With gun rights come responsibilities

Opinion: Columns

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Print

By Ray Heise

Many of the statements contained in Ray Simpson's Oct. 23 Viewpoints letter [Gun owners just want to be left alone] require a response in the same public forum in which they were made. First, he added "Rest in Peace" to the Gun Rights and Responsibilities Group (GRRG) of which both he and I are members. To my knowledge, it is not dead.

The GRRG is a group of concerned citizens composed of 8-10 members on each side of the gun issue, who have been meeting (I thought, until reading Ray's letter) in an effort to find common ground on ways to combat gun violence in our country. We have been meeting for the last 10 months and — not for lack of effort — have not been able to achieve consensus on major issues like universal background checks and limiting ammunition clips to 10 or fewer rounds, although we have had some success in the areas of gun safety training and the safe home storage of weapons.

We adjourned our last meeting with the gun rights side of GRRG indicating that it would attempt, by mid- November, to produce a universal background check proposal based on the use of the FOID Card. If no proposal is forthcoming by mid-November, the GRRG meetings will, sadly, conclude with no agreement on the major issues of universal background checks and limiting magazine capacity. Until that time, I choose to remain hopeful that this divergent group of citizens will do what our elected officials in Washington and Springfield have been unable to do: reach agreement on universal background checks and magazine capacity.

Ray says gun owners "just want to be left alone" and that gun owners participated in the GRRG meetings "only to protect our Second Amendment rights." He also makes the observation that "the problem [of gun violence] exists mostly outside our community."

All these statements conjure up the same basic response: "With rights come responsibilities."

I like Ray Simpson a lot, but I can't let him assert that "not one member of this committee wants a mentally ill person to have access to a firearm" and "none of us wants felons, gangbangers, or drug dealers to have guns of any description," and in the next breath throw up his hands and deny any possibility of a gun regulation solution to these problems simply because he believes that gun violence problems stem from "politically explosive issues like welfare, poverty, race, education, political corruption, destruction of family values and on and on." Or that the solution to these gun violence problems should be found by addressing these societal issues to the exclusion of reasonable gun regulation.

If Ray Simpson's logic were employed whenever a new amendment to the Illinois Criminal Code was considered, much of the code would never have been adopted because leadership would have been otherwise consumed rooting out the societal wrongs that caused yesterday's victims of society's ills to become today's offenders.

We do not have the luxury of being able to untangle society's underlying problems every time we must address a specific problem.

More importantly, gun rights advocates cannot avoid every effort to address gun violence through gun regulation simply because such regulation might cause them the minor inconvenience of waiting a day or two longer to purchase a gun.

With rights come responsibilities.

In his letter, Ray attempts to write off all efforts to regulate the sale of weapons to prevent them from falling into the hands of criminals, the mentally ill and minors (aka "universal background checks") and to prohibit the manufacture and sale of ammunition clips capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition (except for the police and military) as "dreaming up endless regulations to place controls on the legitimate, reasonable, non-violent gun owner."

The two pieces of legislation proposed by the Gun Responsibilities half of the GRRG, are universal background checks and a prohibition against the future manufacture, sale and ownership of ammunition clips capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. To the contrary, these proposals are far from "dreamed up." They are designed to have a direct impact on the types of gun violence we are now seeing. They are also not endless. Rather, they are limited in both scope and number. They are also the same proposed pieces of legislation supported by 85% of the American public and 60% of NRA members in a nationwide poll conducted just a few months ago.

The Gun Responsibilities side of the GRRG, through the clear and concise writing of Ken Trainor, prepared for and distributed to the Gun Rights side, of which Ray Simpson was a member the last time I looked, is a well-reasoned position statement on these issues and others, which I assume will see the light of day in these pages at the conclusion of the GRRG process.

Ray also makes the argument that additional gun regulations would only serve to place more "controls on the legitimate, reasonable, non-violent gun owner" while "a lawless, less civilized group of citizens is not one bit concerned about any law, rule, ordinance or regulation we might concoct." Clearly, every law that is enacted in the U.S. is generally written to be adhered to by all its citizens. I suppose, using Ray Simpson's logic, one could make the argument that laws against murder and rape have a disproportionate impact on law-abiding citizens because they will obey the law while the murderers and rapists will ignore the law and continue to rape and murder. Can anyone seriously consider such a specious and absurd argument as a reason not to enact laws against murder and rape? I think not. It's also not a good reason to not enact universal background checks that prohibit the purchase of weapons by criminals, the mentally ill and minors.

