VANA'S VICTORY - SHE WINS BIG....DO GUN SHOWS LOSE?

Josey1

VANA'S VICTORY - SHE WINS BIG....DO GUN SHOWS LOSE?By John Birch, President, Concealed Carry, Inc., PO BOX 4597, Oak Brook,IL 60522 Tel: 630 660-3935PICTURES AT: http://www.concealcarry.org/vanavictory.htm It does not get any better for the rights of Illinois gun owners than the dismissal of fanny pack carry charges on Thursday and the acquittal of Unlawful of Possession of a Weapon charges on Friday. Vana was found guilty of selling Brass Knuckles and I think State's Attorney's argument that Vana's paperweights "quacked like a duck" were persuasive.You can see the duck that Creason used to make his point at the link above.This case took 5 Months and 6 days to complete. You can imagine the emotional toll it took on Vana. All because one State's Attorney was too stubborn and prideful to believe fanny pack could possibly be legal. Well come the date of the trial, he got religion and dismissed the charges as we predicted ever since Vana was tossed into the county hell hole for no reason.The more onerous charge in the Vana case turned out to be the charge of Unlawful Possession of a Weapon on land that is publicly funded or partially publicly funded. Please take a moment to read this law:720 Illinois Compiled Statues 5/21-6 makes it a class A misdemeanor to possess or store on property "supported in whole or in part with State funds or Federal funds administered or granted through State agencies" any weapon "without prior written permission from the Chief Security Officer for such land or building." Under this Statute, weapon is defined as including "a handgun, sawed-off shotgun, sawed-off rifle, any other firearm small enough to be concealed upon the person, semiautomatic firearm, or machine gun...any other rifle, shotgun, spring gun, other firearm, stun gun or taser as defined in paragraph (a) ofSection 24-1 of this Code, knife with a blade of at least 3 inches in length, dagger, dirk, switchblade knife, stiletto, ax, hatchet, or other deadly or dangerous weapon or instrument of like character...a bludgeon, black-jack, slingshot, sand-bag, sand-club, metal knuckles, billy or other dangerous weapon of like character." Do you realize a street is publicly funded? Do you have a tire iron in your car? If so do you have permission from each and every county sheriff to possess this dangerous weapon? Vana's excellent defense counsel, Dick Carey made the point that just to go fishing with a filet knife you have to get multiple permissions from county and state under this law. His impassioned argument to reason was so good the jury "nullified the law" as Vana was clearly guilty of violating the 720 ILCS 5/21-6. But maybe so are you guilty? Read on.........IS THIS THE END OF GUN SHOWS?How many of us go to gun shows? If you pick up a weapon there do you have written permission to possess it on land that is publicly or partially publicly funded from the sheriff? Do the exhibitors have such written permission? Under 720 Illinois Compiled Statues 5/21-6 all it will take is some citizen or politician who hates gun owners to call the police and tell them to go down to any local gun show and arrest the vendors and anyone else they find there with a gun. We never heard of this law before, but it seems to be the perfect legal tool to shut down almost any gathering of gun owners you can think of. Though Vana beat her charge because they "nullified the law," you can be a jury further north would not be so sympathetic.Remember, it's not enough that the gun show have permission from the sheriff, no sir! Each and every person possessing weapons at that show must have prior written permission. I think this has the potential to bring chaos to the lives of gun owners. When a cop stops us and can't find anything else to charge us with, then possession on publicly funded land is the ticket to a Class A Misdmeanor charge.In the next CC NEWS I'll have a letter you can cut and paste and send to your sheriff to get his "prior written permission" to possess weapons on publicly funded land. Even if you think the jury will acquit you if arrested, it will cost you thousands to get that acquittal. Besides, think of the fun of sheriff's getting a few hundred letters requesting permission to have weapons? WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?Fanny Pack carry is the law in the state of Illinois, but you can bet there are many other State's Attorneys out there who will still arrest and we will have to defend them. This is NOT over. Our strategy:1. We will establish enough money as a membership organization to be a rapid response team to anyone arrested. Members will be our priority to service in emergencies.2. We will work with the Champaign County Rifle Association to establish a permanent legal defense fund with a board to oversee the expenses. You have responded magnificently to emergencies in the past, but now that we know we are going to be arrested on technical gun law