sw4400 Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 This has got to be one of the stupidest things the NRA is pushing nowadays. Guns on transit??? Sure, allow more thefts and murders on public transit. I remember reading about a pizza chain where the owner was allowing patrons to bring guns in. One patron brought in an AK-47 Assult Rifle. We had an incident years ago at our store where someone came in with a sidearm and was arrested by CPD. Turned out it was a BB Gun, but he said he had a right to carry it on him. I think guns should not leave your house, period!!! ABC 7 Story Here's the crazy Pizza Parlor Owner Story Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 This has got to be one of the stupidest things the NRA is pushing nowadays. Guns on transit??? Sure, allow more thefts and murders on public transit. I remember reading about a pizza chain where the owner was allowing patrons to bring guns in. One patron brought in an AK-47 Assult Rifle. We had an incident years ago at our store where someone came in with a sidearm and was arrested by CPD. Turned out it was a BB Gun, but he said he had a right to carry it on him. I think guns should not leave your house, period!!! ABC 7 Story Here's the crazy Pizza Parlor Owner Story Link We'll see how crazy people are on the CTA in about 10 minutes. However, the issue isn't "letting guns on the CTA." The issue is that since Judge Posner and another member of the Seventh Circuit held that the Illinois ban on concealed carry was unconstitutional, the legislature has to come up with something else. Then the issue becomes whether one has a constitutional right to defend oneself on the CTA. The last I heard, Homeland Security was not paying for a metal detector at every Ventra machine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Railwaymodeler Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 I'm not concerned about the person who is legally carrying a firearm, with FOID card, gun registered, everything, but the man who is illegally carrying an unregistered gun is something I am very concerned of. Nutcases are everywhere, and if they don't have guns, they will find something else to use. That glass bottle? Easily turned into a weapon. Backpack? Fill it with a few bricks and see what damage could be done. Cigarette lighter plus aerosol can? Makeshift flamethrower (At least Elwood used as such to disable an elevator at the end of the movie). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CircleSeven Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 Two Words: Hell No! Just like the points that have been said. It's not about the responsible gun-owners. It's about these crazy loons that come on trains and cause all these problems. It's just like letting some crazy fool that isn't a gun owner, carry an illegal weapon and if an innocent bystandard look at a crazy loon in a funny way, or provoke 'em in any sort way. Or if two crazy loons have a confrontation because of pettiness, which could lead into an altercation, and they both have guns on them, all they need to do is to pull it out and just shoot and no telling where the bullets will go. And the biggest losers will be the innocent bystandards on that train. This will clearly open the door for criminals who illegally carry weapons. And especially dealing with the heavy murder rate here in Chicago last year, this will do nothing but to accerate the murder rate. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Railwaymodeler Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 This will clearly open the door for criminals who illegally carry weapons. Don't they do this anyway? That would be part of what makes them criminals. Here's a bit of an unsettling thought: How many times is the workaday average Joe out there that uses transit, on a vehicle with someone who posesses an illegal weapon? With the high crime rate in Chicago, I'm guessing it is a high number. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See Tea Eh Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 One of the things to consider is the likelihood of a gun, carried legally, accidentally injuring or killing someone. Right now, the likelihood of being shot or killed on transit (or, really, anywhere) is very low. Not zero, to be sure, but still quite low.The fact that well over a million people ride CTA every day and shootings are extremely rare is evidence to this (I don't have a specific memory for killings, so I did a google search, and the most recent story about a murder on CTA was actually a 2011 robbery where a woman was pushed down the stairs by a suspect after her iphone was stolen; nothing a gun could do to stop that). Maybe there was one in 2012, but a Google search didn't reveal it.Allowing people to bring guns legally onto CTA buses and trains may slightly reduce the danger to those who would otherwise be shot by an attacker (I guess it depends on how quick of a draw a person is). Of course, your talking about reducing danger for 1 in over 500 million (if it's true that the last one was in 2011) trips, while at the same time increasing the danger for the other 499,999,999 trips every year.Personally, I'd much rather take my chances, as I have already been doing for years, that "the only people with guns on CTA are criminals," which gives me a 1 in 500 million chance of being murdered on transit property at any given time, than to have a legal gun owner nearby who may have the gun go off accidentally.I also don't want some would-be hero to pull out their gun in a middle of a crowded L car to stand up to some crazy crackhead who may be shouting and saying all sorts of nasty stuff, but is otherwise physically harmless (or, at the very worst, easily taken down by much less lethal means). You see folks like that on the train all the time, and it's only a matter of time before some otherwise law-abiding, gun-carrying person decides to intervene, "fearing for their own safety" (just in case they might be that 1 in 500 million). Even the best of shots may have trouble keeping that barrel properly aimed while the train is jolting back and forth.Perhaps it's also worth noting that, even in Texas, guns are prohibited on transit. (I should clarify that I don't know if it's a state law or a local regulation, but I have seen "no guns" stickers posted on the front doors of buses in Texas.) