BREAKING: Chicago Police Arrest Concealed Carry Permit Holder

(courtesy suntimes.com)

“A 54-year-old Northwest Side man who allegedly pulled a gun during a property dispute is the first concealed carry permit holder arrested in Chicago,” suntimes.com reports. “William P. O’Connell, of the 7200 block of North Oleander Avenue, lost his permit as a result of the arrest, said a spokeswoman for the Illinois State Police.” Interesting that the cops have no compunction about naming and shaming Mr. O’Connell but delay identifying police officers involved in shootings. Anyway, the news it just out but the deal went down on the 23rd. Like this . . .

O’Connell was involved in a quarrel over rent money with a 52-year-old man on March 23, police said. O’Connell allegedly pointed a handgun at the man and threatened to shoot him.

Police said the victim and a woman both identified O’Connell, who admitted hiding his gun. O’Connell took officers to a vacant apartment where they recovered a .38-caliber revolver, police said.

O’Connell was carrying a valid state firearm owner’s identification card and a concealed carry license when he was arrested on a misdemeanor charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, police said. He’s scheduled to appear in court on May 8.

The state police have revoked O’Connell’s permit based on a provision of the concealed carry law that says permit holders can’t be the subject of a “proceeding for an offense or action that could lead to disqualification to own or possess a firearm,” said Monique Bond, a spokeswoman for the agency.

Under state law, a conviction for aggravated assault with a gun would disqualify O’Connell from owning a firearm.

O’Connell declined to comment.

Good for him. The shutting-up part, I mean. Meanwhile, the antis are sure to have a field day with this one. Watch this space.

comments

  1. avatar JoshinGA says:

    This guy got what he had coming to him. Brandishing a firearm during a fight proves you are not responsible enough to carry a gun.

    1. avatar Tile floor says:

      Yeah, unless there are some details that are being omitted it sounds like he deserved to be arrested. It doesn’t look like he was charged with any other crime than the assault

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        What other crime would apply?

    2. avatar peirsonb says:

      That depends on the point in the fight you draw the gun, as well as who started it.

      Given the sketchy details the smart bet is that he was the instigator and that the basis of the fight was over property which, in most states, is NOT something you can use lethal force to protect. Given all that: lock ‘im up.

      1. avatar JoshinGA says:

        “A quarrel over rent money…”
        Doesnt seem to pass the smell test to me. Either way I’m looking at it this guy pulling a gun was gross misconduct, unless the police report forgot the mention the other guy threatening the offender with a deadly weapon.

        1. avatar peirsonb says:

          I agree with you, the details we have suggest this guy is a prime candidate for IGOTD.

          I was just disagreeing with the blanket statement that pulling a gun in a fight is irresponsible.

        2. avatar JoshinGA says:

          Wouldnt brandishing imply that pulling the gun had little to do with protecting his life because of the fight, and everything to do with intimidating or otherwise threatening people with his gun?

        3. avatar peirsonb says:

          Not necessarily. Again, to be clear, I’m fairly certain this guy is guilty as sin. But most legitimate DGUs end when the intended victim “brandishes” his firearm without firing a shot.

      2. avatar Kagans says:

        Texas is one state where you can use deadly force in the defense of you land. Shoot, you can use it to defend your neighbor’s land.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          When you are threatening a tenant who has not paid the rent, it is not “your” land, it is his, until you have an order of eviction.

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          A lot of assumptions being made. Where in this story does it say who the renter was. Would the Chicago PD leave any important details out that would reflect badly on the “victim”? Surely not.

    3. avatar ropingdown says:

      Whatever the underlying reality of this case, it’s going to take Chicago natives time to realize that permit-based concealed carry requires that they abandon the century-old Chicago culture of gun use to extract payments or remedy a perception of disrespect. They shouldn’t have to bribe the PD anymore, either. I suppose that’s in the notes to the CCW statute?

      1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        Nice! If you haven’t worked that comment in at the Sun Times page, it might do them all some good to see it.

