Previous Post
Next Post


“In practice, criminal demand for weapons appears inelastic, with the spiral of violence unaffected by restrictions on lawful gun owners. The enactment of progressively onerous gun control laws has served only to engender new and creative marketing practices on the part of criminal arms suppliers. And so the carnage continues. Supporters of supply-side gun control complain long and loud that the ‘gun lobby’ is impeding efforts to stem violent crime. Those complaints notwithstanding, armed violence in this nation will not be contained until criminal demand for weapons is diminished.” – ISRA Executive Director Richard A. Pearson in Guns aren’t the problem in Chicago – the criminals shooting them are [at]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. “That’s right—80 percent of the murders committed in Chicago involve at least one person with a criminal history”.
    Note to self, don’t hang around with criminals.

    • The article you linked to criticizes the test harshly. Was it your intent to undercut what you were saying?

  2. This guy is a breath of fresh air out of Chiraq. The black criminal on black criminal shooters will not be held responsible. The progressives both black and white would prefer to blame the gun.

    it is law abiding black people in Chicago who need a concealed carry permit the most. But it is law abiding white people who are being granted concealed carry permits by the government the most.

    • Pearson & ISRA did nothing to advance concealed carry in IL for 20 years. Then Pearson helped recruit Otis McDonald for the Supreme Court because the NRA got trendy and wanted a black face for their lawsuit. Now Pearson thinks concealed carry was his idea all along.
      When the U.S. Federal court in Chicago struck down IL’s ban on citizen carry in Dec. 2012, Pearson and his fellow rat NRA contract lobbyist Todd Vandermyde put Duty to Inform w/ criminal penalties of 6 MONTHS or 1 YEAR into Rep. Brandon Phelps HB183 “good” “NRA backed” carry bill, because the Chiefs of Police wanted it.
      Thanks to Pearson, Vandermyde, and the retarded hicks who make up 95% of ISRA, police criminals can execute armed citizens at will with legal cover.

  3. The worst failure is educated people staring at data points, reaching the wrong conclusions, effecting new rules, and hope for a better outcome.

    • I think the worst failing comes when you do all that, and then don’t have the intellectual courage and honesty to admit it didn’t work and you were wrong.

      • Nailed it.

        The most flagrant form of what you describe is the double-down, e.g., “common-sense” calls to reinstitute the so-called assault weapons ban, without even bothering to pretend it had any effect on crime. I’m talking to you, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    • They’re consequentialists with faulty moral compasses who don’t even realize that the goal does not justify the means. All they see is the goal and don’t care how they get there, as long as they do. It doesn’t matter how many lives are lost, how many freedoms are taken, as long as everyone is happy in the end right?

  4. Absolutely right. I was educated as an economist and so the idea of distinguishing the “supply side” from the “demand side” comes naturally to me. The behaviors of producers (and their distributors) vs. consumers are motivated very differently.

    We PotG ought to make this distinction very clear when talking with the uncommitted voters.

    To quell the “supply side” is rather like plugging the holes in a sieve. Until you have stopped-up every last hole, the sieve will still leak. Fully plugging some holes is useless. Substantially choking off most holes is useless. There will always remain enough holes with a large-enough capacity to supply the criminal market. This approach is not at all cost-effective; and, it’s not much effective at all.

    Conversely, the demand-side is not being examined carefully. We have a prohibited-person law – felon-in-posession to be brief – that is aimed directly at the acute problem. This law is well supported by an objective mechanism: the FBI’s database of prior convictions, warrants etc. Criminals arrested in possession of guns can and should be prosecuted more aggressively than criminals who are unarmed.

    Where our society is failing is that our Criminal Justice System does a sloppy job of enforcing the felon-in-posession laws. Armed-robbery is pled down to strong-arm-robbery. We put lots of people in prison for short sentences who are guilty of crimes not directly involving violence (e.g., simple burglary) so there aren’t cells available to keep violent criminals in prison longer. The cost to the criminal-consumer to be caught with a gun is too cheap.

    The probability of being caught as a felon-in-posession is too low. Stop-&-Frisk seemed to work in NYC. By denying freedom-of-movement to armed felons the S&F program seemed to reduce the prevalence of going armed without a specific target to threaten or kill. That very few guns were found is – to some degree – evidence that S&F raised the “price” of getting caught on the streets high-enough to have an influence. Political correctness – and not principled concerns for the application of the 4A – stifled S&F in NYC.