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See Tea Eh Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 Nutcases are everywhere, and if they don't have guns, they will find something else to use. That glass bottle? Easily turned into a weapon. Backpack? Fill it with a few bricks and see what damage could be done. Cigarette lighter plus aerosol can? Makeshift flamethrower (At least Elwood used as such to disable an elevator at the end of the movie).I hear this argument a lot, but I think people greatly misunderstand the situation. The difference between a gun and a glass bottle or backpack full of bricks is one of convenience, and also (for the potential victim) one of avoidability.If you see him coming, someone running at you with a broken glass bottle could be dodged. Not quite so easy if the person has a gun and can shoot you from 20+ feet away. Also, those other potential weapons aren't effective at mass injuries/killings (unless the victims are completely helpless).A lot of people use the argument "well if the guy is crazy and he's intent on killing, he could just as easily make someone bleed to death with papercuts as he could shoot them with a gun" as if to imply that the two are somehow equal. They are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 I'm not getting into the merits of the legislation itself, but between RailwayModeler's point that the preexisting gun laws didn't deter gang bangers and people who were dissed on the bus (ask Blair Holt or Kiyanna Salter), my point that they aren't going to put metal detectors at all bus doors and L turnstiles, and Chuck Gowdie's point that there are not enough transit police and they are not visible enough, the idea that this would deter criminals from carrying guns on the CTA is laughable. And I'll mention that I am not in favor of guns and would get the hell out of the way if one showed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sw4400 Posted February 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 my point that they aren't going to put metal detectors at all bus doors and L turnstiles, and Chuck Gowdie's point that there are not enough transit police and they are not visible enough... I agree with your points that the CTA isn't going to install metal detectors and Transit Police are hardly seen. What is asinine is the NRA pushing for guns to be allowed on transit. All the points above are valid not to have guns on trains/buses. You get some gun-wielding crazy on board who decides to take his/her firearm out and start waving it at people for some dumb reason(maybe the baby is crying too loudly and irritating him/her, etc...), that would be scenario #1. Then enter scenario #2, John Wayne/Anne Oakley decides to save the day and pull his/her gun out to deter the crazy gun-toting person. Unfortunately, they're not very accurate on shooting it. Here go the bullets flying all over the place and hitting multiple non-intended targets, possibly fatally. I know you said you'd get the hell out of dodge, Busjack(I'd do the same thing). But that gun-toting person could see you trying to leave and train that gun on you and order you back or shoot you as you are trying to escape, or might even want to hold the train car/bus hostage for money or some other crazy reason. NRA should just STFU and face reality.... America is tired of gun owners/handlers senselessly killing innocent victims... remember Sandy Hook, NRA!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 ...What is asinine is the NRA pushing for guns to be allowed on transit..... That's true as a general proposition. But what becomes relevant is what the federal court is not going to strike down, and what is going to get enforced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artthouwill Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 The irony is that gun laws restrict law abiding gun owners when the intent of such gun laws are to deter and restrict criminals who don't obey laws to begin with. No matter how many laws have been passed, there are still more guns on the streets, and because of these laws, it seems the only people buying guns are criminals. It has gotten to the point that otherwise law abiding citizens are starting to get guns outside of legal parameters. Harsher penalties for illegal possession and use of firearms have not deterred any criminal. Its urban terrorism. For every criminal caught or killed, there's 10 more signing up for the cause. . Robberies and rapes are successful because most victims are unarmed. Gang violence is so high, in part, because the opposing factiin IS ARMED, and it is a get them first mentality. While banning firearms on public transit seems to make logical sense, opposing gangs will have a shootout anywhere at anytime, even at schools or on buses, as people are firing into buses now. Remember recently an innocent lady was shot exiting a CTA bus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busjack Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 