Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence Executive Director Colleen Daley talks policy before the debate. Guns Save Life Executive Director John Boch stands at her side. Bloomington Pantagraph photo by Lori Cook.
Yesterday, I attended a debate sponsored by the McLean County Diversity Project, an organization that provides additional learning opportunities to exceptional students in McLean County. The topic was guns, gun control, gun policy and gun violence.
Colleen Daley (no relation to the Mayors) was there representing Illinois’ largest and oldest gun control group, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.
The kids asked questions and Colleen and I took turns answering, and offering rebuttals. At times it got exciting. When Colleen said that ICHV had changed its goals and ceased its until now ever-present desire to ban scary guns and enact mag bans, I chimed in.
“C’mon. Let’s be honest Colleen. You gave up on trying to get those because you simply don’t have the votes.”
Colleen too exception to that, saying she changed their focus to Illinois Dealer Licensing (she seems to think the broke State of Illinois will have more money and resources that the Federal government to license gun dealers as they already do). She also wants “strengthened” background checks and for families to petition a court to strip a family member’s Second Amendment rights.
My impression of Colleen was that she put a very warm and fuzzy appearance for these kids, saying that she’s a new leader there and bringing in a new way of doing business.
I’ve been doing this a long time. Maybe she does represent a new, more reasonable attitude towards reducing firearm-related fatalities. She’s going to need more than just words to prove to me that things really have changed at ICHV. I gave her an opportunity to come out in support of suppressors. She said she’s willing to listen, which is more than the previous leaders of ICHV would have said.
She repeatedly didn’t want to say she would support incarcerating violent criminal predators to bring down Illinois’ firearm violent crime as they have done with great effect in Florida.
BLOOMINGTON (Pantagraph) — On the surface, America’s gun question seems simple: do more firearms make the country safer or more dangerous?
Two leading advocates on opposing sides of the gun debate expressed their views of differing, simple solutions to the gun question during a talk in Bloomington Sunday with students of the McLean County Diversity Project.
For John Boch, executive director of Guns Save Life, more guns in the hands of trained citizens is the answer. Colleen Daley, executive director of Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, supports tighter gun control as a way to reduce the number of senseless firearms deaths, including suicides.
“I want more guns, more people with concealed carry permits and more incarceration of people inclined to commit crimes against innocent people,” said Boch, leader of the Champaign-based group.
GSL Executive Director John Boch speaks to the young people. Pantagraph photo by Lori Cook.
The record Black Friday sales of 200,000 guns shows that people are looking for another way to combat attacks by armed criminals, said Boch.
Boch’s group is known for the the short verse road signs along central Illinois highways supporting the virtues of gun ownership. He estimates that 600,000 people a year see the signs. His favorite: “called 911 and put on hold, sure wish I had that gun I sold.”
Daley said her group “is not an anti-gun organization. We’re an anti-killing organization.” Political control does not dictate gun violence, said Daley, whose group supports stiffer laws for tracking guns and illegal gun sales.
We talked towards the end of the debate about the rules relating to Illinois Concealed Carry. Colleen said it’s easier to list the places you can carry, I chuckled and disagreed, mentioning that you could boil it down to taxpayer-supported locations, hospitals and a handful of other venues. I noted that the building we were holding the forum in was posted with non-compliant signage, and that’s why I chose to carry.
That got me a bug-eyed student or two, and the reporter certainly picked up on it.
Boch said he ignored a sign on the former Bloomington High School building where the meeting was held Sunday and brought his weapon inside. He said he made that decision because the sign lacked all the requirements of such a posting.
That paragraph near the end of her story got at least one commenter’s tighty-whiteys in a bind:
Wow. Are other readers troubled by Boch’s disregard for the state’s concealed carry law?
“Boch said he ignored a sign on the former Bloomington High School building where the meeting was held Sunday and brought his weapon inside. He said he made that decision because the sign lacked all the requirements of such a posting.”
I find his unlawful behavior unacceptable. He clearly understood the intent of the law. He said that he ignored it because of a technicality. Does that mean that anyone else should feel entitled to do the same?
Wow. Are other readers troubled by Boch’s disregard for the state’s concealed carry law? …I find his unlawful behavior unacceptable. …he ignored it because of a technicality.
Reading is fundamental. He explained that the sign lacked the requirements promulgated by the Illinois State Police, and therefore, under the law, was invalid.
Technicality? Since when are “technicalities” to be ignored? If the seemingly anti-gun owners of the building can’t even bother to comply with the law, why should the law-abiding folks comply with their wishes?
Suck it up, ihatepasswords. You’ll be okay. Nobody got killed at that debate, just like nobody got hurt when that CCWer was sitting at the next table the last time you ate at a restaurant.
16 thoughts on “SUBSTANCE VS. SYMBOLISM: Front page coverage of GSL debate with ICHV in Bloomington, IL”
How about inviting her to a GSL meeting?
Absolutely. She’s welcome to the Sangamon County meeting on the 14th of December.
*WE* are the ones fear-mongering?
Oh my god.
What a load of fresh horse crap.
