it's mother/father passed down to son/daughter, and for some people it could be a quick thing. For others, it may take them longer to achieve that level of competence. Practice at the range and asking questions makes perfect :-) But allowing the government to define what competence is, is just too dangerous.
David Greenberg August 03, 2012 at 09:15 PM
Walter, I find it unfortunate that we have laws in Illinois which create Victim Zones, and which create de facto concealed carry for criminals while leaving law abiding citizens defenseless. I find it unfortunate that we have laws in Illinois which only adversely affect the law abiding and don't affect the criminals at all. And I sincerely hope to see these misguided laws change in a lawful manner.
Walter White August 03, 2012 at 09:22 PM
Oh, I'm sure you do.
Conceal Carry August 04, 2012 at 03:05 AM
Here, watch the video and tell me, would dialing 911 been a better option? Do you think the crack heads in the video were " responsible" gun owners? would an assault weapons ban prevented this? You want your right to choose and I want mine. I choose to protect myself and family. So when you find yourself in a life and death situation you can hold hands and sing Kumbaya, and see how that helps you... http://youtu.be/AK4h_7YZHWE

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »