Concealed carry: CTA riders are now safe from each other with transit ban

While our state legislators couldn't decide how to fix our broken state pension system or approve gay marriage, they were able to pass a restrictive law allowing citizens to carry concealed guns. But one of the restrictions prohibits concealed carry on public transit systems.

Concealed carry also would be prohibited in casinos, government buildings and stadiums. According to a Tribune story, "the bill would allow people to carry concealed weapons in restaurants where alcohol is served but more than half of the sales are for food."

It's great to know that our esteemed legislators had the wisdom to ban concealed carry on the CTA and Metra. I mean really - it's bad enough having to defend yourself against book bags, back packs and cell phone thieves. Imagine if you had to worry whether any of these folks were packing guns.

Of course, they could be anyway.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • The crooks carry guns without permits. Most of them could never get a permit as they have felony convictions.
    But our oh so holy legislators don't have to worry about crime on the CTA, Pace or Metra as none of them would even know how to find an L station, bus or train station!
    They have cars paid for by the taxpayers, they get to drive at any speed they want to Springfield because they've exempted themselves from speeding laws when going to the Capitol Building!

    Are they now going to set up metal detectors at L stations?
    What fun that will be when someone going to work with a lot of metal tools tries to board a train!
    The backed up lines should be fun, maybe riotous!

    You want to end Iphone thefts, let people conceal carry a gun. The problem will end withing 10 days!

  • What a crock of sh*t. As Scooter notes, the gangbangers and ex-felons already carry concealed. All this does is disarm the defenseless law abiding citizen. Now the thieves will know where to go to commit crimes, as they're almost guaranteed to have unarmed victims.

    Illinois is the *last* state to finally pass a CCW bill. We've had 20+ years of concealed carry around the country, and the CCW holders are statistically the least likely to commit crimes. The rest of the country has not turned into the Wild West, as predicted by all the bleating anti-gun ninnies.

  • In reply to SpinyNorman:

    One can ask Blair Holt about that. He won't be answering, though.

  • In reply to jack:

    Sadly, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of victims of crime that can't say the same thing because they were unarmed when their assailants decided to kill them. Notice how all the victims in the Colorado movie theater were unarmed? Oh wait, the theater posted 'No Guns' signs on the entrance. Notice how the victims at Sandy Hook were all unarmed? You think that maybe, just maybe, a number of lives could have been saved if *one* teacher had been armed?

  • In reply to SpinyNorman:

    I don't buy the NRA argument on that either. In that there was a strong entrance door at Sandy Hook and Lanza used an automatic or whatever weapon to blow it to smithereens, one teacher being armed wouldn't have made a difference. It is questionable whether the National Guard would have made a difference, but that's where I would say that any deterrent would be.

    My only point is that despite guns supposedly being illegal in Chicago for 30 years, gun violence is not down, and while a few gang bangers may feel deterred if others are armed, the supposedly tens of thousands of them aren't, but, on the other hand, no one has proposed a constitutional manner of disarming them.

    And, as indicated by other posts on the flashers or the like, even with security cameras, CTA can't deter much of anything. At least the cameras get the gunmen after the fact.

  • In reply to jack:

    One armed teacher would have slowed down the gunman, allowing more children and teachers to escape. I'm not saying that the teacher would have place a single shot between the idiots eyes, but an armed assailant executing a turkey shoot is going to have to deal with an armed defender before continuing with their slaughter. In any case, you feel it was better that *nobody* was armed, and able to attempt to slow/stop the gunman?

    Funny, but gun crime is down in the rest of the nation over the past 20+ years, as more states have allowed some type of CCW. Until recently, Washington, D.C. also had a complete ban on guns, and was neck-and-neck with Chicago for the murder capital of the U.S. Don't you see? Banning guns does nothing to reduce crime. If anything, it has the opposite affect, as the thugs know they have the upper hand.

    Knowing that people *may* be armed may be sufficient to deter crime. You don't have to count the number of dead criminals to say if CCW has a positive affect. Remember, an armed society is a polite society. :-)

  • In reply to SpinyNorman:

    Someone with a six shooter vs. someone with clips of 30 rounds each? Get real.

    And now Holmes is pleading insanity, and probably was insane.

    But I have stated my opinion and leave it at that.

  • In reply to jack:

    Six shooter? Please. For personal defense you're going to carry a 9mm with 12+ rounds, and possible a 2nd or 3rd magazine.

    Look, you've probably seen one too many westerns. When confronting an armed gunman, you're not going to be standing in the middle of the hallway exchanging fire with the madman, like a shootout in the old west. You're going to take cover, probably around a corner, and buy some time.

