Oak Park, IL exploring "new" gun control regulation

C

C0untZer0

Moderator
http://oakpark.patch.com/articles/oak-park-exploring-new-weapons-rules

It's amazing that this city is going down this path given that it's citizens have been victimized repeatedly in the past year. It seems to be a favorite target of 3 armed robbers who return to Oak Park again and again to rob people at gun point.

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/new...ery-police-warning-pattern-connected-20110801

It's also home to a lone mugger who has attacked people 4 times this year.


http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8084452
 
Me thinks this would be a place to avoid with the current set of circumstances and, isn't it the IL way along with the Windy Cities outlook on firearms?
 
I'm not convinced that the gun control crowd will ever cease to amaze me. Here's my take on two quotes from the article:

“When you look at the issue from a public policy perspective, there are tremendous costs associated with guns, (such as) treatment and incarceration,” said Barwin, a former police officer in Detroit and other communities in Michigan. “We want to see what’s out there regarding safety regulations and awareness with respect to guns.”
Click to expand...
Soooo, is this guy saying that gun ownership is a condition that requires treatment? I don't think that's really what he means, but he's not very clear on the issue.

And if "incarceration" is one of the public poilcy concerns, how does passing more gun bans help that? In theory, putting more restrictions on gun ownership means that more people will be in violation, and lead to a higher incarceration cost. Oh, and by the way, someone who' willing to commit aggravated assasult and robbery, . . . probably isn't concerned about whether or not the gun is legal. (But I think I'm preaching to the choir on that one here.)

Oak Park is on sound legal ground to adopt its own ordinances on firearms because Illinois law grants authority to local jurisdictions to regulate firearms and ammunition, and the Illinois constitution allows for the keeping and bearing of arms, similar to wording in part of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Click to expand...
Ummm . . . This is a legal conclusion of which I, for one, remain unconvinced. Note that he says that the Illinois constitution is "similar" to the 2A of the US Const, not identical. The Illinois constitution can't grant authority to do anything in contravention of the U.S. Constitution.
 
Besides just being of general interest, what Oak Park does, has possible legal ramifications for other people in Northern Illinois.

Districts 78 and 7 are partially in Oak Park. Reps. Camille Lilly (D-78th) and Karen Yarbrough (D-7th) voted against HB148. Distict 8 is also partially in Oal Park, Rep. LaShawn Ford (D-8th) is a swing vote in possibly getting HB148 passed. Representative Ford voted "present" at the last test vote on HB148.
 
I had a feeling this might come up, scary conspiracy theory time. We are already seeing employers who ban unhealthy practices such as smoking if you are on company insurance. We see other employers who make overweight people pay more or get a "bonus" if they lose weight due to health care costs. I know this is a jump but follow me here; if the argument is made that guns are a public health issue it is really a jump that certain employers may "ban" the possession of firearms or otherwise restrict them if you want to be on company insurance?

Moreover, with the implementation of the recent health care laws including the public option will soon put government "skin" in the healthcare game. Is it really a stretch to think the government could step in and place restrictions on firearms ownership, possession, etc?

I know it is a reach but I could see a day where firearms ownership is somehow factored into your "health profile" in the same way Medical history and smoking does right now.
 
I know it is a reach but I could see a day where firearms ownership is somehow factored into your "health profile" in the same way Medical history and smoking does right now.
Click to expand...
It already is, in most parts of the country.

You probably puzzled over a question on your last health questionnaire, but forgot about it quickly:
"Are there any firearms in your home?"
Not all doctors gather the data, but the question has been around since the late '90s.

Several medical and insurance groups in the U.S. have declared gun ownership to be one of the biggest threats facing children, today. For more than 10 years, they've been compiling data, waiting for their chance to manipulate it for political action.

Even the article hits on this, pretty briefly:
This time, they'll approach gun ownership as a public health issue.

Why? Because organizations as varied as the American Public Health Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have for years said that the gun-associated violence is a public health epidemic in the United States.
Click to expand...
 
I know this is a jump but follow me here; if the argument is made that guns are a public health issue it is really a jump that certain employers may "ban" the possession of firearms or otherwise restrict them if you want to be on company insurance?
Click to expand...

That's no jump at all, Patriot86. Anything and everything can be turned into a so-called "public health issue" by anyone with an axe to grind.

I believe what's going on in Oak Park is clear evidence there are too many lawyers in public positions looking for too many ways to advance the Marxist cause of disarming the commoners.
 
I will say this, the town I live in (Wheeling) may not be the shining example of Illinois towns but at least my local officials have something better to do than pass "gun laws". Can't wait to get out of this damned cook county all together in a few years.


