Uber DGU shows concealed carry in Chicago proves effective

No charges will be filed against a man who stepped in to stop a gunman in Chicago thanks to Illinois adopting a concealed carry law for the state’s residents. The Second Amendment Foundation reported in a press release from April 21, that without the lawsuit filed by SAF allowing law abiding residents of Illinois to carry concealed weapons, this incident could have been much worse.

The defensive gun use (DGU) incident happened when an Uber (ride hailing service) driver, who was legally carrying a gun, happened upon the scene of a shooting.  The gunman, 22-year-old Everardo Custodio, opened fire on a crowd in the Logan Square neighborhood of west Chicago and the Uber driver, a 47-year-old resident, stepped in. He was able to draw his revolver and wound the gunman, effectively stopping the shooting and undoubtedly saving lives. Six shots were fired at the gunman and he was struck more than once.

“This is precisely the reason law-abiding citizens in Illinois fought so hard for concealed carry, and why we went to court to make that happen,” said SAF Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “While SAF deplores violence, we’re delighted that our lawsuit made it possible for this armed man to stop a potentially deadly attack.”

It’s no secret that the Second Amendment Foundation has been at the forefront of some of the most egregious infringements of the Second Amendment and the battle to keep our gun rights intact. From what I’ve seen, they fight for our rights in a precise and aggressive manner, which, in my opinion, is exactly what is needed to topple entrenched institutions. What could have happened in Chicago that day had concealed carry still been illegal in Illinois? It’s difficult to think about, but I agree with Gottlieb’s statement that it most definitely had the potential to be much worse. Chicago is plagued with gun violence and the only way to stop a mass shooting is to arm those with the guts and moral fortitude to defend innocent lives.

The lawsuit filed by SAF was known collectively as Moore v. Madigan and started back in 2009. In 2013, a court decision forced the state of Illinois to adopt a concealed carry permit policy–which, given Chicago’s infamous history and the precedent set by 49 other states, was long, long overdue. Every year, the media further exposes this Midwest city as a cesspool of violence and criminal activity and, while all the gun laws enacted and attempted there over the past decades have failed, allowing good citizens to carry has already saved at least a few citizens from great bodily harm if not death.

The fact remains that law abiding citizens in these United States should never have their livelihoods threatened due to draconian local gun laws. Chicago has a lot of work to do in allowing good people the right to protect themselves with guns, not only in the home, but outside the house as well, but at least the tide appears to be turning somewhat. Good guys are legally carrying guns, and Chicago politicians are being forced to witness how effectively these carriers are dealing with their cities notorious violence–a problem they themselves have been largely ineffectual at solving.

Most of all though, I have to applaud the SAF for staying in the fight on this one. Moore vs. Madigan has helped ensure the Constitutional right of Chicagoans to protect themselves and I think the SAF deserves a lot of the credit.

Before Moore vs. Madigan, even carrying an unloaded gun in public in easy access of the gun-owner was illegal. I attempted to not laugh as I read this portion of the decision. What is an unloaded gun anyway? Isn’t it simply a club at best? Sometimes I wonder what cockeyed scenario Illinois and California will come up with next to ban out of fear and ignorance.  It would be funny if it didn’t put the public in greater danger. I say, when our rights matter little to our elected officials, it’s time to reevaluate their stays in public office and stand up for our own lives.

The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of Guns.com.