    Law-enforcement doesn’t proactively search parolees or persons under probation for keeping arms. Stepping up random searches (which wouldn’t require warrants) would raise the “price” of keeping arms at home for defense against other criminals raiding one’s own stash.

    An organization in Boston called LIPSTICK discourages young women from hiding guns for criminals. Also, a positive measure raising the price of keeping guns (off-site).

    If our politicians are not serious about enforcing the laws aimed at the demand-side of criminal gun possession and use, they should not be surprised that we peaceable gun users are defiant about respecting their useless supply-side infringements that affect only us, not the criminals

    • The question not asked is why does the Chicago justice plea down, creating the revolving door for criminals. I submitt it keeps the judicial class employed. Perhaps the LEO’s chime in and give their views as to why.

      • ” I submitt it keeps the judicial class employed.”

        You answered your own question. No crime means no money to be taken from the taxpayers, which would make the elite class become expendable and they may lose control of the cash cow. Look at obama’s criminal justice pledge to invest more money in the failed communities preschool, which is about state dependent indoctrination not crime reduction.

        “Perhaps the LEO’s chime in and give their views as to why.”

        When crime is plentiful business is good, and do you really think cops would bite their political master’s hands who pay them. That requires moral men and the common good is an extinct police policy just like to protect and serve. Protect themselves at all cost and serve the government at all cost because the two are mutually inclusive, and that is exactly what happened in Europe not to long ago.
        When a man is put to a choice of his benefits or benevolence you don’t get the best men for the position.

      • It’s the opposite, actually. The “judicial class” doesn’t need to go looking for work. Cases are plead down so defendants will take deals, so they can process more cases. The difference in the amount of work involved in a trial compared to a plea deal is stratospheric. If even a few more percent of cases went to trial, then the workload of prosecutors and police would absolutely explode.

        Now, if not every little thing weren’t a crime, then maybe we’d be taking about a different situation…

    • ” Criminals arrested in possession of guns can and should be prosecuted more aggressively than criminals who are unarmed. “


      Is a murder committed with a gun worse than a murder committed with a knife? Is the crime MURDER, or is it MURDER WITH A GUN?

      I can’t get my mind around POTG arguing on the one hand that “the gun is not the problem, the criminal is the problem” following up with statements like the one you made.

      This just shows how deeply the cultural manipulation and programming has been. Acquiescence to inconsistent arguments is dogma, not logic.

      • I read his comment to mean adding gun charges for enhanced sentencing. You know, attempted murder + felony possession = more time behind bars, not just attempted murder = 7 years(maybe).

        • Still wrong. The murder is a murder, nothing more and nothing less, and if he had a gun in his pocket at the time, or even if he USED the gun, it’s still simply a murder.

          Too many laws exist solely for the purpose of letting prosecutors throw the book at a perp, and they do that because REAL crimes aren’t punished harshly enough. You can tell this when it’s a law they don’t bother enforcing on (otherwise) “respectable” people.

        • You didn’t read the OP’s comment, Steve. Nowhere did he say murder with a firearm should be double worse, he said crimes committed with a firearm. JR in NC trotted out murder, I used attempted murder. If I try to kill someone with a vehicle, but fail, the only law I broke was attempting to commit murder. That carries it’s own sentencing guidelines. However, if I was a felon, and pulled a drive-by, but my target lived, I now have 2 charges that could, and SHOULD be filed against me. Attempted murder + felony possession of a firearm. Most of the time, the weapons charge is dropped. That’s the point the OP was making.

        • “he said crimes committed with a firearm. “

          No he didn’t. He said, and I quote his post directly for your reading pleasure…

          Criminals arrested in possession of guns can and should be prosecuted more aggressively than criminals who are unarmed. “

          My emphasis.

          I mentioned murder as an example to demonstrate the ludicrous of the claim…that somehow a gun makes any crime worse.

          This claim, and all its variants, assume agency of the firearm. We argue against that all the time, yet we concede it in statements like this…that because a gun is present or “in possession” that that somehow justifies enhanced sentencing.

          You either thing the gun has agency or you don’t. If you don’t, which happens to be the camp I’m in, then enhanced sentencing is, quite frankly, bullsh1t.

          Convict and sentence for the crime that was committed. All kinds of ‘exceptions’ and ‘ifs’ in law is the root of many of the problems we have these days.

        • He still did not say that crimes committed with a gun are worse, he just said that they should be prosecuted more aggressively. Those are different statements. You are assuming he accepts the premise that cringes should only be prosecuted according to severity, he does not, or is suggesting an exception to such a scheme.

