Saturday, July 17, 2010

Crimefile’s WIND Radio interview in Chicago on Gun Rights

Chicago, IL—In light of the Supreme Court decision on the McDonald case that struck down this city’s 28 year-old gun ban, I was a guest on Big John Howell and Amy Jacobson’s drive time radio show.

It was a fast moving half-hour show. You can listen to it here.


Anonymous said...

Good job on the radio Paul. I wish you would have stayed on when the callers were on.

Paul Huebl Crimefile News said...

It was amazing I was on that show as long as I was. Big John’s style is to only get a pinch of information and shut down the guest to make way for his callers.

I don’t fault him for that since it’s his show and it seems to work for him and the station that employs him. He is like many other show hosts covering the very active drive time. During other time slots, radio pines for callers.

Anonymous said...

Your Right. I used to listen when he was working with Cisco Cotto. Cisco would shame him into admitting he was wrong (as he usually was). Amy needs to wear him down more. Big John is not a bad guy, just drinks the Democratic Kool Aid too much.

Anonymous said...

Paul you represented yourself well and related some valuable information to the public there. I don’t think too highly of that guy John Howell at WIND since the disgusting why he treated retired Sgt. John Northen during an interview relative to CDP Superintendent Jody “JFled” Weis fleeing a shooting scene. The opinion Howell voiced during your interview was certainly absurd that everyone wronged by the cities gun ban should let bygones be bygones. What is to deter the city from future civil rights violations if there is no penalty for their actions ? Howell doesn’t seem to have any common sense and I agree with the other poster that he drinks far too much of the Democratic Kool-Aid.

You mentioned in your interview how the Supreme Court ruled that criminals don’t have to register their guns. Maybe that could be an effective affirmative defense against a charge under the present illegal ordinance, say you’re a criminal and therefore exempt. Let them prove otherwise, you won’t have to prove anything yourself because to do so would be compelling you to incriminate yourself. I wouldn’t want to be the first one to try it, but food for thought isn’t it.