Warning: The ATF keeps those records

Here's proof that the ATF keeps your name, and address on file after you purchase a firearm, exactly the way we were told would be illegal for them to do:

(Officer) Meloni said detectives worked with the United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms to trace the ownership back to Smith. Meloni would not provide an address for Smith but said he is a resident of Timber Trail.

The poor guy dropped his gun in Illinois... he's royally screwed.

Mount Prospect tries to ban Assault bow and arrow

You heard it right folks, Mount Prospect is trying to ban bows and arrows!  While this proposal would effectively ban traditional bows alike there is particular focus on the deadly "assault bow and arrow", or compound bow:

Village code currently does not prohibit the use of compound bows on private property, unless the arrow is propelled onto or across public property. Nor does the section of the village code prohibiting the discharge of firearms and air guns address compound bows or other dangerous weapons.
The proposed change would amend the ordinance to ban the use of “dangerous weapons,” including crossbows, and restrict their possession in the village.


Read more: http://dailyherald.com/article/20101216/news/712179890/#ixzz18gBqmoN4

The Deadly "Assault Bow and Arrow" as illustrated by John Rambo.

The part that kills me, is the "restrict their possession" portion.   I just want to point this out to any of my readers: They won't stop at taking your guns, they won't stop at the bows, they won't stop at the knives... they simply won't stop disarming you until you are limbless, defenseless wardens of the state.

Red Light Cameras are about revenue

Red light cameras:  Here in Illinois we were told they were about our safety.  Now it appears from a number of news sources that red light cameras are not about safety.  In July, Schaumburg was considering getting rid of its red light camera becacuse:

"The result is very few crashes at any of our major intersections have been the result of traffic signal violations,"

 Schaumburg got rid of their one red light camera shortly after that article, however Algonquin IL, the city police publish on their website:

Algonquin began red light camera enforcement program in October 2008. The program is seen by Village officials as an important step to improve the safety and flow of local traffic.

Which is a different story than Schaumburg who claimed there is no safety advantage, however the primary worth of continuing the red light program was based on revenue.

Village Manager William Ganek said the $30,000 in lost revenue is manageable -- and well worth continuing the program.  

Elk Grove Village seems to have good Public Relations about the cameras though, they publish some impressive numbers about safety, not about revenue:

In Elk Grove Village, officials say the cameras have worked so well that they will deactivate them at Devon Avenue and Busse Road to see if they have changed driving habits. Recorded red-light violations in the village dropped to 9,500 for the first half of 2010, compared with 13,500 for the same period last year. Crashes at the monitored intersections are also down significantly -- nearly 70 percent at one intersection, Mayor Craig Johnson said.

While Libertyville, IL is concerned mainly with revenue, and what they're allowed to ticket for:

In Libertyville, net revenues from photo-enforced red-light violations were projected at $462,000 this fiscal year , but after six months only $32,000 had been taken in. Police say there are two principal reasons for the decline: More drivers are obeying the traffic signals, and the village does not issue tickets for right turns on red.

 A statewide attempt to ban the cameras came from my own Dan Dufffy in the form of SB2466 which would have effectively made the cameras illegal for use by modifying the vehicle code.

Check out this website for information about how your state handles Traffic Cameras:   Personal Side Note - Minnesota doesn't use them!

Vegans: the most extreme hate group?

I was lucky enough work in a place where vegans roam free, literally hundreds of them a week.  Some even set up little booths handing out literature explaining the horrific condition that our bacon lives in before it becomes bacon.   I decided that instead of what I did last time, which was ask about their programs while eating hot dogs... that this time I would do something more productive.   I put together a quick 2 question survey for this week and asked 100 people who associated themselves as "vegan" these two questions:

"Is it wrong to eat an animal for food?"  Yes, no, maybe

"Is it morally right to kill a human that wants to eat an animal?"  Yes, no, Maybe

Here are the results:

 

These kinds of results are disturbing to me.  This is a group that at least in my local demographic mostly female aged 18-24 feels it is morally right to kill people in defense of the food that person is going to eat.   It's wrong on so many levels.   Each admitted they would never kill a person themselves, they just support the "culling of the human herd".