          It’s a strategy to try and discourage criminals from using guns, coupled with citizens carrying it might help reduce crime, or it might not. It’s been used in Hawaii and I believe it resulted in criminals mugging folks in groups armed with bludgeoning weapons.

        • “he just said that they should be prosecuted more aggressively.”

          The point still stands, and seems to be lost on some of you.

          Why does the gun make a difference?

          Why should the presence of a gun mean a criminal should “prosecuted more aggressively?”

          That makes ZERO sense…unless we are into ascribing “power” to firearms that they simply do not possess.

          Good grief. No wonder “gun rights” is an uphill battle. Even “POTG” think guns are icky…

        • Yes, the gun does not make an actual difference in the severity of the crime, this is true.

          The gun is the target of a strategy. The hope is usually that criminals will no longer use guns in their crimes. The hoplophobes want this out of their general fear of guns. The non hoplophobes want this out of hope it will calm the hoplophobes down and, quite frankly, shut them up. Some also think that it will allow the law abiding armed citizen to airways be better armed than criminals they mat face. Both of these groups may very well be wrong.

          To directlyanswer yourquestion: The gun males a difference in the perceived severity of the crime in the minds of those who have not thought it out very well.

          The next time you acuse me of missing your point, please make sure I have not directly addressed it as I have now done twice.

        • I certainly understand why these laws exist and why folks defend them. I disagree that that defense is logically consistent with a Pro 2A stance on guns. The “whys” don’t change the fact that such laws

          (a) miss the entire point of “gun is inanimate” without its own will


          (b) are about the polar opposite of “individual liberty” as one can get.

          What I’m saying, not necessarily to you in particular or any other specific individual, is that I don’t comprehend the forked tongue approach of saying “go gun rights, 2A, 2A, 2A” then out of the same mouth espouse belief in the merits of “gotcha” laws like these.

          That is, the only real purpose these laws serve is to cement the State as ultimate arbiter of, well, pretty much everything. I’ve used the term “crime against bureaucracy” before, and this fits. “Felon in possession” is a victimless crime, unlike say murder or armed robbery (actual felonies) that very clearly DO have a victim.

          It reminds me of the laws that were attempted a few years back to ‘require’ dealers of illegal drugs to have a specific license, and the argument was the same. “If we can’t secure a conviction for the drug dealing, we can still hammer ’em on the no-license charge.”


          It’s all legal chicanery and Statist manipulation.

          Here’s a Due Process tip: either put the guy in jail for an actual crime, and within the sentencing guidelines of that law, or leave him the hell alone.

          Making up “crimes” gets us nowhere good.

      • We can ddebate whether or not murdering someone with X deserves a harsher punishment than murdering someone with Y. That’s not the question here.

        Rather, the laws on the books do in fact provide for harsher punishment (e.g. longer sentences), but aren’t being used to full effect if at all. In other words, the laws we have aren’t being enforced.

        • At issue is whether “gun” is evil and thus deserves ‘extra special punishment’ laws, or if a gun is merely an instrument of the evil that resides in a human heart.

          If the latter, then WHAT tool is used to perpetrate evil is irrelevant. It is the evil that needs to be addressed.

        • It’s not that guns are evil, or icky to us, it’s just a way to extend a sentence, and keep a shit bag in jail longer. Whether you like it or not, a felon can’t own a firearm. If said felon commits a crime, and is also in possession of a firearm, he should be charged for both. Or do you support picking and choosing which laws to enforce solely based on the involvement of the 2A? And yes, you’re right, murder is murder, regardless of the tool used. But is murder the only crime out there?

  5. The full article was good; the comments were interesting.

    One thing stood out for me. In the article he says the city gov’t has basically ignored the problem. A commenter calls him out on this saying, basically, look how much the police chief, mayor, etc., talk about the problem.

    And right there is the disconnect. Words mean nothing without action; actions mean nothing if they are ineffectual; and you need to be willing to try something else when what you’re doing, isn’t working.

    Or, more succinctly, words are not enough.

    • John, the mayor and police chief talking incessantly about the problem illustrates the exact same mindset you described in your earlier comment about oliticians and antis lacking the courage (or even the decency) to admit when something doesn’t work.

      It’s a shameless way of saying, “It’s not my fault.”

      Both Rahm Emanuel and his bloviating police commissioner have failed at their jobs. Period. They can’t control crime in Chicago. So what do they do? Blame everyone (NRA, gun manufacturers and dealers, so-called lax laws in neighboring states, lawful gun owners, etc.) but the criminals and themselves.

