Here it comes Illinois, HB 2414 is alive and well again

[DonP]

Today's Chicago Tribune, Metro section (the dead tree version only) has a report on Daley's demand to reintroduce HB2414 and several other "common sense" gun control measures in the state legislature.

It includes a complete assault weapons ban complete with forced confiscation, a .50 caliber ban, one handgun a month limitation, state licensing and control of gun dealers and their sales records (to kill off all Illinois gun stores obviously) no more prvivate sales at gun shows or anywhere else without a background check (which of course, as an individual, you can't access), a new set of gun storage and gun lock ordinances and a whole new bunch of penalties for unlawful gun use.

My favorite is his new proposed penalty for unlawful use of a machine gun, which is already illegal in this state.

The state legislature went even further Democrat in the last election and the interviewed downstate legislator said, "He will probably get most of them passed."

Now, somebody smarter than I obviously am, tell me again how there is no difference between electing Democrats and Republicans and how Democrats are not really trying to take our guns away?

 

[ArmedBear]

DonP, the people who think that are either:

1. From a state where neither candidate would DARE be remotely anti-gun, like Wyoming.

2. In complete denial, because it's easier to live with your vote if you don't have to think about its real implications.

3. So stupid that they aren't worth discussing it with.

People from the states with electoral votes know better, because we know what Democrats really do when they get a chance to do it.

I don't like the GOP much, but that doesn't change the reality that Democrat Majority = Gun Bans, at the Federal level, and in the populous states.

Most of the restrictions you cite already exist here in California. They're not just posturing. Every one of them was passed by a Democrat Legislature, and nearly all were signed by a Democrat governor -- the one exception being the .50 ban, which in California was just one more gun being added to the banned "Assault Weapon" list, so really it was part of the previously-existing AW ban. Arnold signed it, after getting it from the permanent gerrymandered Democrat Legislature. He did, however, veto many other more significant bills that would have done far more real damage, under the already-grim circumstances.

 

[Soybomb]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/chi-070103guns,1,665897.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Daley wants more anti-gun laws from state

By Gary Washburn
Tribune staff reporter
Published January 3, 2007, 7:58 PM CST



Buoyed by the General Assembly's passage of a gun-control measure amid a long string of rejections, Mayor Richard Daley on Wednesday unveiled the city's 2007 legislative agenda with a renewed emphasis on handgun violence.

Daley called for passage of half a dozen bills, to be introduced by local state lawmakers, that would restrict sales and the types and numbers of weapons that Illinoisans could buy.

Noting that guns were involved in more than 80 percent of the 466 murders in Chicago in 2006, Daley said the way to reduce the murder rate "is to continue to get guns off our streets and out of our homes.

"The best way to do it is to pass common-sense legislation that will keep guns out of the hands of people who want to commit crimes with them."

Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, scoffed at the mayor's plans.

"I think it's typical of Daley's rhetoric," he said. "If it was up to him, nobody would own a gun."

Daley supports measures that would ban assault weapons and .50 caliber weapons, limit handgun purchases to one a month and require state police licensing of handgun dealers. The legislature has rejected those measures in the past.

A new measure would require all gun sales only by licensed dealers so that every purchaser would undergo a mandatory background check. Currently, purchasers who buy from neighbors, friends and other private parties do not undergo such checks.

Daley also supports a measure that would tighten an existing statute mandating trigger locks or other safe-keeping for guns and another proposal that would classify more gun crimes as ones that could lead to suspension or revocation of a driver's license.

Aggravated discharge of a firearm while driving now can result in loss of a license. The new legislation would add such offenses as unlawful use of a weapon and aggravated discharge of a machine gun.

Daley and other gun-control advocates won a victory with passage of a measure, which took effect last year, that requires background checks of people who buy weapons at gun shows.

With Democrats strengthening their edge in the Senate, state Sen. John Cullerton (D-Chicago) said that gun-control advocates have a chance of having all of the proposals passed in the coming session.

"If the NRA realizes they are in trouble and want to negotiate, which they never have in the past, we [could pass] the assault-weapons ban," said Cullerton, who appeared with Daley and other public officials at a news conference at police headquarters. "They always have said, 'You inadvertently are banning skeet shooters.' We say, 'Fine, sit down and tell us what is wrong with our bill because we do know that weapons that shoot down planes should not be sold.'"

Vandermyde disagreed about prospects for passage.

"I think there is going to be a lot of screaming and hollering," he said, but "I don't think they have the muscle to move this ... agenda through.

"This just becomes a regulatory and bureaucratic snafu to throw more red tape in the path of somebody buying a gun."

[email protected]

As usual it comes back down to a campaign of lies and fear.

 

[Autolycus]

From Soybomb's article:

Daley also supports a measure that would tighten an existing statute mandating trigger locks or other safe-keeping for guns and another proposal that would classify more gun crimes as ones that could lead to suspension or revocation of a driver's license.

What does my drivers license have to do if I commit a crime with a gun? I dont see how that is connected in anyway. I believe it is just another way to punish gunowners if they break one of the existing laws already.

