Legal Issues

Chicago Pays the NRA… Again!

Police Making an Arrest

Living a stone’s throw outside of Chicago’s reach, I am continually barraged by Chi-town’s news and politics, but a recent story made living in a red state dominated a blue dot known as Cook County (normally pronounced ‘Kook County’) a bit more enjoyable. Well, that and the fact I live far enough away to enjoy a sufficient geographic buffer to shield me from Czar-like gun laws imposed on the citizens of Chicago (and massive violence that are a result).Tax Dollars And speaking Czar-like, Chicagoans get to pay an extra tax… actually it is not a tax, but rather a drain on the tax dollars that should be going to enhance worthy items such as Chicago’s education system and police force, but I digress. Whatever you choose to call it, the most recent blame can squarely be placed on Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the City of Chicago’s refusal to recognize Second Amendment rights. It is all really quite simple. A small minority (the legislators of Chicago) continually strive to stomp on the Second Amendment by enacting unconstitutionally restrictive laws against the free exercise, sale, ownership and enjoyment of firearms. Predictably, this raises the ire of free citizens who rally in opposition supported by freedom-loving organizations such as the NRA, SAF, NAGR and a host of others. As a result, the NRA and others file legal challenges—win—and the City of Chicago is ordered to pay their legal fees. Since the government has no money of its own, it all comes from the tax coffers.

Police Making an ArrestThe result? Chicago is rapidly approaching 1,000 shootings since the beginning of 2014. Independence Day weekend yielded something over 100. That is one sad result of unreasoned gun laws. A lack of understanding of the phrase, “Shall not be Infringed” has tallied another $1.5 million in reimbursements to the NRA—and that is only counting Benson v. City of Chicago ($940,000), the challenge to Chicago’s ban on gun sales within the city limits and the landmark ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago ($600,000). Imagine how many more of the tax payers dollars Chicago has wasted pushing the personal ideology of a few oligarchs? For those who may have missed the details, Benson v. City of Chicago was consolidated into Illinois Association of Firearm Retailers v. City of Chicago. That case challenged five aspects of Chicago’s law: (1) the ban on any form of carriage; (2) the ban on gun stores; (3) the ban on firing ranges; (4) the ban on self-defense in garages, porches, and yards; and (5) the ban on keeping more than one gun in an operable state.

While reveling in the NRA’s successful championing of the Second Amendment is always an afternoon well spent, please remember the NRA cannot continue the good fight by reimbursement alone. The NRA has a proven record of defending Second Amendment rights—yours and mine—for decades. Let’s all ensure it will be able to continue to do so by contributing to the coffers to secure Second Amendment freedoms for the future.

And if the citizens of Chicago do not enjoy the extra tax burden resulting from their elected leaders assault on the Second Amendment, elections are just around the corner. Just sayin’…

How do you feel about the City of Chicago being a leading ‘donor’ to the NRA? Share your thoughts in the comment section.

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (82)

  1. Serves them right for violating the Rights of Chicago citizens! Keep coughing it up Chicago, bunch of liberal retards!

  2. I don’t know how many people have taken the oath “protect the constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic” I did in 1966 and stand firm all amendments since 1776, 238 years have worked just fine. if it ain’t broke don’t fix it…

  3. I’m sure those you oppose would agree upon “preserving the Constitution at all costs”. Why not? They feel free to interpret it as a “living document”. Perhaps it isn’t just the Constitution that needs preservation. You need the social and philosophical context of the Framers to boot.

    1. It is indeed unfortunate that the “social and philosophical context of the Framers” has been ignored. They erroneously believed that their descendants would understand not only what they wrote but the intent of what they wrote in the reasonably short template that they left us to guide us in this new and wonderfully crafted republic that they birthed. Currently we have politicians that have no comprehension of their intent or desire to puzzle it out. Instead we are constricted by 20,000 page “laws” that attempt to replace the freedoms that our founders sought to give us as our inheritance with severe restrictions seeking to mold us into the “common folk” that they, as the descendants of the very elitists that the founders fled, want to force us be, to serve them as their vassals

  4. If we opt for liberty and strict limitations on government, We can fundamentally change that with any single future election. If We choose to grant overreaching power to government in exchange for unrealistic promises of greater security and share of loot taken from our more productive peers, only bloody revolution, massive destruction, and loss of countless lives can change that, and that struggle may fail. that’s not hyperbole, it’s fact. We must preserve the Constitution at all costs!
    (the newly minted coins omit “In God We Trust)

  5. Until citizens of Mass. open their liberal eyes and realize that the people they have voted into office are legislating them into second class citizens…nothing will change! I live in the unbelievable backwards state of Illinois and we have the same struggles here. Welfare loving, low information voters that want their freebies and are not willing to earn their keep, voting for the socialist democrats. But we cannot give up!

  6. I live in Massachusetts we already have some of the strictest weapons laws in the country and yet tomorrow the Senate will hear House Bill H.4278 which will grant discretionary provisions to local law enforcement plus a host of other conditions, anyone from Massachusetts contact your Senators and voice opposition, granting anything that violates our Second Amendment rights. (please)

  7. “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent, it is a force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
    George Washington

  8. Good question. Don’t know the answer though. I don’t remember the particulars of the legislation. It may have been a loophole like pistols firing rifle ammo.

  9. The United States is 3rd in Murders throughout the World. But if you take out Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, and New Orleans, the United States is 4th from the bottom for Murders. These 4 Cities also have the toughest Gun Control Laws in the United States. The fact that they are also all run by Democrats is not surprising. Their personal power agenda supersedes public safety, constitutional rights, common sense, historical facts, reality, etc. The murder rate is a small price to pay in order to get their agenda crammed through. Collateral damage is a cost they are willing for the citizens to pay after all they all have personal security guards armed to the teeth. In the last 100 years when the citizen’s guns were outlawed and confiscated it has resulted in over 90 million people being murdered by their own governments. I salute the efforts by the NRA to stand up and fight tyranny in every quarter. At least they are willing to fight not like the undocumented Democrats who cross dress as Republican leaders – (Boehner, McCain, McConnell, Cochran, Rove, etc. etc.)

