The mid-west media is all abuzz with the possibility that this is the year that concealed carry legislation will pass through the Illinois legislature. Our sources tell us that one of the major obstacles to passage is on the cusp of capitulation. Hold on; that’s not the right word. Call it “realization.” The Illinois Police Chiefs Association is beginning to understand that they can no longer be a roadblock to an individual’s right to keep and bear (i.e. carry) arms. To create a conceal carry law that they can live with, the IL po-po must make their peace with the Second Amendment. Needless to say, Mayor Daley’s soldiers (a.k.a. high-ranked policemen) don’t see it that way. Testifying to the House Agriculture and Conservation Committee (of all things), Chicago Police Deputy Superintendent Steve Peterson showed us that he sees concealed carry through the eyes of a crazy man . . .

Chicago police Deputy Superintendent Steve Peterson argued against the legislation, saying its approval would make it more difficult for officers to identify the bad guys when they arrive on the scene of a crime.

If the bill to allow concealed weapons passes, “law enforcement personnel will be unable to react quickly and decisively because in the back of their mind they may think the person they confronted is carrying a weapon legally,” Peterson said. “At this time there is no such obstacle.”

I’m sorry. What? A Chicago cop can react quickly and decisively because he or she knows there are no legal concealed carry permit holders in The Windy City? Shouldn’t he or she be focusing on the possibility that the person that they’re “confronting” may have an illegal weapon, regardless of the law?

The picture painted by Peterson is not pretty. The top cop is saying that the Chicago police are afraid that legal concealed carry permit holders may shoot them. Why would they do that? Why would a legal concealed carry permit holder become a cop killer? And if they did, heaven forbid, what are the odds of that happening, compared to say, any other threat to the police, such as, I dunno, getting into a car crash?

I reckon Peterson’s saying (without saying it) that the ban on concealed carry in Chicago allows cops to “confront” honest-looking citizens without fear of getting shot. Protect our power to bully and intimidate? That’s nuts.

And what’s this about the cops not being able to ID bad guys when they arrive at the scene because someone might have a legal concealed weapon? What the F does that have to do with IDing the bad guys? Hint: the bad guys are the ones doing the bad things.

Hands up. I get it. Under the current system, only bad guys carry guns. Some might say that Peterson gained that insight by hanging out with the Chicago police, but I couldn’t possibly comment. Other than to say this: if armed self-defense is good enough for the police, it’s good enough for the tax-paying, law-abiding, crime-fearing people who sign their pay checks.

For decades, the Chicago police have been acting out the NRA’s dictum that the guys with the guns make the rules. For decades, they’ve been drunk on that power, power crazed, answerable only to themselves and their political pals. It’s time for the Chicago police to sober up and face the reality of their “real” role in a civilized society. Both the police and the populace will be better off with a more respectable, and respectful, police department.

Anyway, we hear that the bill’s getting hung up on . . . campus carry. More details to follow. But the situation’s fluid.

Recommended For You

23 Responses to Chicago Police Deputy Superintendent Steve Peterson is Insane

  1. Wow, the CZAR of the commie (I mean chicago) police dept. doesn’t want law abiding citizens to have guns. I don’t understand why you’re surprised, becauase that’s how commies operate. The majority of people in IL enjoy being treated like mindless puppets and that’s how they live thinking the cops will save their sorry asses.

  2. I do not know who your source is that tells you that CCW may come to Illinois this year, but please remember how wrong they were after the legislature finishes their session and no CCW for Illinois happens.

    Please do not get me wrong I would love for Illinois to have CCW but anyone who thinks it will happen this year needs to be tested, either for drugs or general lack of knowledge of Illinois politics.

    Here is hoping that I am wrong ( but I am not ).

    NukemJim

  3. His MO under the current law:
    If I arrive at a crime scene, and I see anyone with a handgun, they are, by definition a criminal and I can shoot them.

    They don’t have undercover or off-duty police in Chicago?

  4. Why doesn’t someone just ask him how often his theoretical problem with CCW legislation has happened in the other 48 states where CCW is the law of the land?