charges, we need to prepare. The I$RA and the NRA are NOT going to bail you out, so this is the ONLY game in town. At Concealed Carry, Inc. we believe that one gun owner is arrested, ALL GUN OWNERS ARE ARRESTED!Think about it...you are rotting in jail...you have one call. The I$RA or Concealed Carry, Inc. Who do you call?I think Vana made the right call and you will too should that dark day come.Vana, you are a brave woman. You stood tall and you never let them see you sweat. You are an inspiration of courage to gun owners throughout the state of Illinois.Finally, to all of you who packed that courtroom yesterday...THANK YOU. It was a display of solidarity that gun owners are long overdue in showing. You are too be commended for your sacrifice in undertaking such a long drive on behalf of someone you never even met. Vana has the best friends in the world!More details on Vana's case in the next article. *********************************Send this page to a Friend!*********************************Judge acquits woman of weapons chargeBy HodappSALEM A jury deliberated nearly five hours Friday before convicting Vana Haggerty of unlawful use of weapons for selling a pair of brass knuckles at the Marion County Fair.The jury acquitted the 41-year-old Centralia resident of unauthorized possession of a weapon on state-supported property for allegedly carrying a pistol in a fanny pack while working on the fairgrounds.On Thursday Marion County State's Attorney Jim Creason had dismissed a controversial transportation of a firearm charge filed against Haggerty, for allegedly carrying the unloaded pistol in the fanny pack.In his closing statement Creason reminded the jury that despite the defendant's claim, the brass knuckles were really a paper weight, she told a young male customer the proper way to wear the item as a weapon. He also reminded the jury that when a man asked for brass knuckles, Haggerty gave him the item, despite calling it a paper weight."You can't change what something is just by calling it something else," Creason argued. "If I use an Uzi to prop open my door, I can call it a door prop but it's still a submachine gun."If it looks like a duck and flies like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck," he said. Creason also told the jury that Haggerty admitted to possessing the pistol on state-supported land without prior permission from the sheriff.Centralia attorney Dick Cary argued that the decision made by the jury would help define the law in Marion County for years to come.He showed the jury the magazine that sold the brass knuckles purchased by Haggerty and described them as paper weights. He told the jury that Haggerty also possessed a sword, but wasn't charged with the sword as a weapon because it was known to be a novelty.He said that if the brass knuckles are a weapon, the buyers should also be charged along with the seller.Cary argued that Haggerty has a right to be at the fairgrounds and had in fact paid for rental space at the site. He argued that seeking prior permission before taking a weapon onto state-supported grounds in insane.He said that using those rules, a fisherman could not take a fillet knife fishing at Forbes State Park, a man couldn't take an ax across the street to show a neighbor and a hunter couldn't transport a gun to hunting grounds.Creason argued that Haggerty admitted the handgun was concealed on the fairgrounds during the fair and that she had not obtained permission to bring the gun onto state-supported property. He then asked the jury to consider one thing while deliberating and placed a small, yellow duck on the stand in front of the jury.The jury retired to deliberate about 10:30 a.m. and returned with a verdict about 3:30 p.m. Haggerty is scheduled to be sentenced on the use of weapons charge on March 7. **********************************To subscribe to CC NEWS, just email mailto:john@concealcarry.org**********************************Suit over illegal gun sale dismissedState didn't prove owner culpableBy Rudolph BushTribune staff reporterPublished January 12, 2002A Cook County judge has dismissed a case brought by the state's attorney's office to stop handgun manufacturers and a Melrose Park gun shop from producing and selling illegal, inexpensive revolvers.Circuit Court Judge Robert Boharic on Thursday dismissed a request by the state's attorney for an injunction against Donald R. Beltrame, owner of Suburban Sporting Goods on West North Avenue. The suit also named manufacturers and distributors Bryco Arms, Phoenix Arms and others as defendants.The judge said the state so far has failed to prove that the defendants knew that they were producing and selling illegal firearms."They can't prove that in a million years," said Beltrame's attorney, Michael Nash. "This is a big victory."Boharic, however, gave prosecutors 120 days to refile their complaint.Beltrame had no idea the weapons he sold were illegal because the state had not included them on a list of outlawed guns, Nash said.John Gorman, a spokesman for the state's attorney's office, said prosecutors intend to refile and will prove Beltrame knowingly sold revolvers that violated a state statute prohibiting the sale of weapons cast from zinc alloy, which melt or deform at a temperature of less than 800 degrees.He called the judge's ruling a request for a "technical fine-tuning" of the complaint and said that in some ways the suit has already been successful.