Ray does propose one gun regulation solution to the gun violence problems mentioned above. He asks, "Why haven't we attempted to develop draconian restrictions on the violent, irrational people who possess and use guns outside the law?" He suggests that we haven't done it "because its hard." I would submit that what is really hard is the enactment of legislation that not only addresses a specific problem like gun violence, but also respects our individual constitutional rights in the process — that is, the rights that we all have, even those who stand accused. The Second Amendment is now an individual constitutional right. Let's not forget about every citizen's right to equal protection under the law.

I agree with Ray that our current gun laws need to be aggressively enforced. Every member of the Gun Responsibilities side of the GRRG agrees with him on that point. The problem is that without a universal background check system in place to close the loopholes through which criminals, the mentally ill and minors can legally obtain guns in the first place, the aggressive prosecution of existing illegal gun possession laws alone will not make a dent in the problem.

Only by having effective laws in place to close the loopholes for legally obtaining guns in the first place can the aggressive prosecution of existing gun possession laws make a difference. In other words, you can't keep a leaking boat from filling with water only by continuously bailing it out. At some point, you have to fix the leaks too.

Universal background checks and magazine capacity limitations are the kind of straightforward gun regulations that can have an impact on gun violence in our country. We just need to possess the will, as a people, to have these laws enacted. That begins with accepting a fundamental proposition: With rights come responsibilities.

Ray Heise is the former Oak Park village attorney.

Reader Comments

55 Comments - Add Your Comment

Comment Policy

jason nelson from gower  

Posted: February 20th, 2014 2:36 PM

guns dont kill people, people kill people now what is hunting going to be eligal

patriot 86 from foley  

Posted: January 12th, 2014 3:18 PM

thomas in greenville i agree 100 percent.I too have no problem with background checks in theory and i think if we all knew it would stop there most of us would be ok with them.The problem is that our govt is a bunch of lying bastards and as soon as they got this part through it would be on to the next phase .universal background checks will ultimately lead to gun registration and the public knows it which is why they are fought so hard against by the NRA and other gun rights groups.

Nathaniel Cumer  

Posted: December 15th, 2013 8:41 AM

I agree with this a lot it makes sense. We need cool heads and great thinkers on our side like our founding fathers. People want to change things that they made, we shouldn't. What they made still works today. People say those things were for then not now, we need to modernize them. We shouldn't but we need a solution, someone needs to find one without violating the Second Amendment.

Bill Doogan  

Posted: November 24th, 2013 4:41 PM

IL will never have fair gun laws until the rubes realize that treason is their enemy, not city hall. Dishonest lobbyists like Vandermyde benefit from passing bad bills. Why would Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham at NRA/ILA pay someone like Vandermyde, whose former boss was convicted by the US Attorney? http://www.fbi.gov/chicago/press-releases/2010/cg101410.htm Because bad gun bills create lawsuits & money for NRA. Otis McDonald & the hicks at IGOLD are cannon fodder to be used.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: November 23rd, 2013 9:47 AM

The intent of my original letter was to point out that 97+% of gun owners are responsible, law abiding citizens who never knowingly break any of the 20,000 + laws, ordinances or regulations created by people who fail to admit the real problem. The idea that we resist rules and regulations is just not true! The instant we step on a range, or take ownership of a firearm, we are bound by strict and enforced regulations that are necessary to participate in a dangerous activity. My argument was and is that if you want to impact gun related violence - do the HARD thing and go after the bad people who are the root cause. Make gun violence the problem rather than gun ownership and then redirect your effort toward that objective. If both sides of this dispute would join forces to demand severe, punitive punishment for those bad people who harm others we might see some progress. Leaving the good guys alone costs nothing and going after the bad guys is a noble objective. That should have been our target objective.

Bill Doogan  

Posted: November 21st, 2013 3:41 PM

Since NRA contract lobbyist Todd Vandermyde cut a deal w/the Chiefs of Police to include Duty to Inform in Phelps CCW bill, the antis should just work with Vandermyde to figure out additional ways gun owners can be betrayed, so he can have job security and create more lawsuits for NRA. It will be hard to recruit black plaintiffs from Chicago since Vandermyde created a hunting license with DTI as an arrestable offense. But Phelps and the hicks in Southern IL don't care about that.

