Previous Post
Next Post


Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence big cheese Colleen Daley attended yesterday’s kabuki Senate gun control hearing, ostensibly aimed at protecting women from “gun violence.” No one can say Daley doesn’t recognize a juicy fundraising opportunity when she sees one. Here’s an email blast she sent out last night:

I was honored to attend today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on how we can improve Domestic Violence laws to protect men and women who are in an abusive relationship . . .

We know the impact domestic violence has across this country and the increased likelihood of a fatal incident occurring if a firearm is involved; I commend the Committee for addressing this issue and looking for common sense solutions that will help save lives.

Nationally, 55% of all women murdered with guns were killed by an intimate partner. In Illinois between 2003 and 2012, 37% of female domestic violence homicide victims were killed with a gun. Finding and implementing common sense solutions do one thing – save lives! While Illinois has strong laws that prohibit firearm purchases or possession by persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, prohibit dating partner abusers and require mandatory surrender of firearms; we have to do more, including prohibiting those convicted of stalking from having access to firearms.

Nationally, there are four policies that government should enact to block domestic abusers from buying and possessing guns. We need to:

  • Pass a universal background check to keep guns out of the hands of those individuals who should not have access.
  • Bar all convicted abusers, stalkers and people who have a domestic violence restraining orders from gun possession.
  • Provide all records of prohibited abusers to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
  • Provide law enforcement with the tools needed to ensure that domestic abusers surrender all firearms in their possession.

Reach out to our Senators TODAY and tell them you support policies that will stop domestic abusers from buying and possessing guns! Click here to reach out to Senator Durbin and here to contact Senator Kirk.

This is not an issue of attacking the second amendment, this is about saving lives! I want to commend Elvin Daniel from McHenry, IL for his testimony today. Elvin, a NRA member and gun owner lost his sister to a domestic violence abuser who should not have had a firearm. To quote Elvin, “I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment an a member of the NRA. And I also believe in sensible gun laws. I know that common sense gun laws that protect public safety go hand in hand with the Second Amendment.”

We agree with you Elvin – common sense and sensible solutions save lives!

I am encouraged that we will get past the divisive debate and all work together to pass common sense laws both in Springfield and Washington that protect victims from deadly violence.

In Peace,

Colleen Daley

Executive Director


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. What is there about Daleys in Chicago that give me the creeps?

    “I was affected by gun violence,” Daley said. “One of my dear high school friends was shot and killed while I was a senior in college, so this whole issue is very close to my heart.”

    What a solipsistic twit.

  2. Well we have background checks that is a registry so police just need to run the serial number of weapons. And it’s already illegal for people convicted of domestic violence yo possess firearms.

    • I have to ask ‘ya:
      How does knowing, after the fact, from whom the weapon was stolen or from where and from whom it was purchased prevent the crime?”
      “On which ‘cop-show’ have you ever seen forensics check a database of bullet markings to identify the make, model, caliber, serial number and current possessor of the firearm used in a crime?”

  3. Man, I hope ol’ Elvin doesn’t open carry. Then he’d be giving the anti’s ammo to use against us…right, Paul T? 😉

  4. Odd thing, the one who did in Elvin’s sister was a prohibited person at the time. The buncombe he’s helping to push now wouldn’t have made any difference at all.

    • I just love these folks who think that because someone broke the law once, that they wont break the law if its MORE illegal than it used to be….

      • Well see you got your “illegal”, and then you got your “more illegal”, soon to be followed by your “mostest illegal”. Eventually they will get to your “super duper illegal” which will require the cops to immediately kill you and everyone else in the room, followed by your family, your parents, your pets, the doctor that delivered you, then burn down your house, crush your car and jail anyone that ever so much as mentions your name in the future. Because somehow in her pea sized brain, that will save lives…… for the children.

        • Don’t forget that even after you are dead the morons will probably try and send you a bill for their “resources.”

  5. Notice how they don’t actually publish numbers, but a percentage instead?
    The actual real numbers of domestic violence the way they define it are actually very low.

    Using their same “gun-sense” I can make the statement: Apple will soon release a new iPhone6. I predict that after the first iPhone6 is stolen, there will be over a 1000% increase in the number of iPhone6 smart phones stolen in the year following it’s release. Therefore, we need to ban the sale of the iPhone 6 in order to prevent crime from happening….

