Gov. Quinn bars disclosure of gun-permit holders

"CHICAGO — Gov. Pat Quinn on Saturday signed into law a measure barring the public from knowing who holds a firearm owner identification card in Illinois." http://newssun.suntimes.com/news/6308530-418/gov.-quinn-bars-disclosure-of-gun-permit-holders

Proving once again that any statistic involving crimes committed by permit holders is meaningless. If reporters and stat keepers can't know if the crime was committed by a permit holder then your .1% claim is nothing more than an NRA guess. Or should I say NRA wet dream.

However, I do agree with the legislation that names should not be released.

Besides, I've always felt that those who like to tout how law abiding gun toters/owners supposedly are fail to recognize that they are no more law abiding (maybe less) than people who could qualify for a permit/license but choose not to.

it was up to those who wish to limit a freedom to show compelling interest. That is to say, in a liberal democracy it is up to you to rationally justify why carrying in public is bad policy in general. Since you can not show a rational compelling interest based on fact, then the liberal thing to do is not oppose concealed carry.

In fact, grenades have killed much less than guns in this country- at least that's the rationale many used to keep the pipeline open to so-called "assault weapons."

I think you should re-examine what constitutes "liberalism." I think it is more that we are all in this society and have to figure out a way for it to work for everyone's benefit. I don't think guns really fit in nowadays. Although, I can accept them at home.

And BTW, Illinois does not now currently permit the carriage of guns in public.

But you knew that already.

grenades are explosive devices, regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as an "destructive devices." How is that relevant? They are regulated because of how they function not what they look like. "assault weapons" are simply rifles that look ugly and have cosmetic features like pistol grips. For example:

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/models.html
http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TargetRifle/models.html
http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html
The only difference is the stock. Same action, same round, same make and model. You can take the receiver assembly from a tactical model, take off the GI Joe stuff and put it in a nice carved wooden stock, and it would still be the same rifle as before.



Yes we are all in this society and to work for everyone's benefit. What is different about nowadays that was not different than before? Besides technology and some social mores? To me liberalism is the enlightenment and accepting all diversity (which no one can be completely consistent. The important thing is to acknowledge that when you are and why.) That means my culture is as legitimate as any other. I think guns fit in now as they did before. How many "antis" are really liberals or simply ersatz liberals or conservatives? Shall I list the conservatives? That has been done several times, you know them now. An ersatz (or faux, pseudo choose your term) are those who take positions that are left of center but are still narrow minded, bigoted, or authoritarian. In several of your posts, you have supported the police violating laws, and depriving people of their civil liberties while doing nothing illegal, because of your narrow definition of "civilized". By your logic, the police should stop cars to see if the drivers are smoking while having children in the car. We have both seen examples of free republic level bigotry, their posts tend to be deleted here. You know, the ones that juvenile references to penis sizes etc.




That is my definition of liberalism. That is the definition I am sticking with.

The mere fact someone covets them is proof enough that they are not mature/stable enough to carry guns in public, or perhaps own them.

...spend their hard-earned money to buy, then yes.
I suppose we all "covet"; we covet food, TVs, blankets, homes...

Some of us even covet the control of our neighbors constitutional rights.

And the mere fact someone holds such a position is proof enough that they are not mature/stable enough to vote in state and perhaps federal elections.

See how that works?


Now go ahead and tell us that votes never killed anyone.





Go ahead. I dare ya.

First, you don't define "gunners' baser instincts." Would you please do this before making such a statement. I would at least like to see if those instincts align with, say, mine.

"The mere fact that someone covets them..." Coveting what? A semi-auto carbine of medium strength, one which must be re-chambered to make a suitable big-game rifle in this hemisphere?

"coveting them is proof enough that they are not mature/stable enough to carry guns in public, or perhaps own them."
My goodness, only "coveting" will get you all that? I'm glad that a liberal democracy does not legislate or regulate on the basis of your view of coveting, or on your standard of proof, or on your views of maturity/stableness. I can see it now: Hoyt found someone who "covets" a $500 AK-47, and Hoyt says it is proof that the individual is not "mature/stable enough to carry guns in public, or perhaps own them."

