National Rifle Association firearms instructor Lee Merriman says a lot of people fear the criminal elements around them.

That is keeping Merriman busy these days as he trains people from all walks of life to use a firearm safely.

“I have a lot of older people who live in bad areas of Peoria who are scared,” said Merriman.

“Most people are here because the crime rate is so high.

“I just had a guy and his wife who had never fired a gun in their lives. They live in the country and are on the road a lot. The wife wants to be able to protect her two young daughters. We’re seeing a lot of that. I recently has a contractor, his wife and 13-year-old daughter go through the class; two ministers; a private class for judges, doctors and so forth; and nine nurses together. You wouldn’t believe the people taking gun courses now.”

Merriman said the number of people requesting tutoring in gun usage is increasing. His August class is full. Merriman’s class may get fuller as more and more the push for concealed carry comes to the forefront in Illinois.

In recent weeks the city of Peoria volunteered to be a test city for a concealed  carry law. Bartonville promptly followed suit, requesting to be a part of any pilot program agreed to by the state.

The Bartonville City Council and the Bartonville Police Department passed a resolution on July 9 supporting concealed carry in the state of Illinois and delivered it to the Illinois General Assembly. The resolution comes in response to an Illinois Sheriff’s Association survey of all sheriffs in the state which showed that 90 percent support concealed carry of weapons, the resolution said.

Bartonville Police Chief Brian Fengel said the council and the police department looked at the sheriff’s association survey and agreed that law abiding citizens should have the right to possess and carry a concealed firearm.

Fengel said 48 states have a concealed carry law that allows law abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms.  Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two that do not.

Chicago politicians do not support a concealed carry law, said Fengel, which has made if difficult to get legislation passed to allow for it.

“If Chicago doesn’t like concealed carry then exclude them from the bill,” said Fengel. He said the number of violent crimes against law abiding citizens makes the need for the law clear.
Tazewell County Sheriff Robert Huston also supports concealed carry.

“I’d say my personal feelings are that I do not object to concealed carry for law-abiding citizens,” he said. “I see it as a very basic issue — as Americans we have certain constitutional rights.

“The Second Amendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms. I look at that as giving individuals the means to defend their own life and the lives of their loved ones.”

Huston said with the right comes certain responsibilities. Guidelines must be established before allowing concealed carry.

“If a person decides to exercise this right the responsibility rests with them to use the weapon in such a way as allowed by law,” he said. “(As to having a gun when drinking), there’s always a risk to everything — some people get in a car after drinking and drive.

“It’s an individual  responsibility. We have rules about officers being drunk and armed. There are serious consequences. There would have to be rules for anyone carrying a concealed weapon.”

Huston said police officers and retired police officers are the only people allowed to carry a concealed weapon in Illinois. He said his corrections officers can only transport their weapon between work and home — they cannot have it on them when off duty and out in the community.

Huston said that presents a risk because corrections officers often have enemies.
Judges, prosecutors, doctors and many other high-profile people have asked the sheriff how to go about getting a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

“Those are groups and types of people with a legitimate reason to feel they need protection,” said Huston.

Tazewell County State’s Attorney Stewart Umholtz said gun control laws only impact those who don’t follow the law anyway — the criminals.

“I am a strong supporter of personal responsibility and liberty ... two concepts that remain a foundation of our nation,” said Umholtz. “I consider myself in line with Thomas Jefferson regarding the ineffectiveness of gun control laws as a deterrent to crime.

“However, I also strongly believe that anyone who intends to carry or use a firearm lawfully should be competent in the use of the weapon and held responsible for misuse.  In other words, the liberty of individuals to chose to carry a firearm does not limit the responsibility of that individual regarding the possession or use of the firearm.  If an individual is going to be allowed to carry a firearm then they must receive training on the use and retention of the firearm.”

Interim Pekin Police Chief Ted Miller said Pekin is blessed with a low crime rate and citizens here don’t face the same threats of violence on a daily basis that people in other communities might. Having said that, he said, there is reason for good debate on a concealed carry law.