    1. Your number for unarmed citizens murdered by their own government is quite low…
      From 1900-1999 it is estimated that 262+ million had died at the hands of their government.
      Refer to The University of Hawaii, Domocide
      Web Page.

    2. Actually, Detroit is slowly getting less bad, possibly due to the current police chief encouraging lawful citizens to get CPLs. Maybe there’s hope for Detroit after all. ( Especially with Kwame out of circulation. )

  10. I see you did not read Eliot’s Debates. You are completely mistaken. For example, When the Constitution begins “We the people…”, by your assumption of certitude, then it was the people who established a more perfect union. But the Constitution was ratified by 9 states, and not by national vote by the people. Do you know why the wording is inexact? If you had read Eliot’s, then you would know that Gouveneur Morris, the chairman of the Committee on Style had to deviate from Jefferson’s “We the States…” because no one knew which 9 of the 13 colonies would be the first to ratify the Constitution. It is in the committee’s report, as quoted in Eliot’s. Need more evidence? The 5th Amendment provides for takings for the public “use”,,,with just compensation. The Confederation maintained records of the various colonial courts, using the language of the day. It was common to use “use” and “welfare” interchangeably in that context. Eliot’s records no discussion by anyone to differentiate the word “use” from the commonly used “welfare”. I suggest you read what was actually said during the writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, along with the state ratification debates instead of relying on wishful thinking.

  11. I only wish the anti-gun folks had a grasp of history and see what happened when Gun Registration happened in pre-WW2 in Europe, Adolf Hitler went in and confiscated their weapons and over ran the countries without resistance.. “keep a eye on the present regime they are dismantling the Constitution one Amendment at a time.”

    1. They only conveniently ‘remember’ historical events when that event fits into their agenda. Selective memory …..

    2. Oh, they DO know this, especially the anti-gun politicians. It’s what they WANT. It’s all about the power. Especially in Chicago it could not be more clear. You look around at 49 other states and see they have laws the opposite of you and experience much less violent crime rates, you have the statistics available to you whenever you want and you STILL will not entertain the fact that you’re wrong? In fact, anytime anyone event attempts to discuss the facts, they are demonized, ridiculed and characterized with statements like, “you must want children to be shot if you against this”.

      It’s not about public safety. If it was, it’s safer everywhere the laws are the opposite of Chicago. So adopt those. No, that would interfere with their plan for total police state control. It’s always been about the control.

      Armed people cannot be made slaves. It’s really no more complicated than that.

  12. Start making those people who are voting for the implementation of these unconstitutional laws out of their own pocket. All it takes is the ruling by the judge.

    1. @ Ken: Excellent advice – maybe a personal fee imposed upon the individual legislator(s) for each piece of failed legislation they attempt or a dollar per letter typed. The number of ridiculous bills would come to a screeching halt and save taxpayers millions of wasted dollars by reducing the costs associated with the cumbersome legislative process on nonsense bills.

      Ideally it would make legislators think very hard before submitting feel-good kneejerk bills that are really only about entertaining the whims of their constituencies.

      I once made the same recommendations in another CTD article regarding legislators’ failed passage of last year’s attempt at expanded background checks. However, my focus was more towards all the individual state legislators that later jumped in with their own ridiculous bills in an attempt to compensate for the loss in Congress, or simply to make a name for themselves. In any event, we saw how that backfired for a couple of Colorado legislators. So, great idea Ken. Take care.

  13. Joe: Thanks for your input. I was a law enforcement officer and was obviously concerned about the Handgun AP ammo. I quit the NRA offer the issue. Thanks again.

  14. “How do you feel about the City of Chicago being a leading ‘donor’ to the NRA? Share your thoughts in the comment section.”

    They deserve it; no pity from Texas. You get what you vote for.

  15. I only take issue with the statement that Chicago tax money used to compensate NRA’s court costs should have instead gone to Chicago’s schools. Chicago already has one of the highest-paid teacher districts (competes with New Jersey for that title), but one of the worst-performing academic systems in the country. Just as Chicago proves that gun bans don’t cut crime, Chicago proves that spending more money on education does not automatically produce better education.

    1. Here are the figures on that. Chicago spends nearly $23,000 per year per student (TWICE the national average), and obtains a 40% drop out rate. Its teachers are paid $77,000+ per year, also among the nation’s highest.

      Chicago is doing many things backwards.

    2. Richard, I agree with your comment: Chicago is not the only city that can be used to show that just because more money is thrown at a school system that it will necissarily improve the quality of education. Sadly, the infrastructure du jour guarantees that students don’t have to work for grades, or that there are penalties for dropping out of school. Indeed, there are “rewards,” in that they can join the welfare ranks and, although they might not become what we generally term as “rich,” they won’t be “poor” either.

  16. I really wish I could be a gun owner and sign up for CTD emails without getting bullshit conservative news updates in the process. I see no reason to celebrate the loss of taxpayer dollars to go to more lobbyists at the NRA. Now….for the conservative backlash….

    1. @ Eric: Isn’t America great… that you can voice your opinion no matter how ignorant or offensive you sound? You’ve got to love freedom.

      I have to say you come off as the classic liberal elitist cliché that we’ve all come to laugh at. We would expect nothing less from a lib such as you to think you are somehow entitled to subscribe to emails from a company founded on conservative principles, and then actually get upset when they send emails that reflect those values. Oh the nerve of Cheaper Than Dirt staff, right!

      I know liberals think the answer is to moan, bitch, and show utter lack of tolerance in spite of the hypocrisy you all preach, but were you to have an ounce of intelligence, you would be able to find the “unsubscribe” button that is provided at the bottom of every CTD email. Problem solved.

      Better yet, instead take your gun buying dollars to a liberal gun store… oh wait, there aren’t any. Oh well.