Henry from Oak Park  

Posted: November 14th, 2013 5:34 PM

and ff you're comfortable making guns as unavailable as dynamite, I think we're on the same page! And, yes, exactly my point ?" if driving drunk and fireworks are dangerous enough that nobody is allowed to do them, why aren't guns on the same list? Most drunk drivers get home safely and fireworks users don't hurt anyone, but we still outlaw them, for excellent reasons. So just because most gun owners never hurt a soul doesn't work for me...

Henry from Oak Park  

Posted: November 14th, 2013 5:32 PM

Brian, thanks? I was resp to "Oh" who bought a gun b/c they felt unsafe at home, saying everyone feeling unsafe might get a gun, and I'm thinking that might not be the greatest idea. I know the Supreme Court's current position on the 2nd Amendment, funny how often the Supremes have changed positions over the years. My point was that our current laws say "guns for everyone unless?" and I'm suggesting that they might instead say "guns for nobody except...". A different starting point.

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: November 14th, 2013 4:19 PM

Henry, sentence 1,people feel unsafe in their home because the police r under no obligation to protect a citizen. #1 no one wants everyone to own a gun. Sentence #2 the Supreme court said no to this. Sentence #3 I have no idea what this means. Sentence #4 dynamite is regulated by the governmnet, much like firearms owners r regulated w/a FOID card.#5everyone is not entitled to own a gun, fireworks and DUI r crimes

Henry from Oak Park  

Posted: November 14th, 2013 3:19 PM

Yeah, still not seeing why some people feel unsafe in their homes might justify allowing anyone and everyone to own a gun? Aren't guns so obviously dangerous that they ought to be banned except in exceptional circumstances? Rather than banned only in exceptional circumstances? If we can't let just anyone have dynamite or explosives? If we can't let just anyone have fireworks or drive drunk, why can everybody have a gun?

Pete Flanagan  

Posted: November 10th, 2013 6:59 AM

Ray, gun owners should NEVER sit down with the grabbers to discuss anything. It only spins in their favor as they will claim that "reasonable" gun owners are looking for a common ground on regulation. The only way to interact with the gun grabbers is to beat them down just like a game of Whack-a-Mole.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: November 9th, 2013 8:12 PM

@ Pete F - We negotiated NOTHING! We listened courteously, pointed out that most everything they wanted was already a part of existing law and we asked what "skin they have in the game?" At the end of the day they offered nothing but demands and concessions. If we don't stand up to the grabbers - they will win. It is sort of like the defeated army sniveling about not being allowed to write the terms of surrender.

Pete Flanagan from Downers Grove  

Posted: November 8th, 2013 6:03 AM

Ray, ghost writing on the gun grabbers' part would not be surprising. It has been my experience that supporters of gun control are bitter, hateful people with very wiggly moral compasses. They cannot be reasoned with which is why I think that you gun guys that engaged the grabbers in this "dialong' were just wasting your time. You guys in Oak Park would be better off spending more time at the range and less time negotiating your rights away.

Christian Sadler  

Posted: November 7th, 2013 4:46 PM

oops I guess Trainer was wrong (Simpson's comment)

Christian Sadler from Indio, California  

Posted: November 7th, 2013 4:42 PM

Did Heise say that criminals will follow laws (the part with a rapist and a murderer) because I got lost at the end of the paragraph ,but if he did I believe he would be wrong because criminals never follow laws that is why criminals are called criminals

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: November 6th, 2013 9:02 AM

Why do I suspect that this "hit piece" was written by Ken Trainer and published under Ray Heise's name. To this point our effort has avoided personalities and finger pointing in the press. Now we are seeing the typical progressive tactic of attacking people to gain silence. If Ray Heise wrote this letter I apologize - If Ken Trainor wrote it - shame on the Wednesday Journal for allowing shabby journalistic ethics !

Oh Henry!  

Posted: November 5th, 2013 2:23 PM

Henry, the first gun I got brought no pleasure at all to me. I had it because of fear. We had no money to move, still don't, and people in my building kept getting robbed in our parking lot. I was nervous around it and afraid until I learned how to use it..from there the "pleasure" is more like any other when you update your electronics or get convenient amenities that make life easier. They aren't toys but you do need to "toy" around with them to get their functionality.

Henry from Oak Park  

Posted: November 5th, 2013 2:03 PM

I've never quite understood the pleasure of owning and using guns?

Pete Flanagan  

Posted: November 3rd, 2013 3:17 PM

Ray, that's not going to happen in a society where the "Progressives" encourage young people to exact revenge against anyone who has more than they have through rape, robbery, murder, taxation, and social/political isolation.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: November 3rd, 2013 8:05 AM

@Pete - The solution to that problem is to teach youngsters that the result of armed violence is swift , certain and punitive punishment. For every gang banger you put away let a pot smoker go free.