**********************************BB gun incident trips studentSt. Charles teen faces disorderly conduct chargeBy LeAnn SpencerTribune staff reporterPublished January 12, 2002A 15-year-old freshman at St. Charles East High School was charged Friday with disorderly conduct after allegedly showing classmates a BB gun before the start of school.The incident occurred about 7 a.m. as the boy was riding to school with two girls and displayed what appeared to be a handgun, police said. The girls were upset and asked the boy to get out of the car.When the two girls arrived at school, they reported the incident to officials, who called police.The boy, who lives in St. Charles, was taken out of class and arrested Friday morning."[While riding with the girls] the boy pulled what appeared to be a semiautomatic pistol and made threatening remarks," said St. Charles Police Chief Donald Shaw, who called the boy's actions "alarming and disturbing."No gun was found at the school, said investigators, who discovered a gun in a trash bin in downtown St. Charles.The gun, which was not loaded, turned out to be a BB gun created to look like a 9 mm pistol, Shaw said.Such guns do not have to be registered, he said, and are sold in sporting goods stores.Shaw said the boy will be referred to juvenile authorities.The boy also faces disciplinary action from Community Unit School District 303 even though the incident did not take place on school property, officials said.Had the gun been brought on school property, the student would have faced expulsion, officials said.But officials declined to discuss what penalties the student might now face.School officials complimented the girls for quickly reporting the incident."Everyone involved with this situation did exactly what they were supposed to do to ensure the safety of our students," said District 303 Supt. Francis Kostel.District 303 may act even though the incident did not take place on school property."Once the suit was filed, they stopped distributing these guns and selling these guns," Gorman said.In his motion requesting dismissal, Nash questioned why authorities sought redress in civil court if they believed they had a criminal complaint against his client.Gorman said the primary goal was to get an injunction against the sale of such firearms rather than punish one dealer."We weren't interested in putting some clerk in jail; we were interested in stopping these type guns from getting on the streets," Gorman said.The ruling marks the second time Beltrame has beaten prosecution for alleged violations of gun laws.In August 2000, he was acquitted of federal charges that he sold guns to "straw" purchasers, who in turn sold the firearms to people who cannot legally purchase guns.*************************Concealed carry not the answer Daily Southtown LettersThursday, January 10, 2002On Jan. 1, your Public Forum published a letter titled, "Illinois needs concealed-carry law." I would like to respond to that letter because the last thing Illinois or any other state needs is a concealed-carry law. I realize that some misguided states have enacted conceal-carry laws to satisfy a minority of their citizens. Those states have ignored the right of the rest of their citizens, and visitors to their states, to go about their daily lives without being exposed to the potential danger of bullets fired by people carrying legally concealed firearms. While I have seen no statistics showing that people are being accidentally shot daily by indiscriminate shooting from people carrying legally concealed firearms, I sincerely doubt that accidental shootings will not occur in the future. One has only to review news reports of the many people killed and injured each year by hunters legally carrying and discharging firearms during the hunting seasons to know that an intended target is not always a proper target, and it is not always the only thing shot. Those wanting concealed-carry laws should be assured that, no matter how well intentioned their actions, they can do more harm than good. In addition, if they harm some innocent person they will no doubt be sued for every cent they have, or will ever have. Legal carry proponents contend that crime statistics show a drop in crime in states authorizing legal carry. However, FBI statistics show that crime is down across the country. If concealed carry had even a small effect on crime prevention, I doubt that concealed carry is the answer to further drops in the crime rate. I am a retired U.S. Treasury agent, and I can