I can just see it now, just like they ban some businesses within X yards of a school they ban gun ownership, I mean it is going to be challenged and unless the makeup of the court changes they are going to lose but damn. The bottom line is you have a lot of localities that despite how poor they plead have way too much extra money. The town I grew up in, Northfield they have spent 500K+ of taxpayer money in the past few years fighting a widening of a road. It is something they are going to lose sooner or later but they have money to burn.
 
They keep passing laws and those pesky criminals keep ignoring them. What to do... What to do...

Maybe they should pass a law requiring everyone in town be armed, wait a year and then see how their crime rate is.
 
I thought Chicago was in "Crook" county...you mean it's actually "Cook" county?:eek:

Side note: yes, Riverside, WA has a local ordinance that requires everyone to be armed. However, that ordinance allows for those that wish to leave themselves unarmed.

Don't remember any crime in Riverside in the last few years...:)
 
ACLU are a bunch of hypocrits

The mantra that comes from them is that they are universally for expanding all civil rights - across the board in a non-discriminatory fashion.

But I can't recall that they've ever tried to stop the constraint and infringement of 2A rights. But for some reason they took it upon themselves to sue Kennesaw...

what a bunch of liars. :mad:
 
It would have been interesting if Kennesaw had taken a public health angle on it - just to counter-act the public health angle that gun control advocates are taking now.

California was able to outlaw Oreo cookie filling because it endangetred the health of their citizens.

If you can mandate seatbelt usage in the name of public health, it seems an argument could be made (based on Kennesaw) that you could mandate gun ownership.
 
And in Oak Park, the Department of Public Health has a mandate to protect the community's health from preventable death and injury, so the board of health seemed to be the most logical place to start a review, Village Manager Tom Barwin said.
Click to expand...
http://oakpark.patch.com/articles/oak-park-exploring-new-weapons-rules

Perhaps the scariest part is that this is being done through the board of health which is presumably not elected. I would be incensed about this non-democratic power grab even if I didn't believe in the right to keep and bear arms.
 
I grew up in Chicago just two blocks from the Oak Park line.
Built zip guns as a kid. Never thought about 'gun control' except not to point at each other.
Left Illinois in 1970 and never looked back.
 
Patriot86

Patriot86 said: I will say this, the town I live in (Wheeling) may not be the shining example of Illinois towns but at least my local officials have something better to do than pass "gun laws"
Click to expand...

where would a person go shooting in a area such as wheeling, do you have your own firing range, or gunshop with a range? Cook county still has mag restrictions which I think must effect most all modern semi-auto pistols.

I live in occupied Illinois too, I just "shot up" at Outdoor world yesterday, in Gurnee.:mad: "the tube" is no way for a good man to shoot.
 
Gat Guns is also in Gurnee, although I don't personally like shooting there. I haven't gone shooting there in 10 years but the last few times I've stopped by the store - people are waiting in line to get on the range. It's a very popular gun store - mainly because they have so much display space for guns. But I've never liked their range.

Article II Gunworld is in Lombard - I know that's a long haul for you but here's my take on it.

It is a brand new range with 2011 clean air regulations applied to it. Brand new target movers, a lot of sound proofing between booths and on the ceiling. Actual air conditioning that works. It's a nice range.

The clean air standards are only applied to range when it is built. From what I've heard, neither the state nor the village even goes back and checks after it's met the inital requirements and obtained it's permit. AND if they did check - they'd be checking against the standards at the time the range was opened. So I don't expect good ventalation in ranges that were built 20 years ago. I went to a range in McHenry - in the morning, and the gun smoke was so think I could hardly see my target at 20'

J.R. Shooting in Aurora claims to have air conditioning but sweat was dripping into my eyes and I was there around 10:00 a.m. - not even the full heat of the day yet. And each time I left J.R's I had a horrible gun powder taste in my mouth that lasted all day.

So anyway, even if Article II was a way off - I'd go to it because it's a good range.

You can probably get more info about ranges in your area at the Illinois carry forum:

http://www.illinoiscarry.com/forum/
 
Last edited:
^^^^ What he said

I shoot at GAT a lot, they are good I suppose. I don't like the fact my wife has to pay the range fee also when we share a gun and a lane but so is life. Ammo prices are good and they have a lot of stuff to look at.

Going to scope our Article II because of C0untZer0's rave reviews, if it is as good as it sounds I might just start going there on a regular basis. Really when you look at travel time, from the Northern burbs like Wheeling, Northbrook, Vernon Hills etc it is about the same time traveled between Article II and GAT.



@ C0unt: I hear you with the sweat, GAT was HOT this summer and I wear glasses. It is interesting to see what something like a little bit of heat/sweat does to ones shooting. Thankfully that is the one place I can wear a head band and not look that out of place.

Do you know if Article II's indoor range is AC'd?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top