      And why do you cast this article as “conservative news”? Oh that’s right; if it’s factual it must be “conservative” because we all know liberal outlets skip or spin the real news stories. Thanks for noticing.

      But the epitome of your narrow minded drivel is displayed when you express how far off you are from being able to comprehend the point of this article. Sadly the liberal mind construes any written content to be subject to their own personal interpretational whims, while a conservative mind actually comprehends the intended focus of written words.

      Only a liberal would see a “celebration” here. A conservative sees the unnecessary tragedy caused by the stupidity and waste perpetrated by a liberal class of oligarchy that created a totalitarian set of laws in strict violation of the U.S. Constitution. Even a fool should have seen this would never stand up in court; but not the liberals… hence the stupidity and waste.

      I know you libs think money grows on trees, but the reality is that it cost the NRA to litigate this. The money they won in court only paid back their expenses lost, so in reality the NRA gained nothing. As for the case itself, all the NRA did was restore the law back to what it was before injudicious liberal councilmen imposed its unjust rule upon the people of Chicago.

      I am truly sorry your liberal mindset renders you incapable of properly understanding the intended content of this article. To a degree I can accept why such ineptitude forces you to lash out in frustration. That’s what meds and lobotomies are for, but until then, there are more mature ways to handle such situations.

    2. @G-Man
      Sir, i applaud the accuracy of your response. my only wish is that i was somehow able to contrive to reach the level of expression that you have with masterful eloquence attained. My hat is off to you. If you do not mind, i would love to copy your response and use it to refute some of my co-workers inane and nonsensical views on gun control and overall liberalism. only with your permission of course sir……

    3. @ Darren: You may indeed copy my response. Please do so with the widest distribution possible. Feel free to alter it any way you see fit and as often as you like if it helps you make your specific point to some of these degenerates.

      I also wish to thank you, as well as Nam Marine for taking the time to write such kind words of acknowledgement. Clearly your intellect allows you to comprehend and appreciate the heart and wisdom of my words. I only wished I could say the same for liberals.

    4. You sign up for e-mails from CTD, then bitch about getting conservative news???

      Hang yourself. Quickly.

    5. Eric, it’s people like you who provide more evidence that people should be licensed to vote. I agree with you: you hate conservative news because you hate the truth. Listen to the outrageous things that Obama and his corrupt crowd are knee-deep in at this time on FOX news (if you dare) and you might change your opinion….or… can continue to be soaked in the biased liberal nonsense that continues to be spewed by the national mainstream media. Sadly, your comment is a mere reflection of that of the voting public at large who wouldn’t know how to spell “Benghazi” if they had to.

      Just what is it about these scandals that you don’t understand: (VA, the border, the millions of dollars we have given to the terror group Hamas, the IRS’ illegal targeting of conservative groups, the NSA, Lois Lerner’s destruction of IRS hard drives and emails, Eric Holder’s refusal to produce tell-tale documents re Fast & Furious, our sending fighter planes and millions of dollars to Egypt’s Muslim-Brotherhood, and on and on and on.

      These are not just conservative outrages: they affect every American citizen, yet you blame conservatives for having the balls to take the perpetrators (who are payed by us) to the carpet?

      I had been so disgusted by the excesses and corruption in our federal government and the lack of action by Republican leaders that I joined the Tea Party. Here is their platform. I would be interested in your telling me just what part of that platform with which you disagree.

      While you are at it, put together a list of reasons why your Great Leader Obama should remain in office, while his wife continues to dictate school luncheon menus that waste our taxpayer dollars. Go ahead: give it your best shot.

    6. Eric, this news is not Conservative. It is “Center” at best.
      The center appears right from where you stand on the left.

  17. I’m tired of being asked, or the statement, “why do you need an automatic, ‘asult rifle’, etc.” I have yet to here the masses complain, or file law suits again the guys/gals who go out and buy 100-200 mph cars. Because there is no legal streets in America that’s going to let you drive that fast. But yet their answers are always the same as the gun guys/gals. Because I wanted one. I think there fun. But yet there are more wrecks causing deaths, than guns. More drunk drivers given 2 or 3 and even more than that to stop killing/hurting people. Bottom line is real simple, it’s about control, power and who can scare the other to submit to those powers. Stop blaiming the guns, start locking up the people who mis-used them, much like the vehicles. Treat Rifle laws, like the pistol laws. Backgrounds, better transfer laws, etc. have laws that hate teeth, not like the drinking laws, DUI, DWI laws kill more people than shootings.

  18. Ban water….too many drownings, Ban cars, Ban boating, Ban lightning…………………………………………………….

  19. @ Osito: Actually anyone may yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. There may or may not be consequences, but I can assure you the First Amendment will have no bearing on such consequences regardless.

    You set out to school Larry on some issues yet it appears you could do with some additional education of your own.

    The First Amendment does not apply to the public; it applies to the governments of this country and simply states that no government body shall infringe on the right to make speech that is intended to redress this government over grievances [paraphrased].

    The First Amendment says nothing about, nor has control over speech between non-government-private-personal entities throughout the public sector. So yelling “Fire!” would never even involve the First Amendment. Granted it may violate a local ordinance, but again, I can assure you the consequential outcome, if any, would vary from place to place.

    You also went so far as to state that the, “Framers did NOT consider ‘rights’ [to be] absolute”, and then refer to Jonathan Elliot’s compilation of historical documents as if they somehow settle an issue. These documents continue to remain nothing more than a reference to subject matter of great debates that will continue well beyond our lifetime. The continual Supreme Court split decisions serve as evidence to this.

    But God or no God, there is no question the right to self-preservation is unquestionably absolute. That inherent right is not bestowed, bequeathed, nor revocable by any word of man. It is an unalienable right we are endowed with from birth without regard to religion. Such a right is inseparable from us as human beings

    I submit it is you that as fallen prey to such ignorance by lending credence to such ludicrous thoughts whilst searching for a way to cater to such depraved ideology in debate.