“I believe that individuals obviously have the right and should maintain the right to protect their life and the lives of their loved ones,” he said. “That’s a constitutional guarantee.
“That obviously has to be balanced.”

Miller said crime has changed over the years in some ways. In the 1960s, victims of violent crimes almost always knew their attacker. Now crimes are more random with robberies of strangers at ATM machines and the onslaught of church, school, restaurant and business shootings.

“The common denominator is clear,” said Miller. “In almost every instance no one was able to stop the shooter until they had executed their plan and killed people.

“Had someone been properly trained and had a firearm lives may have been saved. I don’t see a wild-west scenario with a concealed carry law. I can’t honestly say that if there is a concealed carry the crime rate will be knocked down. I think we will know that later. As a private citizen I want to have the right to defend my family and my life.”

 

Senators to Holder: "stay away from our guns"

Dear Attorney General Holder:

This letter is in regards to your recent comments suggesting the reinstatement of the ban on assault weapons.  We oppose reinstating the ban on the sale of assault weapons, and we call on the Department of Justice to enforce existing laws before it considers imposing any new restrictions on gun ownership. 

Your comments noted increased violence among international drug traffickers as a reason to reexamine the ban on assault weapons within this country; however, this statement fails to acknowledge laws already in place that work to address this issue.  Under current law, both transferring a firearm to someone knowing that it will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime as well as possessing a firearm in furtherance of a Federal drug trafficking crime are already federal felonies punishable by imprisonment.

We will strongly oppose any legislation that will infringe upon the rights of individual gun owners. We value our outdoor heritage, and a large part of that is our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Passing this heritage down from one generation to the next is a sacred part of being a Montanan, and something that we will always fight to protect. In the light of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller, affirming the Second Amendment right to bear arms as an individual and constitutionally protected right, we urge you to avoid any legislative proposals that would jeopardize the Constitutional right of law-abiding Americans to own firearms.

Sincerely,
U.S. Senator Max Baucus
U.S. Senator Jon Tester

  Tuesday, February 24, 2009

So, is Gun Control Really a Good Thing?

Whether you agree with "gun control" or not, it's an interesting lesson in real history. Something to definitely reflect upon...

In 1929, the Soviet Union established complete gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents whose only crime was disagreeing with "government" policy, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established complete gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established complete gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 6 million Jews and 7 million other Europeans who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established complete gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established complete gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established complete gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established complete gun control in 1956. From 1975 to A. D. 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: conservatively estimated at fifty-six (56) million. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australian taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.

(Note that while the law-abiding Australians turned their guns in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!) While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY.)

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our president, governors or other politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest people save lives and property. And, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding people, not criminals.

Take note my fellow Americans.....before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this real history lesson.

With our Second Amendment "Arms", we are constituent Members of the American Body Sovereign.

Without them, we are merely subjects / slaves to the "will" of corporate "government".

If you truly value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends!

If you value your freedom, Please buy guns and ammo, and lots of it.

Its only a matter of time before guns are outlawed in America. Be Vigilant and be prepared!

 

THIS IS A BIT MIND BOGGLING

Unconfirmed sources report that NRA President Wayne LaPierre has spoken out strongly for tightening up people control laws. "The tragedy in Red Lake proves once again that it is not the ready access to guns that leads to gun violence it is the ready access to people that is the problem." LaPierre then proposed a broad platform of strict people control laws that the NRA and its congressional surrogates will be pushing in the coming year.

"We are declaring war on people violence." Declared LaPierre. "We at the NRA have know for decades that guns don't kill people, people kill people. So we have formulated a plan to better control people and save our country from the horror that is people violence. Now we understand that people violence is a complicated issue and no single measure will be enough to solve the problem, but we at the NRA are dedicated to do what it takes to end people violence."

The NRA plan includes several safety and educational components as well as tougher criminal sanctions and strict people ownership laws. Under the NRA plan:

Parents who wish to have children will undergo an extensive background check. and apply for a permit. There will also be a mandatory waiting period. If a couple wishes to have more children they will have to reapply for another permit.