You did lose a little drama with that "perhaps" fence-straddling.

I mean, you can find manufacturers who refer to some of their products as "assault rifles," but only those products intended for governmental sales. The ones that'll actually fire on automatic, unlike so-called "assault weapons."

...of your ideology is enough to knock a buzzard off an outhouse.

Allow me:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Edit: It's time you accepted the law of the land.

...if popularly accepted, what could be an exceptionally damaging to liberal ideology.

Don't believe political dissent is a good thing in our society. So let's just pretend the 1st amendment isn't about political speech and we can make sure the opposition never has a voice.

When the crime is processed, and the gun-owner is investigated (as he or she surely will be), it should be quickly found out whether or not a concealed-carry permit was issued.

Do you think how you feel is good enough?

crime traced back to it's source and reported in the news papers. The only numbers we seem to have are those self reported by people in jail. Not too reliable.

and few if any stats based on trace of crime weapons.

that told me once he stopped taking the media seriously when his brother was on the Chicago seven jury. He said that what the media reported and what was said in the court room were nothing alike.

Past that, the trail usually dies.

:shrug:


If it's not relevent, then it shouldn't be in the news. The fact that a crime gun was bought in Burlington, Vermont by John Smith in 1998 probably isn't useful to the detectives when it turns up in Chicago in 2011 at the murder scene of a gangbanger.

...law protecting the privacy of gun-owners?!

Damn GOP/NRA at it again! (er... uh... um...)

Concealed carry in Illinois is illegal.

Quinn's actions seem to be directed at protecting the privacy of legal gun owners who have somehow managed to successfully jump through the imposing hoops that the state of Illinois has set up in order to attempt to infringe upon the lawful gun ownership of Illinois citizens.

Can you explain why such information should be publicly available for the Sun Times to publish at their whim?

Texas does not allow it. I guess I just hear that the permits in Illinois went to "connected" people.

There are many aspects of the gun issue which Texas gets absolutely right....30.06 & 51% signage specifically, should be emulated by all states. In Illinois, the "connected" requirement mostly applies to Cook County (Chicago), most of the rest of the state is much more reasonable.

Protecting the identity of FOID card holders has nothing to do with crime statistics.

...but he/she seems more interested in violating the privacy of permit holders than crime statistics. Apparently the only time statistical data is valid is when the name and address of all its subjects are freely available to the public. At least according to the OP.

Firearm Owner's Identification Information



The State police conducts a background check for a fee and issues an ID card that must be shown when the holder desires to buy a gun. This is in addition to the NICS check done at the point of sale.

It is illegal in Illinois to sell, give, loan, a gun to anyone without a card. You cannot even inherit a family heirloom without having an FOID first.

The card does not allow you anything but to be able to buy a gun and ammunition. You may not carry it concealed, loaded, unloaded are anything else.

You have to be an elected official to carry a concealed weapon in Illinois.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

IL just needs to set up a system like the one in Texas.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

Which leads to graphs like this..



If you base your 'stats' from fucking news reports, you have bigger problems.

'Summer of the Shark', anyone?

that chart sums up exactly my point. The stats are meaningless because no one gets access to the database. While the chart is pretty, it's based on guesses. Are you wanting us to believe that the largest number, 2004, we won't find a CWP holder? Problem is we can't check and you and the NRA doesn't want us to.

The stats are not "guesses."The data comes from the Texas Department of Public Safety. They are telling you how many CWP holders were convicted of crimes per 100,000 CWP holders and then comparing this rate to the rate for the general public. There is no reason for them to release all the personal data of every permit holder in order to arrive at that number. Are you suggesting that the TDPS is lying and that you need to run all the data yourself in order to verify their stats?


You clearly don't understand what kind of data you're looking at. Of course you'll find some CWP holders in there; that's why their total is not zero. The chart tells you, however, that the number is very low compared to the general public.

No guesses involved.