    • Note: Just looked up some numbers for Illinois: for 2011, 12, 13 the numbers are something like 13, 9 and 10 females in the state killed by an intimate partner with a gun. A large majority of those coming from Cook and DuPage counties (i.e. Chicago). Will look for US wide data in a bit.

  6. By what legal foundation can she say that seizing the property (never mind denying the 2A rights) of people who have not been convicted of a crime, much less a felony (ie, people under a RO) is not “attacking someone’s rights?”

    That’s what they’re advocating here: a violation of people’s 2nd and 5th Amendment rights, without due process, a trial or a jury.

    This is the sort of mendacity we’ve seen for 25+ years out of feminists. It’s time to stand up and call them out on their BS.

    • It’s not a “legal foundation,” it’s much, much worse. They invoke their own supposed moral and ethical superiority as the sole enabler of their jihad. Guns=Death, therefore anyone who tries to put more guns into more hands is TRYING TO KILL PEOPLE. Additionally, that we are too stupid to realize this about ourselves offers them the INTELLECTUAL premise for the blatant gun grabbing to boot. Would you back down from a fight wherein you believed yourself to be saving lives? God’s work is hard, that is why unbearable, self righteous busy bodies are always the ones to take it upon themselves to do it.

  7. Passive Agressivism

    They need to take away all your guns before they can protect you to death.

    Never forget that these people are just your neighbors that needed a job. The U.S. Government is We the People.

    How many times/ways do they have to tell you they cant protect you before you say “ok, pack your s_ _t and go back to the house”

  8. Don’t we already have background checks and laws against violent criminals, in thus case abusers having firearms? Can these people really be so stupid??

  9. He was actually quoted as using the “common sense” buzzword of the anti-RKBA crowd?

    He is no spokesman for the NRA, that is for sure.

    Turn in your card, Mr. Daniel.

  10. Damn. We wrote some words down on paper and they didn’t stop bad people. Now we’re going to write more words down on paper so that they can be stopped for sure this time. When that doesn’t work, we’ll do it again!

    Perhaps, if we actually wanted to save lives, we could do something more concrete … like teach women how to defend themselves, possibly with one of the few things that makes a woman very capable of defending herself against a bigger, stronger man … a firearm.

    • That’s the problem with our legislative system. Everyone wants to show they’re doing something and the only way to do that is through passing or blocking new legislation. Congressional representatives, lobbyists, non-profit foundations all have the same metric. It doesn’t help us any, and only makes the law more convoluted and ridiculous, but it shows they “did something”. This has been made even more evident with the talk on the “do-nothing” Congress. Have they seen what Congress has done so far? I’d prefer they do nothing.

  11. As a police officer it disturbs me how flimsy “domestic abuse” crime charges can be. While a murder typically has a fair amount of evidence, domestic abuse typically does not. Responding to a domestic abuse is an absolute pain in the ass, and finding out what actually happened is murky at best. Some arrests are made simply to minimize liability. While legitimate domestic abuse should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, it is often difficult or even impossible to determine what legitimate abuse, if any, has occurred. So I don’t file charges unless I have a strong case.

    Restraining orders and protective orders can be just as flimsy. Again, many judges will hand them out simply to minimize liability. “You never can be too safe” is the perfect tool for the antis to strip us of our rights and our property.

    Pissed off wife? No gun for you.
    Pissed off roommate? No gun for you.
    Psycho ex-girlfriend? No gun for you.
    False accusation? No gun for you.
    System down? No gun for you. Sorry, but we aren’t able to clear purchase.
    Dumbass government bureaucracy? That’ll be more taxes, please. Everyone (minus the lower class and the wealthy, of course) needs to pitch in an contribute “their fair share” of tax revenue. It’s for the children and the mothers, so no price is too high to put on their *safety.*

    And as with many government systems already in place, there are inaccurate records, false positives, incompetent administrators, and mountains of bureaucracy. Such a system would be fertile grounds for abuse, especially because it fundamentally acts of a “guilty until proven innocent” basis.

    • These efforts really do remind me of getting on a “No Fly” List. There is no upside for anyone at all. Especially the person on the list.

