1. I think you’ve got it right. Emanuel will be no less hostile than his predecessor. He’ll just sound more reasonable. I doubt he’ll offer to shove anything into any reporters.

  2. Hopefully they will someday be able to see beyond their own arrogance and realize that gun control doesn’t work. I would love to be able to visit my home state without giving up my right to defend myself.

  3. WOW, he does smile! I’d smile too if I had a pretty lady like that at my side.

    Mas, thanks for great articles, and I know that you will keep us informed of the issues as they define themselves.

    Best wishes from the Ozarks.

  4. You are correct, Mas, Emanuel is no fool. With the pro-gun sentiment that is occuring in this country, it would be political suicide to rise up against it now. It’s my guess that he will resort to some more subtile means…. maybe even find a stoolie to do it for him.

  5. Interesting timing as the Illinois AG just authorized the public disclosure of all FOID records. This will probably end up being just like Indiana, where a year or so ago, a liberal newspaper in Bloomington decided they were going to make the gun registries searchable, then some liberal (believe it or not) politicians noted how that had “Unintended Consequences” of making non-owners susceptible to future crime.

    This is a good break-down of it all:

  6. Yeah … even Mas can’t keep from smiling when he’s in the presence of a woman as wonderful as Colleen Lawson!

    Good blog … thanks! And I think you have well enough summed up the thinking on Mayor Rahm.

  7. Good analysis, Mas! A friend who lives in Chi-town was home over Christmas and sharing the myriad of hoops one has to jump through and the excessive costs to get a permit to possess a handgun in the city.

    Are you by any chance going to be at the NTOA conference in Richmond in September? If so, I’d love to meet you.


  8. Mas, my own feeling is that Emanuel will not support gun owners in Illinois. Lisa Madigan the AG, Pat Quinn the governor, and House Speaker Michael Madigan are all Chicago machine Democrats. Just because Daley will no longer be mayor doesn’t mean things have changed THAT much.

  9. Luis, I agree Emanuel won’t support gun owners in Illinois. The question is how actively he’ll oppose them.

  10. With Wisconsin finally having a CCW friendly majority in both Houses and in the Governor’s office, I’m hoping that they will soon pass a shall-issue CCW law, or better yet, “Constitutional Carry” similar to Alaska, Vermont, Arizona and Wyoming.

    And that will then leave just little ol’ ILLinois as the last bastion of anti-gun stupidity when it comes to CCW. Perhaps then, when we’re the only sorry State left, even with Emanuel in the Mayor’s office, we can get a sensible, shall-issue Concealed Weapon permit law passed here.

    Then, I will finally be able to step out of the CCW closet! 😉

    Fully licensed and permitted to carry in the vast majority of these United States – just not the State I have to spend most of my time in…

  11. California’s still in that category, effectively, with its ‘may issue, but forget about it unless you have Connections’ policy.

  12. 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 a individual right. To create a conceal carry law that they can live with, they 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.

  13. Richard, don’t believe for a moment that all Chicago coppers are against the armed citizen/CCW concept. Do a Google search for the excellent — and pro-gun — insider blog titled Second City Cop.

  14. Mas:

    Thanks for the insight…I appreciate the thorough answer to my question!

    Mike H.

  15. Chicago Mayors Richard Daley and Rahm Emanuel: Concealed Carry Sucks
    Posted on April 7, 2011 by Robert Farago
    April 5, 2011
    Richard M. Daley
    The Honorable Jacqueline Y. Collins
    Ilinois State Senator
    16th District
    M114 Statehouse
    Springfield, Illinois 62706
    Dear Senator Collins,
    As Mayor and Mayor-Elect of the City of Chicago, we are writing to express our strong and unequivocal opposition t concealed carry legislation.

    One of the greatest responsibilities of mayor is to keep local residents safe and secure. The most significant challenges that mayors face in meeting this responsibility are the prevalence of guns in our society that end up being used to kill or injure fellow citizens, and the difficulty in keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them, including criminals and the mentally ill.
    In Chicago and in cities and towns nationwide, statistics show that the vast majority of violent crime involves guns. Gun violence is responsible for an appalling number of deaths and injuries. Each year in the United States, gun violence kills over 30,000 people and injures three times as many.
    The pending concealed carry legislation, which would allow Illinois residents to carry a loaded, hidden handgun in public, will only add to these grave statistics. New research shows that in the past four years alone, nearly 300 people – including 11 law enforcement officers – have been killed in shootings by people who were legally allowed to carry concealed handguns. There is no compelling evidence to show that more guns make people safer, and history shows there is no system that can adequately keep guns out of the hands of those who are legally prohibited from having them in the first place.
    Some argue that Illinois should have a concealed carry law because the majority of other states have them, but rates of gun violence in other states are generally the same as in Illinois. Equally important, there is no reason to join a race to the bottom.
    In Chicago or anywhere else, any life lost to gun violence is one too many. Together and separately, we have fought hard to enact common-sense gun laws to protect public safety, and we stand firmly against proposals that would undermine that goal. More guns will not make our streets safer.
    We strongly urge you not to compromise your leadership and your legacy on gun issues to please those individuals who want you to believe more guns will reduce violence. We ask you to vote against concealed carry legislation in any form.
    Richard M. Daley
    Rahm Emanuel

  16. I love how disconnected politicians are from reality, don’t you folks? Congratulations to the citizens of Illinois, but the real test will be when the elected officials try to get around the decision by creating a concealed carry law that tries really hard to prevent law-abiding citizens from arming themselves for their own protection. I for one hope they don’t screw things up too badly.
    What do you all think about this situation as it stands today, 12-11-2012?