Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/23/2006 1:09:34 PM EDT
Any news on this.......
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 2:20:31 PM EDT
Last I heard, it was put aside for the time being.
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 2:44:28 PM EDT
The democratic leadership has said that they will not move on this bill at this time. However Blago flew down some folks to lobby for the AWB today. They have untill March 31 to get a vote on the bill. If they do not it will be back in the fall.


Support Concealed Carry for Illinois IllinoisCarry.com
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 5:47:50 PM EDT
just curious, do we have some organizations sending people down to lobby too? where's the nra during all of this? not sarcasm-just wondering how much they're doing.


jake
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 7:25:24 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 2:57:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:

Originally Posted By deerkillindad21:
just curious, do we have some organizations sending people down to lobby too? where's the nra during all of this? not sarcasm-just wondering how much they're doing.


jake



Todd Vandermyde is a full-time lobbyist. He is highly skilled, highly effective, and is most of the reason we have had no new anti-gun legislation for years. He is a great asset to our cause.



+1 Todd is the most underappreciated guy in Illinois.
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 4:49:45 PM EDT
I was highly impressed by Todd when he came to speak at the Aurora Sportsmens Club.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 5:33:26 AM EDT
yeah, i've heard of todd. my question is-besides the fact that illinois is a liberal shit hole-why do we have such a problem here. i mean comparatively speaking there are more liberal states that at least have concealed carry. i'm just wondering if the nra doesn't pour as much money into illinois or what. does the nra feel like this state is lost like most of the guys on this board? i feel like i'm sittin' in a boat in the middle of the ocean surrounded by sharks all alone.

jake
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 6:59:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By deerkillindad21:
yeah, i've heard of todd. my question is-besides the fact that illinois is a liberal shit hole-why do we have such a problem here. i mean comparatively speaking there are more liberal states that at least have concealed carry. i'm just wondering if the nra doesn't pour as much money into illinois or what. does the nra feel like this state is lost like most of the guys on this board? i feel like i'm sittin' in a boat in the middle of the ocean surrounded by sharks all alone.

jake



...your not alone. You just have notice the killer whales yet!
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 8:25:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By deerkillindad21:
<snip> my question is-besides the fact that illinois is a liberal shit hole-why do we have such a problem here. <snip>



HEY... it's not the whole state. It's mostly the shithole Chicago, and the stained rim that is Cook County.

If you were to call one of my southern IL buddies a lib, he'd gut ya.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 10:21:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tango7:

Originally Posted By deerkillindad21:
<snip> my question is-besides the fact that illinois is a liberal shit hole-why do we have such a problem here. <snip>



HEY... it's not the whole state. It's mostly the shithole Chicago, and the stained rim that is Cook County.

If you were to call one of my southern IL buddies a lib, he'd gut ya.



hey man, you're tellin' me-i live twenty minutes southeast of springfield. even though i consider southern illinois to be from mount vernon south-us central illinois boys don't have a problem with black rifles either. what i gather is that no one really knows about 'em. around here a lot of 'em worry about remington 870s and winchester 1300s. what they know about black rifles is usually myths and other crap. they're oblivious to this whole industry and hobby. that is why i wonder about the nra-if they feel they don't have the constituency (sp?) to invest a lot of money like maybe they would if say arizona or texas (theoretically speaking-i know that they probably would never have that problem in their state) were in the same boat we're in. just wondering.

jake
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 4:50:53 PM EDT
Saw this in the Sun-Times and our local rag (News-Sun)


State ban needed on assault weapons
If we could pass a law that could save one person's life, at only modest inconvenience to anyone else, should we do it?
That is the question facing Illinois lawmakers as they once again consider a statewide ban on semiautomatic assault-type weapons. We would argue that the answer is clear, that certain guns ought not to be legal, and that those who oppose such efforts are defending the indefensible. They are picking someone's right to play with deadly toys over public safety.
We can't say whether such a ban would have prevented the deaths of 14-year-old Starkesia Reed or 10-year-old Siretha White, two girls from Chicago's Englewood neighborhood who were slain by gunfire earlier this month. But we do know that the weapons apparently used in each crime would have been illegal had the federal assault weapons ban not expired in 2004. And they would have been illegal had the Legislature acted last year, when it narrowly failed to pick up the slack left by the federal expiration.
Spurred by the girls' deaths, Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Mayor Richard M. Daley last week launched a last-minute effort to pass a statewide ban in the waning days of the Legislature. They especially need the support of suburban Republicans to overcome the opposition of Downstaters.
Their bill largely mirrors the expired federal ban, outlawing certain guns by name and others by description. For example, it names an AK-47 — the type of gun apparently used to kill Starkesia — as a banned weapon. And it bans semiautomatic rifles and pistols that have detachable magazines and at least one military feature. (Fully automatic weapons — what most of us call machine guns — already are banned.)
Opponents of the ban argue that it's already illegal to use guns to commit crimes. They say it's already illegal to own a gun in Chicago and some suburbs. They say a ban would make legal gun owners suffer.
They're right on all counts. But these assault-type weapons are the gun of choice for some gangbangers. They are particularly deadly — especially when they are easily converted to fully automatic use. Gun owners would have a hard time convincing most of us that they need such a weapon, or that their desire to play with one at a shooting range or on the hunt outweighs the public safety need to ban them.
There is evidence that the gun used in Starkesia's shooting was purchased in Indiana, where recent efforts to enact a statewide ban have failed. The ability to buy guns legally in another state tells us a federal ban would be more effective. But since that doesn't seem likely now, Illinois lawmakers should at least make sure these weapons are illegal here.

