|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
IL: Concealed carry shootings now part of Chicago's gun reality
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
John Hendricks recalls a split second between impulse and action before he took aim and shot Everardo Custodio just before midnight on April 17 after Custodio opened fire on a group in Logan Square.
Hendricks was not charged for shooting the 23-year-old because he had a concealed carry gun license and was determined to have acted in self-defense. But he said he was questioned for hours by detectives after the shooting and, seven months later, hasn't gotten his Springfield Armory .45 back from authorities.
Still, the 48-year-old South Sider said he doesn't begrudge police for the glacial movement.
"This is all new," Hendricks said, "because of the concealed carry." |
| Comment by:
lucky5eddie
(11/21/2015)
|
| Registration required to read the story. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
