You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘veto’ tag.
It took three meetings, and a Carpentersville business owner’s cash, but finally …
Five members of the Board did the right thing Tuesday night.
One persisted in the opinion that the Village of Carpentersville should be in the business of putting more guns on the streets.
The majority of Police departments across the country, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, many officers here in our area and numerous residents in and around the Village do not want police guns to be re-sold. That didn’t appear to matter to Judy Sigwalt, who was the only one to still vote for selling the guns — politics apparently overriding all else. Perhaps she’s still not over her anger at the “Trouble with Carpentersville” series, which clearly seemed to contribute to some of the indignation at the last two meetings.
The main thing, however, is that the guns will now be destroyed. Thank you to Mr. Roeser for stepping up to the plate.
It would be nice if we wouldn’t have to go through all this in the future. It would be nice if the Village adopted a policy that all weapons — either turned in, confiscated or one’s no longer used by police officers — would automatically be disposed of.
About a month ago, when the issue of selling or destroying old police guns and others that had been confiscated first came before the Board, I didn’t necessarily have an opinion one way or the other. However, as I started reading more about what happens in most states and municipalities around the country, my opinion began to solidify. Selling surplus police weapons, those confiscated from criminals or turned in is wrong. That wrong is not righted by $3,000.
The issue is back on the agenda for tonight’s meeting. This time the question is for the disposal of these weapons. Despite that, Trustee Paul Humpfer says he doesn’t know how he’s going to vote, and Trustee Kay Teeter said she is skeptical of Otto Engineering President, Tom Roeser’s offer. [Daily Herald article] Sheesh … I don’t think that things could have been made much more clear to the Village by Roeser. Unfortunately, it seems politics as usual for these trustees. It would be nice to see them finally set that aside and do the right thing.
If the sale is followed through on and one of those guns is later used in the commission of a murder, could the Village of Carpentersville be named in a wrongful death lawsuit?
It could happen.
A 2003 suit against Glock, Inc. who resold turned-in police guns to a licensed dealer was named in a wrongful death suit when one of the guns used in a group of murders was traced back:
The suit said the gun, manufactured by Glock, had been originally purchased by a Washington state police department, but within a week was found unsuitable for police needs and resold to a local gun dealer.
Under terms that encouraged frequent trade-ins, the police were not required to pay for the new guns until the gun dealer had sold the former guns. That gun dealer would then resell these police guns to a gun collector who was unlicensed and therefore did not have to get background checks from buyers.
In 1998, it was reported that at least 1,100 former police guns were among the firearms used in crimes in America. A January 4, 2006 article in the New York Times (“Seeing Crime Guns Destroyed Gives Solace to Victims’ Families”), talking about guns used in the commission of crimes, stated:
[T]he requirement that crime guns be destroyed reflects a trend among police departments nationwide.
[T]he International Association of Chiefs of Police passed a resolution six years ago encouraging police destroy guns used in crimes.
‘It’s just a culmination of factors,” said Gene Voegtlin, the association’s legislative counsel, based in Alexandria, Va. ”Did police agencies really want to be in a situation where they were offering guns back to the public? A lot of the weapons that are confiscated aren’t necessarily the highest quality, so there are some safety issues involved, liability issues involved.” The association’s resolution urges police departments not to sell their old police guns or trade them in to a manufacturer for new ones, a practice that began to be common in the 1990’s.
The practice of selling old guns, or even trading them in to the manufacturer, is an outdated practice.
In September, the Vice Mayor of Phoenix, was on the opposite side of the issue from what our mayor is. That vice-mayor in Phoenix withdrew his proposal to sell the guns:
Siebert’s proposal drew immediate criticism, with opponents saying it would be bad policy and that police shouldn’t be in the business of putting guns on the streets.
So, why should the Carpentersville police be in the business of putting guns on the streets?
A 2004 report by Americans for Gun Safety found 54,694 guns used to commit crimes between 1996 and 2000 had been bought from licensed dealers. At the time, seven dealers in Arizona had sold 2,800 guns used in crimes as severe as murder. The report ranked Arizona sixth on the list of states with the greatest number of gun dealers linked to weapons used in crimes.
Illinois was #2!
