Concealed Carry Prophets of Doom Guessed Wrong

Those who favor stricter gun control in Illinois have operated on the premise -- I believe in good faith -- that allowing the concealed carry of firearms will result in greater gun violence because those with "concealed carry permits" (CCPs) will misuse their weapons.

On July 9, 2013, Illinois became the last state to permit concealed carry -- only after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit declared unconstitutional Illinois law prohibiting concealed carry as violation of the Second Amendment. The court gave the legislature 180 days to craft a bill permitting individuals to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense.

Three years have now passed since concealed carry became Illinois law. Because I could recall no news accounts of Illinois CCPs being convicted of firearm violence, I went to the internet to see if there were accounts I might have missed.


The first article I found was a Chicago Tribune piece captioned "In Illinois, concealed carry of guns has quiet first year; expansion sought." To my surprise, the article did not list a single incident of criminal misuse of a firearm by a CCP. The worst "problem" cited involved an incident wherein a CCP lawfully tried to foil an armed robbery by shooting at the fleeing robber in Crestwood, forcing a responding police officer to duck for cover.

As of May 31, 2016, IllinoisCarry states that about 178,000 CCPs are in effect in Illinois. ( illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=61841) So how many of those 178,000 CCPs have been convicted of gun violence or murder?

In checking the internet, I can find only one episode of gun violence by an Illinois CCP -- a murder/suicide. Given the lockstep predisposition of the liberal press to lobby for "stricter gun control," it is inconceivable that if CCPs were using their weapons for murder and violent crimes, that the internet would not be awash with such reports.

Corroborating my research, Chuck Goudie of the ABC-7 Chicago I-Team wrote on Aug. 14, 2015,

"There are now more than 120,000 CCPs in Illinois and it is extremely rare to hear about a permit holder being involved in any violent crime, much less a murder. Friday's (murder/suicide) was the first of 2015 according to police officials, if not the first at all here since Illinois passed concealed carry."

That translates to 1 violent crime per 120,000 CCPs. This is consistent with a July 16, 2015 Report from the Crime Prevention Research Center, entitled "Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States," which concludes, "Permit Holders are Extremely Law-abiding."

"Permit holders on rare occasion violate the law. But in order to truly appreciate how incredibly rare those problems are, one needs to remember that there are over 12.8 million CCPs in the US. Indeed, it is impossible to think of any other group in the US who is anywhere near as law-abiding ...

"Firearms violations among police occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Combining the data for CCPs, in Florida and Texas, it is only 2.4 per 100,000. That is only 1/7th the rate for police officers. The data are similar in other states." (crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2015-Report-from-the-Crime-Prevention-Research-Center-Final.pdf)

In Illinois the standards for CCP are rigorous. The applicant, among other things, must have no felony or misdemeanor convictions for crimes of violence, no pending warrants, a full background check, 16 hours of firearms training by a state police-approved instructor, and local law enforcement officers must have no objection.

Additionally, the new law clarifies and expands the reporting requirements relating to individuals who have severe mental health problems. Physicians, clinical psychologists, and qualified examiners must report when they determine that someone poses a clear and present danger, is developmentally disabled, or may be otherwise disqualified from possessing a FOID Card. (For a good summary of the requirements, see: chicagotribune.com/news/ct-obama-gun-control-illinois-impact-met-20160105-9-story.html)


Posted: Wednesday, July 9, 2016 - QCOline.com


Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

Why America Needs Another Harry Truman

This November, we will elect our next president. In November of 1948, I cast my first presidential ballot. I was 7 at the time. I was in second grade.

That "election" was conducted by Sister Mary Margaret at Our Lady of Mercy. I "voted" for Harry S. Truman, Democrat. I was one of only two kids that did. The other thirty-some kids voted for Thomas E. Dewey, Republican.

Like a great many Americans who will vote this fall, I had no clue what either President Truman or Gov. Thomas Dewey stood for. My best recollection is that I voted for Harry Truman "because he was president.”

My vote for Truman, was a vote I have never regretted. And with the passage of years, historians have come to realize that Mr. Truman may well have been one of our greatest presidents.

Truman wasn't always right. But he had the guts to do what he believed was right, regardless of polls, party politics or personal gain.

To end World War II in the Pacific, Harry Truman dropped two atom bombs. It is estimated that those bombs killed 246,000 Japanese. In his memoirs, Mr. Truman estimated that 500,000 Americans would have died had we invaded Japan -- had the bombs not been dropped. Secretary of War Stimson and Winston Churchill estimated 1 million American deaths. Those figures did not include estimates of Japanese deaths.

In February 1948, the president submitted a civil rights agenda to Congress in furtherance of voting rights and fair employment practices for blacks.

This provoked a storm of criticism from Southern Democrats and the split of the Democratic Party. Mr. Truman refused to back down. "My forebears were Confederates ... but my very stomach turned over when I had learned that Negro soldiers, just back from overseas, were being dumped out of Army trucks in Mississippi and beaten."

Tales of the abuse, violence, and persecution against African-American veterans upon their return from World War II infuriated Truman. His response was Executive Order 9981 (July 1948), desegregating and requiring equal opportunity and racial integration in the Armed Forces.

