Oleg Volk photo (click to enlarge)
Related Articles
-
'Gun free' Chicago is bleeding out
-
First impressions on McDonald v. Chicago
-
'No guns for negroes,' Chicago-style
-
Does 'gun free' Chicago need the National Guard?
-
Weis: CPD Can't Stop Homicides
-
Disgraced former Illinois governor thinks Mayor Daley not enough of a thug for 'gun control'
-
Handgun Ban Support Collapsing
-
'Better for the police to catch me with it than the robber to catch me without it'
-
As SCOTUS ruling on Chicago gun ban looms, one case defines gun control bankruptcy
-
80-year-old Chicago man kills intruder, may face charges
-
‘Morning Shooting Underscores Why We Sued Chicago,’ Says SAF
-
Elderly Chicago man saves family, self with 'illegal' handgun
-
Why Chicago shooting deflates anti-gun philosophy everywhere…including Seattle
-
Does Mayor Daley dare order 80-year-old 'gun criminal' arrested?
"Guns is not the answer," according to Chicago's grammatically challenged mayor. This bit of . . . wisdom was Daley's response to what we discussed yesterday--a situation in which a gun was the answer. Says Hizzoner:
I understand the situation and I understand. What I'm saying is all of us have to understand that guns is not the answer to problems we see in homes and on the streets of America. It's just has simple as that.
For a guy who uses the word "understand" three times in two sentences, Daley seems to be the one whose understanding is a bit foggy. Perhaps he was confused about the question, but when asked "with what can 80-year-old man who walks with a cane best protect himself and his family from a young, fit, armed home invader (and career criminal), who has already illustrated his ruthlessness by firing twice?" a gun most certainly is the answer.
This next part is what I want to talk about, though:
Neither the mayor nor police superintendent would comment on whether charges are even being considered. Police say they have custody of two guns taken from the scene, and that their investigation is ongoing.
And I see that I was correct about the homeowner's gun being confiscated--I daresay I'll also be right in my prediction that he'll never get it back.
Another article puts it this way:
Mayor Richard Daley refused to say today whether an 80-year-old Army veteran who shot and killed an intruder will be charged under the city's handgun ban.
Asked about the possibility of charges, the mayor ended a news conference he had called about summer curfew in the city.
"I don't know. Thank you very much," Daley said and stepped away from the microphone.
Be sure to watch the video:
As we discussed yesterday, the elderly home owner would seem to be protected from prosecution under Chicago's tyrannical handgun ban by legislation passed (over then Illinois Senator Obama's repeated votes and then Governor Blagojevich's veto) in 2004. Here's what that legislation does (very bottom of the page):
Municipal ordinance regulating firearms; affirmative defense to a violation. It is an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another as defined in Sections 7-1 and 7-2 of this Code when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business.
In other words, the implied threat in Daley's refusal to rule out prosecution would seem to be an empty implied threat, directed at anyone else who, perhaps inspired by the homeowner's example, is considering his own refusal to be a victim.
So, Mayor, if "guns is not the answer," what, may I ask, is your answer? Please don't tell me that reliance on the police is the answer--not only have courts ruled time and again that the police have no duty to protect the individual (and how could they?), Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis has himself recently acknowledged that the police are more or less powerless to prevent homicides inside homes.
The ones that are outdoors we really should be able to have an impact on. ... Today’s tragedy [a murder-suicide earlier in the month] … is sad. Three people are dead. But, when it’s inside a house, it’s hard for police to have an impact on that. I wish we could. I just don’t see where we can.
It seems that the police don't have an answer. An 80-year-old Korean War veteran did--which is a good thing, because the consequences of getting the answer wrong would have been far worse than a poor grade.
Update: National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea has more.
Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Detroit: Rob Reed | Fort Smith: Steve D. Jones | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Knoxville: Liston Matthews | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Parkersburg: Nicholas Arnold | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Pittsburgh: Dan Campbell | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Tucson: Chris Woodard | Wisconsin: Gene German
Comments
Great article Kurt. Good for the Vet who protected his family. The perp was a thug with a long criminal history. He discharged his weapon in the process of trying to burglarize the Vet's home, and the Vet took him out. The mayor of Chicago is an idiot, and his unconstitutional gun bad will be overturned by SCOTUS. When gov't prevents good citizens from defending themselves against the criminals, gov't helps perpetrators and hurts law-abiding citizens, the reverse of its role. The People will not stand for it, nor should they.
BTW, the mayor needs grammar lessons: "Guns is . . ."? Try "Guns are . . . " And allow me to revise his sentence: "Guns are more often the solution than the problem in the hands of law-abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights."
Mayor Daley should be removed from office. Any public official who fails to protect and defend the Constitution should be removed from office. Rise up People!
And just what does he think the answer is? Hizzoner needs to realize that the days of relying on "The Police" to fight crime are over.
The glib response that a gun is not the answer is to misunderstand the issue: it is not that a gun is the answer, it is that the freedom to own a gun is the solution to a great many problems which are unnecessary problems in a nation of self-rule.
Framing the issue is everything: the FREEDOM to own the gun is the answer to a lot of problems.
I believe that the 80-year-old man will be charged. He will need someone to help him get a jury trial and have the jury exercise their authority via jury nullification.
JJ, I'll actually be quite surprised if he's charged. For one thing, the 2004 law pretty clearly protects him. For another, I don't think even Daley is enough of an idiot to fail to realize what a political A-bomb he'd be dropping on himself if he arrested an elderly war veteran for defending his life against a career criminal thug.