Pete Flanagan  

Posted: November 3rd, 2013 7:28 AM

Ray, you misunderstood my point. The grabbers believe that firearms are the source of all ills and that taking firearms out of the equation will cure those ills. My point is that killers want to kill - like to kill - and taking guns from them will not change the fact that they are killers. I don't relish the idea of sharing the streets with people whose propensity to kill is tempered only by the unavailability of the tool to do so.

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: November 2nd, 2013 10:51 PM

@Pete F - I take issue with your claim that there would be a whole lot of people wanting to kill someone. I have fired tens of thousands of rounds over ten years, not one in anger. Do I have the skill to defend my self and my family - yes! Could I use lethal force if necessary? I think so, but, how do you know? I hope that I never find out. The desire to defend home and family prompts many to arm themselves and have little or no training - I worry about that. If you have a reason to carry concealed legally you have had the training and the legal limits of lethal action. The rules are narrow and strict.

Pete Flanagan  

Posted: November 2nd, 2013 6:19 PM

The real problem is that there are a whole lot of people out there itching to kill fellow human beings. If the gun-grabbers are successful in eliminating guns from society, we'll wind up with a situation where there are a whole lot of folks saying, "...if only I had a gun I'd kill somebody." Would that really make our streets any safer?

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: November 1st, 2013 2:22 PM

News: Man charged with DUI after crash that kills Pontiac Police Officer and his Police Dog.Please, for the sake of the children let us ban cars and alcohol.

John Butch Murtagh from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: November 1st, 2013 2:11 PM

News - LAPD: Several People Shot at LAX; Suspect Reportedly in Custody [1 P.M. ET] 11-1-13

Ray Simpson from Oak Park  

Posted: November 1st, 2013 12:11 PM

@ Ray Heise - You imply that I am against any and all firearms regulation which is just not true. Gun owners are one of the most regulated legal activity participation groups in our country. Not only are there the rules and laws you suspect exist but every shooting range and club has their own safety rules as well as those safety guidelines that we all self enforce to remain safe. We know all to well that there are dangers in our chosen activities. While not afraid of guns, we use caution that is required when handling firearms and respect the bad things that can result when dumb things happen. You keep harping on the "expanded background check" but never tell us what it is expanding from and to what - not to mention how it can be implemented and then enforced. We have a background check with the FOID card and the Federal form 4473 that happens at every purchase through a FFL dealer - that works and I see nothing you can practically do to improve it's function. Magazine capacity is a issue that has little or no impact on gang wars or mass murders. I am not a lawyer but know that your statement about loopholes that allow prohibited gun possession people obtaining firearms legally is just not true. A felon who possesses a gun is breaking the law as is a Mentally ill person - there is no legal loophole that makes their purchase legal. My letter of last week is my speaking for myself alone and do not claim any authority to speak for others.

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: November 1st, 2013 8:04 AM

@ Pete Flanagan: Oh, how I wish you would have attended some of our meetings.

Third Power  

Posted: October 31st, 2013 10:18 PM

@JBM: Sorry that to you, 'fair play' means 'why won't you cousin humping rednecks just let us ban guns already'. The author of this post made us ridiculous strawmen arguments to defend his unsupported and nonsensical proposals, one of which we already have and the other of which is unenforceable. Yelling 'for the children' over and over doesn't help it become any more valid.

Pete Flanagan  

Posted: October 31st, 2013 7:04 PM

Suppose for a moment that the gun-grabbers get their way and magazines are limited by law to 10 rounds. Suppose further that there is a rash of shootings using legal 10-round magazines. Will the gun-grabbers defend their 10-round limit or will they call for further reductions in magazine capacity?

Pete Flanagan  

Posted: October 31st, 2013 7:00 PM

Let's say that the gun-haters get their wish and magazine capacity is limted to 10 rounds. Let's say further that a nut goes into a school with a "legal" 10-round magazine and shoots 10 kids. What will the gun-haters have to say to the parents of the 10th kid shot?