tell you unequivocally that no law enforcement officer wants to rely on guns in the hands of the general public as a means ofenforcing the laws of this country. In addition, no law enforcement officer, uniformed or in plain clothes, while in the performance of his or her duty, would be happy to be confronted with a situation where a civilian either draws a gun, or is found to be carrying one for any reason. Despite the civilian's good intentions, such people would be in substantial peril. Proponents of concealed carry say that there is no record of abuse of the right to carry concealed firearms, that an armed society is a polite society. To this I say, "Just wait. It is just a matter of time." Just because a state has allowed citizens to carry concealed weapons, it has not automatically endowed them with good sense, or complacent tempers. Lastly, if an armed society is a polite society, Afghanistan must be a country of very polite people. Just the type of society we need. Not!Joseph A. De LeonOrland 'Park***************************Owners of antique guns weren't paid fair priceDaily Herald LettersI read stories in the Daily Herald about the Lake County gun buyback with interest. I found the obvious pleasure expressed over the antique and collectible weapons turned in to be rather curious. It was almost like the glee with which a scheming child boasts of having taken advantage of some unsuspecting schoolmate. Which leads me to an aspect of the program that concerns me. That is the financial impact on well-meaning citizens who turn in weapons worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars in exchange for $50 cash or some gift certificates.Often, these people are elderly, perhaps widows, who have had no involvement with shooting activities in many years. They may have no idea that the fine shotguns or rifles they bought when they were young, or that were their husbands' fall companions during his prime are worth anything. It pains me to consider that they may be living on small pensions or Social Security and that they then effectively lose hundreds or thousands of dollars, when they merely act in what they feel is the community's best interest.It is not realistic to think that the government could get taxpayer support for paying market value for weapons handed in, of course. But something the government could do, which would go a long way toward giving these altruistic citizens just compensation, is to give them a receipt for a charitable donation at the fair-market value of the guns they turn in. In this way, they could at least receive the benefit of a somewhat lower tax bill.The elderly are continually subjected to fast-talking salesmen - we see stories in the paper about the latest scam - trying to separate them from their modest means. The gun buyback programs to date have had similar effects. I am not suggesting for a minute that is the government's intention, far from it. I believe government officials are so focused on the good they hope to accomplish with their gun buyback programs that they haven't noticed the similarity.It is vitally important that the government act in such a way that it clearly rises above the level of scams that take advantage of the uninformed, or the confused, and especially those of modest means.David W. PenningtonFox Lake**************************Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence Responds to Cincinnati Ruling1/10/2002 Press ReleaseContact: Toby HooverOhio Coalition Against Gun Violence44 Floyd StreetToledo, OH 43620Phone: 419-244-7442 http://www.ocagv.org maimailto:Ocagv@yahoo.com Ohioans Don't Want Hidden Handguns, Despite the Hamilton County Court RulingToday's ruling by the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court is another attempt to overrule the majority of people in Ohio. In a recent poll, more than 69% of Ohio residents said that they were opposed to any Ohio law allowing people to carry around hidden handguns."The Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence believes that the Hamilton County Court has erred in its opinion," says Toby Hoover, Director of the Coalition. "This time a judge has decided that it is okay to allow Ohioans to carry hidden loaded guns in almost all circumstances. That's not good law, and it's not good for the health and safety of the citizens of Ohio.""As the legislature debates the issue of carrying guns in our communities," Hoover says, "the judge's ruling has unfortunately and erroneously added to the gun proponent's fuel. "This ruling gives Ohioans the false impression that we should fear every stranger, that we are all under constant threat of attack, rape and robbery, and that many people wish and need to carry weapons. Statistics say 75% of the deaths from gunfire happen between family, friends and acquaintances. In Toledo this past year, people known to each other committed 16 of the 20 homicides. These numbers are consistent with annual homicide numbers elsewhere. The easy