From a press release of the Illinois State Rifle Association:
"According to information obtained by the ISRA, the gun control movement plans a final, all-out push to destroy your rights and take your guns away from you this week in the Illinois General Assembly. Under orders from Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, Speaker of the House Mike Madigan may require that the House of Representatives remain in session until it passes Daley’s 2010 gun control package. Among the bills that Daley has demanded that Madigan get passed are the following:
"HB180 – a scheme to run gun shops out of business by forcing shops to get licensed and comply with a slew of burdensome regulations.
"HB5480 – would ban private firearm sales and force citizens to process private sales through licensed gun shops. (Yes, those are the same gun shops that will be run out of business by HB180 above)
"HB5495 – would prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month. Of course, criminals are exempt from this gun-rationing scheme.
"HB5751 – would give you 90 days to surrender all your semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns to the state police or face felony prison time.
"HB5849 – would make it a felony to use a case other than one designed for a firearm to transport it and give the police greater power to confiscate your guns for “improper transportation” even if you have committed no other crime.
"HB6123 – would make it a felony to sell a firearm to someone who looks like a gang member (ie: Black, Hispanic, shaved heads (all races), tattoos (all races), motorcyclists (all races), etc.)."
What can you do? Call your State representative today and give him your advice and request to kill this legislation.
Do you realize there are police officers and deputies in McHenry County who would lose the right to purchase a gun under some of those laws? Are you going to start thinking "gang member?", the next time you see a cop with a shaved head?
Daley, Madigan and the Chicago bloc are dangerous to your well-being. They don't want you to be able to protect yourself from the armed criminals.
Call Rep. Jack Franks today at 815.334.0063 Ask how he intends to vote on each of these bills. And then follow up to learn how he did vote.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Gus, I read each of the bills you mentioned and you greatly exaggerated the context of the bills. For instance HB6123 says NOTHING about being Black, Mexican or having a shaved head. It clearly states GANG MEMBER. Here is the only change as prescribed by the legislation.
(l) Knowingly sells or gives any firearm to any person who is a street gang member. For purposes to this paragraph : "street gang member" has the meaning ascribed to the term "street gang member" in Section 10 of the Illinois Streetgang Terrorism Omnibus Prevention Act.
HB5751 says nothing about SURRENDER of guns. This bill appears to be dead on the vine as it is held up in the Rules Committee. But none the less, if passed, you would have to notify the ISP of your possession within 90 days, NOT surrender.
HB5849...,WHERE did you come up with that wild eyes interpretation?
This only cleans up the existing language in the statute. It changes CASE to Firearms CASE and adds the words container designed for the safe transportation of firearms
It still remains a misdemeanor
These bill are easily reviewed online.
Nota, because of the FOID card, the State Police (and all of law enforcement) can guess WHO has guns, but they can't come to the door with a search warrant, because they don't know WHAT guns.
If the State Police have a record of WHAT guns, it's a simple step toward confiscation because then they would know WHAT guns to put on the search warrant.
Illinois law says, now, that I must have a gun in a "container". It doesn't define container. A console in a vehicle was determined to be a container. A fanny pack is a container. A backpack is a container.
The proposed law is designed to trap otherwise-legal carry or possession. It's bad enough that I can't have my gun in my car, loaded and ready to use, if I am carjacked or robbed at an drive-up ATM. But still, it only takes two seconds to slam in the clip and be ready to defend myself (or you).
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Don't give the anti-gunners any more of a foothold than they already have.
Once again Gus, you better review the law. Illinois has never allowed a gun to be kept accessible to the occupants even if in a 'Container". A gun case has always been required.
The law states it is illegal to Carry "or possesses in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm"
Basically the rule is that a weapon can not be READILY ACCESSIBLE.
[ILSC 720 5/24]
Also review the use of weapons section. A private citizen (meaning you and me) has very limited permitted use of DEADLY FORCE. You sound like you're going to start blasting away at the ATM. [(720 ILCS 5/7 1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7 1) Sec. 7 1. Use of force in defense of person]
I surely hope you have a bank account as big as your ego to pay for the lawyers in that HUGE civil case that WILL be filed against you.
Even cops I know, that can carry off duty, usually say they will not intervene unless they or their family are personally in danger or some nut case is shooting innocents. Like the guy that starts shooting inside the Micky D’s
There are people that want a handgun for personal protection, simple as that. Then there are the zealots, the people that will chase down, stick their nose in, follow or may even try and arrest some miscreant. Anyone you know GUS???
Nota, if you do a little more homework, you'll come across the recent Illinois Supreme Court case in which the Justices decided that a vehicle's console constituted a legal "container" for a handgun.
And an older DuPage County (I think) case where a defendant was found Not Guilty, after he was nabbed with a handgun in a fanny pack (his "container").
Of course, the police will arrest and the SAO will prosecute (harass) the law-abiding citizen who follows the State law and then possesses a handgun in a "container". Current statutes do not define "container".
If the citizen has enough money to stay in the court fight, he'll win.
A new brochure on the Illinois State Police webpages answers the question, "What constitutes a 'legal' case for transporting a firearm?"
The answer is, "The Criminal Code refers to "a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box or other container." (N.B., the Wildlife Code is more specific.)
Hence, if my "container" is the console in my vehicle or a fanny pack or a paper bag, I am not violating the law.
This brochure also says that, to comply with the Criminal Code and the FOID Act, my weapon must be 1. unloaded; 2. enclosed in a case; and 3. I need a FOID card. The ammo does not have to stored separately from the handgun.
Cops do not have to fear the law-abiding citizen who carries concealed or openly.
Gus, you look at the narrow issue. The state law is not the final governance. For years Illinois criminal code ‘theoretically’ allowed a police officer to shoot a fleeing felon, HOWEVER Garner v Tennessee painted a different color on the issue and trumped State law.. Cops ( at least County) must take monthly criminal law review updates which delve deeper into the legal aspect of constitutional issues. Local courts take judicial notice from court decisions in other jurisdictions especially appellate decisions. Every few years the statutes are amended to catch up with prevailing U.S Sup. Court decisions as did the Fleeing felon provision. Yet for years an argument could be made that the State Law allowed it. Try that argument in front of the Federal Judge when you’re facing violation of civil rights charges
Ask any cop who has found a person carrying a concealed gun and I have found many. If they answer honestly, they will tell you that the hackles rise. The public and the criminals know who the cops are because they wear a uniform. Every time you find a person with a gun, you have to treat that person as if they are a deadly threat. Once they can produce a CCW, then the threat mitigates, but it is still a threat.
I actually support CCW with certain limits. Every person must be background checked thoroughly, mandatory training and the local cops should be able to nix known idiots. (look up the word). Just because someone has not been arrested or treated in a hospital for mental illness, does not preclude knowing the local problem actors. Everyone was a virgin ONCE.
Too many people think a gun is the end all to personal protection. I've carried a gun for well over three decades and many times I have taken the LONG way to avoid a problem area. Discretion is the better part of valor.
Gus, I know a deputy that confiscated dozens of "guns" made an arrest and as he was putting the "guns" into evidence it was observed that not all the "guns" were actually firearms. They were cigarette lighters or the barrels were filled and welded. The deputy still logged them in as firearms and Nygren gave him a Commendation.
Okay, KD, since you KNOW this, let's have a case number from the court. Yep, you DID say he made an arrest. Should be easy enough to verify the "facts" you're spouting, right? Defendant's name, case number, either one should let a little independent verification take place. This just sounds like typical bullsh*t that is being tossed. Gus will run with it like a money shoving a banana up his a**! Prove me wrong.
Post a Comment