Another executive order made it illegal to discriminate against persons applying for civil service positions based on race.

In 1943, while still a senator, Mr. Truman called for a homeland for Jews who survived Hitler's Holocaust. State Department officials, however, were reluctant to offend the Arabs. Secretary of Defense Forrestal warned Truman of the importance of Saudi oil in the event of war. Truman replied that he would decide his policy on the basis of justice, not oil. Truman recognized Israel over the objections of Secretary of State George Marshall on May 14, 1948.

In 1950, the Senate, led by Estes Kefauver, investigated charges of corruption among internal Revenue officials, and 166 employees either resigned or were fired in 1950. With many soon facing indictment, Attorney General McGrath fired the special prosecutor for being too zealous. Truman fired McGrath. Truman’s plan to reform Internal Revenue was passed by Congress.

In 1952, Mr. Truman, citing his authority as commander-in-chief and the need to maintain an uninterrupted supply of steel for munitions to be used in the Korean War, instructed his secretary of commerce to take control of a number of the nation's steel mills. The Supreme Court found that, without prior Congressional authorization, his actions were unconstitutional.

Mr. Truman supported the creation of the U.N. He established the Berlin Airlift to save Berlin when the Soviets cut-off access. He enunciated the Truman Doctrine to contain the Soviets He won bi-partisan support for the Marshall Plan to rebuild war-torn Europe. He fired Gen. McArthur for insubordination.

And what I like best about him, was that he told the truth.

Harry Truman retired to Missouri a poor man. He had only his WWI army pension. He refused to use the office of the presidency to enrich himself.

Before voting this fall, I recommend you watch the movie "Truman." (It is available on amazon.com.)

Measure how our 2016 candidates measure up against a great president.

Posted: Wednesday, July 16,  2016 - QCOline.com


Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

First Right Is the Right to Defend Ourselves

As I write, 49 bodies have now been removed from the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Fla.

Fifty-three more patrons suffered wounds, in the deadliest shooting rampage perpetrated in modern American history. The gunman, Omar Mateen, took a timeout during his shooting spree to call 911 and profess allegiance to the Islamic State.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the shooter first opened fire outside the nightclub, exchanged fire with a uniformed Orlando police officer working security for the nightclub, and entered the club where he began his mass murder spree. By the time additional officers arrived, it was too late for 102 of his victims.


At the time of Mateen's entry, there were 300 unarmed patrons in the club.

The Pulse was a "gun free zone" under Florida law. A number of things are evident from the early news accounts:

1. Mateen ignored the "gun free zone" signs on the doors.

2. The Pulse's "gun free zone" status did not prevent gun violence or save lives. The fact that patrons were unarmed facilitated the slaughter.

3. The fact that an armed officer was working security outside the club did not protect the patrons. The armed terrorist was in the club before the officer could stop him.

4. The police officers responding to the call for help arrived too late to prevent 102 patrons from being shot.

5. Stricter gun laws would probably not have prevented the massacre. France had stricter gun laws, yet the Paris shooters still found a way to get guns.

If Mateen had been unable to acquire a semi-automatic rifle, could he not have achieved the same result using one or more semi-automatic pistols? Or a hand grenades? Is there no black market for these things?

6. Attorney General Loretta Lynch's dicta that the “most effective” weapon at America’s disposal against Islamic terrorism is “love” is absurd. Six million Jews found prayer inadequate against Hitler's Holocaust.

But what if some of the patrons at the Pulse had been armed? What if only 1 percent had been carrying concealed? What if one of them was behind Mateen as he started to shoot? What if one of them was off to his side? What if one was in another portion of the building, and had time to take cover and return fire?

Of course, it is all speculation. But I am guessing that while Mateen would have killed and wounded a number of those present, he would not have had enough time to kill and wound 102. And if 2 percent of the patrons were carrying concealed, he would have had to face six people able to defend themselves and others about them.

Admittedly, they could have hit other patrons by mistake. The police could have, too. Admitting that, I doubt that 49 people would be dead and 53 wounded had six patrons been carrying.

Experience teaches that gun free zones have proved to be superb killing fields for the Dylan Klebolds and radical Islamic terrorists who believe their religion justifies/mandates slaughter of unarmed civilians -- women, children, etc.

There is a partial list of Islamist terrorists attacks since 1980, lest you have forgotten, at                 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks.

The simple fact is, the terrorists are winning. There are not (and never can be) enough police in America to stop the San Bernardinos and Orlandos. There will never be enough police to protect every bar, nightclub, school, amusement park, airport, bus station, wedding, funeral, and every other soft target in the U.S. And when the government is unable (or unwilling) to protect us, we have the most basic of all rights -- the right to defend ourselves.

For many years, when I was a judge, I favored gun control. Wanton Islamic terror has caused me to reconsider. Experience (e.g., Ft. Hood, San Bernardino, Paris, Orlando) teaches that the only way to stop the terrorism is via concealed carry by screened and trained citizens.

So, do we have more to fear from citizens permitted to carry concealed than from terrorists? See my next op ed.


Posted July 1, 2016, QCOnline.com

Copyright 2016
John Donald O'Shea