accessibility of the gun puts us most at risk from those closest to us."Among gun related deaths in this country every year, less than 200 are justifiable acts of self-defense according to the Justice Department. "States with CCW permits are not any safer than Ohio," Hoover adds. "Most Ohioans agree with the majority of law enforcement who oppose the carrying of concealed weapons. We are grateful for their wisdom and protection."This ruling will allow Ohioans to carry loaded guns in banks, stores, at parades, in restaurants, at ballparks, football games, in libraries, doctors offices, hospitals, shopping malls, at the zoo, in parks, on our jobs, in cars, on buses, at day care and where our children play. Will the bank teller push the panic button when they see the concealed gun in a pocket or purse or wait until they are told it is a robbery? Guns will be allowed in the Statehouse, in churches, on College campuses, and in bars. "The fearful few may have been convinced by the gun industry they need to carry, but the majority of Ohioans know they are safer without hidden loaded guns in our pockets. Why should one judge overturn decades of Ohio case law?" It is expected that the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court ruling will be appealed in the near future.***********************ISRA: Rep. May's Gun Hoopla a Red Herring U.S. Newswire 10 Jan 15:32 ISRA: State Rep. Karen May's Gun Hoopla Is Just Red Herring To: State Desk Contact: Richard Pearson of the Illinois State Rifle Association, 815-635-3198; Web site: http://www.isra.org CHICAGO, Jan. 10 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA): When running a re-election horse race, politicians rarely let the facts trip them up. Illinois Rep. Karen May, (D-Highland Park) held true to her bloodlines today when proposing legislation to restrict the sale of so-called ".50 caliber sniper rifles." May comes right out of the starting gate by claiming that purchasers of .50 caliber rifles are not subject to background checks. Horsefeathers! Illinois law requires that purchasers of any type of firearm hold a valid Firearm Owners Identification Card (FOID). FOID cards, which are issued by the Illinois State Police, are only granted after a thorough background check is completed. Furthermore, firearm sellers are required to maintain complete sales records for a period of 10 years. Heading down the backstretch, May hugs the rail, telling the public that an 18-year-old needs only to produce a valid FOID card to purchase a .50 caliber rifle. What she neglects to mention is that Junior will have to hustle a lot of burgers and fries to come up with the $5000 or so that it takes to acquire your typical .50 caliber rifle. Oh, and he'd better get cracking on doing those push-ups, too -- because most spindly-armed adolescents aren't up to the task of lugging around a 40 pound, 3-foot long rifle. At the quarter pole, May tells scary stories about how easily Osama bin Laden acquired American-made .50 caliber rifles. What she avoids mentioning is that the rifles in question were supplied to anti-Soviet Afghan freedom fighters nearly two decades ago by the U.S. government. But with the finish line in sight, why would May let such a small detail break her stride? In the homestretch, May cracks the whip and pours on the coal -- warning us all of the dangers of kits designed to convert AK-47 rifles to so-called ".50 caliber sniper rifles." Although the ISRA is not aware of any such conversion kits, anything is possible. But one would have to wonder why anyone would accessorize a $300 AK-47 with several thousand dollars worth of conversion parts -- assuming such was even possible given the AK-47's design features. Ultimately, May will find the truth waiting for her in the clubhouse turn. The truth is that all the hoopla about .50 caliber rifles shooting down aircraft or picking off Cubs fans from the roof of the Sears Tower is nothing but urban legend. The truth is that .50 caliber rifles do not factor at all into Illinois' violent crime picture. The truth is that most of the gun violence in this state is committed by repeat offenders who were not adequately rehabilitated by the criminal justice system. The race for the 58th district seat would be much easier to handicap if May would only tell the truth about .50 caliber rifles. The ISRA urges Rep. May and her friends at the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence (ICHV) to cut to the chase and admit the true purpose of their proposed .50 caliber rifle ban. We're asking May and ICHV Executive Director Thomas Mannard to show some courage of conviction and state plainly that their proposal is designed to be the first step toward the eventual banning and confiscation of all privately held firearms. *******************RFM NEWS Guest Commentary Chicago, IllinoisDan@rfmnews.com http://www.RFMNEWS.com The following guest commentary is from Jack Roeser, President of the Family Taxpayers Network"WHY MY