"If the NRA realizes they are in trouble and want to negotiate, which they never have in the past, we [could pass] the assault-weapons ban," said Cullerton, who appeared with Daley and other public officials at a news conference at police headquarters. "They always have said, 'You inadvertently are banning skeet shooters.' We say, 'Fine, sit down and tell us what is wrong with our bill because we do know that weapons that shoot down planes should not be sold.'"

I am glad that they know that weapons that shoot down planes should not be sold. Could they give an instance where one of these weapons shot down a plane? Or was used in a recent crime at the least.

What really ticks me off is that the NRA is willing to negotiate with them. I am sorry but we cannot keep compromising as we have nothing to give. It seems that the majority of NRA here in IL at least is skeet shooters and that is all they are concerned with.

I say let them ban a skeet shooter's gun as well. I am sorry but they should not just be focusing on the skeet shooters and their guns. Let a skeet shooting organization do that. The National RIFLE Association should focus on all Rifles (well all guns actually as they should call themselves the National GUN Association).

Perhaps that is what we need to get skeet shooters to become more active. Eventually the antis will not need to compromise with the NRA as the only guns left to ban will be skeet shooters guns. We are slowly losing this battle here in IL and the NRA (supposed to help us) is rolling over and surrendering.

What if the NRA just opposed it because they know they are going to lose? At least we could say we went down fighting united rather than divided. The NRA has compromised to much already.

Perhaps the NRA should go on the offensive and have our friends introduce more pro-gun bills. Shall issue CCW, pre-emption laws, castle doctrine, etc.

That way we put them on the defensive. It will probably be a waste of taxpayers money to do this but isnt a .50 cal ban a waste of tax money as well? I figure if they are gonna take it all anyways we might just want to gamble with some pro-gun bills and hope more get passed.

 

[nucstl1]

I didn't know Chicago was the state capital

It saddens me every time this bill is introduced. I agree that we need to go on the offensive, but what can we do? National press? ACLU? Their strategy is to divide and conquer, and seperating the good 'ol hunting boys from those who like to shoot paper, is the first step. I wish there was a way for the gun owners of this state to go on the offensive and end this debate once and for all. I have mentioned it many times before, but why can't we take the fight to them through legal challenges. I mean, the ACLU defends the rights of everyone from people with AIDs to Prisoners to illegal immigrants, but what about me, the average gun owner who is harrased every year by a state legislature attempting to confiscate my personal proerty and/or make me a felon. I guess I will have to trade in all of my military style rifles for some bird guns, and go buy some real tree camo.

 

[DonP]

3 rifle crimes last year

In Illinois in 2005, the last year that data is available for, there were a total of 3 crimes committed involving a rifle of any kind according to the doj.

So stopping crime has nothing to do with any of this.

Daley got more of his leftist Dems in the legislature, the downstate Dems may be outnumbered by the Cook County transplants now and the Republicans are no where to be found through the whole state.

Daley intends to have the entire state run by the same rules he has in Chicago, and that has worked out so well for him hasn't it?

Then, when crime goes evem higher, he will start to blame Indiana, Missouri and Michigan.

 

[Deanimator]

Then, when crime goes evem higher, he will start to blame Indiana, Missouri and Michigan.

Wouldn't it be funny if those three states gave Daley the same treatment that Ethiopia just gave the Union of Islamic Courts in Somalia...?

 

[G36-UK]

And again with the "common-sense" bu****it.

I can understand a little why they do it, after all, they all believe that they have a responsibility to stop gun violence. However, joined with that is the responsibility to ensure that the laws they demand don't infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. Whether they like it or not, those two responsibilities go together.

Now, since the AWB and other "common-sense" laws do violate said second responsibility, it would be far more accurate to call them "irresponsible".

The way I see it, there's one of two things the antis could do to gain some credibility in my eyes.

One, admit that law-abiding people have the right to own guns and as such, their AWB and similar laws are unnecessary.

Or two, admit once and for all that they've been lying all along, and they don't really give a s**t about gun violence.

 

[Deanimator]

The way I see it, there's one of two things the antis could do to gain some credibility in my eyes.

I'm from Chicago and I can tell you that it's ALL lies.

They know that the police CANNOT protect individuals, have no DUTY to protect individuals, and CANNOT be held responsible if they DON'T protect individuals.

KNOWING this, they do everything they can to prevent individuals from protecting THEMSELVES.

The Daley administration cares no more for the life and safety of the people in Chicago, than the Kim regime in the DPRK does for the people of North Korea. In both cases, they're just OBJECTS to be used to enrich and empower the ruling elite.

If you want to know what Chicago is all about, just drive through the neighborhoods of the South Side. EVERYWHERE you look, you will see 8' high iron fences with locking gates, and iron bars on doors and windows. Daley has turned Chicago into a version of Lincoln Park Zoo populated with humans.

It's despicable.
It's disgusting.
It's quintessentially Chicago.