Prospective parents will be required to attend people safety classes and once a child is born resister them with local law enforcement.

People locks will be required on all people to prevent accidental people violence accidents.

Unused people will be required to be stored in locked people safes.

The government will fund and mange people buy back programs where troublesome people will be taken off the street.

"The country must be made safe for legal gun ownership," Continued LaPierre, "and since gun ownership is a protected right people control laws are our only way out of this terrible situation. We feel terrible about what happened in Red Lake, but we need to lock up the people and not the guns if we are going to protect America.."

GUNS SAVE LIVES.

It's all too predictable. A day after a gunman killed six people and
wounded 18 others at Northern Illinois University, The New York Times criticized the U.S. Interior Department for preparing to rethink its ban on guns in national parks.

The editorial board wants "the 51 senators who like the thought of guns in the parks -- and everywhere else, it seems -- to realize that the
innocence of Americans is better protected by carefully controlling guns than it is by arming everyone to the teeth."

As usual, the Times editors seem unaware of how silly their argument is. To them, the choice is between "carefully controlling guns" and "arming everyone to the teeth." But no one favors "arming everyone to the teeth" (whatever that means). Instead, gun advocates favor freedom, choice and self-responsibility. If someone wishes to be prepared to defend himself, he should be free to do so. No one has the right to deprive others of the means of effective self-defense, like a handgun.

As for the first option, "carefully controlling guns," how many
shootings at schools or malls will it take before we understand that
people who intend to kill are not deterred by gun laws? Last I checked,
murder is against the law everywhere. No one intent on murder will be
stopped by the prospect of committing a lesser crime like illegal
possession of a firearm. The intellectuals and politicians who make
pious declarations about controlling guns should explain how their
gunless utopia is to be realized.

While they search for -- excuse me -- their magic bullet, innocent
people are dying defenseless.

That's because laws that make it difficult or impossible to carry a
concealed handgun do deter one group of people: law-abiding citizens who might have used a gun to stop crime. Gun laws are laws against
self-defense.

Criminals have the initiative. They choose the time, place and manner of their crimes, and they tend to make choices that maximize their own, not their victims', success. So criminals don't attack people they know are armed, and anyone thinking of committing mass murder is likely to be attracted to a gun-free zone, such as schools and malls.

Government may promise to protect us from criminals, but it cannot
deliver on that promise. This was neatly summed up in book title a few
years ago: "Dial 911 and Die." If you are the target of a crime, only
one other person besides the criminal is sure to be on the scene: you.
There is no good substitute for self-responsibility.

How, then, does it make sense to create mandatory gun-free zones, which in reality are free-crime zones?

The usual suspects keep calling for more gun control laws. But this idea that gun control is crime control is just a myth. The National Academy of Sciences reviewed dozens of studies and could not find a single gun regulation that clearly led to reduced violent crime or murder. When Washington, D.C., passed its tough handgun ban years ago, gun violence rose.

The press ignores the fact that often guns save lives.

It's what happened in 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law. Hearing
shots, two students went to their cars, got their guns and restrained
the shooter until police arrested him.

Likewise, law professor Glen Reynolds writes, "Pearl, Miss., school
shooter Luke Woodham was stopped when the school's vice principal took a .45 from his truck and ran to the scene. In (last) February's Utah mall shooting, it was an off-duty police officer who happened to be on the scene and carrying a gun".

It's impossible to know exactly how often guns stop criminals. Would-be victims don't usually report crimes that don't happen. But people use guns in self-defense every day. The Cato Institute's Tom Palmer says just showing his gun to muggers once saved his life.

"It equalizes unequals," Palmer told "20/20". "If someone gets into your house, which would you rather have, a handgun or a telephone? You can call the police if you want, and they'll get there, and they'll take a picture of your dead body. But they can't get there in time to save your life. The first line of defense is you."

John Stossel is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.

Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive
Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.