You're derping hard, tonight.

in response to this OP:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x433439




That's some reagent-grade derp right there....

The data is from the Texas Department of Public Safety (State Highway Patrol), the same entity charged with administration of Texas' Concealed Handgun licensure. This information is not the "guess" that you claim, but is actual empirical data.

As you can see, from 2004, the red bar indicates that there were less than 50 per 100,000 CHL holders (actual total for 2004 was 105 total convictions for CHL holders) as per the info at the following LINK.

It is possible to obtain specific data related to those convictions by making an FOI request - the individual convictions themselves are public data.

Is a lie, at worst, a deliberate misrepresentation, or, at best, gross, world-class, Olympic level stupidity!

The Illinois FOID program is run by the State Police. They know everyone who has been issued a card or had a card revoked. So does every law enforcement agency; state, county or city prosecutor. They have no trouble in determining if a suspect is in the database; if they have an FOID or not.

The reason you are so insanely upset is all the people who have a need to access the database CAN. but, and this is the heavy but, YOU CAN'T!!!

You are not entitled to having every FOID holder on a website you can access. You are frustrated because YOU can't look up and see if your boss, boyfriend, stockbroker, or the wacky woman down the hall, has an FOID.

This is, in fact, no different from most states and automobile license plates. Which, as it happens, has been pointed out to you before. Your idle curiosity about who owns the new Mercedes is not sufficient reason to run a license plate. Cops have lost their jobs getting caught running plates for personal reasons or for their friends.

No vengeful stalker should be able to find out his ex-wife has a gun permit and her new address with a couple of mouse clicks.No self-righteous newspaper editor should be able to "out" gun owners furthering an editorial position by publishing their names and address in the paper.

For statistical analysis it it sufficient that the State police can report how many permit holders had been arrested and convicted of crimes.

"While the chart is pretty, it's based on" it is prepared by the State Police (you know, the guys who established and maintain the database)

"The stats are meaningless..." only because you don't like them. Otherwise you would have us to believe that the State Police have a vested interest in deflating the number of permit holders they arrest.

Just like the motor vehicle database. It is sufficient that the State Police can tell us how many drivers were arrested for which offense, how many were in what type of vehicle, how many had their license suspended, etc.

The positions you are advocating would enable ANYONE to determine who you are, where you live, if you possess an FOID. They would not have to be in law enforcement with a need to know.

It would make no difference if they were merely incurable snoops and busybodies or criminals planning to kidnap, rape and murder you. You seem to think that information about should be freely disseminated.

Or worse, in your self-righteous hypocrisy, it should be available about those icky "gun owners." The "pure and righteous" gun free would be exempt. As would all those "vile, vicious and insane" whose criminal records preclude them from qualifying for an FOID to start.

One of the more patient and articulate responses to a foolish, agenda driven busy body trying to camoflage themselves with "public safety".

That is what I wanted to say in my post, but you said it much better than me.

Names?
Addresses?
Phone #'s?
Personal Data?

You keep wanting access to this data, for what reason?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Plain and simple. So you can "shame" them, or "alert" their neighbors, or have some asshole reporters invade their privacy, or some such bullshit.

It's absolutely no one's fucking business except law enforcement who owns a gun in Illinois. And unless a CCW permit, or other mandatory permit is involved in gun ownership in other states, I don't want law enforcement involved there either.

And I don't want ANYONE, in any state, having access to CCW records, except law enforcement, Especially reporters, because the media has shown itself to be overwhelmingly anti-gun. And has been shown they have no compunction about invading people's s privacy and publishing lists of CCW holders.

"outing" firearm owners when it comes to the incident where the parolee tracked down the home address of his female parole officer through such a list?

It would be helpful for discussions that I occasionally have on other boards. Thanks!

but I'll do what I can to find it, hopefully someone else (or the OP) can remember the thread and will chime in. She might have been a probation officer instead of parole but the incident involved a state publishing the info of permit holders and it resulted in one of her assignments coming to her front door.
All the perp had to do was look for her name and BINGO, had her home address!