      • Domestic abuse laws are much more commonly abused by psycho exs than used to protect innocents. It has been known for a long time that in most cases of domestic abuse, both partners are violent people who abuse each other, that the women are equally violent and screwed up as the guy they are shacking up with. The sterotype image of domestic abuse of a helpless and inocent woman being abused by a violent man who is the sole perpetrator is in reality a pretty rare situation. Police hate responding to domestic abuse cases because both the man and woman can and do turn on and attack responding officers. Like gun control laws, domestic abuse laws are nothing more than Dr feelgood that does nothing but futher erode our freedoms by circumventing due process so we can pretend to feel safer.

        • I suppose it depends on how you define “pretty rare.” Pizzey’s numbers were that 62% of abused women were also abusers (or at least reciprocated violence). I suspect that those numbers are skewed, because I suspect most abused women who have resources — family, friends, their own job — don’t end up on a lot of the official statistics unless they get killed. I’ve had a couple of friends who were abused who were not abusive, one of whom perfectly fit the classic “helpless female” cliche, in terms of being meek and small and not fighting back. The others fought back, or at least tried to, but that doesn’t mean they tended toward violence in their every day lives OR in their normal romantic relationships.

          Memory serves, domestic abuse is most commonly committed by people with records of drunkenness, repeated car crashes, multiple traffic tickets, and prior arrests for assault — the same lifestyle common to those prone to gun accidents, and to those killed by guns. The one relationship I know of where IMHO both partners were equally abusive, both partners also had a long string of those sorts of activities. She would take a swing at anybody who ticked her off, if she thought she could get away with it.

          But when a guy with that kind of record abuses a woman who has no record, I’m a lot less likely to buy the “equally abusive” idea, especially if she goes on to have a nice, normal marriage while he goes on to abuse someone else. Fighting back when in fear of your life does not make someone an abuser.

  12. “Provide law enforcement with the tools needed to ensure that domestic abusers surrender all firearms in their possession.”

    Is that a plea for more tanks and green camouflage in urban settings?

  13. And if hundreds of thousands of people get barred from owner weapons erroneously… well who cares? Am I Right Comrades?

  14. DV is an issue near & dear to the heart of Feminists everywhere. Most anything they want done (men disarmed, 2A rights restricted) can be done by dangling images of pouting women with black eyes in front of lawmakers.

    Solipsistic? You ain’t seen nothing yet.

    • Yet those same femnazis killed Erin Pizzey’s (who established battered women refuges in England) dog and theaten her children and grand children lives after she determined that much domestic violence was reciprocal, with both partners abusing each other in roughly equal rates. That most of the women in the refuge were equally as violent or more violent than their husbands.

  15. So her agenda is to pass the “Four Policies” at the Federal Level making the Background check more mandatory than it is. The second “Policy” is generally a State Law and should remain so. The third “Policy” would be just an addendum to the first, and the Fourth is kind of ambiguous enough to be unintelligible.

    Yeah, it looks to me like this woman is really only interested in getting money out of idiot, low/no information people she can fool into making think she’s trying to “do something to save lives” by milking an issue the States already deal with ( and some have refused to participate in or give information to the NICS system).

    All of this to address an issue where the presence or absence of guns will likely make no difference in the amount, frequency, or seriousness, of “domestic abuse” because, as we love to try to tell these morons, it is not an issue with the objects involved, but with the person committing the abuse.

    So, I call Ms. Daley a money-grubbing, charlatan, who has no expectation or genuine interest in “saving lives” only in increasing her personal Savings.

  16. “Sensible” “Common Sense” “Public Safety”
    Gee Elvin, did Bloomberg pay you for those buzzwords or did you get them for free?

  17. 55% of all women murdered with guns but 100% by an intimate partner? Why not ban intimate partners instead of guns?

  18. Using Colleens own list- for her suggested national measures vs what Illinois already does-

    1. Universal Background Check- IL already has this, and added in long guns recently- even though the vast majority of gun crimes are with handguns.
    2. Bar all ‘convicted abusers, stalkers and domestic violence restraining order recipients from gun possesison” – Illinois already has this:
    3. Provide records of abusers to NICS. Already done, in 1993 Brady Act- see 18, U.S.C. §922 (g) (8)
    4. Provide Law Enforcement with tools needed- well, since Patriot Act we have fusion centers, illegal access to HIPAA records by LEOs, parallel construction, SWAT teams for EPA, DOL, and MRAPs for Everytown… and its not working…

    At some point Coleen, you have to face the obvious- you are not saving lives now- IL has some of the worst gun-crime, and thats with Chicagos total ban on handguns in past.