    Ohh, right… never.

    The most powerful weapon we have as Second Amendment proponents are facts derived from the massive amounts of data and incidents across the country. Data that tells us, time and time again, that CCW holders are overwhelming law abiding and a net benefit to society.

  5. “Data that tells us, time and time again, that CCW holders are overwhelming law abiding and a net benefit to society.”

    Well, not exactly. More accurately, the data is inconclusive because statistically, there are so few CC’ers. I will agree that so far, the data shows no significant threat from CC’ers. Here’s what concerns me: the qualifications and attitudes on display among CC’ers at TTAG and elsewhere. My chief hope is they never have to draw their weapons.

    I tend to balk a bit at assertions that gun enthusiasts are “overwhelmingly law-abiding citizens” and suchlike. Actually, most citizens are largely law-abiding and a net benefit to society whether they own firearms or not. We gun enthusiasts have a neat trick we do: all gun owners are law-abiding citizens like us, until they break the law with their firearms. Then we throw them into the other category and they become criminals.

    • While what you describe is indeed a logical fallacy, it is not the case here.

      The statistics that show CC holders are exceptionally law abiding are always computed (at least every time I have seen it done, I am sure someone has abused it somewhere though) by using the number of CC permits revoked. CC permits are always revoked because you broke the law. A felony is an immediate revocation everywhere I know of; as are violent misdemeanors, firearms related misdemeanors, predatory misdemeanors, and any misdemeanor where the firearm played any role at all.

      So even though on the surface this looks like a perfect case of “no true Scotsman”. By digging a little it turns out it actually isn’t. Since the very act of using CC permits revoked to derive the statistic focuses on the (now former) CC permit holders who have broken the law, you can’t make a case that the law breakers are excluded from the statistics even if they are now excluded from the group.

      If anything you have it completely backwards. Having a restraining order filed against you also can and usually does lead to revocation of your CC permit, even though you may not have broken any laws at all. These poor chaps make the statistic as well, thus actually skewing it more towards the CC holders are less law abiding side.

      • My state’s reporting method doesn’t support such conclusions, unfortunately, as is the case for a number of states, I expect. To be fair I will note that it doesn’t allow conclusions either way.

        I was speaking to a larger point: that 1) CC’ers represent a small fraction of the population at large, and 2) within the population of CC’ers, opportunities to legally use their weapons occur with incredible infrequency. (As we know, by far the great majority of CC’ers will never use their weapons for defense.) Thus the experience base will be infinitesimal, producing no statistical basis for regarding CC’ers using their weapons as a threat to the public safety.

        In regard to true Scotsmen, there may be no better example anywhere than the gun enthusiast community at large. Each year in the United States there are over 30,000 deaths and 200,000 injuries due to firearms. (In 2006 the fatalities broke down this way: suicide 16,883; homicide 12,791; accident 642; legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220) Now, what percentage of this carnage is attributable to responsible, conscientious, law-abiding gun owners? Why, zero, of course. They aren’t the responsible and law-abiding ones, obviously. Which reminds me of a funny but somewhat dark story… in the early ’80s when I was still a member, an NRA columnist appealed to his readers who might be contemplating suicide to please choose a method other than firearm, so as not reflect badly on the group. It’s a fact: you can’t make this stuff up.

        • “please choose a method other than firearm”

          Sound advice. For anyone contemplating the big sleep, I suggest combing your hair in the vicinity of a police officer. According to the reports, that’s pretty damn suicidal.

  6. Chicago cops wear the uniform so people can tell them apart from ordinary crooks. When it comes to Chicago cops in plainclothes, I can see Deppity Steve’s problem: how are the uni guys going to know whether they’re pumping a hundred rounds into ordinary crooks, who are fair game, or police crooks who have complete immunity? This is a real issue in Chicago, where the police crooks outnumber the ordinary crooks by 2:1. What I suggest is the the police issue special cell phones, PDAs and combs to all the ordinary crooks so that the Chicago PD will be able to shoot them on sight. Once all the ordinary crooks are dead, the police can get back to draining the city dry, which is their birthright.