    4. avatar Craig says:

      Constitutional guarantees are not granted by man, therefore man can not revoke them. The right to keep and bare arms can not be lost do to poor decisions. If he committed a crime then he should serve jail time. Once his debt to society is paid then he can continue to exercise his civil, natural and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bare arms.

      We should not have to ask permission from government, in the form of a permit (this is an infringement), to possess firearms.

      1. avatar Richard says:

        Were short sleeve shirts protected in the Constitution?

    5. avatar Mark says:

      You may want to hear what really happened rather than depending on a single newspaper account of the incident.
      Count on the statists to pull this any time they can.

  2. The stoopid is strong with the guy who got arrested.

  3. avatar Tim says:

    Let them have a field day. We still got Yee.

    1. avatar Vhyrus says:

      winner winner chicken dinner.

  4. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

    If your going to jerk your piece every time you get in an argument, you better not carry.

    1. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

      I thought you meant something else for a minute….
      I’m reminded of a work acquaintance that once said, “When my wife wants to fight, I don’t argue, I just dicker…”

      1. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

        @ Soccerchainsaw
        When I was sitting here conjuring whatever thought I deemed appropriate, I did consider my choice of words so as to avoid getting my comment deleted. I thought I’d better be slightly less obvious.

      2. avatar William Burke says:

  5. avatar Model 31 says:

    Face the facts:
    We’ll never know all the facts in the case.
    The deadbeats will continue to not pay their rent.
    The permit holder will likely plea this down to no jail time, no permit and no guns.
    The media will continue to ignore Yee.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      “The permit holder will likely plea this down to no jail time, no permit and no guns.”
      Sorry. In Chicago, only murderers and crack dealers get that option.

      Mark my words, the prosecutors will make an example of this guy.

      1. avatar Avid Reader says:

        That gets my vote. Anita Alvarez, the Cook County State’s Attorney, makes no bones about her belief that citizens shouldn’t have a right to have a gun.

      2. avatar Dave357 says:

        Let them make an example of him. It will get a lot of publicity and make other potential lawbreakers among the new IL carry permit holders less likely to do stupid things, which will only help the cause.

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Amen. And he should remain in the TINY minority.

      3. avatar J- says:

        I haven’t even gotten my permit in the mail yet and this dude is f**king it up for the rest of us.

  6. avatar IdahoPete says:

    And this will have the lamestream media wetting their pants for joy, yelling “See? Dodge City, just like we predicted!”

    1. avatar JoshinGA says:

      Except no one got shot. Thankfully.

  7. avatar benny says:

    Never never never NEVER draw in anger. That’s THE cardinal sin in my book. It goes against everything I was taught about guns and carrying. :/

    1. avatar Kagans says:

      %99.9 of the time if you draw out in anger you will be in the wrong. We don’t know what happened to cause him to draw. I don’t trust anything from the media.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      Never? I assure you that if someone tries to kill me and I have to defend myself, I’m going to be furious and I will draw and shoot.

      Maybe it’s better for you to never say never.

      1. avatar peirsonb says:

        I’d rather say Thunderball.

    3. avatar Wyatt says:

      I think avoiding stupid people, places and things is more important here.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Are you a hermit?

  8. avatar ST says:

    7200 N.? That’s almost outside of city limits near Rogers Park. Not the sketchiest area ,but not a place id go running through at two AM either.

    Given that the Sun Times may as well be a City Department for how much Machine taint they lick , I’m certain there’s some vital details being left out of the story to enforce the Rahm Emannuel slant. I’ll bet the quarrel was in fact “I ain’t paying you no rent, and I’m a “insert gang here” , so I’ll kill ya “….which is when the citizen drew his gun .

    1. avatar Jean says:

      Actually nowhere near Rogers Park. This is near Park Ridge – A LOT of cops live up that way – because it’s the absolute limit of the city & supposedly a safe neighborhood.