    Larry’s attitude is pure, simple, and steady. He, as we all, should stay the course – yet should our attempts at diplomatic debate ultimately fail, there is always force… I say let the better man win.

    1. Some governmental agency recently said, “Everybody wants constitutional rights, except when they annoy others.” Or words to that effect.

  20. Reference CTD Scotts article on debunking myths. Is there any truth to the story that went around sometime in the 80’s about the NRA fighting legislation that would ban the selling or possession of armor piercing bullets by civilians.

    1. Few people even know what “armor piercing” even means. The Federal law enforcement (LE) definition is a bullet for use in a handgun that is made of a hard material, either in its entirety or encased in a softer material (lead). It specifically excludes rifle rounds. (there is a grey area for some cartridges that can be used for both rifles and handguns).

      The military definition is entirely different. AP in military terms means piercing military style armor, such as on military vehicles. AP (MIL) is defined by the level of armor it can penetrate (light, medium, heavy). MIL AP is generally thought of as rifle and artillery rounds. People confuse LE with MIL. They are different definitions.

      The only purpose of an AP (LE) ban is to make it more difficult for the average street fighter to use a handgun to go through soft body armor (Level II or III-A). It only addresses that specific scenario: Handgun, shooting police wearing soft armor.

      Ordinary rifle bullets easily pierce III-A armor (or does not dissipate the energy sufficiently, causing blunt trauma), hence there is no point in banning armor piercing bullets from rifles from a LE standpoint, since they already pierce the armor the law is trying to protect.

      The flaw in the law is that it presumes there is no other use for handgun AP except for a bad guy to shoot police wearing soft body armor. If a target is a vehicle, equipment, a building, or behind an interior wall or two, then a handgun with AP might be useful. But again, if that is the target, just use a rifle and one can stay legal.

      I will point out that the Feds do NOT ban rifle AP (careful of the grey area), but some states do. One would specifically want enhanced rifle bullets (green or black tip) if one’s target is an engine block or a brick wall.

      The irony is that some states’ push to ban lead bullets will move to the use to steel bullets, which could be considered AP. There is a conflict of laws brewing.

    2. Where does 5.7mm fall? A handgun round that will penetrate body armor, but isn’t armor piercing.

  21. Larry, I can see the argument you trying to make, and for the most part, I agree. You have a major problem in presentation. I could comment upon almost every subject you discussed, but I will only address two to make my point.

    First, when you ask “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?”, you reveal to the OTHER side that you are ignorant of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If you would study something as simple as the discussions of the Constitutional Convention (look up Eliot’s Debates in the Library of Congress), you would know the Framers did NOT consider “rights” absolute. Logically, their understanding of rights in the light of law comes from Common Law, which in turn is based on Judeo-Christian Natural Law. Cutting to the chase, The “right” of free speech has limits. You can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. You can’t libel someone, etc. There are always reasonable restrictions on almost all God-given rights. When you reference the question regarding “infringement'< you are giving the other side permission to dismiss you on the basis of ignorance. Sorry, but that's the truth.

    Second, you refer to God in arguing with a group whose worldview is based on the dubious philosophical school of Secular Humanism. I can't take the time to teach a whole course, so just let me point out that many Secular Humanists believe in God. The three major traits that define Secular Humanism are somewhat technical as the philosophical definitions of such traits as "secularism" and "individualisn" are different than the common meanings. Let's just say that whether a Secular Humanist professes belief in God, or Gaia, or Allah, or not, a Secular Humanist believes in Man as the Superior authority. The result is that Secular Humanist feel naturally entitled to decide for themselves the intent of any previous document. That is, they feel entitled to redefine any wording in the Constitution and Bill of Rights to suit what they consider proper in the contemporary world. As a result, your argument appears as pure ignorance on your part. While you and I know that isn't true, we can't simply continuing an argument along the lines you wrote. Instead, you need to show them that Secular Humanism is blinding their reason…making THEM stupid. It isn't hard to do.

    Your heart is in the right place, and I think your instincts are generally sound. If you are going to debate the subject, you need more information and different presentation. As it is, you just gave a great speech to the choir.

    1. Osito,

      ” Logically, their understanding of rights in the light of law comes from Common Law, which in turn is based on Judeo-Christian Natural Law. Cutting to the chase, The “right” of free speech has limits. You can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. You can’t libel someone, etc. There are always reasonable restrictions on almost all God-given rights. When you reference the question regarding “infringement’< you are giving the other side permission to dismiss you on the basis of ignorance. Sorry, but that's the truth."

      Sorry, you can't jumble everything in the Constitution together and mix-n-match the words and terms.

      No place in the 1st amendment is 'shall not be infringed' found, the founding fathers knew there were some limits there.

      However, 'shall not be infringed' is found in the 2nd amendment. Those wise men who wrote the constitution knew that the absolute 'right of the people to keep and bear arms' was so important that any 'infringement' on that right would jeopardize the very freedom the nation was founded on.

      While many parts of the US Constitution were based on British common law, it was written for a free people, in such a way to assure they could never be ruled over as subjects.

  22. What does the Chicago political machine care about having to pay out money just because they lost some lawsuits? It’s not THEIR money, right? Unfortunately for the far-left wonks controlling that city, the founding fathers specifically wrote the constitution in order to hopefully make their form of “government” illegal. That is why they are desperate to have the document declared “old-fashioned” and “out-of-date” and to drum up a “constitutional convention” to rewrite it to make THEIR form of government easier to implement by removing those portions of the constitution that attempt to thwart their desires. In the meantime, they act as if their utopia were already a done deal and proceed as if it was, hoping that there will not be found someone smart enough to oppose their perfidy. Hurrah for the NRA!!!

  23. My name is Mark, also, so don’t confuse me with the person above.
    I grew up in the north suburbs of Chicago, 28 years, before moving to California for health reasons.