:dunce:s!

or are you just fear-mongering for the sake of fear-mongering?

Many life-long Democrats, myself included, have and do support liberalized concealed carry policies as the most effective means of allowing We The People to provide for our own self-defense needs.

In his book, Frontier Violence: Another Look, author W. Eugene Hollon, provides us with these astonishing facts:

"In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.
In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870."

Zooming forward over a century to 2007, a quick look at Uniform Crime Report statistics shows us the following regarding the aforementioned gun control “paradise” cities of the east:


DC – 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents)
New York – 494 Murders (6 per 100,000 residents)
Baltimore – 281 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents)
Newark – 104 Murders (37 per 100,000 residents)


It doesn’t take an advanced degree in statistics to see that a return to “wild west” levels of violent crime would be a huge improvement for the residents of these cities.

The truth of the matter is that the “wild west” wasn’t wild at all … not compared to a Saturday night in Newark.

http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m2d17-Dispelling-the-myth-of-The-Wild-West

New York, Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia and the big cities back East were cesspools of violent crime in the nineteenth century, the twentieth century and are on track to continue in the twenty-first.

Dodge City was one of the Kansas "cow-towns" because of the railhead. Herds were delivered there to go to markets in the east. Bat Masterson was one of Dodge City's more notable town marshals. (Yes, there really was a Chisholm Trail, an Abilene Trail, among others and cowboys drove herds hundreds of miles to market.)

Their glory days as centers of commerce went with the tracks. After the railroad went past Abilene it's importance to the cattle trade and it's population waned. During their heyday, from 1870 to 1885, Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, were the most important shipping points in Kansas. Ranchers from Texas, New Mexico and the Indian Territories brought herds to ship to the big packing plants in Chicago and points East.

In 1885, the Kansas State Legislature banned all Texas cattle from the entire state of Kansas. What brought an end to the Kansas cow-town was not shoot-outs on Front Street, but the Texas tick fever that devastated Kansas dairy cattle and stock cattle. Texas Longhorns were wild animals, and were immune to earthly diseases.

You'd think someone who works for a company that started out selling cattle feed would know something about cows and cow towns.

Another invasion of privacy stopped.

Open or concealed. Ergo, any shooting committed by anyone outside his residence or place of business is ipso facto committed by someone who was carrying illegally, or by a government official (such as a city alderman) authorized to carry concealed as a perk of his elected office. Therefore, this measure does not provide evidence for your assertion, which is dubious anyway.

As has been explained to you ad nauseam, both Florida and Texas maintain records of CCW permits revoked, and the reasons for doing so. It is on the basis of these records, maintained without publishing personal information on every CCW permit holder in the state to any Tom, Dick or Harry who asks for it, that the claim of the miniscule percentage of CCW permit holders who are convicted of violent offenses committed with firearms are based. It's not a "guess," much less an "NRA wet dream," it's a provisional extrapolation of existing data, the provisional element being the assumption that FL and TX are representative of other "shall issue" states. But nobody's provided a compelling reason why CCW permit holders in FL and TX should be more restrained in their behavior than CCW permit holders elsewhere, so that's a reasonable assumption.

The fact that other states don't maintain similar records is simply a matter of those states not considering it worthwhile to allocate funding for that purpose.

He mistakenly thought this was about CCW and got his undies all in a bunch, thinking he'd score a few quick cheap points.

Like most gun control fans he didn't bother checking any facts and couldn't wait to post his ignorance of the Illinois issue for all to see.

The fact that the police have full access to all the record isn't what he wants. Until he can personally see if his neighbor has a gun, so he can warn all the neighborhood children to "stay away from the gun nut in the corner house", he won't be happy.

The breathlessly hysterical OP has claimed numerous time to hold a valid Washington CCW for the purpose of evading Washington's waiting period.

" yes... I can buy a hand gun without the waiting period..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Proving once again that any statistic involving crimes committed by permit holders, that doesn't come from the police or the FBI, is meaningless. If reporters and stat keepers can't know if the crime was committed by a permit holder we are left trusting the government.