    More laws wont change the behavior of the law breakers.
    Taking more of the 2A rights of the law abiders is simply depriving them of self-defense.

    You are NOT saving lives- if anything- you are contributing to more lives of innocents lost.

  19. One more question- if 37% of deaths of women come at hands of abusers using guns-
    how will focusing on guns work for the other 63%?

    If regulating only one of many tools, ie guns, as heavily as IL and Chicago has for decades …
    is simply not working- why add MORE restrictions, obeyed only by the law-abiding?

    Why not look at the behavior of the PERSON? Is there something about the makeup of the PERSONs committing the crime in IL and Chicago that makes this somehow “un-touchable” or “un-mentionable” for you Colleen?

    Who are you really putting at risk, if so, by your silence? More of the innocents you pretend to speak for? Or is it the politicians, and the wealthy donors who give you money, that you speak for, Colleen?

    • 62% of domestic violence is reciprocal, with both partners abusing each other in roughly equal rates. That many DV “victims” are equally as violent or more violent than their partners. Sadly most of the women in domestic violence cases are violent and unstable persons themselves who repeatedly engage in violent altercations with intimate partners despite the physical, emotional, legal and financial costs, in unwitting attempts to simulate the emotional impact of traumatic childhood experiences. They are addicited to violence and are attracted to violent men. In other words, screwed up women shack up with screwed up men because they like screwed up men, and get into violent fights with each other. While modern state care-taking agencies are largely ineffective about resolving domestic violence becuse they refuse to accept the reality of domestic violence. Just like how gun control is ineffective about resolving gun violence, both are based on BS.

  20. If you are attacking the civil rights of your fellow citizens (which does include the natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutionally-affirmed and protected right to keep and arms — subject neither to the “democratic process” nor to arguments based in social utility), you are not saving lives.

    Restricting rights = LESS safety. NOT MORE.

  21. What a tragedy, her actions will likely do nothing, yet her beliefs will deceive her into thinking she has done great things. Fortunately crime and homicides are going down for other reasons and hopefully her efforts won’t get people hurt and killed, though if successful it likely will.

    As it has often been said in so many words. Those that sacrifice liberty for saving lives, will sacrifice both.

  22. Really? Banning ownership of guns saves intimate partner’s lives?? … and how does that prevent those partners from carrying a knife and simply stabbing their partner to death?? I guess it prevents violence by requiring your attacker to actually walk up to you before stabbing you, and they’re too lazy to do that, right? Are you going to ban knives then? And what are you going to do after you ban knives, are you going to ban Wiffle bats?

    So after you’ve banned guns, and knives, and Wiffle bats…. what are you going to do then? – Ban Violence?!
    “We need to ban Violence, Violence is a danger to society! Only by banning violence can we prevent violence to women!” o_O…. Retards.

    I agree, those people probably should not own guns, and the people who have proven to be violent should definitely not, but banning guns will not stop violence…because you CAN’T. BAN. VIOLENCE!! The way to stop violence to these people is through ACTION, not empty words written on paper! Ie.: remove the offender; keep them away; if you can’t keep them away, counter their violence with equal or overwhelming opposing violence!; provide them with police protection; provide them with paid-for self-defense courses; and maybe if they are not barred from owning a gun, and there is a strong threat of violence against the victim: give them pepper-spray and a gun!

    Sure, providing them with a gun might actually cost you a lot, but you [Ms. Daley] are committed to actually DOING SOMETHING, not just writing empty “Banned” words on paper…. RIGHT??

    I think it’s also high time, that they stopped being sexist and admit that male partners are also victims of abuse, whether through violence or otherwise. Male partners often don’t report abuse because the PoS women threaten to accuse the men of beating them.

    Just to make sure that I’m not misunderstood:

    I’m not saying the offenders who are violent to their partners, or those with restraining orders against them should be allowed to buy or keep their guns. What I’m saying is that if these groups that claim to be anti-domestic violence really care, it requires ACTION.

  23. It’s weird that there’s all these problems in the world, and they can all be solved with the same solution: more gun control.

    Kind of makes you scared for what they’ve got planned for after they get it.