    Would it have made a difference? I'd like to think yes. We've never know, because the victims were not allowed to be armed, and the perp didn't know that he wasn't supposed to break the law and shoot up a school.

  • In reply to SpinyNorman:

    I don't think that is what concealed carry means, especially with limits on ammo.

    And I would be scared if teachers routinely carried what you describe.

    I suppose you have paid your NRA dues, though.

  • In reply to SpinyNorman:

    Notice how the victims at Sandy Hook were almost all children? Are you really suggesting we arm them? And teachers too? Really--you want to give guns to union members?

    That's what I thought.

  • In reply to Cheryl:

    Strangely, we give guns to minimum-wage security guards at banks, and they have minimum training with their firearms. Pilots are now allowed to carry with the proper training. I'd trust an armed teacher with the required training before I'd trust a security guard.

    Sadly, a number of teachers sacrificed themselves to save their students. They say never bring a knife to a gunfight, and coming unarmed is worse. If some of the teachers had been armed, the number killed would surely have likely been lower.

  • fb_avatar

    Mr. Kevin O'Neil, I am sure you are a nice guy but it is not the law abiding citizens who want to exercise their 2nd. Amendment right to carry a gun you should be concerned with. Criminals are the problem and they should be punished to the full extent of the law for their crimes. This is just another attempt at punishing people who want to exercise their Constitutional rights and it should petitioned from all sides. Law abiding citizens are exactly that... law abiding. Nanny State laws do not protect the citizens.

  • Besides the above,the "now" isn't now, as the federal court stayed its ruling for another 30 days to give Quinn a chance to do whatever he is going to do with the bill, including possibly an amendatory veto. However, at some point it is either a new law or no law.

  • In reply to jack:

    Since the bill was passed with a veto-proof majority, I don't see how stalling the signing will have any affect, other than to play to the media. Quinn can make all the changes he wants, and they'll be overridden.

  • In reply to SpinyNorman:

    The veto proof majority was for this compromise. If it is anything like the gambling compromise, take out one piece and the vote falls apart.

    But, as I said earlier, it is this law or no law. That's why the compromise came out of Hyde Park.

  • My problem with *anyone* carrying weapons on a bus or train - whether good guy or bad guy - is that when shooting starts, there no doubt will be collateral damage of other innocent people like Blair Holt. So I would prefer no one be allowed to carry weapons on mass transit.

  • In reply to Kevin O’Neil:

    Then, as Scooter suggests, you are going to need metal detectors, as well as marshals and bomb sniffing dogs on every bus, as well as at every turnstile. And, as you note, the collateral damage has already happened.

  • In reply to Kevin O’Neil:

    What you prefer is a fantasy world that doesn't exist!
    Even in England, the crooks have guns & most cops don't & those that do can't shoot for shit.
    If you don't believe me, ask Lee Rigby. Oh, wait, you can't, he was beheaded by a Muslim lunatic who had an illegal gun & was then shot by a cop who barely managed hit him with the bullet!

  • In reply to Kevin O’Neil:

    The criminals are already carrying, Kevin. I'll take my chances with a trained CCW holder if it ever comes to that, instead of praying that the armed criminal is a bad shot.

  • Jack, you're going to carry what you think you're going to need. A trained teach responsible for the safety of a classroom full of children might choose a different weapon than someone responsible for their own safety only.

    Strange, but banks have armed guards, and there's only money inside. The typical bank probably pays their security folks a buck above minimum wage, and yet I bet you have no problem walking into a bank without wetting yourself. Yet, somehow, some folks have a problem trusting a teacher that spends all day with their children. These same people were probably yanking their hair out about arming pilots. You know, the people entrusted with the lives of hundreds of people?

    Yes, my NRA dues have been duly paid for 30+ years, thank you very much. I have to have someone look out for my constitutional rights when I'm busy trying to make a living. Finally, I may get to enjoy the same rights as 300 million other Americans in other states, and carry a weapon for self defense. Of course, living in the crime free city of Chicago, I'll have to pony up $$$$ to take a training class (outside of the city limits, given that there are no ranges within the city), apply for a handgun license in the city, pony up another $150 for a CCW permit, along with more $$$ to take a multi-day CCW course, again outside the city. Given that I can't take a weapon on the CTA or Metra, I'll have to get someone to drive me out to the burbs for the course.

    F*ck it. Maybe I should simply become a gangbanger and carry without a license or gun permit.

Leave a comment