    At any rate, hunted, fished, and camped all over the Midwest. I firmly believe that Rahm Emanuel is more dangerous than his puppet in the White House. Seeing whe he has done to”The City That Works” and his constitutional abuses, actually make me glad to only suffer California’s screwed up laws.

    I know I waited too long, but just joined the NRA last year. I own 13 legally registered firearms, but have purchased 9 of them since BHA was manipulated into the Presidency. I’m scared about the absolute lack of any reasoning in politics, on any party’s agenda.

    Please tell me where can I find America again?

  24. I know that even some gun owners may not agree with me when I make the following statement. What part of “shall not infringe”, do you not understand. Every gun law , be it federal, state, county, or city infringe on the American citizen. I have intently studied American history.

    Today, we will find our members coming home from war being stripped of the right to own any firearm because of PTSD. There is something sinister about that. The reason I say sinister is because multitudes of soldiers from previous wars have never been disarmed when they returned. But some will say, these soldiers should not have a firearm because they have PTSD. Having been to war, Vietnam, I can not agree. Those that have experienced war and even the general populace, have heard the term “shell shock”. I contend, both terms are both the same. How many can say they have ever heard of a veteran that has come back to the states and shot up their neighborhood? So why are they being disarmed.

    I hear mental illness being used all of the time. Yes indeed, the ACLU in fact did maneuver the forced the release of people from mental institutions, and in some cases, the closure of institutions. So now we find ourselves daily walking around with the mentally ill. Since we are surrounded by these people, just haw many are killing people?

    What we really need to understand, our problem is not anything that is discussed today. What needs to be talked about and find a way to restore it is MORALITY. Just think about that for a moment. Without morality, people have no ratter to steer their lives. So, no longer is life important. Whether it be the unborn, the infant adult or the elderly. What we have today is a facture of society. People have a “you owe ne ” attitude.

    I know, I know, some are really not going to like what I say next. In the 1960s, something occurred that has devastated our nation. It was during that time, the US Supreme Court rule to take God out of our schools and eventually off of main street. When that occurred, the progresses have used that as their mantra, look where that has led us.

  25. Supply-side gun control has never worked and never will. As long as there is criminal demand for weapons fuled by organized crime’s need to expand and protect criminal enterprises, traditional gun control will not work. Criminal demand for firearms is fairly inelastic. Criminals are innovative and will find new ways of acquiring the tools needed to maintain their illicit empires.

  26. Mark, with your very poor grammar I can tell that you are not interested in learning what facts are or what truth is. If you are in fact a member of the NRA there is plenty of fact based information and truth around for you to make comments about but please try not to regurgitate the lies and false information of the Bloombergers and the other KOOKs that are out there. As said by the others here already the NRA is supporting and defending the Second amendment not trying to change it. The mental health industry and the ACLU are the ones that block at every turn the ability of the government to keep track of the mentally ill. They do this because there is no law against being mentally ill, nor should there be. We all have rights in this great country and it is because of these rights that so many foreigners want to come here to live. Common sense is not so common when it comes to someone deciding what you should be able to own or do. Some states don’t require helmets for motorcyclists some do. Living free is a precious commodity in this world. We have more laws against violence than you can shake a stick at but we still have violence in our society. I am by no means suggesting anarchy, laws are necessary, but laws against things don’t do any body any good. The violence in England is so bad that there was a move afoot to ban pointed knives so they could cut down on stabbings. I do not know the out come of that movement, but I know there was a design that was promoted where a knife would not have a point. In the USA according to the FBI crime stats there were about twice as many homicides by personal weapons than by the millions of rifles (so called Assault rifles included) in the country. Personal weapons are defined as hands, fists, feet, etc. So let’s show a little common sense and go after the PEOPLE who commit crimes because I have never seen or heard of a gun committing a crime. It has always been the person holding the gun that has been charged and prosecuted not the gun.

  27. Red state? I was born in Danville and worked as a state employee until I retired in 2008. Then I moved to a real red state…..Florida. I’ve paid my dues and I can say that Illinois is a blue state from the Wisconsin line to Cairo.

  28. @ Mark: First off the NRA did not pick you; you have to pick and choose to join them. You make it sound as if the NRA is some elected representative that has let you down. They are a private organization – so if you don’t agree with their mission statement, then by all means distance yourself from them. It’s a free country (for now) and there are plenty of other pro-gun organizations you can join. Or better yet, form your own.

    You use the word “agenda” as if it means something dirty. Of course the NRA has an “agenda” and they are very transparent about it. There is nothing dirty about fighting to uphold our Second Amendment rights. And last I checked, lobbying Congress was still legal.

    Your comments on mental health issues were really off base. For years the laws have been in place and a system has already been devised for reporting the adjudicated mentally defectives for background checks. So for your information the NRA does push to have the existing laws and system enforced because no one seems to utilize them properly.

    Regardless, the NRA continues to be ignored on this point while the Obama administration refuses to enforce the current laws because he needs them to appear failed so he can ram through his National database gun registry cloaked in the name of so-called “expanded back ground checks”.

    And for you to say the majority of NRA members support expanded background checks shows how uninformed you really are, or that you are extremely gullible to believe the lies invented by the Obama administration. The administration put that lie out based on a manipulated poll and the NRA has gone on the record as saying there is not a shred of truth to it.

    It is madness to keep piling on additional laws when no one enforces the ones we have. Example: There are laws in place to prevent murder which includes the death penalty as a parting gift. From that point forward there is no point in gun-control laws because the anti-murder law should just about cover it; wouldn’t you think?

    We needn’t worry about whether a gun, knife, or bat was used because that anti-murder law automatically covers every possible way one could commit murder. Still yet, murders continue to occur in spite of the laws. So let’s make ourselves feel better by adding a new law that simply says, “No really we mean it… do not commit murder or we really-really will execute you and that would really-really suck for you.” Murders would still occur.

