Tag Archives: ILLINOIS

Video: Arrogant Illinois State Senator Proposes Confiscating Guns

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

An Illinois State Rifle Association member asked a simple question and got a threatening answer… READ MORE

julie morrison

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

SEE THE VIDEO HERE

Anti-gun lawmakers, including some of those vying for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, are becoming increasingly open about their desire to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens and jail those who don’t comply. Perhaps taking a cue from their strident federal allies, this trend has trickled down to state politicians.

On June 11, anti-gun Illinois state lawmakers Sen. Julie Morrison and Rep. Bob Morgan held a “townhall” meeting in Deerfield, Ill. The NRA state affiliate, the Illinois State Rifle Association, encouraged members to attend the meeting and ask Morrison about her sponsorship of SB107.

The bill would have branded many modern semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic handguns, and shotguns commonly owned by law-abiding citizens as “assault weapons” and banned them along with spare parts and accessories. The legislation permitted current owners to continue to possess these firearms if the owner registered the firearm with the state and paid a $25 fee for each gun.

At the “townhall,” a constituent confronted Morrison about her bill, asking why it was acceptable for the lawmaker to push legislation that would take firearms away from law-abiding citizens unless they registered their guns and paid a fine. The exchange was captured on video by an ISRA supporter.

After pointing out the punitive nature of the legislation, the gun rights supporter asked Morrison, “If I get to keep it if I pay a fine and register it, how dangerous is it in the first place and why do you need to ban it at all? Why do you need to try to ban my semi-automatic firearms?

With a repellant smugness that can only be appreciated by watching the video, Morrison offered her constituents a flippant response. Literally looking down her nose at those gathered, the state senator replied, “Well you’ve just maybe changed my mind. Maybe we won’t have a fine at all. Maybe it’ll just be confiscation and we won’t have to worry about paying a fine.”

Astute gun rights supporters have long-understood that the ultimate goal of anti-gun politicians is to confiscate firearms from law-abiding gun owners. What sets Morrison’s conduct apart is that it is an almost perfect encapsulation of the contempt gun control supporters have for their fellow citizens. Gun rights supporters and all those who value personal freedom should share this video in order to show others the arrogant indifference with which these lawmakers treat their constituents’ constitutional rights.

 

Researchers Credit Right to Carry Law With Reduction in Chicago Property Crimes

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Less crime due to criminals weighing gains against the possibility of an armed victim? Sounds like the argument that gun-rights supporters have been making for a long time. READ IT ALL

governor quinn

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

In July 2013, the Illinois legislature overrode the veto of then-Governor Patrick Quinn to eliminate the state’s status as the last holdout in refusing to issue concealed-carry permits. In moving from “no-issue” to “shall issue,” law-abiding citizens of the Land of Lincoln were finally able to enjoy the Second Amendment rights affirmed in D.C. v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago, and Moore v. Madigan. Yet, even while benefitting from armed protection at the expense of taxpayers, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel maintained that “gun control is essential,” and that the new concealed carry law would result in an increase in crime.

Recently, two researchers disproved at least some of Emanuel’s prognostications and added to the growing body of evidence that allowing citizens the right to defend themselves with guns outside their homes can lead to a decrease in crime (see, e.g., here, here, here, and here for examples). Publishing in Applied Economics Letters, Srikant Devaraj and Pankaj Patel (from Ball State University and Villanova University, respectively) used neighborhood-level crime reports from Chicago and Philadelphia during the period January 2006 to December 2015. Their goal was to ascertain the effect of the Illinois concealed carry law on property crimes in Chicago, with the Philadelphia data serving as a “control” comparison over the same term. (Philly was selected because of its similar population density, demographic characteristics, and property crime levels, and because Pennsylvania also is a shall-issue state.)

Using a variation of regression analysis (i.e., zero-inflated negative binomial regression, appropriate when data are counts of an event, occurrence, etc., and having high/frequent occurrence of zeros as values), Devaraj and Patel assessed property crime rates as a function of the availability of permits in Illinois, examining rates prior to the introduction of shall-issue and at three points following the law’s enactment: 0-6 months, 6-12 months, and 1 year or later. Other, potentially important variables for which the researchers controlled were the number of violent crimes; overall time trend; economic recession; whether a crime was reported on the first day of the year or first day of the month (to account for artifacts in record-keeping); and, the city in which the crime was reported.

“The results show[ed] that after the implementation of the ‘shall issue’ CCW law in Chicago, property crimes decreased,” and the reduction continued across all three time intervals. The authors offered several potential explanations for Chicago’s decrease in property crime, not least of which is that concealed carry “may influence the opportunity cost for committing … crimes, as criminals may weigh gains … against higher risk (with the possibility of a victim carrying a firearm)” (Devaraj and Patel, 2018, p. 1128, emphasis added).