  9. avatar Max Entropy says:

    “Interesting that the cops have no compunction about naming and shaming Mr. O’Connell ”
    ALL arrest records are public. Would you want to live in a place where they weren’t?

    1. avatar ropingdown says:

      Yes. It’s much more sane to keep arrest records private, with requirements to notify family and certain third parties that are placed under confidentiality requirements. It is enough that court dockets and convictions are public knowledge. If the accused wishes greater publicity, they can seek it. Ask Sweden and other nations that follow such practices. It should actually be a crime for third parties to store and deliver arrest records.

      The fact that arrest records may legally be stored and made public in the U.S. is a complete fail. Even non-violent misdemeanor conviction records should disappear after ten years without a subsequent conviction arising from a separate incident.

      The internet and cheap data storage make the issue fairly compelling. Perspective is needed: Currently in the U.S. an illegal immigrant can gain a permanent-resident visa despite a misdemeanor conviction in his home country, Mexico for example, provided he has a relative in the U.S. who is a citizen. Yet most states forbid hiring a 30-year-old woman to teach in public schools if she had a DUI at age 20 as a college kid. Our system of outlawry is completely unjust, though it suits employers who need a permanently cheap class of workers. I think it is shameful, though I detect most Americans have drunk the Koolaid so long they think the present system is normal.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Making arrest records public is to protect, not shame, the arrested. It’s to prevent someone from ‘getting lost’ somewhere after being taken away by the cops. It’s pretty important.

        1. avatar ropingdown says:

          Hannibal, that’s the U.S. take on arrest records. It is, however, not unheard of in the US for a suspect to be taken for a ride that yields no paperwork. Rare? Not in some cities. It’s happened twice in Philly very recently.

          It amazes Americans that several more law-abiding countries do not make arrest records public. Those countries have mandatory backup systems to assure no one goes to jail without notifications to family, one to a public defender, and the usual watchdog group. However, it is utterly against the law to compile arrest records, and the punishment is fairly severe for breaking that law. It is a good law. If the arrested individual wants the arrest announced, she has that choice. Even private compilation of conviction records is punishable in several north European countries.

          Americans don’t believe in any sort of privacy protection when compared to Scandinavians. Just my take, and I came up through a typical suite of criminal law and criminal justice programs at a respected U.S. law school. I think our tradition stems from the U.S. reality, that we have so many very small rural police departments that may have low quality control, and so many large urban ones in which management has much too little control over officer violations due to union power in disciplinary matters. I’ll think about it, but I prefer the Swedish rules.

      2. avatar LongPurple says:

        Amen.
        The fact is any citizen can be arrested, even indicted. Only a conviction by a jury implies guilt, and that isn’t 100% either.

    2. avatar peirsonb says:

      Actually, yes. I’m not nuts about arrest records being public record. I support CONVICTION records being made public.

      1. avatar WayneMHK says:

        Bingo. The local paper shouldn’t be allowed to list folks who got arrested the day before. However, I have less of a problem with them listing the folks that were convicted.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          I doubt they’d have reported it if the guy was an alderman.

  10. avatar Mina says:

    The radio was going nuts with the story this morning. I listen in the barn while I am doing the horse chores, it’s the local news radio (pretty Liberal.)

    They have been very heavily covering the “scary” conceal carry situation in IL as it has been progressing along with daily updates on the numbers of licenses issued, revoked, applied for etc.

    They (collectively: media, Govt bodies, State police, etc) have been waiting for this story. Like hyenas on a rotting corpse.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      You have a barn with horses? I’ll bet that the work just keeps piling up in there.

      1. avatar Mina says:

        with the winter we’ve had, it’s been all joy all around.

        1. avatar Gene says:

          Ain’t that the truth. The fields are a mess, too. The Perch’s are regularly giving front loader fulls of opinion about Chicago politics and gun law.

        2. avatar Mina says:

          And Perch’s have a lot to give!

          I have one crossed with an App. Huge Perch style horse with leopard spots. Clyde. He is something else. 🙂

        3. avatar LongPurple says:

          The thought of it is enough to make a NJ gardener green with envy.