    So where should the “common sense” you speak of actually be applied – in more cumbersome laws that just erode the rights of law abiding citizens, or should they instead apply it towards effectively enforcing the laws we already have on the books?

  29. I am pro second amendment, but that still does not mean we do not need “common sense” gun control laws and enforcement of laws in this country. Chicago is not an example of common sense gun control laws, but the NRA/gun industry lobby are hardly unbiased advocates of my gun rights. Both sides have an agenda. Gun control advocates want to have the state be the possessor and arbiter of guns; the gun lobby is beholden to profit margin protection for the gun and ammo industry. At the end of the day I do not see either as putting what is best for me first. What is considered best for me is a secondary consequence of their agendas. It is clear that mentally ill people getting guns and shooting up the country is being exploited by both sides to forward their agendas. The gun control advocates will not miss an opportunity to strip my rights every time there is a publicized shooting. You see it is all those assault weapons out there! The NRA and the gun lobby do a lot to defend gun rights, but what is there answer to the problem? We need more guns out there! If every body is armed we are safe. The United States is the most heavily armed nation in world history. The problem is the bad and the good guys are heavily armed! I do not need to make the gun and ammo industry any richer. Drugs and gangs account to over 50% of all shooting in this country if not more. If the NRA cares about my long term rights than they need to take some of those politicians they own in Washington and push to enforce mental illness identification laws in the screening process. I am talking about people that are diagnosed with a true mental illness by a psychiatrist. Social deficiency syndromes should also be included. This alone would have most likely prevented a number of these high profile shootings that are fueling the gun control agenda. Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Aurora, are just a few situations where it was well known that the shooter had a mental illness or a social deficiency that could have been detected. Prevention always beats cure. I am not saying that expanded back ground checks work because they would have minimal effect, but I find it interesting that the majority of NRA members support this and have been ignored.

    1. “Gun control advocates want to have the state be the possessor and arbiter of guns; the gun lobby is beholden to profit margin protection for the gun and ammo industry.”

      I have heard this argument before. The NRA was originally formed to teach children about the safe handling of guns. It has never been a dupe for gun manufacturers and is not “beholden to profit margin protection.”
      Where did you come up with this idea? Do you have evidence to support your claim?

      “If the NRA cares about my long term rights than they need to take some of those politicians they own in Washington and push to enforce mental illness screening process.” The NRA doesn’t “own” politicians in Washington, such as you suggest. (If they did, law-abiding gun owners would have nothing to worry about). The NRA has a lobby there, but they do not “own” anyone in Washington.

      It is not the job of the NRA to “push to enforce mental illness screening processes.” If you had been knowledgeable about mental illness, you would know that the ACLU took care of enforced hospitalization of the mentally ill. The mentally ill can be put on an enforced “hold” for a limited time only, and only if they show that they are a threat to themselves or others. Once they are deemed “normal” by a psychiatrist, they must be released by law, and many (if not most) of these so-called mentally ill people can manipulate and fool the best of psychiatrists. Psychiatry and Psychology are not exact sciences and never will be; as such, there is no guaranteed way to diagnose whether or not some nutcase will go out and complete another Sandy Hook spree.

      Furthermore, there is NO way for the NRA or any other entity to diagnose mental illness that would result in a mentally ill person’s using a firearm to commit mass murders. If there were, there would be no more mass murders attributable to the mentally ill because they would be locked up permanently.

      Finally, you say that “Prevention always beats cure. I am not saying that expanded back ground checks work because they would have minimal effect, but I find it interesting that the majority of NRA members support this and have been ignored.”

      Where did you get this information? I am a life member of the NRA and have never been queried as to “expanded background checks” that are any more “expanded” than they are right now Furthermore, I have not run across any NRA information that mentions anything about support by a “majority” of NRA members for expanded checks. ….and “ignored?” By whom?

      It would have been helpful if you had made a statement that was limited to one or two sentences, then provided some evidence to back up your statement. Instead, you have a huge paragraph of diatribe that jumps from one thing to the next. We already have “common sense” laws in the country, BTW, and (at least in California) there is legislation brewing in Sacramento that has nothing to do with “common sense,” such as micro-etching of ammunition and firearms, gun registration, and a whole host of laws that do nothing to punish criminals and gang members.

    2. Smitty,

      Mark may be a troll from the anti-gun side. Anyone can claim they own a gun…anybody that talks about increasing background checks, has never bought a pistol or rifle from a legal, FFL holder.

      If they want to strip us of the right to “Keep and bare arms” they need to pass an amendment to the US Constitution to do so.

      I say, good luck with that!


    3. I bare my arms only in the summer. I bear arms 12 months a year. Just sayin’ . . . . Mark may be a troll, but he may also be an ally who because of his circumstances and environment has reason to fear that if other methods of challenging firearms ownership fails, the gun-grabbers will turn to the refuge of “there are too many nuts with guns”. We can’t afford to alienate potenetial allies because they are less fervid in their view than we are.

    4. The NRA was formed in 1871 by religious leaders to ensure that former slaves had the right to carry a gun like white people because laws were being made to disbar them the use of firearms for self defense in the face of overwhelming violence from the KKK.

      Anything else you say about it is a lie and does not jive with the actual history of it that you can look up in 1 minute.

    5. Smitty,

      Mark’s comment regarding NRA members is almost a direct quote from the President. I”ve heard him say it till I could puke. It must be true! (Snark Off)

    6. Where do you get the idea that the majority of NRA members support expanded back ground checks? Nothing could be further from the truth.
      Suspect you are part of Bloomberg’s merry band of liars and kooks.

    7. I am pro first amendment, but that still does not mean we do not need “common sense” restrictions on free speech. [end sarcasm] I know it sounds silly, even though the PC crowd would agree with it.