      And speaking of the criminals and the Chicago political establishment, I’m not sure that there’s much of a difference, morally speaking.

    • The comments were interesting. Well, maybe a few. Mostly, the comments were typical of the misinformed, brainwashed, kool-aid drinking left:

      “No other country has made as many guns available to its citizens as this one.” False. “We lead the world in gun violence.” False. They continue to build their arguments on foundations of lies.

      • I perhaps should have written:
        The comments were … interesting.
        The comments were “interesting”

        (My wife also tells me I need to use the “funny voice” when I’m kidding…)

        In fact, they do seem, in general, to be a few notches above the average. Less vitriol, at least. Perhaps this is due to where the piece is published.

        There’s also a real pot-kettle moment where someone calls the author an extremist. 🙂

  6. The problem isn’t guns, it’s the sh_t people in your sh_t city. We don’t have the same problem where I’m from, but in the little pockets that we do, we (here) suspect they’re mostly sh_t people imported from your sh_t city. There are many sh_t cities, and they mostly reside in the a-hole states of f-d up blue.

    Those watching your “gun problems” from afar (and seeing you strike out at legal gun ownership and use here as though it might help your problem) are hoping you all succumb to it, that way you’ll STFU (you whiney ignorant b_tches) and we can nuke the site from orbit.

  7. the isra fights hard for us in illinois. nice to see crain’s let them comment.
    kudos to pw serge and glenn for throwing down in the comments.
    i still don’t have the chops to debate with those femwees.

  8. Only when criminal demand for weapons can be diminished…. so basically never then.

    • Criminal demand (in the economic sense) for weapons is diminished when the criminals are in prison. Or when they are executed.

      It takes two things: 1) More prisons. A lot more.
      2) A State’s Attorney who is willing to work harder, and p!ss off the rest of the government employees in the judicial system. The public defenders, circuit clerk personnel, judges… they all have to work harder when we take cases to trial and get convictions and long sentences, rather than dealing felonies down to misdemeanors and let the thugs back out on the street.

      • “1) More prisons. A lot more.”
        Why does society have to go into debt for the crimes of feral savages?
        It should be criminal justice reform all across the corrupt institution but streamlining and waste management in a government bureaucracy means lost taxpayer extracted revenue available for consumption. Equal justice and getting back to innocent until proven guilty, instead of the now guilty unless you can pay. Then for a fair trial a citizen has to hope that your charges are not chum to social justice warriors, which is just polite for saying critical thought processing deficients.

        Less prisons more executions, since WE are not a Christian nation why must WE show mercy to 25% of the worlds prison population.

        Prison should be solely about punishment through hard and forced labor, not free healthcare,not three hots and a cot, and certainly not a college degree. It is the ghetto college preparatory schools for some communities. Rewarded for breaking the law does not inspire that my tax dollars are being well spent on the criminal justice system

  9. We don’t have a gun problem. We have a violent criminal problem.

    Those complaints notwithstanding, armed violence in this nation will not be contained until criminal demand for weapons is diminished.

    Indeed. And the way to do that is to stop letting violent criminals roam the streets freely. End the violent criminal catch-and-release “justice” system. Make violent criminals serve the full extent of their maximum-term sentences. If they get access to firearms in prison (and they can and do), and use them against other prisoners, I’m really none too bothered by that. At the very least, they’re not on the street, using them against innocent, law-abiding people.

  10. I think TTAG missed the best quote from Pearon’s article. It’s his last sentence:

    “We do not relish the prospect of living in a gun-free society where we must share the streets with nonrehabilitated criminals who are muttering to themselves, “If I only had a gun right now . . .”

    • You’re right about that.

      We need to say that more often, because it’s a dead-on accurate description of the disarmed Utopia the gun-banners dream of.

  11. Black or white, it’s not law abiding people for the most part who are doing the killing or the dying in Chicago. When 80% of murder victims themselves have criminal records, two points spring to mind:

    First, these aren’t people who would likely carry lawfully in the first place, for choosing not to adhere to licensing requirements and likely not being eligible, anyway. So it’s improbable that licensed concealed carry would have much impact on overall homicide rates there.

    Second, given what we know about recidivism and both homicide offender and victim criminal records, it would appear that these homicides are more matters of lifestyle and career choice than anything else. A bunch of gangster thugs doing a bunch of ganster stuff is a lifestyle inherently outside the law, including dispute resolution, and lends itself to violent outcomes.

