Oak Park Firearm Regulation Forum - Public Safety Issue
Posted 23 May 2012 - 05:27 AM
Gun-lovers insulted Oak Park's police and health board
Tuesday, May 22nd, 2012 10:00 PM
Thinking back several weeks to the latest village discussion on handguns in Oak Park, what comes to mind is not my opinion about guns but rather the rude treatment that two important village institutions received by open-use handgun advocates.
The first institution unfairly maligned was the Oak Park Police Department. A letter writer implied that citizens needed guns because the police force is only charged with public order, not with citizen safety. This is a horrible insult to our police department. Just check out the Oak Park police website and you will see the long list of services that our police officers provide to anyone within the boundaries of the village of Oak Park, every day. Each and every officer is dedicated to maintaining the safety and security of everyone in the village and being constantly ready to do whatever it takes to maintain our village.
In my personal and professional life as a social worker, I have seen Chief Rick Tanksley, Deputy Chief Tony Ambrose, Community Policing Sergeant Dave Jacobson, and Community Policing Officer Mark Scott greatly extend themselves to help community residents, disabled citizens, and disgruntled neighbors/drivers to resolve quality of life issues while ensuring safety, fairness, equity, and yes, justice. Our police are an important part of what makes Oak Park a wonderful place to live, visit, and work.
The second unfairly maligned institution was the Oak Park Board of Health. As part of its commitment to work with the Health Department to improve the overall health of our community, this citizens commission began to research what needed to be in place to maintain the health and safety of our village long before the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Oak Park handgun ban. Combining the resources of public health and safety professionals, gun owners, and concerned citizens, the commission carefully researched how other communities had adapted to a change from a handgun ban to handguns being legal, considered the unique conditions in our village and what would be impinged by handguns being legal, and came up with a carefully researched and written report, which included a set of recommendations that would protect both the public health and even the most liberal interpretation of the "right to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment.
In appreciation of the expertise the health board has built up in this 4½-year process, the village board asked them to hold a public meeting to take testimony that would give the village board further public input on this issue.
The hearing fairly received testimony and public opinion following the standard used for all testimony given before village bodies, limiting testimony to three minutes. In fact, when there are many people wishing to comment, village bodies may limit testimony on each side of the issue to three individuals for each side. But the Board of Health allowed any person who requested to speak and have their three minutes.
In return for this courtesy, the Board of Health was barraged by insults from various people, both inside the village and out, representing themselves and statewide and national organizations demanding an end to all restrictions on gun ownership and usage inside the village. One state-based pro-gun speaker went so far as to insult the competence, fairness, objectivity, and even the standing of the Board of Health to carry out its responsibility under its enabling ordinances.
Like good citizen volunteers/officials, the board took the insults with maturity and grace. But why should citizens serving their community have to take this?
As I have noted, we are fortunate to have in Oak Park many organizations and institutions who contribute to our quality of life. Shouldn't they be given appreciation and respect?
Frank Vozak is an Oak Park resident.
Posted 23 May 2012 - 06:38 AM
Chearleads for competent police department (which if I recall correctly the village of Oak Park consists of whopping 4 miles of area ) yet still manages to have serious crime issues. I'm betting some of those officers are glad the city no longer restricts their wives or other family members from having a firearm legally in the house, thanks to the McDonald case should they need to defend themselves while the officers are away on duty.
Lets see the Board of Health gets assigned the task of discussing what manner of road blocks it could implement to restrict law abiding background checked FOID card holding members , has extra special meeting where they bring in a bought and paid for anti gun lobbyist (not implying the village paid him) Mark Walsh
And the firearms owners I saw, that showed up speaking were there because they didn't want their rights trampled again , Save the village more money from unnecessary and costly lawsuits, and retain the ability to defend hearth and home without overburdensome restrictions for law abiding members of society.
Franks going to wait for a very cold day for any form of apology from me.
If fact where's the big Thank You to David Schweig and the panel he put together to show the board the error in the path they were leaning towards? He may have saved the village millions on court costs in the future.
Adding there are others that should be thanked for their time and voices Mike W. ISRA as one that I can recall as making the time and effort without any compensation for his efforts.
Edited by Yas, 23 May 2012 - 06:42 AM.
Posted 23 May 2012 - 07:17 AM
Posted 29 May 2012 - 09:46 PM
Oak Park handgun regulation proposals move forward
Village board to get first look at health board's recommendations for limited actions
Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 10:00 PM
By Anna Lothson
The Oak Park Board of Health has made its stance on handgun regulation official.
At its May 22 meeting the board finalized its set of recommendations regarding seven proposals that concluded the village should not pursue specific regulations such as a handgun registry or mandatory handgun training.
The board provided its initial recommendations on seven proposals; they were against five of the seven. The topics consisted of a local handgun registry; mandatory training requirements for handgun owners; mandatory requirements for handgun storage or use of trigger locks; mandatory reporting of lost or stolen guns within 72 hours; licensing of gun dealers; limitations on location of gun dealers; and voluntary education campaigns and other initiatives.
The only recommendation garnering a favorable vote was a proposal regarding voluntary education campaigns and other initiatives. The board did not indicate a position on the mandatory reporting of lost or stolen handguns within 72 hours.
Margaret Provost-Fyfe, Oak Park's public health director, said no substantial changes were made to the health board's recommendations since its April meeting. She said the issue should be presented to village board members sometime in June and will be worked through during the next few months depending on the board's stance.
Overall, the health board's perspective on the issue boils down to a lack of evidence indicating that implementing the policies would have an impact on public safety, and the fact that statewide laws prevent efforts such as a local handgun registry, according to the health board reports.
Edited by GarandCollector, 29 May 2012 - 09:47 PM.
Posted 29 May 2012 - 09:56 PM
Unrelated but there is a pigeon controversy now. It makes for interesting reading....
Edited by GarandCollector, 29 May 2012 - 10:00 PM.
Posted 29 May 2012 - 09:58 PM
"Though they plot evil against you and devise wicked schemes, they cannot succeed; for you will make them turn their backs when you aim at them with drawn bow." -- Book of Psalms, Ch. 21 Vs. 11 & 12
"Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
— Frederick Douglass, civil rights activist, Aug. 4, 1857
Posted 29 May 2012 - 11:08 PM
I read this article before but I just thought of something different.
The person that wrote this is a coward with no guts. He/she is saying not to fight for their cause because it would be too hard. Waa, waa, fighting to change things is hard. Pathetic.
Yes, I really look like this.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users