I have to modify a prior post in that the entire Seventh Circuit voted down to rehear the case (with a dissent). The question then is whether AG Madigan decides to appeal to the Supreme Court, or the Illinois General Assembly has to pass something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BusHunter Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 The NRA always pushes for people to carry there own concealed weapons. That's part of what they stand for. I'm not saying that's right, but maybe if there were trained personnel (like the air marshals on planes) like the guardian angels who were permitted to carry weapons it could deter some crime, but I would lean more towards letting them have stun guns so we are not just killing people before they are tried and convicted. Of course, like a police officer, if one kills without probable cause one would be liable for that said offence. So all the people who wish to carry guns take the risk of going to jail. Carrying guns is a huge responsibility, any police officer can tell you that. But no I don't believe John Public should be carrying guns. This is not the Wild Wild West!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jajuan Posted February 23, 2013 Report Share Posted February 23, 2013 Don't they do this anyway? That would be part of what makes them criminals. Here's a bit of an unsettling thought: How many times is the workaday average Joe out there that uses transit, on a vehicle with someone who posesses an illegal weapon? With the high crime rate in Chicago, I'm guessing it is a high number. That's not what he meant and I think those who are on the more conservative side of this issue know that. The central point is you sure as hell is not helping the matter by increasing the number of guns in what is already a too gun happy society. We already do too little as a society to make sure that those of a questionable mental state has a little access to being able to get his hands on one. One point that gets lost in the overall issue in the bigger debate outside of just Illinois is that the loon who shot those 26 young children in the Sandy Hook tragedy was using the very guns and magazines that his mother owned at her home legally. She followed the laws that she was supposed to follow and probably thought she was protecting herself, home and family as she had a right to believe, but somehow it got past her that her son wasn't mentally fit to even be near a gun. How about we start realizing that no we're not going to prevent every future tragedy from happening but there are still some common sense things we can all agree to do that at least puts some extra teeth in getting stiffer penalties on the said criminals when we have the fortune to prosecute them and making what future tragedies that may occur in the future far less tragic than what we're seeing now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jajuan Posted February 23, 2013 Report Share Posted February 23, 2013 The irony is that gun laws restrict law abiding gun owners when the intent of such gun laws are to deter and restrict criminals who don't obey laws to begin with. No matter how many laws have been passed, there are still more guns on the streets, and because of these laws, it seems the only people buying guns are criminals. It has gotten to the point that otherwise law abiding citizens are starting to get guns outside of legal parameters. Harsher penalties for illegal possession and use of firearms have not deterred any criminal. Its urban terrorism. For every criminal caught or killed, there's 10 more signing up for the cause. . Robberies and rapes are successful because most victims are unarmed. Gang violence is so high, in part, because the opposing factiin IS ARMED, and it is a get them first mentality. While banning firearms on public transit seems to make logical sense, opposing gangs will have a shootout anywhere at anytime, even at schools or on buses, as people are firing into buses now. Remember recently an innocent lady was shot exiting a CTA bus. And you think letting even more guns be potentially on hand on a crowded bus or train by allowing them to be legally concealed is going to help that? We really need to start coming out of this Wild Wild West mentality and start recognizing that a lot of the time the laws aren't about prevention but moreso about getting stiffer penalties when we have the fortune that any of these fools are caught and prosecuted. And as tragic as the Blair Holt case was and the recent case of the lady on the south side lady being hit by a bullet not intended for her are, See Tea Eh made the very valid point that gun crimes on CTA buses, trains and other property are far and in between. And the biggest flaw of concealed carry laws is that while those laws' supporters think they're leveling the playing field between the criminals and law abiding, you're actually now egging the potential criminal on to be even bolder in carrying his own gun around because just as it's legal for the law abiding to carry a concealed weapon on their person, it's just as legal now for that criminal to have one on his person until that point he makes that decision to use that gun in a very illegal act. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sw4400 Posted February 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2013 It seems like the ATU President is acting as crazy as the NRA nut about guns. He says if people can board armed to the teeth, why not a Bus or Rail Operator? Another disaster waiting to happen... see what you started, Todd Vendermyde? Not knocking that idea if it's necessary, but just like John Q Public, there are Bus and Rail Operators who might be having an off day and meet that one customer that pisses them off, and rather than just simply yelling at them or throwing them off for something minor, they decide to pull out their sidearm. CBS 2 Story I hope by mid-June, if not sooner, Illinois Government passes that concealed-carry legislation. The thought about anyone carrying a FOID I.D anywhere without restrictions in Mass Transit, Schools, Courthouses, Hospitals, Government buildings and Churches. If a fake Driver's license or State I.D can be made, I'm sure a FOID can be as well. We need this legislation!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jajuan Posted February 23, 2013 Report Share Posted February 23, 2013 It seems like the ATU President is acting as crazy as the NRA nut about guns. He says if people can board armed to the teeth, why not a Bus or Rail Operator? Another disaster waiting to happen... see what you started, Todd Vendermyde? Not knocking that idea if it's necessary, but just like John Q Public, there are Bus and Rail Operators who might be having an off day and meet that one customer that pisses them off, and rather than just simply yelling at them or throwing them off for something minor, they decide to pull out their sidearm. CBS 2 Story I hope by mid-June, if not sooner, Illinois Government passes that concealed-carry legislation. The thought about anyone carrying a FOID I.D anywhere without restrictions in Mass Transit, Schools, Courthouses, Hospitals, Government buildings and Churches. If a fake Driver's license or State I.D can be made, I'm sure a FOID can be as well. We need this legislation!!!! Okay now you're being inconsistent here. You started this thread off with a tirade against a hypothetical possibility that guns would be allowed on the buses and trains. Now you say you hope for passage for a concealed-carry law in this state. You're either against more guns being pumped into an already gun happy society or you're not. Concealed-carry laws don't decrease the amount of guns available. They do the opposite because what you're saying in such laws is that members of the general public who are not police officers or trained military personnel can walk around packing heat without saying they're packing. Sure there is supposed training before they get the firearms ID that allows them to carry, but given how nutsoid NRA execs who have influence on the shaping of these laws have become compared to even the average everyday NRA member among the lower ranks, that training is at times vastly watered down to the bare bones minimum compared to what the populace and many of the average NRA members would agree should be adequate training. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sw4400 Posted February 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2013 Okay now you're being inconsistent here. You started this thread off with a tirade against a hypothetical possibility that guns would be allowed on the buses and trains. Now you say you hope for passage for a concealed-carry law in this state. You're either against more guns being pumped into an already gun happy society or you're not. Concealed-carry laws don't decrease the amount of guns available. They do the opposite because what you're saying in such laws is that members of the general public who are not police officers or trained military personnel can walk around packing heat without saying they're packing. Sure there is supposed training before they get the firearms ID that allows them to carry, but given how nutsoid NRA execs who have influence on the shaping of these laws have become compared to even the average everyday NRA member among the lower ranks, that training is at times vastly watered down to the bare bones minimum compared to what the populace and many of the average NRA members would agree should be adequate training. I'm against 1,000,000%. I think the CBS2 Story confused me here... "Under the latest 7th U.S. Court of Appeals ruling on the subject, if Illinois cannot pass concealed-carry legislation by mid-June, anyone who holds a valid firearm owner’s identification card will be allowed to carry concealed weapons without restrictions for mass transit and other sensitive locations, including schools, courthouses, hospitals, government buildings and churches." This paragraph made me think that the concealed-carry legislation is a good thing to have, wheras no legislation means no restrictions for anyone with a FOID. Walk into the grocery store with heat, board a bus or train with heat, even go to court with heat. That's where the confusion occured. But I don't want guns anywhere but in a private house dwelling. That's how it should be(I know the crazies and the gangs are the unfortunate exception.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jajuan Posted February 23, 2013 Report Share Posted February 23, 2013 I'm against 1,000,000%. I think the CBS2 Story confused me here... "Under the latest 7th U.S. Court of Appeals ruling on the subject, if Illinois cannot pass concealed-carry legislation by mid-June, anyone who holds a valid firearm owner’s identification card will be allowed to carry concealed weapons without restrictions for mass transit and other sensitive locations, including schools, courthouses, hospitals, government buildings and churches." This paragraph made me think that the concealed-carry legislation is a good thing to have, wheras no legislation means no restrictions for anyone with a FOID. Walk into the grocery store with heat, board a bus or train with heat, even go to court with heat. That's where the confusion occured. But I don't want guns anywhere but in a