The 2004 Report by Americans for Gun Safety also noted that a gun store in Riverdale, Illinois was, at the time, the largest supplier of crime gun in the entire country. Interestingly, Indiana and Illinois were #1 and #2, respectively, in gun stores that sold weapons traced to 200 or more crimes, between 1996 and 2000 — 14 and 13 stores, respectively. That gun store in Riverdale sold 2,370 guns that were traced to crimes in the Chicago area.
GAT Guns in Dundee sold 316 in that time. (That is not to say that the weapons were sold illegally.)
It doesn’t seem to be that there won’t be a problem, but when.
I’ve said elsewhere here that I’m not anti-gun. But, I am also not for municipalities and police departments putting guns on the streets … especially not guns that were specifically made to be police weapons.
The Board should re-vote according to those principles, and not based on whether they get a measly $3,000.
Tom Roeser, president of Otto Engineering, floated his offer on a local blog site and in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper last week, after trustees rejected Village President Bill Sarto’s attempt to block the sale of 32 firearms to a federally licensed gun dealer.
This appeared as part of a story in today’s Daily Herald.
First, let me say … I am that blog to which the article refers and on which Mr. Roeser’s comments first appeared.
Mr Roeser’s comments can be found here and here. Further, I received a copy of a letter that was sent to President Sarto from a resident of a nearby community, which appears at the end of this article posted previously. That letter provided additional options for the Village to obtain funds while destroying the surplus weapons.
But, now let me get on to the more serious matters we have at hand …
After reading that story today, I sent Mr. Roeser the following email, CC’ing the entire Village Board:
Mr Roeser,
Thank you for your offer to donate $3,000 to the Village to ensure the destruction of surplus weapons that have been designated for resale. While it seems unfortunate that you should have to take further initiative to contact the Board about something which others in and around our community are already aware of and informed on, I hope that you will do so.
I recently came across an old news story that stated: In 1998, 1,100 crimes were committed with former police weapons. As a result the International Association of Police Chiefs adopted a resolution in 2000 which urges police departments not to sell their old weapons or trade them in to the manufacturer for new ones.
It is my sincere hope that the Board will consider your offer seriously and correct their earlier mistake. It is troubling that you should even have to make such an offer for the Board to do the right and prudent thing.
Thank you again for your time and efforts.
Mr Roeser responded by providing the text of a letter sent in reply to the Daily Herald’s story, specifically critical of comments by some of the trustees that they were unaware of his offer. He gave me permission to post it here.
Dear Editor,
The Carpentersville Trustees are obfuscating regarding my offer to pay to destroy rather than sell the used guns that they are planning to sell. The Trustees say they knew nothing of my offer. Or did they know?
I spoke to Village President, Bill Sarto, the day after 5 trustees voted to override his veto and sell the guns. Our conversation was about my offer to donate $3,000.00 in exchange for the Village destroying the guns. He spoke to and emailed my offer to the Village Manager and the Police Chief. The ordinance as passed apparently requires that they be sold to a licensed gun dealer and only a Trustee who voted to sell the guns can bring the issue up again to change that direction.
Some Trustees read about my offer in a Letter to the Editor. None were curious enough to pursue my offer. Some Trustees have said that they will only consider the offer if I explain my reason behind my offer. My offer seems obvious enough, destroy low cost guns rather than put them into circulation. Some trustees have said they will consider my offer only if it is writing. I have made many donations to the Village and no staff member has ever asked me to put it in writing. Maybe the Trustees experience with their own word has taught them to ask for everything in writing. My offer still stands.
Having read Roeser’s original comments and letter to the editor, his reasons should be obvious — maintaining public safety. That was also President Sarto’s reasoning for vetoing the original vote. The veto override appeared to reason that $3,000 was more important than any possible dangers to public safety — not only in the Village of Carpentersville, but any town where these guns may end up.
(The veto override occurred when Trustee Keith Hinz — who ran with Trustees Sigwalt and Humpfer on the “All-American Team” ticket in the April election — backed away from his original vote to not sell the weapons, and instead voted with Sigwalt and Co. Was this politically motivated? It has all appearances of such.)
As Mr Roeser commented previously, “it is time for the residents of Carpentersville to show their outrage.” Contact these trustees who voted to put your safety at greater risk by their vote. Tell them to reverse their decision, with or without Tom Roeser’s $3,000.
These are the addresses of those who voted for the sale of the weapons:
Also, you may wish to CC the other members who voted against the sale to let them know you support their position on this matter:
Carpentersville Action Network 
Recent Comments