Saturday, June 26, 2010

Clout City: Park District Balks at Gun-Rights Group Meeting

You know in the past week (perhaps even the past month) or so I've have taken a look at any story that focuses on what the city plans to do if the US Supreme Courts strikes down the city's gun control ordinance. It seems for the most part the Daley administration seems to have no plans to allow citizens in Chicago to own a gun at all. In a recent city council police & fire committee hearing it appears that the committee was loathe to hear anyone in favor of allowing city residents to own handguns.

Not long after the death of Officer Thomas Wortham there was a story about Chatham residents expressing their wish to own a handgun at home. Of course who knows if this is a passing trend or a call for allowing individual citizens a right to own a handgun for their self-defense.

Well recently there would have been a meeting in our community to discuss at the very least concealed carry as mentioned in this post from Clout City. Read the comments because the one who attempted to get a permit to host said meeting at our own Tuley Park (Gerald Vernon) believed that Ald. Lyle may have found an excuse to scuttle this meet. Her comments were posted in the article as Mick Dumke made contact with her:
UPDATE: I first heard about the planned town hall meeting when Sixth Ward alderman Freddrenna Lyle groaned about it during a City Council hearing. But when I followed up with her Friday, she said she had nothing to do with the decision to yank the permit. "I have never spoken to anyone about this," she says.

Tuley Park is in Lyle's ward. Lyle is a strong backer of gun control but said Illinois Carry should be allowed to hold its meeting. "They want to go into a community touched by the violence because it's an easier sell," she says. "But those people have a right to meet and it's up to us who disagree with them to show up and make another argument."
But the crux of this story involves the lotheness of may in our city especially the mayor and many on the city council to allow individual citizens to own handguns with the belief that banning them would solve the issue of violence that we've had in this city since the weather warmed up. I've been reading a lot of posts written by Dumke on this issue and he's right we need to re-examine whether or not the gun ban is truly effective. Surely there are other means to keep a criminal from committing a gun crime.

Either way let's hope that if the Supreme Court rules that Chicago's gun ban ordinance is unconstitutional that we can actually have a debate on whether or not it's been effective. Hopefully no one will get shut out of this debate either.

Also Ald. Lyle is right. We want to hear not only from people who are opposed to gun control, but also from those who are in favor of gun control. So let Mr. Vernon have his meeting at a venue of his choosing and the same for those who are in favor of gun control.


  1. I received an email about a right to carry meeting at Tuley, during a hearing on the potential actions the City could take if the handgun ban is struck down. Based on the Court's recent ruling on D.C., it is constitutional for municipalities to impose reasonable registration, licensing, testing, training and other types of restrictions on handgun ownership. Nowhere in that ruling did it give everyone the right to carry a concealed weapon, nor is there an absolute right for everyone to own a handgun.

    During that hearing, I read the email aloud and reporters such as Mick heard it. I showed the email to some people in the meeting and thought nothing more about it until I was contacted by Mick for the article. As I stated to him, I did not cancel the meeting, nor do I have the power to do so. Also as I said they can meet whenever and those who opppose should go and make their feelings known.

    I 'groaned' because I know that this organization chose Tuley because of the violence and in support of its' cause will play to peoples' fear. I dislike people and organizations that seek to profit from the pain of others and I 'groaned' because I suspected that the murder of Tom and the publicity it generated was another reason they sought out this site. As I read the entire blog by Mick, I see that indeed, that was one of the considerations for coming to our community.

    Regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court's deliberations, there will be limits on handgun ownership in Chicago. As to the right to carry a concealed weapon, that debate will continue for some time.

  2. Ms. Lyles is mistaken. As an alderman, she is out of touch with the good people in her ward. If she was listening to the people of Chatham she would know this organization did not choose the Chatham neighborhood for this Right to Carry Town Hall Meeting.

    The citizens in the neighborhood heard about the town hall meetings we are conducting throughout the state, they contacted IllinoisCarry, and implored us to help them organize a meeting of their own because they wanted this conversation/discussion to take place in their community.

    If she listens to them she will hear them say they are frustrated at not being able to protect themselves and their families and even more frustrated that even after the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the Chicago hand gun ban unconstitutional, Mayor Daley plans to continue to place obstacles in their path to self-defense . . . while at the very same time he and city alderman maintain the right to possess handguns for themselves.