      2. avatar ropingdown says:

        My great-great-grandfather was a pilot in the civil war.

  11. avatar B says:

    I can’t help but notice that the DA bringing charges against you for a legitimate DGU would take away your permit and your guns. Afterwards do you have to apply all over again? Retrain?

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      If convicted of a felony, well, your gun-owning days are over.
      If convicted of certain misdemeanors (domestic violence, multiple DUI), you don’t qualify for an Illinois CCL so don’t bother re-applying.
      If acquitted, theoretically you get your privileges back.
      Theoretically.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        I’m sure we shall see how that works somewhere down the line.

      2. avatar William Burke says:

        Extremely theoretically.

  12. avatar CarlosT says:

    Hey, maybe Chicagoans are inherently inferior to the rest of the country. We’ve been able to live peacefully with concealed carry for decades, but maybe they just don’t have what Iit takes.

    1. avatar ropingdown says:

      Of course they don’t have what it takes…yet. They’ve been living in a bizarre culture (in regard to guns, police, courts, and violence) for more than a hundred years. They need some time to rehab.

      I’ll wait for….the rest of the story.

    2. avatar Dave357 says:

      Concealed carry permit holders have done far, far worse things in other states. The relevant fact is that very few of them do that – one can’t base public policy on isolated incidents.

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        I forgot to include the sarcasm tag. When I was posting this comment this morning, I had it in my head as a retort to someone saying that concealed carry was too dangerous for Chicago. Two things about that: first, maybe posting in the morning on a sick day isn’t such a great idea, and second, without that context, the words on the screen pretty much read the opposite of what I mean.

        TL;DR Big comment fail by me.

        1. avatar Dave357 says:

          I also refuse to overuse smileys. If someone doesn’t know I am joking, he must simply lack a sense of humor.

        2. avatar William Burke says:

          I read it as sarcasm, Carlos. Loud and clear. You shouldn’t be overly concerned about it.

  13. avatar bontai Joe says:

    This is why we can’t have nice things…..

    1. avatar Mina says:

      I know we don’t want to turn everything into Facebook , but where is the “Like!” button when a comment like this happens? Where?

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      Yeah let’s send a sarcastic ‘thank you’ card to this guy…

  14. avatar Matt says:

    So he was smart enough not to comment to the press, but stupid enough to incriminate himself by showing the cops where his gun was… he definitely deserve to carry!

    1. avatar Matt says:

      Definitely deserves not to carry**

  15. avatar disthunder says:

    Eh, it won’t be huge outside a very local media. No bleeds, no leads.

  16. avatar LongBeach says:

    Gun+defense=good. Anger+gun=bad. Anger+gun+Chicago=FUBAR.

  17. avatar LongPurple says:

    “Police said the victim and a woman both identified O’Connell, who admitted hiding his gun. O’Connell took officers to a vacant apartment where they recovered a .38-caliber revolver, police said.”

    That’s weird. Whatever the circumstances may have been before he drew the gun, “hiding” it in a vacant apartment afterward does not seem a reasonable act of an innocent man. It may take a while for the mud to settle, but truth will out.

  18. avatar Chris says:

    “BREAKING: Some guy gets arrested for doing something he shouldn’t have with a gun”

    Seriously?

  19. avatar Dev says:

    The guy allegedly pointed his weapon at the “victim” who then reported it to the police. The victim in this case may not be a victim and may be trying to get out of the money dispute. We really can’t judge until all the facts are known. Also, anyone else bothered by the fact that the crime is a only misdemeanor but the state law is quoted as saying he will be barred from owning a firearm upon conviction?

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Also, anyone else bothered by the fact that the crime is a only misdemeanor but the state law is quoted as saying he will be barred from owning a firearm upon conviction?

      That’s the Al Capone Factor.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Bingo.