    Lawful carry of a self-defense firearm by a regular citizen, whether concealed or open, for that matter, is really more appropriate against low probability, focused violence, as from an abusive ex, a home burglar, or random mugging. It’s not a suitable response to total immersion in an urban combat zone where every encounter in your daily life consists of transactions with and/or trangressions against vicious thugs. After all, we call it “Chiraq” for a reason. It’s essentially a warzone.

    Given that reality, the idea of expanding exercise of concealed carry in Illinois, while right, proper, and woefully belated, nevertheless shouldn’t fuel expectations of a sudden and widespread plunge in homicide rates in Chicago. The problem is much larger and more deeply rooted than that.

  12. Exactly. A criminal wants a gun to assist in committing a crime. He can:

    A) Go to a licensed gun dealer and buy one and undergo a background check with registration?
    B) Go to his gangsta friend, and take a look at his stolen wares in the trunk of his 1984 Cadillac deville.
    C) Steal some guns from a house, after the owners leave, that has a sign in front of it that says “trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again” or a pawn shop with bars on the front in the middle of the night.

    Hmm… which to choose, which to choose.

    • “A) Go to a licensed gun dealer and buy one and undergo a background check with registration?”

      Plenty of real-world data suggests that he may well be okay choosing Door #1….er, Option A.

      It’s a roll of the dice.

      NICS and BGC’s in all guises is a false security. It depends on too many things “going right” to work property. It’s poor engineering by philosophy…and, some would think…design.

      After all, when BGC’s fail to catch ‘bad buys’ (or at least stop them from getting guns), well, golly gee, we need to do MORE!

      The failure of the BGC system in general gives both politicians and hufpo writers a reason to exist.

    • I’m going with door number four (4) … criminals will simply make their own shotgun from readily available parts at their local hardware store for less than $20. (That is even less expensive than they would have to pay for a stolen firearm from their gangsta friend.)

      Come to think of it, I might actually want to go with door number five (5) … criminals will simply use alternate weapons such as a knife, ax, hammer, or club which are all readily available at their local hardware store for less than $20.

  13. I have no idea how anyone can think that “gun control” will stop criminals from acquiring firearms when politicians themselves (such as former California state Senator Leland Yee) set about smuggling firearms illegally for the explicit purpose of selling them to criminals.

  14. I stole this from another commenter here, and reworked it before giving it to a young student who posted here wanting to write an informative paper.

    Given the level of sophistication of the criminal enterprises that were created by Prohibition in the U.S., and now during the morbidly hilarious failure of the “War on (Some) Drugs” around the world, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn about a prohibition on guns – which is what you have by-and-large in Australia – is that equally large and sophisticated criminal enterprises will arise to fulfill the demand for guns. This can, as quite thoroughly demonstrated above if I do say so myself, can and will be accomplished in three primary ways: clandestine domestic manufacture, surreptitious importation from abroad, and widespread theft.

    America is plagued by the second and third.

    To give you an example of the futility of banning an item to which is attached very high demand, some 1.6 million pounds of marijuana was seized by the U.S. DEA in 2010 – and that’s only a very small percentage of what is believed to have made it across the border. It is reasonable to assume that the shear amount of arms, ammunition, and accoutrement that can occupy the same space as 800 tons of plant matter is quite sufficient to arm a significant portion of the U.S. criminal element. It is certainly also reasonable to assume that at least some arms, ammunition, and accoutrement are also coming in with the drugs and people, too.

    These dreadful shortcomings demonstrate a basic and willful failure of Prohibitionists to understand or even acknowledge the market forces governing anything for which there is significant demand. It is the primary reason why central economic planning has only proved an unmitigated disaster everywhere it’s been tried. More basically, they fail to realize or consciously ignore the fact that when people want something, someone will get it for them. The harsher the ban, the higher the profit motive. The higher the profit motive, the more risks criminals will be willing to take to satisfy their market. There are deeper reasons for this failure than simply flat-out flunking ECON 101. Those who trade in prohibited goods are, by definition, criminals who are engaged in a criminal enterprise without the benefits of redress the courts or any other avenue of dispute resolution or of police protection. When an enterprise can’t: take out a loan, open a bank account, establish credit, file a lawsuit, or have police respond to an alarm, it becomes necessarily more violent to protect its financial and territorial interests and to affect resolutions over contractual disputes. Essentially, prohibition of highly desirable goods can only function to increase overall violence and disregard for the law as a basic factor of prohibition. One must accept this as a basic premise and then try to reconcile the increased violence and criminality coupled with the inevitable encroachment on individual liberty with any perceived utility of the prohibition.

