Illinois gun ban proposal!!


PDA






Cap n Ball
October 20, 2004, 01:18 PM
Just saw this over at Free Republic. Anyone else heard about this? Sorry if it's already somewhere else here.

YOUR GUN RIGHTS TO BE ATTACKED ON WEDNESDAY

On Wednesday morning, 20 October, IL Attorney General Lisa Madigan will be joined by IL State Senator John Cullerton and IL State Representative Karen May at a press conference during which they will introduce the "2005 ILLINOIS ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN."_ This proposed legislation will include bans on most, if not all, semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns._ It will also ban black powder rifles and any other firearm having a bore of .50 caliber or greater._ The legislation will also require you to turn in your guns to the police or face forced confiscation.

THINGS YOU MUST DO IMMEDIATELY

Call Attorney General Madigan's offices at (312) 814-3000 AND (217) 782-1090 and tell the operator to tell Lisa Madigan that you are a law-abiding supporter of the 2nd Amendment and that you resent her attack on your rights.

Call Senator John Cullerton's offices at (217) 782-7260 AND (773) 883-0770 and tell the operator that you are a law-abiding supporter of the 2nd Amendment and that you OPPOSE Cullerton's Assault Weapons Ban.

Call Representative Karen May's offices at (217) 782-0902 AND (847) 831-5858 and tell the operator that you are a law-abiding supporter of the 2nd Amendment and that you OPPOSE May's Assault Weapons Ban.

Pass this alert along to all your friends and tell them to make those phone calls NOW.

Please post this alert to any and all Internet bulletin boards that you may belong to.

If you enjoyed reading about "Illinois gun ban proposal!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
SaintofKillers
October 20, 2004, 01:27 PM
Saw this on www.isra.org make those calls

Sistema1927
October 20, 2004, 01:37 PM
Excuse me if I state the obvious, but wouldn't it be better to call all the other representatives and senators and not waste your time with these folks who have already diecided what is "best" for you?

RavenVT100
October 20, 2004, 01:41 PM
Excuse me if I state the obvious, but wouldn't it be better to call all the other representatives and senators and not waste your time with these folks who have already diecided what is "best" for you?

Because these people need to know that their measures will cost them reelection.

doger5
October 20, 2004, 01:42 PM
What are they doing? Taking lessons in stupidity from **********.
:barf:

SnakeEater
October 20, 2004, 01:48 PM
Well, this will be a good lesson for the anti's who wish to make this ban national. If all goes calmly we could be in trouble:fire: I wonder if all that talk about "cold dead hands" will play out?

RavenVT100
October 20, 2004, 01:50 PM
Here's what appears to be the proposed legislation. (http://www.legis.state.il.us/legislation/93/hb/09300hb4896lv.htm) It's quite similar to what they're trying to pull in New Jersey, except it calls for the destruction or relinquishment (to the police, of course) of all rifles and pistols that would fall under the ban. There's no grandfather clause with this one. Either you turn in your rifles or face confiscation and a subsequent felony charge.

All of the firearms currently used in shooting sports that have detachable magazines and even a single "evil feature" (meaning the AR-15 and all of its variants, as well as the Springfield M1A) would be banned and considered contraband by the state. You'll also notice that there's no provision for reimbursement. If you spent $5000 on your collection of springfields, too bad. It belongs to the state now.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, and if IL shooting organizations will tolerate the outright confiscation of semiautomatic rifles.

Black Snowman
October 20, 2004, 04:07 PM
Article IV, Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; . . .

Except that there is no provision to holding them accountable so we get this sort of legislation introduced. The key is to hold them accountable. Is there any way to cash in on this? I'm really sick of ANY of my rights being trampled on at will by these hateful creatures. I don't care HOW popular they are they are in violation of constitutional law.

It's bad enough to try and ban them, but confiscation with no grandfather clause. No compensation. This sets so many bad precidents I can't imaging how they think this is justifyable.

If it does go through, I'd be happy to take a road trip to IL and help out the good guys.

Linux&Gun Guy
October 20, 2004, 04:17 PM
If this passes we may see 'interesting times'

Hope it dies on the floor(the law)

Don Gwinn
October 20, 2004, 04:36 PM
We've beaten this kind of measure several times now. It sounds almost identical to the bans proposed by Daley in the last two years. In fact, it probably is the same bill presented by new people.

It's actually the Democrats who defeat these. The Republicans don't have the votes to do it by themselves if they wanted to--but in Illinois, downstate Democrats are generally not willing to take guns away from their Democrat, union, farmer constituents.

By all means, call Madigan and the others and tell them that their own downstate Democratic comrades are not going to forget the bind they keep putting them in. In Illinois, you speak not of votes, but of clout, favors and feuds.

Will call when I get home today.

Don Gwinn
October 20, 2004, 04:38 PM
Black Snowman, the IL constitution is a little different than most. It lists a right to keep and bear arms "subject only to the police power." That phrase has never been satisfactorily defined by any court, so the general assumption is that it means the poeple with the police power can do whatever they want to your guns.