- This editorial is the consensus view of the Sun-Times News Group of 100 newspapers in the Chicago metro area.
03/29/06



Here's my published reply:


Assault on gun owners

As a law-abiding gun owner and sport shooter, I take offense to the "facts" presented in your editorial in Wednesday's edition: "State ban needed on assault weapons." While your "consensus view" agrees with the arguments of lawful firearm owners like myself — that it's already illegal to use guns to commit crimes, that it's already illegal to own a gun in Chicago and some suburbs, and that a ban would make legal gun owners suffer — you still claim a need for more ineffectual legislation, citing that "these assault-type weapons are the gun of choice for some gangbangers;" that "they are particularly deadly;" and that "they are easily converted to fully automatic use."

While some criminals may choose to use them, the majority of firearms are "regular guns," as proven by Chicago's own statistics. Much ballyhoo has been made about the "400 assault weapons" seized by the Chicago Police Department in 2005. What the anti-freedom mongers don't tell you is that the CPD seized a more than 9,800 firearms that year, and more people were killed with baseball bats, knives, and pillows nationally than these "evil guns." So 4.8 percent of all the guns were these "evil assault weapons?" My, what a significant percentage — almost as great as the margin of error in most polls.

As far as being "more deadly?" The majority of these firearms were based on calibers designed by military scientists — and according to the military, it's "better" in warfare to wound than to kill. Discarding that argument, these firearms use commercially available calibers which dozens other "non assault rifle" guns are already chambered for. If the calibers are really so "deadly," then why not ban them?

And "easily converted?" The conversion of these firearms is more than just "switching a few parts" like the anti-freedom forces would have you believe. It involves the use of industrial-type machining tools and a fair degree of engineering knowledge. In addition, it violates numerous existing federal and state laws concerning the issue already in place.

The anti-freedom forces continuing their assault on law-abiding gun owners are using the actions of determined criminals who have no concern for the laws currently in effect. I doubt that Carail Weeks, (the gang member who killed Starkesia Reed) who used a forged ID card in Indiana to purchase the firearm he intended to use for criminal activities would be concerned over breaking one more law. The problem is with criminals committing crimes, not the objects they use.

What I find truly offensive is known enemies of constitutional freedom like Mayor Daley, his puppets in Springfield and Gov. Blagojevich using these tragic events to (yet again) as tactics to promote their totalitarian agenda. And I am offended by your paper falling blindly into lockstep, regurgitating the same propaganda, and for being so quick to yield up one constitutionally guaranteed right while hiding behind another.

Tango7

North Chicago



Link Posted: 4/2/2006 5:07:54 PM EDT
outstanding reply there bud !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 5:19:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ops144:
outstanding reply there bud !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



+1000
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 6:28:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 6:55:00 PM EDT
Well said Tango7!
As an Illinois gunownwer.I thank you.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 7:33:52 PM EDT
Good job, Tango7!
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 8:10:09 AM EDT
Excellent response.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 7:02:59 PM EDT
Tango7 - Outstanding reply.

Not trying to hijack this thread but did anyone see the front page of the Star Newspaper this past Sunday? Link Here
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 9:25:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/4/2006 9:25:32 AM EDT by J2DOG]
Wonderful editorial, thanks for helping out ALL of us.

By the way, where did you obtain the stats you alluded to in your reply?

Link Posted: 4/4/2006 9:34:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pupp86:
Tango7 - Outstanding reply.

Not trying to hijack this thread but did anyone see the front page of the Star Newspaper this past Sunday? Link Here



I read that article.

This stood out.

Ahern said there were more than 12,400 machine guns registered with ATFE in 2005 in Illinois. This category includes the assault-style weapons. That compares to 656 short-barrel rifles and 1,552 short-barrel shotguns

Registered to who? State law says I can't have that stuff. Are they including weapons owned by law enforcement?
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 10:52:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/4/2006 10:53:17 AM EDT by racecar]
Ooh yeah that is purposefully misleading crap. This is hatchet job by a hack reporter with an agenda. This is not journalism it is propaganda.

Author; John K Ryan ( no relation) No email listed.
Tell his boss
Managing editor; Margaret Selzner mseltzner@starnewspapers.com
Editorial page editor; Tom Houlihan thoulihan@starnewspapers.com

Where to start???? The #'s quoted for machine guns look more like the # of MGs in the national NFA registry itself. The # of privately held (transferable ) machineguns registered in IL in 2005 was 0. 2004? 0. 2003? 0. and so on back. Only MFRS with SOT in IL.

There are too many misrepresentations to count.

Yipes


JR
Top Top