Illinois Lawmaker Running For Congress Out On Bond After Gun Charge

CHICAGO (Reuters) - An Illinois state senator running for former Democratic U.S. Representative Jesse Jackson Jr.'s seat in Congress was released on bond on Thursday, following his arrest for trying to bring a gun onto an airplane.

A Cook County judge set bail at $25,000 for Donne Trotter, 62, on the felony charge. Trotter, who has called the incident an honest mistake, posted bond and was released shortly afterward.

If convicted, Trotter could face a sentence ranging from probation to up to four years in prison, according to prosecutors.

Trotter, a Chicago Democrat, is a gun control advocate who once voted "no" on a measure that would have allowed state residents to carry concealed weapons in 1995.

Last week, Trotter joined the crowded field of candidates hoping to succeed Jackson, who resigned from Congress on November 21. Democrats hold a primary on February 26 to select their candidate in the heavily Democratic district, with the election on April 9,

Trotter did not comment after the hearing, but later told reporters outside his home that he planned to stay in the congressional race, according to a broadcast on the local ABC television network.

"I intend on staying in the race at this time and will continue to campaign for the people of the 2nd District," Trotter said.

Prosecutors said Trotter's handgun was not registered with the city of Chicago, as required by municipal ordinance. He had a valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card and a permit allowing him to carry his gun to and from work.

He was arrested on Wednesday at O'Hare International Airport after security officers spotted a .25 caliber Beretta in his garment bag. Trotter has a job as a security guard and said he did not know the gun was in his bag, according to court records.

In the Illinois statehouse since 1988, Trotter is among several Illinois lawmakers who have fallen afoul of authorities this year. Two other state lawmakers have been indicted, and Jackson acknowledged in his resignation letter that he was under investigation by federal authorities.

The charge does not bode well for Trotter's congressional run, said Jeffrey Hill, chair of the political science department at Northeastern Illinois University.

There have been many threads pointing out republican politicians hypocrisy. Historically, there have been a number of Democratic politicians who have been hypocritical on gun issues. I thought it might be illuminating to start documenting some of them, for purposes of evaluating and debating their motives.



http://news.yahoo.com/illinois-la...20350.html

Why would a politician advocating for gun control, and voting against allowing concealed carry for ordinary citizens, themselves possess an illegal unregistered weapon, along with a special carry permit, and illegally try to take it on an airline flight?

There have been many threads pointing out republican politicians hypocrisy.

Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks (San Bernardino County), was stopped at the Ontario International Airport on his way to Sacramento this morning after he tried to bring a loaded gun through the security checkpoint, airport police said.

You're absolutely right. There is a big difference when a politician lives a personal life which is in direct opposition to the public policy he advocates. The gun-toting anti-gun politician and the anti-gay Congressman caught picking up men in a restroom are hypocrites. Although, I wasn't surprised to learn that Dianne Feinstein has a concealed carry permit. She probably gets death threats.

You're absolutely right. There is a big difference when a politician lives a personal life which is in direct opposition to the public policy he advocates. The gun-toting anti-gun politician and the anti-gay Congressman caught picking up men in a restroom are hypocrites.

Although, I wasn't surprised to learn that Dianne Feinstein has a concealed carry permit. She probably gets death threats.

Yes, but still too few to adequately describe the scale of the problem on the Right:

Yes, but still too few to adequately describe the scale of the problem on the Right:



http://www.sfgate.com/news/articl...441528.php

"I was cited and released for carrying a concealed unloaded weapon into a sterile area of the airport," he said outside the Assembly chambers Wednesday afternoon. "It was in my briefcase - I put it there on Saturday when I was working alone in my garage. My wife came home and I didn't want her to see I had a firearm out, because we have received death threats related to my work on AB131."

Donnelly is best known for his strong positions against illegal immigration, but he also made a point to speak out on gun rights during his first year in Sacramento. He was a staunch opponent of a law that took effect Jan. 1 barring anyone from openly carrying unloaded handguns n California.

A politician who claims homosexuality is immoral but engages in it is clearly a hypocrite. But I do not see any hypocrisy if a politician who advocates gun control then turn around and own a gun.

It's just more of the ol' do as I say not as I do...

I don't think so. I say the following is the order of preference for most (or at least for many):

1. I have a gun and no one else has it
2. no one has a gun
3. we all have guns
4. I do not have gun but all others have guns

The above person would advocate a gun ban law but meanwhile would definitively buy a gun. You might disagree with the logic but you cannot call the above person a hypocrite.

This reminds me of the equally illogical retort of "why don't you send extra money" said to people who advocate tax increases. But god forbid if you tell a person who advocates abolishing of SS to not claim their payments. All of a sudden there are a million justifications for this supposed "hypocrisy."

I don't think so. I say the following is the order of preference for most (or at least for many):

1. I have a gun and no one else has it
2. no one has a gun
3. we all have guns
4. I do not have gun but all others have guns

The above person would advocate a gun ban law but meanwhile would definitively buy a gun. You might disagree with the logic but you cannot call the above person a hypocrite.

This reminds me of the equally illogical retort of "why don't you send extra money" said to people who advocate tax increases. But god forbid if you tell a person who advocates abolishing of SS to not claim their payments. All of a sudden there are a million justifications for this supposed "hypocrisy."

The error in your logic is that this politician was not just advocating for gun control and then owned a gun, he was carrying an illegal, unregistered gun. That is the problem. If he was all for gun control he should not have a problem properly registering his firearms...

Also why would someone not claim their payments if they disagree with SS and want it abolished? If the government spent my whole working life taking my money from me why would I not want them to give it back?

So do we agree he would not be a hypocrite if his gun was legal and he was for gun ban?

Don't ask *me* why. I think that retort is illogical. Ask those who employ the similar logic when they tell those advocating higher taxes (for all) to just send extra money.

Logic: If you are for or against X, act as if X was there or was abolished.

If you are for increased taxes, send extra money.

If you are against SS, don't accept yours.

For a non-partisan, the above two logic are the same. But for a partisan one is logical while the other is not, depending on where their politics is.

If the politician was voting for a gun ban then he would be a hypocrite.

The above is a mere assertion. Earlier you gave a kinda logic which I took care of it by modifying the question/scenario. So instead of merely asserting hypocrisy, please show the element of hypocrisy. Please address this for the person whose preferences are as I listed.

Here, they are again:

1. I have a gun and no one else has it
2. no one has a gun
3. we all have guns
4. I do not have gun but all others have guns

Please show the element of hypocrisy for a politician with above preferences who is advocating for a gun ban but meanwhile owns a gun.

Thanks.