  3. I am Gerald Vernon. I was the person who applied for space at Tuley Park field House for our Right to Carry meeting on June 9, 2010. Once Donna Jones, Director of Tuley Park Field House approved the application, we began putting out flyers, press releases, Public Service announcements, etc. Then all of a sudden, out of the blue, Ms. Jones calls me up last Wednesday (6-23-10), one week before our scheduled program and tells me that the approval has been rescinded and we would have to talk to someone in the special events office. When I asked why, she said she was told that there would be too many people to hold the event at the Field House. When I asked Who said so, I was told that she couldn't tell me and that I would have to contact the special events office. They know full well that anything going through special Events takes two weeks to approve, in effect cancelling our program and trampling all over our rights.
    This was a political decision to shut us down. These tyrants not only are dedicated to continously violating our second amendment rights, regardless of the U.S. Supreme Court decision, but are obviously equally committed to violating our first Amendment rights as well. They think absolutely nothing about violating their oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United states and feel they can violate our rights with impunity. They think they can pick and choose what parts of the constitution they agree with and ingore the rest at their convenience. Whoever is opposing Lyle in the next Alderman's race for the six ward, I will support. Overseer's on slave plantations always had more loyality to their masters than to the other slaves, Lyle seems dedicated to maintaining this tradition with master Daley over the constitutients of her ward.

  4. I don't agree with everything people say. As an American, I have the right to decide for myself what I think. Unfortunately, it seems that in Chicago it is always "do as I say, not necessarily what I do."

    If I want to own a handgun, I should be able to. If I am law abiding, want to carry a handgun for self defense and pass a FBI background check I should be able too.

    I don't know about "others," but I have noticed that the people doing all of the shootings are the same ones that cannot legally buy a gun anyway. More laws and restrictions will do nothing to stop these people. Enforce the laws we have, put these bangers behind bars where they belong and leave us honest folks alone.

    Just because I choose to live in Chicago does not mean I choose to give up my right to defend my life. Let them have their meeting. In fact, as a good gesture, maybe somebody from the park district or city council should bring coffee and donuts.

  5. i don't buy the notion that having a gun will really keep people safe. Officer Wortham and his father both had a gun. Officer Wortham still died.

    And if a stray bullet from someone "defending" himself hits my child -- i will use all legal means to enforce justice on a "law abiding" citizen.

    At the same time, I DO respect the first amendment, which was made especially for something like this -- an honest political issue.

    If the Park District REALLY thinks the meeting would be out of control (i think it would be vocal but within the law), they should have guidelines clearly set up that are easy for the organizers to follow.

    I would encourage "Right to Carry" advocates to stop playing the victim role. If you are serious about wanting to meet, find a PRIVATE location. Whether the Regal Theater or Captain's Hard Time dining,or heck, the empty Dominick's, there is surely a nearby spot you can find.

    if gun advocates are serious about wanting to stop the gun violence we need yo to help in 2 areas

    1) Create a system so we can trace where these guns are coming from. I doubt they are being made in a basement like Crystal Meth or bootleg alcohol.

    2)Instead of hiding in your house with your hand on the trigger, get out side & talk to these youth. And know your churches and organizations, so that if you can't offer them anything, you know who can.

    3) What's the deal with the "Well Reuglated Militia" part of the 2nd amendment. That seems to be glossed over. The Chicago ban, from what i have read, allows someone in a well regulated militia to have a gun. Law abiding citizens shouldn't have any problem with a well regulated militia as an authority.

  6. And for the record -- i think the meeting SHOULD have taken place. My argument though, is to not let that denial become an excuse for martyrdom (that is getting false sympathy, and shows weakness rather than strength)...but try other avenues if this one gets stalled.

  7. JP I think you're assuming that the 2nd Amendment denotes a collective right. And my assumption is that the "right of the people to bear arms" is an individual right. Although the Supreme Court has ruled on two occasions that there is a right to self-defense the crux of this debate is between either the militia or the individual.

    Also I tend to think the right of the people part of the 2nd Amendment is glossed over as well.

  8. A new location for the meeting has been arranged just in time for this evenings meeting.

    Wed. June 30, 2010
    7:00pm – 9:00pm
    Chicago State University
    Williams Science Center - Rm. 116

    99th and King Dr. Chicago, Il. 60619


PLEASE READ FIRST!!!! Comment Moderating and Anonymous Comment Policy

While anonymous comments are not prohibited we do encourage you to help readers identify you so that other commenters may respond to you. Either read the moderating policy for how or leave an identifier (which could be a nickname for example) at the end of the comment.

Also note that this blog is NOT associated with any public or political officials including Alderman Roderick T. Sawyer!