I think the posturing he's engaging in by refusing to publicly rule out charges is simply an attempt to bully other Chicagoans out of arming themselves similarly.
Someone please tell Mayor Daley that he needs to disarm his security detail, as guns is not the answer.
I guess guns IS the answer, when HIS life is the question. Our lives are apparently not as important as his.
The thug got what he deserved, plain and simple. A man has a right to defend his own life and the lives of his family. I think what the mayor was trying to say, but is too much of a moron to form a coherent sentence is: A gun should not always be the first answer. However, in this case, it was the first and only answer.
Interesting how the biggest gun ban advocates are politicians with 24 hour taxpayer sponsored protection.
I have a feeling that the old man is pretty confided that guns IS the answer to his particular problem. Let's see. Dead homeowners = 0, dead criminals = 1. The math only doesn't work out if you are a criminal. This equation is starting to make sense.
Allan: We'd have to remove ALL the politicians and "authorities" at this point including the high ranking military officers who have, thus far, failed to fulfill their Oaths of Office to "defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
I still haven't been able to figure out if Obama is a foreign or domestic enemy. There's no doubt he's an enemy though so it's really not that important which he actually is.
Well written and argued, Kurt; thank you. Daley has no argument; he's a lying sack of spin who wants us unarmed.
The big picture is money and power; oligarchs and their minions like Daley protecting what is coming into focus for all of us: corporate cartels and banksters looting us while their political pimps protect them. These American fascists understand the public is becoming sharply aware and an incident like this shows their fear and desperate attempt to keep us powerless.
Look up the City of Chicago CAFR and discover how many billions of dollars they have in "investments" while crying about a budget deficit. These aren't for retirement benefits; the ratio is taking $10 from taxpayers to give 20 cents to retirees. I've written two articles to explain and show the data in the CAFRs.
Daley shows the oligarchs' fear and the truth that they don't care about the public. He also shows zero leadership. He's a sychopant minion for those who love money, control, and propaganda.
Kurt, I apologize for the off subject question, but the other day I was at my local St. Charles, Co gun store and this guy mentioned that California had just passed a .05 cent per round tax on ammo. I read this website everyday, and had not seen anything about this, is this true, or is it just one of those unsubstaniated rumors that goes around?
Ya'll are being too hard on Daley. You have to understand that this is a man who stretches the limits of his intellectual prowess by trying to remain standing, while at the same time not soiling himself. Grammar has to take a back seat.
Taurus, California AB 962, that Schwarzenegger signed into law last year might impose a per-round tax, to pay for the implementation of the massive database that it requires, but I'm not sure (not real up on California law).
"DuJuan says:
Interesting how the biggest gun ban advocates are politicians with 24 hour taxpayer sponsored protection."
I wonder if the IRS is aware of the value of this imputed income that is not being reported, or taxes that should be paid on this?
Daley is one of the last persons I like to stick up for, but on that particular quote, I wonder if perhaps the error lies in the media.
It sounds like he pauses, and one could interpret that pause as hesitation. But you could also parse that sentence "'guns' is not the answer."
Could someone explain to me how the Illinois FOID card is not a violation of the second amendment...Owners ID card, how does that not violate the keep and bare arms provision.
Daley, Guns and the Right to Defend Yourself
A Korean War veteran encountered an intruder breaking into his home who fired two shots at him. The vet returned fire, killing the intruder. The victim purchased his gun after he was robbed six months earlier.Chicago has a ban on owning handguns and Mayor Daley does not know if charges will be filed against the homeowner. He then made the following idiotic statement: “I understand the situation and I understand. What I'm saying is all of us have to understand that guns [is] not the answer to problems we see in homes and on the streets of America. It's just [has] simple as that.” He says this while walking around with armed body guards. The US Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the ban by the end of June, 2010. Hopefully, the judges will see the wisdom in ending the ban.
This is not the first idiotic statement made by Daley, he blamed the Fort Hood shootings on guns. These useless Democrat/Statists like Daley do not understand that people
...have a God given right to protect themselves and their families. Fools like Daley, who are in positions of power want to try to take that right away. Daley says guns [is] not the answer, I have to disagree. Guns were the answer for this 80-year-old Army veteran who shot and killed a career criminal, Anthony Nelson, 29, who was on parole, had a 13-page rap sheet and went by the name "Big Ant." I guess you could say this courageous veteran exterminated the Big Ant. However, his son Butch Gant said it best, "He missed, (but) my daddy didn't." Unfortunately, the police seized the victim’s gun. I hope he has a spare.
Greg Zotta
Republican Candidate for Mo. Senate 22
"Guns is not the answer"
Are you sure they isn't? Cause I'm pretty sure they is.
The second Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Therefore all gun laws are illegal.
bob,excellent point:the courts have held in a number of constitutional decisions that it is unconstitutional for any governmental agency to require citizens to register or acquire a government issued permit for them to be able to excercise their constitutional rights.These case law decisions have been issued specifically for First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and religeon, but it isn't too great of a stretch that the same principles should be applied to ANY constitutional right.FOID cards, gun registration,any and all gun "permits",and most restrictions on gun ownwership or carrying guns ARE patently unconstitutional,ESPECIALLY when it is clear that these restrictions are designed to do just what they do: RESTRICT(READ THAT "INFRINGE" THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS,ULTIMATELY, INTO OBLIVION.The only "reasonable" restrictions that Heller vs. D.C. allowed for, that I can think of offhand, are very limited restrictions on carrying guns into a court or a jail, for instance.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!