OPINION OF JIM RYAN CHANGED"by Jack RoeserIn the 1994 election for Attorney General, I was a strong supporter of Jim Ryan, the eventual winner. Many of us conservatives saw him as a champion of family values, a man of solid character. I became a principal contributor. In fact, near the conclusion of the campaign, Jim was low on funds and sought my help. I agreed to endorse him and to match contributions at a forthcoming fundraising event in Barrington, my hometown. This was in addition to earlier contributions and the efforts of Family Taxpayers Network on his behalf. However, I would not support Jim Ryan now. I still think he believes in those values that we shared then, but his execution of policy decisions since then has put his judgment in serious doubt.In a private meeting with Jim, his son John, and his campaign manager in August 2001, he started out with a long impassioned statement of his complete devotion to Right To Life (RTL). I attempted to question him on the subject, difficult because of his intensity and frequent interruptions. I pointed out that while I believed he was internally dedicated to RTL, his actions on prosecuting pickets of abortion clinics, his desertion of the "Live Birth" bill (Christ Hospital), and his general disinterest in RTL promotion had caused an RTL perception of dissatisfaction with his actions. With great vehemence, he proclaimed, "I support the law; I don't make public policy." Such a stark statement leaves no room for judgment, yet we know that prosecutors take great leeway in deciding which cases to pursue.Also, on the very day he refused to give supportive advice on the "Live Birth" bill ("I don't make public policy"), he advised the Governor to make mere possession of a gun a felony, replacing the long-standing misdemeanor classification. That was a very controversial decision on a bill that was before the legislature. Jim Ryan was clearly helping the Governor to make public policy in favor of gun control, which infringes Second Amendment rights.Jim Ryan has also proven to be a strong advocate of hate crime bills and of homosexual preference bills such as HB474. He co-signed Governor Ryan's letter affirming HB474, "sexual orientation" as a protected category. While he was still the DuPage Prosecutor, I asked Jim why he had written a letter to the House Speaker recommending a gay rights bill. Ryan was firm in support of homosexual and hate crime bills and would not be dissuaded at that early date. Again in the August meeting, he firmly set forth his support for hate crime and homosexual preference legislation. This too was advocacy of public policy, not just "enforcing the law." His long-term advocacy of gay rights leaves no doubt that, as governor Jim Ryan would sign such legislation despite his Catholic religion and RTL protestations.In the category of "Very Bad Judgment:"* There is his offer of $350,000 to a Jesse Jackson project at a time when an investigation of Jesse's fund irregularities would be more appropriate. * There is his contract allotting $900 million to the attorneys in the tobacco suit, causing the State to be sued for $800 million in further payment beyond the $112 million approved by the Federal courts. This raises the question of whether Jim was influenced by the contributions lawyers make to political campaigns. No business would exercise such bad judgment as to sign a contract for such a large sum before the extent of the services to be provided was known. * There is the bad judgment in the Nicarico death sentence case when Jim was in charge in DuPage County where the abuses of procedure resulted in large settlements to the four whose sentences were finally canceled. His inaction on the abusive "confessions" in over 400 cases in Chicago compounds the problem. * Jim Ryan sat by while George Ryan imposed an illegal moratorium on capital punishment, ignoring his responsibility as Attorney General to enforce State law. This left public discussion and court cases in limbo. * And where was Jim Ryan while the Secretary of State scandal ran on and on, followed by the disastrous legislation on gambling, pork spending, the Wirtz bill, and homosexual preference pushing through the legislature as a corruptive bolus. Jim Ryan was praising George Ryan as a "good governor," a "great governor," and saying that he wouldn't run if George Ryan chose to run again. Good man or not, Jim Ryan's judgment came down on the side of party politics.Governor George Ryan is leaving Illinois and the Republican Party in disastrous condition. This is no time for "divine right of succession" in political office. There is much to be done in repairing past actions and dealing wisely with a difficult future. We need a Governor who engenders trust, who can lead because he is clean and capable, whose actions match his stated position. We need a man of sound, tested, mature judgment. That man is Senator Pat O'Malley.* * * * * http://www.friendsofliberty.com/concealedcarry/2002/011402.htm