Saturday, June 23, 2007

“I have a gun. I’m going to come and kill you.” Part 1

On Thursday, Illinois political journalist Rich Miller sent me a copy of a press release from Sen. Dan Kotowski's office. (I posted on the ongoing police investigation into alleged threats against Sen. Kotowski earlier.)

Here is Sen. Kotowski's statement:

Illinois State Senator Dan Kotowski (D-Park Ridge) says threatening phone calls, faxes, and letters his office received during the past few months were handed over to local law enforcement including the Illinois State Police.

Kotowski says, “When someone calls my office saying, ‘I have a gun. I am going to come and kill you’, I have to worry about my safety, and the safety of our staff.” Kotowski added, “That is why I followed proper procedure and forwarded any correspondence with threatening material to the Illinois State Police.”

A recent release by the Illinois State Rifle Association accuses Kotowski of infringing on the First Amendment Rights of our citizens but Kotowski says this is ridiculous and irresponsible. “You won’t find a bigger advocate for free speech in the legislature, but someone’s right to free speech stops when they threaten to kill you.”

Kotowski and his office staff received threats during the first few months of the Spring Legislative Session, most of which specifically referred to his sponsorship of gun safety legislation. “If Illinois State Rifle Association members were as law abiding and anti crime as they claim, then they would be the first to condemn these threats and help to champion the cause for measures designed to get guns away from those with criminal intent.”

Kotowski concluded, “I believe that everyone should have a voice in the legislative process, but the ISRA does their membership no favors by perpetuating suspicious threats, and standing up for those who have misguided intentions.”

It's clear from this that the ISRA press release earlier in the week (and the follow-up release ostensibly condemning Father Michael Pfleger, but also throwing a false low-blow Sen. Kotowski's way) were simplistic attempts to distract attention from the real heart of the police investigation -- death threats against the Senator.

Here's a reminder from junior high civics -- the First Amendment doesn't cover death threats. And the police take such threats damn seriously, especially in the wake of 9/11, etc.

Sen. Kotowski, despite the ongoing police investigation, has answered the ISRA's petty demand for details as to why ISRA members received police visits.

It's time for Richard Pearson and the ISRA to make good on their word and condemn the ne'er-do-wells who have allegedly threatened the Senator's life. After months of heated vitriol, petty smears and outright lies from gun lobbyists attacking Sen. Kotowski's work representing his constituents in our state capitol it would be a respectable change of pace for the ISRA and others to come out strongly against those making such death threats.

If the ISRA can condemn Fr. Pfleger's poor choice of words in his overly firey rhetoric, they ought to be able to condemn someone who made an actual, clear-cut death threat.

And all those gun enthusiasts who gleefully copied and pasted those alarmist (and off-base) ISRA press releases? Maybe they'll now come back to their good senses and stop calling Sen. Kotowski and the police who are just doing their jobs all those petty, kindergarten names like Nazi, goon squad and the like.

Send your state senators all the faxes (and letters and calls) for or against whatever issue you like... But someone needs to make it clear that the line in the sand is drawn well before threatening anyone's life.

Then again, we are dealing with people who seem to enjoy making such threats as a routine matter of course as libertarian gun enthusiast Bill St. Clair makes clear when he tells us: "Sounds to me like Sen. Kotowski deserves to be threatened. Why, if he were to commit suicide by shooting himself in the head three times, it wouldn't surprise me one bit." (emphasis added)

If you don't want folks to treat you like fringe extremists and you don't want police thinking you could be the next Timothy McVeigh ... learn some self-control.

And again, the ISRA and other leading gun advocacy organizations have plenty of culpability here given the copious amounts of fuel they've been pouring on this fire. It's time they act like the leaders of the "safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership" they claim to be.


(c/p at Illinois Reason and Daily Kos. Full disclosure: I endorsed and volunteered for Dan Kotowski in 2006.)

6 comments:

Extreme Wisdom 9:35 AM  

Regarding the threats, I can't say as I disagree. It's a no brainer on the part of the Gun Groups.

People like St. Clair (assuming he said what is in your post) is an embarrassment to pro-gun people like me.

If these guys understood the first thing about PR, they'd be in a press conference mode instantly, saying something like...

"We stand ready to assist law enforcement in finding the person who made these threats. Let me add that we doubt that our law abiding members would make such threats, as they obviously hurt our cause.

We believe this to be so obvious, that we wonder whether the threats were made by parties who wish to make the law-abiding gun-owning community look bad, and we hope the police investigate that possibility as well."


Tell the ISRA that the best advice is usually free.

Anonymous,  10:23 AM  

Bruno,

Bill St. Clair is actually quite the libertarian, though that's no excuse for irrationality.

His post about Sen. Kotowski needing to commit "suicide" with three bullets in his head is from a comment he left on a Docliberty post at Claire Files. The comment has been left up for several days now -- it is recorded as "Reply #1 on: June 19, 2007, 10:06:24 AM" -- so one can only presume the Claire Files and/or "Docliberty" don't mind such thinly veiled threats (if you could even call it thinly...).

I say Bill St. Clair is a libertarian based on both his own blog posts and the banners he has placed along his left side column. His blog is ""End the War on Freedom" and he rails against Dems and Repubs alike.

I have a healthy libertarian streak myself but nowhere near this radical an extent, clearly.

Your skepticism is appreciated Bruno given the level of skepticism I had with the ISRA press releases. With the first ISRA statement, didn't others reading it think to themselves, 'Gee, if the anonymous dude's fax was so benign why wouldn't Pearson include the text, let alone a scan of it, along with the press release? And I wonder what else could have possibly happened that would've led to the state police sending out detectives in the first place...'

