Chicago police concerned about conceal-carry bill.

Chicago police joined gun control groups Wednesday to voice concerns…

Chicago police joined gun control groups Wednesday to voice concerns about flaws in Illinois’ mental health screening system for would-be gun owners, problems that could be amplified with passage of a bill to allow permits for carrying concealed firearms.

A 2009 Illinois State Police report cited “significant information gaps” in the state’s ability to detect and screen out people with serious mental illnesses who might go on a shooting rampage. A state police official testified last week that those gaps still exist.

Illinois falls short in its reporting of psychiatric hospital admissions to the FBI as required by a federal law passed after the 2007 Virginia Tech mass shootings, according to the ISP report. Gaps also exist in reporting by health professionals and nursing homes of dangerous mentally ill people who should be disqualified from gun ownership under Illinois law.

Source: Carla K. Johnson for the Associated Press via Chicago Tribune.

Load Comments
  • Chet

    The People have MORE of a right to carry than the cops or soldiers do and that is the problem, we have been led to believe that it is the other way around…..

  • Chicago is #1 in the list of the top 25 American Cities for VIOLENT CRIME! Chicago is super Corrupt…so much so that the FBI refuses to use the CRIME STATS provided my City of Chicago! Chicago.. suppresses and eliminates a free citizens right to self defense. Chicago LOST a recent US SUPREME COURT RULING….BECAUSE OF its UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION ON THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS…..SO WHO CARES WHAT THE CHICAGO POLICE UNION or the Corrupt Chicago Political Machine that gave us Obama and elected the street thug Rahm Emanuel…..SAYS ABOUT THE CONTINUOUS CHRONIC VIOLATION OF A CITIZENS RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. IN CHICAGO …ONLY THE POLICE AND CRIMINALS HAVE GUNS….this is called Tyranny!

  • Eric

    Law enforcement really can’t protect individuals, AND, unfortunately (despite apparent wide-spread public belief), law enforcement is not legally obligated to protect individuals (see the case law). Simply, according to the Courts, the police are not “body guards,” and, instead, the Courts have stated the police are there to protect the “community-as-a-whole.” In reality, most of what the police do (anyway) is report on crimes which have already occurred, and, while law enforcement —sometimes—stops crimes-in-progress, this is not a common thing. Ironically, when they do this efficiently and effectively, such as the LAPD’s Special Investigations Section (S.I.S.), there is often outcry by so-called “civil rights” groups and/or community “activists” (think: “ambitious” political types…) against the police overstepping their “role” by “spying” on people (i.e., surveillance) or “hunting” (e.g., waiting outside of a bank in an unmarked vehicle), etc. Again, check out the case law… Worse, still, is the problem of “reaction-time” regarding violent assaults: for the average patrol officer, he or she is “needed in seconds, but there in minutes,” so, unless it the LAPD’s elite Metro Division “rolling by ‘hot’” or their S.I.S. bothers and sisters literally “right there, right now” on a stake-out, or “Johnny Law’s” patrol car is passing by THAT SECOND AND THEY SEE YOU DOWN THAT DARK ALLEY, and YOU are being attacked, then YOU have to take care of the potential life-or-death situation YOURSELF, then deal with the legal (and often psychological) “mess” that is the “Aftermath.” Reality, period! This idea that the police are “there-for-you” isn’t totally unrealistic, but close (“adversarial legal system” considerations, aside…). In fact, the “protect-and-serve” belief held by the majority of the public is probably part of a natural and reasonable belief the police will come to your aid, and, usually the can and will (and most even want to), but, many times, they are overwhelmed. Worse, academics and government executives have generally promoted an idea, which “feels good,” but is actually very negative in practice because it is both (1) out-of-alignment with reality (never a good thing), and (2) it has been used as a justification to ban both “the means” (especially firearms and CCW permits, etc.) and, even the right of self defense (e.g., England). This bad idea in practice is the generally misused slogan of “protect-and-serve.” Since the growth of Mass Media in the 1960s, the concept of law enforcement’s role being to “protect-and-serve” has been promoted as a public policy agenda. In places like Australia, Canada, and England, it can be argued this message has successfully removed the tradition of individual, self-defense in practice, and, in the extreme, the English really can’t lawfully defend themselves even against the most obviously heinous crimes anymore. In the U.S. this “protect-and-serve” message of the Mass Media has been less successful, but it essentially is the ideology of “big city” majors and a major foundation to the argument that, “You don’t need guns because responding to violence only leads to more violence,” which really means YOU, the person who elects not to defend himself or herself, is totally at the mercy of the merciless. The Anti-Gun Mayors use the “protect-and-serve” tradition in a perverted way: “We will protect you, when we get there…” The Chicago Police being against private persons being able to defend their lives is simply part of this. It’s not really that “deep.” It is ironic that John Lott’s research-based book, MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME, is published by the University of Chicago Press! Again, “The Police: needed in seconds, there in minutes.”

  • Well if this is true “State Police report cited “significant information gaps” in the state’s ability to detect and screen out people with serious mental illnesses who might go on a shooting rampage.” How do we trust the police who have guns, Just google “Chicago cop conviction” for an example of who’s carrying guns to serve and protect us!!!

  • General Jim M

    Awwwww poor Chicago police,you poor babies.What’s the matter? you think your better than the Chicago citizens who pay your paychecks.No,the Daleys don’t pay your paychecks,the taxpayers of Chicago do.If you don’t like American citizens having a right to carry firearms for self defense go work for the Red Chinese.Maybe they’ll let you run someone over with a tank. The people have as much a right to carry a weapon as any cop or any soldier.When a cop opposes this,he’s not a cop anymore,he’s a stormtrooper.