Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Indianapolis Man Arrested in Chicago

I always hear about how responsible gun owners are, how they, being members of an oppressed minority, have to disarm when going into a gun-free zone or when traveling.  I guess this guy didn't get the memo.

An Indiana man was arrested Saturday night at a wedding in Chicago's Back of the Yards neighborhood after he was seen dancing with a gun holstered at his hip, prosecutors said.

Seeing the 9mm handgun strapped to his waist while he partied in the foyer of a church gym, an off-duty police officer working security arrested Samuel Caballero-Solis, 51, of Indianapolis, about 8:30 p.m. in the 1900 block of West 48th Street. The off-duty officer disarmed him and called police.

He was charged with unlawful use of a weapon and Cook County Criminal Court Judge Israel Desierto set Caballero-Solis' bail at $10,000 Sunday. The judge joked about the discrepancy between local gun laws and generally less rigid rules across the eastern border.
It sounds like they forgot to give him a breathalyzer test. But even with a drinking-while-carrying charge, I don't suppose it would add up to much.

Of course, I'd would throw the book at him. He'd lose his right to own guns having in this instance shown such a flagrant disregard for the law. This is the kind of guy who does what he wants, obeys the laws that are convenient or unavoidable, and for the rest he either ignores or circumvents.

The question is how rare of a type of gun owner is he? Do you think he might be fairly representative of gun owners at large?

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

9 comments:

  1. The article says nothing about alcohol consumption, but I know how bad you want that to be the case.

    And if he really was charged with illegal USE of a weapon, then he will be cleared of that charge since he didn't USE the gun.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If anything, this shows the idiocy of Chicago law. What he was doing is legal in most of the US. Why is it illegal in Chicago?

    ReplyDelete
  3. kaveman, the fact that you've written a publishable comment is interesting. Maybe you hadn't guzzled enough Jack Daniels at the time of writing it.

    About my presuming he'd been driinking, is that such a leap really. Dancing at a wedding wildly enough to let his concealed weapon show, a weapon that he knew very well was illegal to carry.

    Anyway, I often flesh out the stories in the media in order to make my point. I suppose that's no good either.

    Aztec, of course is blaming the laws in Chicago. Funny, I thought he was a big one for individual responsibility.

    ReplyDelete
  4. MikeB: “About my presuming he'd been driinking, is that such a leap really. Dancing at a wedding wildly enough to let his concealed weapon show, a weapon that he knew very well was illegal to carry.”

    The fact that the report did not mention alcohol is strong reason to presume he was sober. Don’t you think they would have loved to tack some alcohol charges on him? It is a wedding, Mike. Lots of people dance at weddings. Lot of people don’t drink at weddings. Did you ever stop and think that he had intensions of driving home? Maybe he is one of those rare people who separate guns and alcohol.

    We know you don’t like the idea of people carrying, but let’s say his charge was driving through Chicago with an unloaded handgun in the trunk. Should he lose his gun rights forever?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tsk, Tsk,

    Maybe you hadn't guzzled enough Jack Daniels at the time of writing it.

    Thought you didn't do personal attacks Mikey.

    Guess Jadegold is being a bad influence on you....either that or your true colors are showing.

    Which is it?

    ReplyDelete
  6. He carried a gun on his hip, an action that is both legal in most of the U.S. and his right as a free American.

    And the government overlords in Chicago arrested him for it.

    As usual mikeb makes shit up. There's absolutely nothing that would infer he was drinking, but MikeB is nothing if not dishonest.

    Must be part of his belief in "guilty until proven innocent" thing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. TS, You may be right about giving him the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure people who drive long distances to attend a wedding sometimes don't drink at all.

    He still flagrantly disobeyed the law, which is either stupid or arrogant.

    ReplyDelete
  8. So Mikey....another personal attack -- that which you "only do do sometimes".

    Appears your polite veneer is slipping.

    Could you co-blogger be a bad influence on you or were you always this mean?


    I'm sure people who drive long distances to attend a wedding sometimes don't drink at all.

    Thought you didn't put people's lives under the microscope either?

    What's up with this?

    You accuse him of drinking without having any evidence.

    You talk about his driving habits, his decision to carry a firearm

    But you claim not to put people's lives under the microscope you so desperately want to avoid yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous, You can use your real internet name, I promise I won't tell Breda.

    The microscope is used on people in news stories all the time. I don't attempt to put you under it and I don't repeatedly ask what you were doing when you were 20 as if it mattered to today's discussions.

    About my polite verneer slipping, maybe so.

    ReplyDelete