As for the second ISRA release, about Fr. Pfleger, it reveals the apparent hypocrisy lying behind the ISRA's myopic partisanship (Rich Miller pointed out they seem highly perturbed that Kotowski won the seat have 'had it out for him' ever since). They condemn Fr. Pfleger's inflammatory comments even while publishing their own vitriol and ignoring that of their supporters...

Finally, two sidenotes on Fr. Pfleger's "snuff out" comment (which I do not condone, it was well beyond reasonable discourse).

First, unlike the alleged threats against Kotowski, Fr. Pfleger didn't declare 'I have a gun. It's time to snuff out Chuck the gun shop owner and any leges that don't support gun oversight'...

Second, what Fr. Pfleger said could easily be interpreted two ways (which is likely why the media doesn't care -- heck, as Rich pointed out in his post on the topic the media has been silent on this Kotowski issue also). Saying you want to "snuff out" a business owner could just mean you want to shut down the guy's shop and given the context of the statement (coming during a gun control march) that would be the logical interpretation. Kotowski himself also apparently received other overly aggressive correspondences which could similarly be interpreted two ways, as in the election is next year. (And it's very likely that those sorts of double-entendre faxes and letters are what led the police investigators to go to homes of otherwise innocent, if overly angry, citizens.)

Glock21 12:45 PM  

Although I'd consider my own views on the right to keep and bear arms fairly radical, I'm often just considered "one of them" by the true extremists.

The extremists hurt the fight for defending our civil liberties far more than they'll ever help. They often come closer to being anarchists than Constitutionalists and they typically discredit themselves soon after they open their mouths.

Such violent and/or irresponsible advocacy for anarchistic values should be openly discouraged and actual incidents admonished by groups wanting to avoid also being discredited by their irresponsible rhetoric.

The ISRA seems extremely irresponsible in this particular situation, but from my experience this is nothing new. I refuse to join their ranks and be associated with them, have for many years now, almost entirely because I think their leadership does more harm than good to this particular civil rights issue.

While my views might be more radical than the NRA's... I have no problem being a life member of their organization because I truly believe they do more good than harm, even if I sometimes disagree with their alarmism or other more toned down stances.

I also argued against the "assault weapon" ban and bans on "large capacity" ammunition devices, but I think most rational people on both sides of this issue feel that the facts speak for themselves. Why would threats be necessary? That sounds more like desperation than the words of someone who knows they're right.

I'm sure this yahoo would quickly quote the Declaration of Independence to justify violence to promote change... and fully ignore the words and/or ramifications of the portions that show how absurd these calls to violence are today.

We do have a government deriving its powers from the governed. He just disagrees with how our voters and elected officials are going about it.

We do have the power to alter or establish a new government. He's just upset that the governed have altered it in ways he doesn't like.

We do have the right to use violence to stop a tyrannical government. But obviously our current system allows democratic and peaceful means to establish policy and change the government. He just doesn't seem to appreciate that violent change shouldn't be undertaken for "light and transient causes" in which "all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer."

Extremists of his ilk are like the Fred Phelps of the Constitution. Picking and choosing which parts of our history and historical documents they agree with in order to promote violent and repugnant agendas.

Anonymous,  5:46 PM  

So Rob,

Then why not condemn BOTH St. Clair for his threatening statement, and condemn Fr. Pfleger for his threatening statement, rather than thinking up some harebrained excuse for Fr. Pfleger to runoff the deepend?

There is no room in civilized politics for such threats. Both merit a strong condemnation by Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, the whole range of political shades must condemn threatening statements agains legitimate businessmen and politicians.

How about it? Condemn ALL exhoratations to violence from the Right and from the Left.

Anonymous,  9:13 AM  

Did Senator Kotowski know the identity of the caller? If not, did he release only those contacts that could be considered infammatory and hostile? If not, did he simply release all contacts that were pro-gun and anti-SB16 since they would be the supported position of the threatening caller?

So I ask, did the good Senator release only the particularly threatening contacts or all pro-gun contacts as leads. Sadly if it were all the contacts and some to many were investigated then, yes, that would have a chilling effect on political participation we all hold so dearly.

Rob Nesvacil 4:10 PM  

Anon,

Fr.Pfleger did not indicate he had a gun when he made the statement, did he? I'm not excusing the rhetoric (similar such "fightin' words" from the other side led to this whole incident with Kotowski)... But you have to consider the context. Saying you want to 'snuff out' a gunshop owner during an anti-gun rally is clearly meant as a hard-line phrase equal to 'put the gunshop out of business'...

But partisanship doesn't allow the ISRA and others to admit that.

And an anti-gun rallyer saying he wants to snuff out a gunshop owner is a far, far cry from someone calling him up and saying "I have a gun. I'm coming to kill you."

--

Gish,

Sen. Kotowski turned the info he had to the Illinois State Police. As Rich indicated at CapFax blog most of the info was first collected by Senate staffers and Kotowski volunteers. Since they first took the threats down, Sen. Kotowski let them cipher through which ones to turn over to police.

To my knowledge (I've not seen any reports to this effect) it was not every piece of contact that was turned over. I may be wrong though.

Note that it was not Sen. Kotowski who first made this issue, and the police investigation into it, public.

The ISRA made it public. If it weren't for the ISRA Sen. Kotowski would've simply let the police do their jobs and not had to speak up about it.

  © Blogger template The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP