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.