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

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

Will Concealed Carry Laws Make Illinois Any Safer?

Illinois state Rep. La Shawn Ford, an African-American, third-term Democrat representing a West Chicago District, told the Chicago Sun-Times on Sept, 8 that he would support "concealed carry" legislation if it came up for a vote in the General Assembly. Rep. Ford said he "knows it sounds bad," but that his constituents desire to legally protect themselves with firearms.

"They're saying we're making criminals out of law-abiding citizens. They're saying you're only siding with the criminals because the criminals could care less about the law."

In the years that I served in the state's attorney's office and on the bench I never questioned the wisdom of outlawing the carrying of concealed weapons. I simply accepted the premise that if more people carried guns, it would translate into more gun violence. Mass killings over the past few years have caused me to begin to question my long-held beliefs.

-- On Nov. 5, 2009, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire with an automatic pistol at the Soldier Readiness Center of Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13 people and wounding 30 others. The shootings ended only when Hasan was shot and disabled by civilian police officer Sgt. Mark Todd. The soldier-victims were unarmed.

-- On Jan. 8, 2011, 19 people were shot by Jared Loughner, 22, as Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords met with her constituents. Six, including U. S. District Judge John M. Roll, and Christina Green, 9, were killed, and Rep. Giffords was shot through the head. The victims were unarmed.

-- On July 22, 2011, Anders Behring Breivik, 32, shot to death 69 people in Norway at a youth retreat. One of the first victims was an unarmed off-duty police officer hired to provide security. Police in Norway generally do not carry firearms. Breivik's victims were unarmed.

-- On Sept. 7, 2011, Edwardo Sencion of Carson City killed four and wounded eight others at an IHOP restaurant. Three of the dead were members of the Nevada National Guard. The victims were unarmed.

Our Second Amendment provides, "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."

I have previously written why I think we have a Second Amendment. "At the time the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, no city in the United States had an organized police force. ...

"The counties had their sheriffs, but in an era before telephones, a sheriff at the county seat miles away afforded the frontiersman scant protection against marauding Indians, burglars and robbers. In the backwoods, a family's personal security rested on their ownership of guns. That was the patent reality in 1791."

In 1850, a French economist and philosopher, Frederic Bastiat, in his treatise "The Law," succinctly explained that the law's first purpose is "self defense."

"What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

"Each of us has a natural right -- from God -- to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.

"If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the ... collective right -- is based on the individual right."

With that in mind, I am now asking myself:

First, assuming all four incidents might have occurred even if the carrying of concealed weapons had been permitted, had there been people carrying concealed, would one or more of gunmen have been shot before they killed and wounded as many as they did?

Second, if a person intent on committing mass murder knows that a number of his intended victims or bystanders -- especially those standing behind him -- may be armed, might he be deterred?

Third, if citizens competently trained in firearm safety and without criminal records or mental health problems are allowed to carry concealed, is their any real likelihood that unlawful shootings will increase due to misuse of that privilege?

Fourth, are there reliable statistic in states which permit concealed carry to answer my third query?

The Chicago Redeye has written that there were 34 gun homicides in Chicago during July 2011. Would gang members be as inclined to use guns if they knew their intended victims or bystanders might also be carrying concealed?

I don't know the answer to these questions. But I do know that unarmed citizens have little or no chance against heavily armed criminals bent on committing mass murder. When somebody like Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan uses a semi-automatic pistol that can fire 20 rounds from a clip as fast as he can squeeze the trigger, the police are probably not going to arrive in time to prevent the slaughter. And as long as smaller clips can be exchanged almost instantaneously, banning 20-round clips won't solve the problems.

At the time the 2nd Amendment was adopted, pistols and long guns generally fired a single shot. Reloading gave others time to counterattack or run. Modern automatic and semiautomatic weapons deprive victims of those options. And every one of the incidents cited demonstrates that having armed police just minutes away is not enough.

I can't think of any meaningful alternative except concealed carry to stop mass murders. Can you? Washington D.C. and Chicago have a strict handgun bans. Law-abiding citizens comply, but the criminals don't. Would concealed carry cut down on murders and mass murder, or just lead to more shootings? I don't know. Do you?

I have no desire to carry a weapon, but do I have any right to tell one of Rep. Ford's constituents, living in a crime ridden part of Chicago, that they are wrong to want protection?

Posted Online: Oct. 11, 2011, 3:47 pm - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea