Snuffy Pfleger suspended again? I'll believe it when I see it--again.

So the good monsignor Michael "Snuffy" Pfleger has apparently been suspended by Cardinal George . . . again. Second City Cop dared to go there with a post entitled "You're Pfired!" That kind of punning takes . . . . well, it certainly takes something.

Personally, I find that I haven't really changed my outlook since the last time Cardinal George suspended Snuffy; back in 2008 I wondered, "Seriously, Cardinal George, what does it take?"

The list hasn't changed much, because Pfleger hasn't changed much:

"Theoretically, is there an act Pfleger could commit that would shame the Catholic church and the archdiocese of Chicago enough that they'd decide to cut him loose?

• We know injecting the church into elections, thus at least theoretically jeopardizing their tax-exempt status in any just world, isn't enough.
• We know that praising bigots like Louis Farrakhan from the pulpit isn't enough.
• We know that publicly lying repeatedly in his official capacity as a priest isn't enough.
• We know that threatening to "snuff out" John Riggio wasn't enough.

So, just for my own idle curiosity, what would it take? Does he actually have to start assaulting people physicall--or would that be tolerated, too?"

It remains to be seen whether mentioning that you won't take a job in a high school is on that list, too. We'll see whether this suspension is any more "permanent" than the last one.

Second City Cop hits the "Only Ones" attitude between the eyes

Hmm . . . . Second City Cop hit a nerve with the President of the Fraternal Order of Police, and it looks like they're going to bicker in public for a bit. That would normally be something I might read about with interest, but wouldn't make the front page here . . . except that the issue they've decided to debate about is right-to-carry. Specifically, SCC noted a few days ago that the Fop is nearly the lone holdout among major law enforcement organizations. The political appointees in charge of the Chicago Police Department are opposed to the Family and Personal Protection Act, of course, and the political appointee in charge of the Illinois State Police is unlikely to go beyond keeping the ISP quiet and staying neutral on the issue, but there are four other major law enforcement organizations in this state, and they're all in favor. Why, SCC wondered, doesn't the FOP poll its members and, if they're in favor, come out in favor of right-to-carry?

FOP President Mike Shields responded that the Chicago FOP is neutral (which I hadn't realized. . . I've always considered them to be opposed to RTC, but maybe that's my mistake?) and that he saw no reason to lose focus on pensions and money and the like. The FOP, after all, is a labor union before it's anything else.

SCC isn't buying that, but I'll let them explain why:

What better way to start making a name for yourself than uniting behind something that's already legal in 48 other states and tracks with the Constitution of the FOP in being good Americans. Oh wait, you've already decided the police are better than the citizens we serve. We quote:

=====
"Chicago Police Officers already have that right"
=====

That certainly seems to run contrary to the FOP Constitution. We aren't better than the citizens we serve. We are entrusted with certain duties and privileges to ensure domestic tranquility and help preserve the rights of all citizens. Driving a wedge between the public and the police will serve to undermine your stated agenda to protect benefits, wages and pensions by alienating those whose support we need to pass legislation, but we suppose you missed that.

Well said! The rest is worth reading, especially if you find the swirling currents of Chicago PD internal politics as interesting as I do. Read the whole thing.

Illinois Speaker Mike Madigan: (217-782-5350) CALL NOW! LINES ARE OPEN!

If you want to see Illinois become a shall-issue, right-to-carry state this year, it's time to call your Representative in the Illinois House. If you're not sure who that is, you can type your address in here and find out who's your Representative and what his/her phone numbers are. Might as well call the Springfield offices; they should be back in town.

Done with that? Good. Now I'm going to ask you to do something that might seem odd: Call Mike Madigan and tell him you expect a fair vote on HB148 and you hope he'll vote for it.
Now, you might be scratching your head right now at the idea that Mike Madigan, Speaker of the House since 1983, leader of Illinois Democrats, father of Lisa Madigan, halfway-adopted-brother of Dick Daley, should be urged to vote for a right-to-carry bill. But please do it anyway. Remember that we don't actually need Madigan to vote for the bill (though that would help, Mike, if you're reading this) but we do need to show him that there's a true grassroots movement after this bill that will remember if he at least makes sure we get a fair floor vote, up or down.
If you aren't done with that because you're not sure of Mike Madigan's phone number, check the title again.