Her group is the one crying like Chicken Little that more guns equal more bloodshed in Chicago.
Hint: It ain’t the guns.
Not sure it was such a good idea to tell the idiots at that building that their sign was non-compliant.
But I understand why you did it.
I’m sure you had your reasons why you mentioned it. Sounds like you did a good job. I really thought she would seem more… rabid. Was she a lunatic or was she very “moderate” like this reporter made her out to be?
She came down from Chicago to talk to 20 kids?
Are they that desperate to.find an audience for their message?
Good work, John.
Nice work, John! It’s important to let those who’ve been fed a steady stream of propaganda see that the thoughtful, articulate man they’ve been listening to was [gasp!] carrying a firearm the entire time.
Seconded. Nothing shatters preconceived notions faster than firsthand experience to the contrary.
I imagine there’s a lot of leftists pooping their sheets after reading that story and seeing that Mr. Boch ignored their magic sign without a second thought.
My favorite comment:
You can write a sign in crayon that says “No Gunz” but it’s not as the law is written in Illinois…the law specifies the requirements for signage very clearly. If you see legally posted signage, you are legally obligated to obey it. No gray area in this at all. His behavior was in no way unlawful. Disrespectful, perhaps. Laws are ALL about technicalities. That’s how the court system works! That’s why lawyers are necessary.
“If you see legally posted signage, you are legally obligated to obey it.”
No you’re not.
it’s like this: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, “gun laws” are a violation of ex post facto, punishable under 18 U.S.C. subsection 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.
This is the ultimate trump card against all gun grabbing leftists. Any judge that attempts in enforce any said laws must be disbarred and impeached. I believe we’ve already had tho argument with, Marbury vs Madison. “Laws that a repugnant to the Constitution ate null and void.” Also see McDonald vs City of Chicago
I have seen a lot of places in Illinois that are improperly posted, ie.wrong sign, wrong size or inconspicuously positioned at the bottom of the see-through door panel.
Thanks for representing the good guys…and gals. Nice touch on the not-so-scary shirt. Real men DO wear pink.
Don’t play nice with these people, guys !
What are you, Republicans?
The purpose of a knock down, drag out fight is to KNOCK THEM DOWN AND DRAG THEM OUT.
Stop playing nice! Stop trying to reach across the aisle!! Stop being BIPARTISAN.
KICK THEIR DOGGAMNEd asses, will you please?
John, you’re looking mahvelous nowadays, and I’m sure you could articulate that woman into a knot!
We cannot BEAT these people by playing THEIR GAME.
Have you not been paying attention to our friend Donald Trump? HE is KICKING ass and taking names – because he just don’t give a damn.
You either gotta be like Donald………or you’ll be seen as George Bush.
Yeah, “way ta go, Brownie! Fine job you’re doing here!” and “I don’t think this law is constitutional, but I’ll sign it anyway and the supreme court can say later if it is not!” And, “I’m’a spend some of this political capital now!”
Guys, we’re WINNING. Don’t quit just cause you’re WINNING!!!
I understand your point, but do you advocate always striking first and striking hard regardless of the situation?
I always find it strange when people like her, black leaders and Democrats are so against harsher penalties for crimes involving guns. They would rather blame an inanimate object instead of the people committing the crimes. All this proves is that they don’t truly care about decreasing violent crime, they want to act like they are doing something without actually going after those responsible for the violent crime. The black leaders and Democrats I understand because it is their constituents committing the crimes so it would be counter productive, but her?
ihatepasswords – 5 hours ago
Wow. Are other readers troubled by Boch’s disregard for the state’s concealed carry law?
JoeSixPack – 4 hours ago
Wow. Are other readers troubled by Boch’s disregard for the state’s concealed carry law?
What I find interesting is the two replies from ihatepasswords and JoeSixPack is the first sentence in their replies.
They both begin with the exact same wording.
From my perspective, this indicates two things.
First, the progressive anti-2nd Amendment people don’t have a original thought in their head.
Second, they obviously believe in the main-stream media’s propaganda.
I would argue that these two have more opinions than knowledge.
IF, they took the time they may find the ‘true facts’ that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens does reduce crime.
But, for a moment lets take the issue about the benefits of its reduction of crime by it self.
For myself I have to ask these two, how is it that a politicians’ life is more valuable than mine, my wife and my children?
Do they really think, God forbid, if a politician was to die while serving would topple the government?
These politicians historically cost the American people more money than they produce for Americans.
Finally, the new talking points that are starting to come from politicians are saying that Australia has the answer, and their crime has been plummeting. Rubbish.
The fact is they finally realized that England’s gun confiscation didn’t work for them and now look what they’re dealing with.
Again, do the research, some honest and balanced research.
We the people have been doing the research for a long, long time. This is because these opinionated pinheads have been badgering the people who simply want to protect themselves.
If they want to really do something product and worthwhile, how about putting away these dirt bag thugs in prison and throw away the key.
Now that’s a presidential candidate that I would vote for.
How about inviting her to a GSL meeting?
Absolutely. She’s welcome to the Sangamon County meeting on the 14th of December.