Roger Jackson Patel  

Posted: October 31st, 2013 5:48 PM

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson

moonf  

Posted: October 31st, 2013 4:35 PM

Here's the thing: The violence is caused by Gangs. Does not matter what race they are...that is were this happens. Gangs are made of lots of kids...Kids tend to hang around parks, lots, schools, etc. Your argument should not be against guns it should be against gangs. Do you go around blaming cars for drunks who drive? Do not more people ever single day of every year lose more in $, property and Life than guns? Work on the real issues and leave our rights alone.

rj  

Posted: October 31st, 2013 4:27 PM

Want to save the children- get rid of gun free zones, gather up the thugs & throw away the key & deal with the mentally ill. Time for the lefties to take responsibility in solving the real problems created as a result of liberalism - that would be fair play in the real world of common sense. But that would require you to admit that all that you believe is so very wrong.

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: October 31st, 2013 4:14 PM

@JBM: I don't know what you were thinking. However, we have stats that show how many children were gunned down in schools as compared to how many children drown, drown in five gallon buckets get killed riding their bikes if you want them.

John Butch Murtagh from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: October 31st, 2013 2:38 PM

Wow, I thought that we were trying to save the lives of children who are gunned down in schools!

F. Hayek from Winnetka  

Posted: October 31st, 2013 1:16 PM

Ray, Your logic about the leeching boat is spot on. However, the true leaking boat is the lack of enforcement of our laws. If you start punishing, really punishing those using guns in an illegal manner, you will get results. The politicians and those in the judicial branch lack the will and strength to face the pain associated with enforcing our laws. Stop trying to punish the responsible gun owner and punish those operating outside of the law.

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: October 31st, 2013 12:50 PM

@JBM: first off, Dave Schweig, called for and organized the discussion group, inviting Ray Heise into his home for discussion. at the last meeting I proposed a law that if any person used a large capacity magazine to commit a crime, the person should be jailed for life. the other side wanted consider options. as far as fair play is concerned, the majority of Oak Park residents, the elected village board and village employees worked to violate the federal civil rights of the minority..

John Butch Murtagh from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: October 31st, 2013 12:10 PM

I felt that Ken Trainor organizing an Oak Park conversation on guns was noble and am happy that people like Ray Heise joined the effort. Unfortunately, from reviewing the Wednesday Journal Comments, it is clear that someone from the pro-gun side of GRRG has chosen to invited agitators to disrupt the conversation. Posters from Thatcher Woods, South Elgin and Glenview are consistently pro-gun and never post on any other subjects. The gun advocates have a huge passion for the 2nd Amendment, and total ignorance of Fair Play.

OPReader from Oak Park  

Posted: October 31st, 2013 12:01 PM

Ray, Get over it. Your side lost. We now have state preemption on all things handgun, in part because you and your side had to push too far with your handgun bans. Gun owners should thank you for your work that helped launch McDonald. You gambled. You lost. this group seems like a desperate attempt for relevancy.

New 2 OP  

Posted: October 31st, 2013 11:32 AM

What gets me is the position of ignorance from which he argues. Mr. Heise, if you have a FOID card, then a background check is already conducted on you about 300 times a year. What additional "background checks" are you looking for?

dennis parmenter  

Posted: October 31st, 2013 11:07 AM

Mr. Heise, The 2nd Amendment has always been an individual right and every law abiding citizen does have equal protection under the law. That citizen can by a gun or not. Its called "FREE CHOICE". I side with Mr. Simpson.

Tom  

Posted: October 30th, 2013 11:04 PM

Same ole, same ole. Liberal progressive democrats are all about big government, control, and infringements on your liberties UNTIL it affects them. NOTE: Our Founding Fathers would have been shooting by now.

Pete Flanagan  

Posted: October 30th, 2013 9:22 PM

Sorry Dwyer, non-sequitur on your part. I just wish you gun grabbers would show more courage of conviction. Why can't you gun grabbers just admit that you hate guns and the people that own them? Why can't you just admit that this endeavor, like every other gun control scheme, has the sole purpose of banning and confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens?

Bill Dwyer  

Posted: October 30th, 2013 8:51 PM

Gee, thanks Pete Flanagan, for your quick work dismissing Ray Heise's detailed argument on carefully regulating lethal weapons. So, Pete, at the risk of further sexualizing this topic, I know the firearm was invented by the Chinese around 700 years ago. Tell us all, when exactly was the penis invented?

Pete Flanagan  

Posted: October 30th, 2013 6:35 PM

It troubles me greatly when gun controllers like Heise put a sexual spin on gun ownership. Nonetheless, if we pattern Heise's rape law analogy after popular gun control proposals, we have to wonder how Heise woudl like registering his penis, limiting the size of his penis, microstamping his testicles, limiting him to one erection per month, and keeping his penis locked in a safe at night. After all...if it prevents just one rape, it's worth it.