private house dwelling. That's how it should be(I know the crazies and the gangs are the unfortunate exception.) Ideally what we need is the ability to come up with commonsense legislation that can define when and where guns can be carried that can stand up to the warped slant folks want to put on a Second Amendment that was written during a time when the country had a valid reason to be worried of outside invasion by a foreign power (namely the British), a fear and worry that 237 years in as a sovereign nation and having the strongest military on Earth no longer applies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Railwaymodeler Posted February 23, 2013 Report Share Posted February 23, 2013 Ideally what we need is the ability to come up with commonsense legislation that can define when and where guns can be carried that can stand up to the warped slant folks want to put on a Second Amendment that was written during a time when the country had a valid reason to be worried of outside invasion by a foreign power (namely the British), a fear and worry that 237 years in as a sovereign nation and having the strongest military on Earth no longer applies. This became unrealistic 12 words into that post. Common sense legislation simply is not going to happen. I do agree that the possibility of "Wild west" style shootouts is unacceptable. Somewhere, there has to be a balance in the law that will at minimum, appease everyone, if not satisfy. Ideally, CTA, Metra, and Pace would all have internal transit police, perhaps half uniformed for major terminals and transfer points, and identified "Problem" routes or runs, and half plainclothes for onboard observation. Of course, these men and women will not work for free, or cheap, and the money has to come from somewhere. Arming employees is not a bad idea in and of itself, although, given some of Pace North's employees, including one, who admits to possibly being bipolar (Though refusing testing or medication), and on her "off" days, is a real threat to the passengers. For example, I asked what happened to our usual driver when she had someone's run for a day, she went off on me, yelling and screaming, using obsceneties, and calling me a "terrorist" several times before compleing her three minute tantrum, and on another day, threatening to have a passenger arrested, she she did not believe a Waukegan school pass could be used by those attending WPS "Alternative" schools. Those like this, I would not trust with anything more dangerous than a drinking straw. This is becoming a hot topic issue that the more I read and learn, the more "on the fence" I am, on if any of it is a good idea, but what is certain, is that the state of things, especially in Chicago, are very far from ideal or even good, and do need changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jajuan Posted February 24, 2013 Report Share Posted February 24, 2013 This became unrealistic 12 words into that post. Common sense legislation simply is not going to happen. I do agree that the possibility of "Wild west" style shootouts is unacceptable. Somewhere, there has to be a balance in the law that will at minimum, appease everyone, if not satisfy. Ideally, CTA, Metra, and Pace would all have internal transit police, perhaps half uniformed for major terminals and transfer points, and identified "Problem" routes or runs, and half plainclothes for onboard observation. Of course, these men and women will not work for free, or cheap, and the money has to come from somewhere. Arming employees is not a bad idea in and of itself, although, given some of Pace North's employees, including one, who admits to possibly being bipolar (Though refusing testing or medication), and on her "off" days, is a real threat to the passengers. For example, I asked what happened to our usual driver when she had someone's run for a day, she went off on me, yelling and screaming, using obsceneties, and calling me a "terrorist" several times before compleing her three minute tantrum, and on another day, threatening to have a passenger arrested, she she did not believe a Waukegan school pass could be used by those attending WPS "Alternative" schools. Those like this, I would not trust with anything more dangerous than a drinking straw. This is becoming a hot topic issue that the more I read and learn, the more "on the fence" I am, on if any of it is a good idea, but what is certain, is that the state of things, especially in Chicago, are very far from ideal or even good, and do need changes. It's only as unrealistic as folks let it be by not holding their elected officials accountable to not cater the wingnuts. As long as we keep up this notion that we have to arm our transit employees, teachers, grocery workers, etc. to deal with criminals then kooks and idiots at the top of the NRA are winning which means we all lose because all they're concerned about is helping the gun manufacturers sell more guns by any means necessary. Those with a more conservative view on the issue really need to start getting that strengthening the gun laws and closing any holes that lets the crazies get access to one isn't about trying to prevent all future gun tragedies because that admittedly is unrealistic. But what a society is doing is at least tamping down some of the carnage and getting stricter, tougher penalties when we have the fortune to prosecute a perpetrator. But that part of the conversation always gets lost in the misguided rants that folks are trying to take away their guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BusHunter Posted February 24, 2013 Report Share Posted February 24, 2013 It seems like the ATU President is acting