*WE* are the ones fear-mongering?
Oh my god.
What a load of fresh horse crap.
Her group is the one crying like Chicken Little that more guns equal more bloodshed in Chicago.
Hint: It ain’t the guns.
Not sure it was such a good idea to tell the idiots at that building that their sign was non-compliant.
But I understand why you did it.
I’m sure you had your reasons why you mentioned it. Sounds like you did a good job. I really thought she would seem more… rabid. Was she a lunatic or was she very “moderate” like this reporter made her out to be?
She came down from Chicago to talk to 20 kids?
Are they that desperate to.find an audience for their message?
Good work, John.
Nice work, John! It’s important to let those who’ve been fed a steady stream of propaganda see that the thoughtful, articulate man they’ve been listening to was [gasp!] carrying a firearm the entire time.
Seconded. Nothing shatters preconceived notions faster than firsthand experience to the contrary.
I imagine there’s a lot of leftists pooping their sheets after reading that story and seeing that Mr. Boch ignored their magic sign without a second thought.
My favorite comment:
You can write a sign in crayon that says “No Gunz” but it’s not as the law is written in Illinois…the law specifies the requirements for signage very clearly. If you see legally posted signage, you are legally obligated to obey it. No gray area in this at all. His behavior was in no way unlawful. Disrespectful, perhaps. Laws are ALL about technicalities. That’s how the court system works! That’s why lawyers are necessary.
“If you see legally posted signage, you are legally obligated to obey it.”
No you’re not.
it’s like this: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, “gun laws” are a violation of ex post facto, punishable under 18 U.S.C. subsection 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.
This is the ultimate trump card against all gun grabbing leftists. Any judge that attempts in enforce any said laws must be disbarred and impeached. I believe we’ve already had tho argument with, Marbury vs Madison. “Laws that a repugnant to the Constitution ate null and void.” Also see McDonald vs City of Chicago
I have seen a lot of places in Illinois that are improperly posted, ie. wrong sign, wrong size or inconspicuously positioned at the bottom of the see-through door panel.
Thanks for representing the good guys…and gals. Nice touch on the not-so-scary shirt. Real men DO wear pink.
Don’t play nice with these people, guys !
What are you, Republicans?
The purpose of a knock down, drag out fight is to KNOCK THEM DOWN AND DRAG THEM OUT.
Stop playing nice! Stop trying to reach across the aisle!! Stop being BIPARTISAN.
KICK THEIR DOGGAMNEd asses, will you please?
John, you’re looking mahvelous nowadays, and I’m sure you could articulate that woman into a knot!
We cannot BEAT these people by playing THEIR GAME.
Have you not been paying attention to our friend Donald Trump? HE is KICKING ass and taking names – because he just don’t give a damn.
You either gotta be like Donald………or you’ll be seen as George Bush.
Yeah, “way ta go, Brownie! Fine job you’re doing here!” and “I don’t think this law is constitutional, but I’ll sign it anyway and the supreme court can say later if it is not!” And, “I’m’a spend some of this political capital now!”
Guys, we’re WINNING. Don’t quit just cause you’re WINNING!!!
I understand your point, but do you advocate always striking first and striking hard regardless of the situation?
I always find it strange when people like her, black leaders and Democrats are so against harsher penalties for crimes involving guns. They would rather blame an inanimate object instead of the people committing the crimes. All this proves is that they don’t truly care about decreasing violent crime, they want to act like they are doing something without actually going after those responsible for the violent crime. The black leaders and Democrats I understand because it is their constituents committing the crimes so it would be counter productive, but her?
ihatepasswords – 5 hours ago
Wow. Are other readers troubled by Boch’s disregard for the state’s concealed carry law?
JoeSixPack – 4 hours ago
Wow. Are other readers troubled by Boch’s disregard for the state’s concealed carry law?
What I find interesting is the two replies from ihatepasswords and JoeSixPack is the first sentence in their replies.
They both begin with the exact same wording.
From my perspective, this indicates two things.
First, the progressive anti-2nd Amendment people don’t have a original thought in their head.
Second, they obviously believe in the main-stream media’s propaganda.
I would argue that these two have more opinions than knowledge.
IF, they took the time they may find the ‘true facts’ that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens does reduce crime.
But, for a moment lets take the issue about the benefits of its reduction of crime by it self.
For myself I have to ask these two, how is it that a politicians’ life is more valuable than mine, my wife and my children?
Do they really think, God forbid, if a politician was to die while serving would topple the government?
These politicians historically cost the American people more money than they produce for Americans.
Finally, the new talking points that are starting to come from politicians are saying that Australia has the answer, and their crime has been plummeting. Rubbish.
The fact is they finally realized that England’s gun confiscation didn’t work for them and now look what they’re dealing with.
Again, do the research, some honest and balanced research.
We the people have been doing the research for a long, long time. This is because these opinionated pinheads have been badgering the people who simply want to protect themselves.
If they want to really do something product and worthwhile, how about putting away these dirt bag thugs in prison and throw away the key.
Now that’s a presidential candidate that I would vote for.