  24. What kills me about this is that liberals are the ones who decry prison and the death penalty specifically as barbaric. So we have criminals on the streets who do barbaric things and want to punish the law abiding for those things happening.

    Here is an idea, if a person is dangerous let’s keep them in prison. And instead of registering, controlling or taking guns from the law abiding let’s do the one thing that really does keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, put the bad people in prison.

    People will always do bad things, taking away the means to defend oneself from those bad people is not protecting them.

  25. “In Illinois between 2003 and 2012, 37% of female domestic violence homicide victims were killed with a gun.” This statement by Ms Daley means 63% of female domestic violence homicide victims wee killed by something other than a gun. Going after the 63% would save a lot more lives. What should be registered, forbidden, illegal….? Knives? Who needs them? Just pick up your steak with your hands and take a bite. Maybe strangulation was in the 63%. Let’s just restrict the use of your arms and hands without a license and background check. The list could go on and on. I would like to be able to say I am amazed at the logic of Ms Daley and her ilk; unfortunately I can’t say I am amazed, which is a sad commentary on the state of our society today.

    • ” Going after the 63% would save a lot more lives. What should be registered, forbidden, illegal….”

      We both know the answer to this.

      It’s penis.

      • “BAN Penises!!!”….. “Penises are dangerous, why do you need a penis?!”……. “We need more penis regulation!”…….. “NOT ONE MORE PENIS CRIME!!!”

        You know, when you take these common gun-control/disarmament arguments and place them in a different context: you see how downright ridiculous they are.

  26. Response to first bullet ~ Universal background checks won’t accomplish that.
    Response to second bullet ~ Already a part of the current legislation.
    Response to third bullet ~ Also already part of the current legislation.
    Response to the fourth bullet ~ This is a vague, non-descript statement that doesn’t say anything useful.

  27. Well, I’ve been thinking that a restraining order against the psychological predations of a screeching shrew should be added to the relevant statute. Is that thought on topic?

  28. They are taking this angle and running like hell with it, the old the more they say it and broadcast it the more people will believe it.

  29. Arm and properly train those who are truly experiencing domestic violence or stalking or whatever…i’m guessing a large percentage of the abusers find something better to do with their time…

    • What? You want to give women the responsibility to protect themselves? That goes against the feminist party-line. Instead of empowering women what they want to do is make everyone equal by bringing down men. Once you take away all the tools a man can use against a woman all it’s up to is the physical differences between a man and a woman. I don’t think the feminists really thought about that, seems more like they’re just using stereotypes and lashing out at men, namely that only men can have guns and only men are the source of domestic violence. I guess their plan is to empower women by taking away all their power and bringing down men by relying on men to protect them.

    • While that sounds good, more research into the concept of reciprocal abusers, to see if it is as prevalent as some have stated, before we start training programs and issuing guns to the female half of a situation. It sounds good at first blush, but that concept turns it into a possible nightmare. Suddenly, the next pissing contest ends up with a ventilated man instead of a beaten woman. I have no particular objection to that resulting, but I don’t want to finance it with my taxes. As in so many circumstances, government has no business picking winners and losers.

  30. What about the other 63%? What common sense lelegislation could we pass to protect them? Oh yeah make murder illegal! Yeah that worked too! When will polititions learn you can’t legislate your problems away?

  31. peacefully surrender means…SWAT team no knock raid cause your ex is pissed at you….no trial no nothing …just filing an order will have SWAT at your door!!

  32. I’ll assume that Ms. Daley, given her surname, lives in Chicago, and therefore has probably never had the means or opportunity to see a Form 4473? You know, the one that already includes the following assertions regarding disqualifying matters:

    11b. Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year?

    11c. Have you ever been convictied in any court of a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?

    11d. Are you a fugitive from justice?

    11h. Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner?

    11i. Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?

    • Facts? You bother someone of my obviously superior intellect with FACTS? You are clearly a male chauvinist pigdog, whose opinion should not only be ignored, but punished.

  33. A legal gun in household actually slightly decreases violent outcomes. What Daleys numbers avoid is that over 95% of non suicide intentional shootings in the home involve persons with multiple criminal arrests domicile din the home.

    We saw that with sampling of the NYT “children” killed in homes list. In virtually every case the gun owner was an active criminal or gang member


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here