  7. “Mayor Daley’s soldiers”

    They may still be [former] Mayor Daley’s soldiers, but Rahm “fuck the UAW” Emanuel is the current mayor. Hopefully he’ll be the spineless politician that he is, make like NWA, and say “fuck tha Po-lice”

  8. CCW in Illinois? Never going to happen. The current asshat in charge won the election by taking 3 counties. Three.

  9. I have to say that I have a friend in the states attorneys office that has told me on repeated occasions that the most of the cases that they lose are due to the police screw ups. The are not a bright bunch and they mess up often. BRING ME THE EVIDENCE AND FOLLOW THE LAW!! is what he says to them over and over. The truth about this law getting past is that it will curb crime. Look at the statistics in FL and other states for proof of that. Less crime less cops needed. That’s what this is about the FOP loosing members.

    • “BRING ME THE EVIDENCE AND FOLLOW THE LAW!!”

      In my experience as a lawyer, I’ve found that the police sometimes do the former and not often enough do the latter.

  10. I just said this in another post, the ruling elite have reached a point where they don’t even care how nonsensical they sound anymore. Their contemptuousness is absolutely breathtaking. They come up with some crazy talking point supporting their gun grabbing, throw it out there and call it good. I hope the people of Illinois do the right thing and stand up to these thugs.

    • “I hope the people of Illinois do the right thing and stand up to these thugs.”

      The people of Illinois ARE these thugs.

    • Yeah, I see what you’re saying Ralph. Am I being a Pollyanna hoping that there’s a silent majority of people in Chicago who want to see CC laws pass? Prob’ly.

      Even though I blast politicians and bureaucrats on a regular basis, I’m way too trusting of my fellow man to do the right thing.

      • John, I always enjoy your posts. All I can say is, your fellow man may very well do the right thing. But not everybody is your fellow man.

  11. ” Am I being a Pollyanna hoping that there’s a silent majority of people in Chicago who want to see CC laws pass? Prob’ly.”

    Unfortunetly, yes. The majority of people in Chicago are amazed that any state allows honest citizens to carry with the exception of Texas (probably Arizona now as well).

    NukemJim

    • My BFF is a New Yorker who is very pro-gun, loves to go shooting with me and still can’t believe that there’s something called “Constitutional carry” in four states.

  12. I do not share the rationale of Steve Peterson. I believe many CPD officers also disagree with his “personal opinion.”

    The honest, law abiding citizen with a gun has never been the problem.

    I support concealed carry in Illinois. Many police officers do also.

    Don’t drink the Koolaid or get caught in the rhetoric. Criminals with guns care not what the laws are. The only people hurt by concealed carry are the criminals themselves.

  13. I am glad to see Illinois finally getting a real shot at CCW. However, I understand that even if it passes both the house and senate, the uber – imbecile Quinn has vowed to veto it and I don’t think we have enough votes for an over – ride.

  14. Ya know, guys, I’ve worked in Chicago too many times to count. Virtually every time I’ve been there, I’ve carried, sometimes a small 9mm, but usually a .45, sometimes both. Never had a problem, even when some nice young man dressed like Huggy Bear off of Starsky & Hutch opened my car door at about 11:30 one evening on the loop, only to be introduced to Mr. Samual Colt’s great nephew by John Moses Browning. Really friendly fella after that. And he didn’t run screaming for a cop (although he DID run, screaming). Think he soiled his purple trousers, too. Once the adrenalin wore off, it was hilarious. Don’t plan to visit the People’s Democratic Republic in the future, but if I do, I’ll be armed, as usual.

  15. Interesting view. I think your absolutely Wright, I think that any citizen that is 21 or older and passes a background Ck and a conceal carry course should be able to carry a hand gun. I don’t live in Chicago but I live in NC where it is ok to carry concealed with a permit, as a matter of fact you can carry a unconcealed hand gun in this state with out a permit, other than the permit to purchase. If a cop is able to Cary that we should also.

Leave a Reply

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