Zrex
October 20, 2004, 05:51 PM
[tinfoil hat]

This could be a good test case for the gov to see how people respond to an outright ban and confiscation of weapons. If there is no revolt because of this, then they can procede knowing the "revolution" won't happen.

[/tinfoil hat]

If this comes to pass, it will be interesting to see what the real reaction will be. Will people move? Hide their guns? Fight back?

I wonder how many people from Illinois will take the "Molon Labe" out of their sigs....

geekWithA.45
October 20, 2004, 07:18 PM
Nothing even remotely resembling this must ever pass any legislature in America.

Grey54956
October 20, 2004, 08:57 PM
Treason is often the first step towards tyrany.

SaintofKillers
October 20, 2004, 09:13 PM
Called all 3 today, Cullerton isnt going to change his mind no matter what anybody says, but all the same I like giving him the business and tying up his switchboard with messages.

I called him some time back about the same issue and the woman on the phone told me that he isnt really listening anymore to gunowners or something to that effect. I also remember another high road member saying that they got a similar response.

Called Madigans office, told the woman that I resent Madigan attacking my 2nd Amend rights and that I am a taxpayer of Illinois and want my voice to be heard. She told me that she needed my name, address, and phone number, I asked what bearing it had on the situation. She said she would not pass along the message without that information. I informed her that I was an Illinois taxpayer and where I reside has little or nothing to do with the situation at hand. She again said she would not pass along the message without this information. I asked her what her name was, she said that was not the issue, if I want the information passed along I needed to give her what she had asked for, I refused. She said then she will not pass along the message. I told her that was fine, and that I will explain to the newspaper how the attorney general of Illinois chooses not to listen to her constituents without properly identifying themselves. Thank you and good bye.

It was all I could do from blowing a gasket on this woman, the arrogance and 'I know better than you' attitude in the northern part of this state makes me want to :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:.

bad_dad_brad
October 20, 2004, 11:11 PM
I was going to sell my Winchester 94 .30-30, but for now, I think I will keep her just in case.

Are Mini-14s as well included in this proposed ban? I can't tell from all the mumbo-jumbo legalize. Even in California those are legal.

Six more years and I retire and hope to move to Florida or Arizona and say to heck with Hellinois.

RavenVT100
October 20, 2004, 11:12 PM
I firmly believe that this crap is not going to fly forever. It's been ten years, and I don't think the AWB folks can keep up this charade that Assault Rifles aren't FFA items for much longer. People are eventually going to collectively find out that no, machine guns are not legal anywhere in the US without federal exemption. They're also going to find out just how many "legitimate use" firearms are being targeted by this bill and those like it.

My suggestion to anyone who talks to an anti about this is to show them some of the stuff that's being banned by this legislation. For instance, in NJ the M1 Carbine, which came out in World War II, is banned as an "assault weapon." A moderate individual is not going to buy the idea that something like the baby M1 is "too dangerous to be on the streets."

People think that this is about the AK-47, the Uzi, and the M-16 (the full-auto versions). They don't know that it's about completely different rifles, and it's up to us to tell them. After we can successfully do that, expect this business about "assault weapons" to dry up. Our country is not culturally the same as the UK and Australia, no matter how much certain people in insular urban areas seem to think so.

seed
October 20, 2004, 11:25 PM
Learning From PRK
What are they doing? Taking lessons in stupidity from **********.



Exactly...

Are Mini-14s as well included in this proposed ban? I can't tell from all the mumbo-jumbo legalize. Even in California those are legal.



I have no idea, but I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if they will be made to be illegal. It is a game of one-upsmanship between the states that can get away with such legislation, in response to the bitter defeat taken by the antis upon the AWB sunset.

geekWithA.45
October 21, 2004, 12:27 AM
Mini 14's would not be legal: they're autoloaders accepting mags > 5 rounds.

But you know what? It doesn't matter.

NOTHING LIKE THAT BILL CAN BE ALLOWED TO PASS INTO LAW IN AMERICA.

Everyone asks where the line in the sand is, and if a confiscatory non grandfathered autoloader law, leaving you with nothing but wheelguns, bolties, levers, and the most genteel BAR deergun isn't the line in the sand,

NOTHING IS.

Jeff White
October 21, 2004, 01:45 AM
Saintofkillers,
Please be polite and give your name and address when asked. They want to keep track of where the calls are coming from. You're not going to get on some list for special attention. When we express our outrage without being polite to these people it hurts more then it helps.

If you want to call and vent at someone, call me at least you'll have a sympathetic ear and you won't hurt our cause.

We might as well resign ourselves to seeing this bill everytime the legislature meets. It was scheduled in the Spring session, but was pulled by it's sponsors.

The democrats down here campaign on 2d amendment issuses and many of them are A+ rated by the NRA. Blagojevich and the Chicago crowd aren't looked upon too fondly down here by members of either party right now. Most of us are paying or getting ready to pay the second half of the confiscatory property taxes local government demands and Southern Illinois is about as economically depressed as Appalachia right now....It's not a good time for politicians of any party to start spouting off about taking guns away in this part of the state.