Third Power  

Posted: October 30th, 2013 6:21 PM

So how are you going to enforce the 'future' ban on magazines (not clips) that hold more than 10 rnds? Are you going to ban their current ownership? You can say 'responsibility' and 'common sense' all you want but all you really want are bans on guns.

Wolf from Thatcher Woods  

Posted: October 30th, 2013 6:15 PM

Too many people, not enough resources. The economy is failing, crumbling before our eyes. Sorry folks, many of you live in a fantasy world. A safe haven, blinded by the omnious reality that will take place. I will not be a sheeple. I will be a wolf. The heard will be thinned out. Regardless of laws, a man has the right to protect himself/family from harms way. If not, theres no point in living, at all.

no gun nut  

Posted: October 30th, 2013 5:53 PM

To restrict the legal possession of firearms for law abiding citizens in an effort to make sure criminals have less guns to steal from others is ridiculous. The burden and the punishment is on citizen to change not the criminal. How does that stop straw buying from out of state? How does it stop freight train burglaries? As a cop you would not believe the hurdles I need to jump through to buy a gun that will be used to protect you in my official capacity. That stops a criminal just how?

no gun nut  

Posted: October 30th, 2013 5:48 PM

The analogy of Ray Simpson's "logic" was so out of context it's not funny. There isn't an ID card that allows one person to murder someone and another person not to. There are several laws already detailing criminal possession of firearms. Those laws threaten felony charges and time behind bars yet there is no shortage of people breaking these laws. I have yet to hear a "gun nut" against background checks either. The real problem is we are trying to control human behavior with legislation.

Patrick from South Elgin  

Posted: October 30th, 2013 1:58 PM

The FOID Act was originally pushed by Mayor Richard J Daley after the 1968 race riots in CA. When Daley saw members of the Black Panthers walking down California's street openly carrying shotguns and rifles, he want to make sure "Dem People" (meaning Blacks) couldn't legally own firearms in IL. FOID applications submitted by Whites were passed while those submitted by Blacks were summarily denied. To this day, the FOID application asks for race as: Black, White, Other - in that order.

joe from south oak park  

Posted: October 30th, 2013 10:24 AM

another issue is that a lot of folks on the control side see someone owning a firearm in the same light that they see smoking. They consider both a risk to the owner and others and want to make ownership so onerous that it is difficult if not impossible to acquire a firearm legally. Really this is about slowly regulating firearms to the point that they are practically illegal everywhere.

Thomas from Glenview  

Posted: October 30th, 2013 9:34 AM

Stealing a gun is already illegal. Do we need a new law? Straw purchases are already illegal. Do we need another law saying the same? Rather than create new laws which will hinder the otherwise law abiding and well intentioned citizen, why not focus on enforcing the existing laws and jailing the criminals who are breaking existing laws?

Thomas from Glenview  

Posted: October 30th, 2013 9:33 AM

Criminals will always have guns. Criminals and even some mentally ill intent on harm will steal guns or buy stolen guns or get straw purchases. Back ground checks will not stop the vast majority of criminals from getting their hands on guns. Last I checked there are already laws preventing the bad people from owning or possessing firearms, but those laws are seldom enforced. So why new laws? Why not enforce the laws already on the books?

Thomas from Glenview  

Posted: October 30th, 2013 9:33 AM

I too have no problem with back ground checks in theory, but they seldom stop criminals from getting their hands on guns. The problem with back ground checks is they can be abused by the anti's, and in the case of FOID can turn make the otherwise law abiding into accidental criminals. Oh sure a few people who should be blocked are blocked by back ground checks, but that doesn't stop criminals from trying to get a gun. Nothing happens to these felons even though they are breaking federal law

Tom  

Posted: October 30th, 2013 8:46 AM

With Rights come Responsibilities ... So a woman has a right to do with her body, reproduction wise, as she sees fit. Have an abortion or see the pregnancy thru birth. THEREFORE she has the Responsibility to pay for the result of her choice! NO government (taxpayer) funded abortions! NO government (taxpayer) funded WIC programs. NO government (taxpayer) funded food stamps, housing, etc., etc. RIGHT? She should be responsible! They are after all her rights.

Find a garage sale near you!

In search of local garage sales? Find out what sales are happening near you on our map and listing page.

Quick Links

Sign-up to get the latest news updates for Oak Park and River Forest.


            
SubscribeClassifieds
Photo storeContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor

Latest Comments