    As the world slowly comes to the realization that prohibition of drugs, with the focus now being primarily on marijuana and cannabis, has very little if any utility in the face of extremely high demand we begin to move away from banning it.

    Considering that those who smuggle, steal, and manufacture weapons and their customers will obviously still be armed, the level of violence in the wake of an Australian-style prohibition would be unprecedented. Once one factors in the unique culture surrounding guns and civil rights in the U.S., the increasingly ubiquitous support for the Second Amendment and the right it protects, and American’s historical resistance to tyranny, the violence may very well escalate into that of armed insurrection.

    Mass civil disobedience is already the order of the day, and police departments are already realizing the logistical absurdity of such an endeavor in actually enforcing registration or, Heaven forbid, a mass confiscation. In fact, many law enforcement officials have already announced their intentions to not enforce such laws at all.

    Also given that firearms are very durable items, with many examples lasting 500 years or more with proper care and maintenance, and that upwards of 347 million (as of 2012) are already thought to be present in the hands of 124 million Americans, it’s highly unlikely that any prohibition would succeed at all as confiscation must immediately follow – as it did in Australia – to realize any utility at all.$FILE/13SenState0304AttachC.pdf

    All this having been said, advocacy for prohibition of firearms can only be seen as either ill informed (as in being simply unaware of the consequences) or malicious (aware of the inevitable and invariable failure of the prohibition and the increased criminality and violence and potential to destabilize society and government and possibly to result in violent revolution).

  15. Someone speaks reality, thank them. Cause is always passed over, I guess it’s easier to oppress lawful people than put out the effort to understand and correct society.

  16. “[I]f you take all the guns off the street you still will have a crime problem, whereas if you take the criminals off the street you cannot have a gun problem.”

    — Jeff Cooper

  17. “armed violence in this nation will not be contained until criminal demand for weapons is diminished.”

    And that’s the source of the matter. how to reduce demand?
    Harsh sentencing and mandatory prosecution for violent crimes committed with a firearm. Extremely harsh penalties for ‘felon with a firearm’ charges, and similar measures that will make the bad guys actually thing twice, and keep the ones that didn’t think in prison until they’re too old to bang.

    • Careful, or you’ll have some attack you here for that felons with firearms part. Some argue that since a felon can get a gun if he wants, that there shouldn’t be a prohibition on it. Besides, he’s already “paid his debt to society”, they say.

      Rather, we should just keep him in jail because he’s inherently too dangerous to walk the streets.

      • I shan’t be unclear, then.

        Former felons should, after a probationary period (say, 2-4 years depending on severity of crime, recidivism nearly always occurs within this period, anyone past that is probably ok ) be restored all rights without exception. If he can’t be trusted with his rights, then he probably shouldn’t be let back out into the public in the first place.

        Felons in possession of a gun illegally should be put away for a minimum of 2 decades.

  18. So we should focus on the gangs? Why haven’t the gun rights folks ever thought of that.?

  19. Mr. Pearson is a hero to Illinois gun owners. I recall not long ago having people saying we would never have CC in Illinois-or handguns LEGALLY in the big bad city. I wish I had more $ to donate to the Illinois State Rifle Assoc….BTW Crains is far from the worst rag in the city…

  20. Pearson is an ignorant buffoon who recruited and betrayed Otis McDonald, and continues to lie to ISRA membership by supporting not only Duty to Inform, but New Orleans style gun seizure language in Phelps SB836:

    “If a licensee carrying a firearm or a non-resident carrying a firearm in a vehicle under subsection (e) of Section 40 of this Act is contacted by a law enforcement officer or emergency services personnel, the law enforcement officer or emergency services personnel may secure the firearm or direct that it be secured during the duration of the
    contact if the law enforcement officer or emergency services personnel determines that it is necessary for the safety of any person present, including the law enforcement officer or emergency services personnel. The licensee or nonresident shall submit to the order to secure the firearm.”

    Pearson is an insurance salesman in Chatsworth, IL, a glad handing, back-slapping good old boy with a Bourbon in one hand, and a Masonic ring on the other. This ignorant clown and his sidekick NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde have loaded up IL’s concealed carry bill with language that encourages police criminals to kill armed citizens at will.

Comments are closed.