Me, I asked MS Madigan's office why I was knee deep in meth labs at work and she was pushing useless gun control legislation.....Said she could call me if she wanted some legislative ideas....Doubt I'll hear from her though.

On a more interesting note, I have been invited to a private reception for Judge Lloyd Karimer, the republican candidate for Supreme Court from Southern Illinois on Saturday night. I think I might just go and ask him what he thinks the subject to the police power clause in the Illinois Constitution means......

Jeff

Sindawe
October 21, 2004, 02:43 AM
I've only three words for any Legislator, of what ever level, who votes in support of this kind of dren...

Tar. Feathers. Rope.

Fiero
October 21, 2004, 03:08 AM
I'm a Californian and have the following observations.

1. The proposed legislation does NOT ban ALL semi-autos, but those that have a secondary characteristic that makes it fall into a State Defined category of what THEY call an "assault weapon".

2. There is no grandfather clause in the initial proposal.

3. People in this thread, and I'm sure elsewhere, are claiming that it is a total ban on semi-auto firearms.

4. The anti-gunners will seize upon the over exagerration of the pro-gunners, and combine it with a "tossed bone" of a grandfather clause to create an etheral, palatable ban that the rank and file populace will agree to. They will do this because they will be convinced that it is a "suitable compromise".


Those that believe in the RKBA MUST not exaggerate any bit of the proposal. If you do so, you will be playing right into the hands of the proponents of the ban by creating false room for what seems as a acceptable middleground, that actually equates more to the wording of the proposed legislation.

This is what happened in California. It will happen to you.

Fight with all your might, the ACTUAL wording of the legislation. Use the facts to your advantage. Use lying and exaggeration of the gun grabbers to their disadvantage. Keep it that way. Add that to all the legitimate arguments that banning innocuous characteristics is completely arbitrary and inefffective. Moreover, it affects only the law abiding, while criminal behaviour, by it's very nature will ignore every provision.

Fiero

RavenVT100
October 21, 2004, 10:18 AM
I think, in addition to what Fiero has suggested, that it should also be emphasized that real AK-47s are not even addressed by this bill, and in fact, they're already banned. That is a key point that most people, including you guys, seem to miss. Your SAR-1, WASR, ROMAK etc is not a true AK-47 or AKM, just as my AR-15 is not an M-16. These are not automatic weapons that we're talking about.

The sooner people stop referring to their semiautomatic Kalashnikovs as AK-47s, the better. They're just not, and to refer to them as such in this day and age is simply dangerous.

So here's what's really going on. Criminals are still using real assault rifles to perpetrate crimes. It doesn't matter that there's been a ban on assault rifles, at the federal level, since before they were invented. So what does the AG do to mask a very real inability to control the criminal element's activities with these banned weapons? Make a new weapons ban, which instead of banning assault rifles, really just bans a bunch of rifles that are used for target shooting, plinking, and hunting--and then lies to the public that they're really targeting AK-47s and Uzis, which they really aren't.

It's the good old bait-and-switch. And if you guys use your heads, and operate within the system and with honesty, you will be able to defeat this by using the truth. Go to bushmaster's website, or Armalite's website. Pick out a few of their hunting rifles that use the Armalite receivers that have a pistol grip. Show people that 1. Crimes are not generally committed with these rifles and 2. They're hunting rifles, and that 3. These are what are really being targeted by this ban. People will listen to that, if you keep a calm head. Now is not the time to argue about whether target shooting, hunting, or self-defense is more legitimate. Now is simply the time to demonstrate why this ban targets "legitimate use" rifles and doesn't even address automatic weapons.

Nothing discredits a propagandist better than being caught in a lie, especially publicly.

mack69
October 21, 2004, 11:26 AM
I am totally fed up with these panty waste antis....if "THEY" spent half the time, energy and wasted $$$$ in creating and carrying out laws to severely punish gun related crimes imagine how much better life in this state and country would be. The thing that torques me the most is that "THEY" have more or less labeled us upstanding citizens as criminals....Instead of going after the problem... "THEY" go after us....I say if "THEY" can't fix the problem in this state or more to the point in Chicago..."THEY" get rid of king dick and all others like him and his state idiot rod. We as upstanding gun toting citizens need to get off our collective butts and get out there and drive these lying, cheating back stabbing PITA's out of office and out of the country. One would think that at this time of terrorist threat "THEY" would have the presence of mind to embrace the fact that AMERICA is to be considered ARMED AND DANGEROUS!!! It is what made us free and it is the only way we will stay free!!! Last I looked THE CONSTITUTION was the all powerful law of this land....looks like "THEY" can tromp all over it like yesterdays garbage... For me at least...."THEY" have taken the quiet easy going everyday man and replaced him with a hardcore to the wall, gun toting, 2nd Ammendment spouting, NRA backing....hard case......Sorry for the flame guys.....but I have truly had it.....mack

If you enjoyed reading about "Illinois gun ban proposal!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!