Got that done, too? Congratulations, you are now a hardcore grassroots activist willing to do more than 90% of gun owners can be bothered to do. Wanna buck for the top percentile? Call Glenn Poshard at Southern Illinois University and tell him to quit trying to kill right-to-carry in Illinois over his turf battle. Poshard is currently leading a group of college administrators lobbying to have the entire bill scuttled unless it makes it a felony to possess a firearm anywhere on campus; if you've ever taken a drive through Carbondale or Champaign, you know we're not just talking about the quad here. I know you'll all be polite and cheerful, but firm. Some of you may decide to mention that if Mr. Poshard doesn't call off the dogs, then even when we win right-to-carry, the fight won't be over for him, because I for one would become a near-full-time "Campus Carry" advocate in that event.

When you're trying to kill the carry bill that Chicago police unions want to see passed, you're so far out of touch that you might be out of sight.

Actually, I DO know what day it is . . .

It's my little sister's birthday . . . and her husband's birthday was a couple of days ago . . . . and their second daughter will be born soon.

They're kind of springy people.

Happy birthday, kiddo!

Linky: If the Cook County State's Attorney Pokes Her Head Out Today, Spring Is On the Way

More on today's anti-gun Chicago press conference from John Boch at The Truth About Guns.

Cook County States Attorney Anita Alvarez Press Conference: A Defining Moment?

All the major control organizations gun are gathering tomorrow (Tuesday) in Illinois. They’ll meet-up with gun violence victims and local gun control advocates like Father ”Snuffy” Pfleger—who earned his nickname by calling for the “snuffing out” of the owner of a Chicago-area gun shop. They’ll head over to the office of Cook County State Attorney Anita Alvarez. The subsequent press conference will have one collective goal: to prevent Land of Lincoln legislators from enacting a law that would give citizens the right to carry a concealed firearm . . . . The Violence Policy Center, The Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, the Mayors Against Illegal Guns—the entire gun control movement know that this could well be do-or-die for their cause. Alvarez’s press conference reveals their desperate rush into the breach, hoping to keep concealed carry from passing one more time. At least until the next time . . . .

Interestingly, the time and place of the conference were finally released Monday, at least to invitees:

We have a confirmed location for the Press Conference against HB 148 which would allow the concealed carrying of handguns. The Violence Policy Center will be releasing National data regarding crimes committed by Concealed Carry Permit
holders and we will be calling for lawmakers to oppose this legislation.

The press conference is scheduled for Tuesday, March 28th at 10:00 AM at the Blue Room of the James R. Thomspon Center, 100 W. Randolph.

Please let me know if you are able to attend this important press conference.
Thanks.

Perhaps more interestingly, members of Illinois Carry who contacted Alvarez's office were told that SA Alvarez is not scheduled to appear at any press events today at all. Of course, there was no public information on the press conference itself at all until Monday morning, so we'll all have to wait and see how accurate that is; but it's always possible that Alvarez never intended to appear. It's also entirely possible that either she or the organizers decided that it wasn't ideal for either to have her take a leading role, since she's so far out of the mainstream. None of the groups involved, with the possible exception of the Violence Policy Center, ever willingly admit that they do or have work to "ban guns," after all, and SA Alvarez has not always been as indirect as that:



(As we all marvel at SA Alvarez's honesty in the moment, we should all take a moment to thank Kurt Hofmann, St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner, for uploading that video to Youtube and ensuring that we can always remind people of exactly what we're facing.)

Who is Hiram Grau and why does he make me nervous?

First things first: Hiram Grau has just been appointed to be the Director of the Illinois State Police.

Now, why would that make me nervous?

Well, the Illinois State Police (ISP) have an uneven history with Illinois gun owners. My memories of the ISP only go back to the days when Terry Gainer was the Director, and Gainer's signature was on the deceptive little countertop signs that were mailed to my dad's gun shop. These were supposed to be set out on the counters to warn customers that their firearms had to be transported in locked cases in inaccessible compartments (such as the trunk of a car) but with the ammunition transported in a separate compartment of the car. That was folk wisdom for years, but it wasn't the law even back then as far as I've been able to tell. In addition, the ISP has traditionally opposed all gun-rights legislation and favored most gun control in the legislature, and their page of advice to women on "What To Do If You Are Confronted" is legendary for such great advice as "It may sound disgusting, but putting your fingers into you throat and making yourself vomit usually gets results (This method is not often used except as a last resort)" and "there is documentation of assailants that left a would-be-victim alone after she told him that she was pregnant and it would kill her baby. (Some case were women that were too old to even have a baby.)"

Over three years ago, I wrote here about my surprise that the ISP hadn't taken the page down or altered it after a year of being mocked by activists with tongue depressors . . . .

Then, over a year later, I posted an open letter to the ISP at the Chicago Gun Rights Examiner, explaining my continued surprise that the ISP still had not taken action to remove the page . . .

Three months after that, the ISP responded with promises of a comprehensive review of the entire ISP website . . . .

That was well over a year ago, and as of today, the offensive page of dangerous advice is still there.

There have been hopeful signs, though. Under the much-mocked young Director Jonathon Monken, the ISP dedicated more manpower to processing FOID applications and began to cut down its backlog. Much more promising, the ISP went from persistent hostility toward gun rights to standing neutral on the latest shall-issue right-to-carry bill . . . and combined with the Illinois Sheriffs Association, Illinois Chiefs of Police and Chicago PD Sargeants Association testifying in favor, that's a big boost.

Now, though, Mr. Grau's administration is poised to begin. Grau is an unknown quantity to me, but he's been in charge of investigations for Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez for years, and I hope he doesn't share her hopes for radical gun bans. Time will tell. In the meantime, the rumors that Grau will be expected to make ISP "outside investigations" of law enforcement in Cook County go the way Alvarez wants them to go--starting with the current case in which one of Mayor Daley's nephews hit another young man who later died of the injuries he sustained in falling to the ground, and was later declared innocent by Chicago PD--are all over the Second City Cop blog. And as one particularly cheerful and optimistic Chicago cop put it:

"Apologies to our brothers and sisters at ISP. As you were with Gainer, you again have been saddled with CPD refuse . . . Grau is a Democratic Party clout baby, plain and simple."

Well, thanks. But I'm still hoping Mr. Grau will show me something to gladden my heart.

Anti-gunners getting desperate in Illinois? Rumors and facts. . .

Rumor has it that the national anti-gun groups are making desperate phone calls behind the scenes and finding their usual allies in the Illinois state capitol in a state of confusion. One insider says "nobody is talking to each other." One big reason for the confusion is probably this year's campaign to pass HB0148/SB0082, shall-issue right-to-carry bills titled the "Family and Personal Protection Act." The bills on the IL General Assembly website are not the final versions, by the way, so be warned if you're going there to read up.

Anyway, we've been over my optimism about this before, so suffice it to say that I honestly think this may be the year Illinois gets shall-issue right-to-carry. Groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership apparently agree, because the day after thousands of gun owners flooded the state capitol for IGOLD, they hired Chris Carr from a Blagojevich-connected Chicago firm to lobby in Illinois. Obviously, none of that is rumor; it's public record. The question is, what do they think their lobbyist can say to Governor Quinn, Speaker Madigan or President Cullerton that will counteract the facts on the ground?

Yesterday, The Truth About Guns posted up a video of Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez in the infamous Chicago television appearance in which she told the host: "I believe there should be a law that says no one should have guns." That was Robert Farago's response to another sign of desperation: the rumor is that the Illinois Council Against Handgun Existence and other Illinois groups went looking for a politician willing to stand in front of the microphones for them at a major press conference early this week (Tuesday morning?) and Ms. Alvarez was the best they could find. Given the fact that every one of these groups denies that they want to ban guns, the fact that they feel obliged to go with Alvarez as their point-person on this would seem to imply that they couldn't get, for instance, House Speaker Michael Madigan, Senate President John Cullerton, or Governor Pat Quinn to be the face of resistance to right-to-carry in Illinois.

What do you suppose we should read into that?