      [begin serious] If you argue for changing the Constitution through any means other than Article V, you are an insurrectionist and have abdicated any Constitutional Rights, since you don’t want them for others. [end serious]

    8. “The United States is the most heavily armed nation in world history. The problem is the bad and the good guys are heavily armed!” Did you think about this when you wrote it? Well, please think about it now. What do you want the reader to take away from this? Using a somewhat imperfect form of logic, I suppose your point is that the U.S., being” the most heavily armed nation in history” (not true, btw) Is responsible for both the good guys and bad guys being heavily armed. I looked at the examples of other countries (say, Mexico) who have restrictive gun laws. Invariably, the “bad guys” out gun the “good guys”, and the level of violence rises. Your statement is illogical on so many levels. No wonder many posters think you are a gun control shill. That is the exact type of logic those advocates exercise.

      Nearly twenty years ago, experts from over 40 countries, over a 5-tear period) participated in a study to determine the cause of violence in developed societies. The most violent? Scotland – not known as a bastion of gun ownership rights. Where did the U.S. rank? 17th. But, perhaps the most revealing information came when these experts tried to determine the reasons for societal violence. They ranked the top 20 contributing factors. At the top of the list was indigenous conflict due the mixture of citizens. Countries like England who have a very diverse population in terms of ethnicity, and have no yet achieved integration, consistently ranked high on the violence scale. The U.S., in addition to our integration-without-assimilation problems, was noted as have a very public divide between the philosophies of the differing parties. This was the major factor in the U.S. being ranked 17th (about midway in the pack of countries studied). Of the 20 most violence-inducing factors, gun availability didn’t even make the cut.

      I’m sorry, but your apparent “logic” is completely flawed in so many regards. There are several studies that show that more guns do indeed lead to less violence. Have you noticed that New York and Chicago have significantly higher rates of violence than Kennesaw, Georgia or Plano, Texas?

    9. I believe in “Common Sense Gun Control, Mark.” Hold the gun in both hands and concentrate on the front sight. Works every time.

  30. Good for the gun rights advocates. The leaders of city of Chicago should pull their heads out and learn the definition of “shall not infringe” before they act. The people of Chicago should vote the fools out of office.

    1. Tank, no one will be voted out of office; there are too many idiots who depend on handouts who voted them into office in the first place, and too few people who believe in personal responsibility who at one time would have had far more political sway than they now have.

      America is on a downhill course as a world power, and we will end up as did Rome, thanks to policies and legislation passed by those in our state and fed governments who want to destroy our sovereignty, either knowingly or unknowingly.

  31. Nobody totally gets it… so I will just say it: Many of us pro-gun advocates are naive because we essentially believe that they, the anti-gun politicians, actually believe gun control is the answer to the woes of crime. The truth is they no more believe it than we do.

    Instead, they need Gun control as their excuse for their failed policies. Chicago’s recent expenses of $1.5 million are of no real concern to them. It is but a mere fee they pay to keep up the great façade showing they somehow tried. But they wouldn’t know what to do if they ever actually won, because they don’t really want the win.

    They want to remain the victim and loser in this fight; they need to be the victim and loser in this fight – otherwise they’d have no one else to blame for their failed socio-economic design engineering failures.

    Granted there is an entirely separate vein of politician with desires and a design towards a totalitarian state, of which, success depends upon the complete disarmament of all citizenry. But that is another topic entirely.

    In the meantime the real truth lay in the knowledge that they depend on the NRA as badly as we do. They need the NRA to be well funded and appear to be this mighty brute of a bully so they can play up the NRA’s overwhelming power as an excuse for their own incompetence and weaknesses all while soliciting funds for the ultimate cause.

    We see the same scams applied through other political fairy tales such as the deceitful continued need for Affirmative Action Programs. And while there are true believers within these groups, make no mistake it is the political power brokers that spin the fairy tales for others to fall for, believe in, and provide undying support. All while something much more sinister is at hand.

  32. It’s sad that the liberal, progressive Democrat ideology is sweeping this once great nation into oblivion. How many millions have made the ultimate sacrifice defending the Constitution of the United States. The bad apples…ie… Chicago, New York, Connecticut, Colorado, California, The White House…etc. are destroying the very essence of a free society for the sake of the “Almighty Buck”. The “Welfare State” that exists today had a fairly noble beginning with the social security act, but greed intervened. Now because virtually every state is dependent on government hand outs, those states that are most dependant will do whatever the government wants them to do to keep that money coming in, which is to say, the government’s agenda is now their’s. That being grind our Constitution into the ground. Our (at least for now) “Bill of Right” is definitely in harm’s way unless “FREEDOM LOVING”, “GOD FEARING” Patriots put the government’s agenda where it belongs…

  33. Mess with the bull and sooner or later you get the horns.
    I’m Christian, husband (44 yrs), father, grandfather, Republican. Veteran, CCW since 1979, reloader since 1974 (54 calibers), NRA Life Member, bullet caster, hunter since 10, 1st gun (410) at 11 and dissatisfied since Reagan.

    We have seen a steady decline in our rights an general good sense since before I graduated in1970. In our school I took several guns in to VO AG ( with prior permission), EVERY boy carried a knife from 10 years old (even to school, it was allowed), student parking had trucks (unlocked & windows down) with gun racks with a 22 rifle and either a shotgun or 30-30 (depending on what was in season) unless it was a 3 gun rack, then it had all three.

    EVERYONE worked (required to prove you were a man), mom raised kids and nothing was open on Sunday (we had “Blue Laws”) to keep it that way.

    It can’t be that way again but it can get better. We simply have to get rid of the current government that displease us. Change from Electoral College to Popular vote: one man one vote. Tort reform. It’s time for us to take a stand. Who is not voting? If you don’t vote, shut up and quit running off at the mouth. Who voted? 62.2% (2008), 57.5% (2012).

    Its bankruptcy, economic collapse or worse in the future or fix it. It’s time to bite the bullet and do the right thing. Obama (he hasn’t earned the title) will have to be outlived but we still have a chance. Either way a change will come. If the government collapses, we, the armed and prepared will have to gather the remains and start over. Actually not a bad ideal. No work no eat. I read that somewhere.