  20. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    It’s all speculation at this point, because we only have the initial reporting, but it’s still fun. Looks like he’s in the wrong, if only because nothing is mentioned as to the tenant’s actions. Generally, you cannot claim self defense if you intiated the violent encounted in the first place. Neither can you use or threaten tbe use of lethal force in response to mere verbal provocation.

    As a landlord, myself, I carry a self defense sidearm on property visits, too. If you’re visiting the property, it might be because there’s some contentious issue already. That said, all the regular law still apply. The potential is there, but you still must act lawfully.

    What’s most damning here is the hiding of the firearm. In the law, that’s called “spoliation of evidence”, and it’s a big no-no. It’s often a crime in itself, and in some circumstances may specifically impose a presumption of guilt on you for the underlying offense, which is difficult to overcome. Flight from prosecution, for example, can be used as evidence of guilt of the original charge.

    At the very, very, least, the jury, judge, mediator, or whomever is assessing the facts of the case, is allowed to interpret the “spoliator’s” actions in the harshest of lights; i.e., no benefit of the doubt. So, whatever happens, your best bet is to shut it down and call your lawyer. Do NOT double down and try to pull a cover up.

    As always, consult a qualified legal professional, which I am not.

  21. avatar Dave357 says:

    It’s good to finally have news out of Chicago where no one actually got shot.

    Seriously though, no one expects a zero-incident system, that’s just not possible with human nature being what it is. The issue is that the positives have to outweigh the negatives, and the negatives with concealed carry permit holders have by now been amply demonstrated to be of acceptable magnitude in shall issue states. Of course, to an anti, a single incident is sufficient proof that no one should have guns period.

  22. avatar benny says:

    Lol damnit ralph! Why you trolling?
    there are like 3 legitimate exceptions to the anger rule, yes, but I’m using that in the sense that you never grab your gun in an argument over material things or really just any argument that doesn’t involve physical contact.
    😀

    *waits to see if you point out another technicality*

  23. avatar former water walker says:

    This is NOT Rogers Park. Closer to Niles or Skokie. Yep, all over the local news. Jerk has NO EXCUSE.

    1. avatar Avid Reader says:

      I spend a lot of time in Rogers Park, and there are parts of it where I certainly would feel better if I were carrying. Since I’m not an Illinois resident any more, it’s not an option. Plus one of the places where I would REALLY want to carry is the Howard Street CTA station, so of course it’s prohibited.

  24. avatar Andy says:

    Sorry. Why is this news?

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      Because it’s the first case in Illinois of a CC Licensee allegedly committing a felony with a handgun.

      And the Chicago libs will milk it for all it’s worth to prove that we just can’t be trusted to carry guns.

      We all knew it would happen eventually. We just wish it didn’t happen less than a month after the first licenses were issued.

  25. avatar Jose Resto, BSM, MaED says:

    If you have a problem collecting rent is due process for that. Pulling a gun to do that is just taking the law into your own hands. I owned a gun since I’m 18 years old and swore to use it only if and when my life depended on it that’s why I’m staying out of trouble.

  26. avatar GS650G says:

    It depends who called the cops first and got their story in. STFU is a good move but unfortunately the other side didn’t.

  27. avatar Oliver says:

    Not saying I’m siding with the guy for brandishing. But just saying, it’s very easy to landlord/tenant arguments to get out of hand. I’m an easy going guy, who doesn’t have much of a temper. I always gave tenants a second chance. I rarely evicted people until they were 2 months behind.

    Being someone who’s spent many years collecting rent for a living, often in not the best neighborhoods. I can’t count the number of death threats I’ve gotten over the years. Hell I had one guy I was in the process of evicting, follow me down the block to where I was having lunch, then proceed to threaten to kill me with a machete soon as my back was turned, in front of all the other patrons.

  28. avatar 20 Tom says:

    If said permit holder actually did commit aggravated assault he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. That said, there is always the possibility that someone seeing his partially concealed firearm could make a false report.

    Yes officer he had it on his right hip and he pulled it out and waved it around saying he would kill me if I didn’t pay my rent on time.

    Just sayin’.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email