as crazy as the NRA nut about guns. He says if people can board armed to the teeth, why not a Bus or Rail Operator? Another disaster waiting to happen... see what you started, Todd Vendermyde? Not knocking that idea if it's necessary, but just like John Q Public, there are Bus and Rail Operators who might be having an off day and meet that one customer that pisses them off, and rather than just simply yelling at them or throwing them off for something minor, they decide to pull out their sidearm. CBS 2 Story I hope by mid-June, if not sooner, Illinois Government passes that concealed-carry legislation. The thought about anyone carrying a FOID I.D anywhere without restrictions in Mass Transit, Schools, Courthouses, Hospitals, Government buildings and Churches. If a fake Driver's license or State I.D can be made, I'm sure a FOID can be as well. We need this legislation!!!! All I can say is.... Link: http://www.televisiontunes.com/Good_the_Bad_and_the_Ugly_(The).html I guess we're all going to have to dress like Clint Eastwood!! Seriously, wouldn't it be more competant to hire a security guard hide them in one of the operators cabs and when illegal activity occurs out comes the cavalry with maybe a stun gun, but only be able to use it if there life was threatened. Give them the ability to call police and when the thugs reach the next platform they are under arrest. CTA could even tout themselves as one of the safest transit agencies in maybe the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jajuan Posted February 24, 2013 Report Share Posted February 24, 2013 All I can say is.... Link: http://www.televisiontunes.com/Good_the_Bad_and_the_Ugly_(The).html I guess we're all going to have to dress like Clint Eastwood!! Seriously, wouldn't it be more competant to hire a security guard hide them in one of the operators cabs and when illegal activity occurs out comes the cavalry with maybe a stun gun, but only be able to use it if there life was threatened. Give them the ability to call police and when the thugs reach the next platform they are under arrest. CTA could even tout themselves as one of the safest transit agencies in maybe the world. You would think that's the smarter road to follow. On the bus side, it would probably make sense to return to random rides by a uniformed police officer on those stretches of routes that pass through iffy neighborhoods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Charles Wilson Posted February 24, 2013 Report Share Posted February 24, 2013 I voted "yes" and wish to explain my vote. I'll start with a disclaimer: I don't own a gun, and can't legally do so anyway because I have a mental commitment on my record from 1985-1987. I'm not personally interested in guns but I am interested in making the rules and regulations of society conform as much to common sense as possible. I live in the Great State of Minnesota, which made it a lot easier to get a concealed carry permit several years ago but gave private businesses the right to ban guns - so everywhere you go now there are signs saying, "(name of business) bans guns on these premises". For the record, AFAIK Twin Cities Metro has no formal ban, but several bus systems outstate (our equivalent of "downstate" in Illinois) do. I am opposed to open carry in urban areas, except by uniformed police and security guards, because it is potentially disruptive. However, concealed carry is a different story. I believe a ban on CC on transit is unfair to the legal carrier, and irrelevant to the illegal one. The Minnesota system has ironically made it easier to get a permit, but very hard to use it as a practical matter, since going about one's daily business likely involves going to or through places that ban guns. Some good this "right" does when you can't use it.... And a person who would break a state law by carrying without a permit isn't likely to be deterred by a transit system rule. Add to that the reality that a concealed gun, as long as it stays concealed, neither harms nor threatens anyone nor causes a disruption (out of sight, out of mind). Additionally, a ban is only enforceable once a violation is detected. Again, if you keep it concealed, this is unlikely to happen. I don't necessarily think transit should "endorse" the concealed carrying of weapons, but I do think that perhaps the best policy is no policy at all. Illegal acts can still be prosecuted even if there is no transit system policy in parallel with the law. For example, I doubt that most transit systems bother writing up policies against murder, robbery, arson, etc. If open carry is legal in your state, I *do* think that should be banned on transit due to the disruption factor. Even a perfectly behaved individual with an AK-47 over his shoulder will probably have people a bit "on edge".... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sw4400 Posted February 26, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2013 I think outside of your private dwelling, there should be no firearms allowed. Only Police and Military should have the right to carry. Hunters can in designated areas with Hunting Permits. I wouldn't want anyone with a gun, concealed or not, in a place of business. We handle money, these are desperate times... 2+2, people!!! All it takes is some down on his/her luck person to come in with their open/concealed firearm looking to get ahead a bit, take out that gun and demand money. I think private businesses should add to their policy regarding service if a concealed/open carry law is drafted throughout Illinois -No Shoes -No Shirt -Concealing/Openly Carrying Firearm(s) -NO SERVICE!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.