    1. Mickey, I DO vote! I vote in every election, primary or not. The problem is that I live in California, so who am I going to vote out of office: Boxer, Pelosi, Feinstein? These liberals are firmly entrenched because there are so many people on welfare who depend on their liberal politicians’ passing laws to ensure the free handouts.

      The state legislature is top-heavy with far-left politicians who continue to author new legislation geared to erasing gun ownership or the ability to use a gun by limiting ammunition, by gun registration or by microstamping ammo and/or firearms, etc. They are ALL Democrats who are in districts other than mine. There is no way I can fight them because they don’t listen to anyone outside their districts since they are not dependent on people like me who can’t vote them out of office.

    2. Mickey – The worst thing we could do at this point iis to do away with the Electoral College. We would get the nationwide equivalent of California or Illionis (controlled completely by Chicago). Amuch better step would be repeal of the direct election of Senators.

    3. A better way is TERM LIMITS! I was in law enforcement for over 20 years, and believe me, no one is going to mess around your house if they know a gun lives there!

  34. While watching the late news Monday night, they were talking about the shootings and killings in Chicago over the holiday weekend. As usual, the gist of the story was more about gun control and the guns being the problem, not the criminals. I turned to my wife and said, “If that were true our own town streets should be awash in blood!” But, they aren’t! We live in a rural town in northeastern CT with a population of just over 4300. By my best guess, at least 50% of the households in town own at least one gun, and the gun owners I know personally each have many more than that. The only gun violence we have is occasional illegal hunting, or perhaps a suicide once every few years. No violent crime involving a firearm against another person has occurred in the almost 10 years I have lived in town. We also don’t have a town police force, we rely solely on the 6 CT State Police troopers in the area at any given time. All bets are off if there is bad weather, trouble at UConn, or the prisons. I can attest to that fact from personal experience! So why is crime so low here with all the guns in private hands and so few police? I’ll tell you why…..because the criminal element that lives close enough to be a problem knows they will quickly assume room temperature with many holes in them if they come to MY town to do their deeds.

  35. Writing as a long ago resident of Chicago, thank God!! We just had about 80+ shootings in Chicago this past Fourth of July weekend, 80++++!!! 99.9% of these I`m sure occurred in the Humboldt Park area, the West Side of Chicago or the South Side. These areas are usually the ones that are drug and gang infested…not too many legal FOID Card carrying shooters I`m sure, in other words these shootings were committed by criminals. So it begs to be asked why would the first response of the Chief of Police McCarthy and his boss Rahm Emmanuel be to talk about supposed “soft gun-control laws”? When Chicago and Cook County have some of the most draconian in the nation. Innocent law abiding citizens are being forced to live in a war zone, because the democrats think that making it tough on them is going to curb the violence?!? Can someone please explain to me without hurting their brains in the process how this supposedly will work?

    1. I wish I had an answer, John, but I would suggest that you direct your question to McCarthy and Emmanuel. I wouldn’t count on getting any good answers, though. If I were mayor, I would push strongly for laws that add ten years to any gang banger’s prison sentence just for being a gang member, and another 20 years for using a gun in a crime. When citizens scream loudly enough, things get done.

      I read an article somewhere a couple of years ago. It described the feeling of criminals who were incarcerated in prisons. It was found that criminals love anti-gun laws since those laws applied only to law-abiding citizens. Evidently Rahm Emmanuel just loves gangsters.

  36. You’re exactly right, change the mindset. A sad situation, developed and perpetuated by a backward bunch of damned people.

  37. Chicago needs to dive deeper to the root of the problem. It’s not the guns that are killing people.

    In those parts of Chicago, there’s no jobs, not even flipping burgers. Very few seek jobs outside of their community, and the only way to make money is to hustle.(petty crimes, drug dealing, etc.)

    IF you could take all of the guns from the inner city of Chicago, then shootings would stop, but not the violence. They would just change tools.

    You have to change the mindset first.

    1. …and the economic infrastructure that favors business must be changed first to allow for job creation. When unions have so much influence on politicians’ votes, and when the business climate is stifled, there will be more kids on street corners with nothing to do, and who will they turn to?


  38. Chicago and Detroit are perfect examples of the nanny state. Both are being destroyed by government control. They became reliant on government funds, and supported by those who wanted to keep power.

    They will both crumble because of lack of opportunity for their citizens and will run out of people who can pay taxes.

    1. Detroit has been ruined big-time by government control, but more directly by the unions that were in bed with the politicians….all at the expense of those citizens who had to pay the taxes to support both the unions and the city officials.

      Chicago and Crook…er…Cook County has always been known as a hotbed of corruption, but when you have politicians whose re-election depends on majority of citizens who continue to bilk the taxpayers for food stamps, free dental and medical care, rent subsidies and other freebies that are nothing more than a transfer of wealth from those who bust their arses to those who don’t, it’s time to move out and let the place decay on its own.

      California, Oregon and Washington (add Colorado) are headed in the same direction, and they will get what they deserve unless voters step up to the plate and vote out incumbent corrupt politicians who determine our ultimate fate via their social engineering. Sadly, voters don’t get the real “dirt” because the national news media keep their mouths shut.

    2. Too late for Kalifornia. Oregn is more than just Portland, though all the Kalifornians retiring here bring their pestilence with them. Washington I don’t know enough about to say.

  39. Chiraq is what parts of the Windy City are being called. It’s a lot of gang violence, illegal activities and retribution that fuel the shootings. It is a farce that Illinois, specially Chicago, have some of the toughest gun laws and most shootings. Most recently a newly licensed responsibly armed citizen protected his life and those with him when an incident prompted an individual, drunk, to open fire on this group. The citizen returned fire, two shots, and the aggressor was charged wit attempted murder. The laws are tough if you are caught with a gun and if you are legal in IN, WI, IA, or MO, you better not get pulled over in Chicago carrying.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Discover more from The Shooter's Log

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading