Posted: 4/28/2010 7:12:47 PM EDT
|
As of today, this POS is on the move again and headed to the floor for a vote very soon. As it stands right now it has a final action deadline of next friday(May 7). If it passes then you'll have 90 days to provide proof of ownership of most semi-auto rifles and all magazines over 10 rounds to the state police, or become a felon(backdoor registration).
I'm wondering what exactly does "proof of ownership" entail. Does it simply mean having them in your possession or will you have to provide dated receipts for every magazine that you own(that would not be possible for a good many of them)? Hopefully someone will be able to shed some light on this matter and anything else related to the likelyhood/unlikelyhood of this actually passing |
| I'd be more interested in how they would enforce this through the entire state. Most towns in Cook still don't even know about the AWB. Most gun owners in Illinois won't know about this either. Its not like they send out a memo to each and every FOID holder address in the state. |
| I've talked to my rep's and the general consensus is Daley does not have enough support to pass this. And one of the main sticking point's is enforcement. The State is broke. How do you justify all the man hour's and other related cost of enforcement? And considering the likely outcome of the McDonald case. What about the shit storm that follows. The Supreme court may very well prove that outright bans are unconstitutional. Or at the very least will face significant challenges. Which means more cost to the state defending more bullshit from one asshole. Who thinks cause he cannot do a damn thing to stop gangbangers from killing each other. He can force his useless crap on the whole state. This does not mean we should sit by. Keep those phones ringing off the hook guys and gals. |
|
Quoted:
I've talked to my rep's and the general consensus is Daley does not have enough support to pass this. And one of the main sticking point's is enforcement. The State is broke. How do you justify all the man hour's and other related cost of enforcement? And considering the likely outcome of the McDonald case. What about the shit storm that follows. The Supreme court may very well prove that outright bans are unconstitutional. Or at the very least will face significant challenges. Which means more cost to the state defending more bullshit from one asshole. Who thinks cause he cannot do a damn thing to stop gangbangers from killing each other. He can force his useless crap on the whole state. This does not mean we should sit by. Keep those phones ringing off the hook guys and gals. Yep... good points and good post. I'm told by a democrat fundraiser, that democrats believe gun owners are being complacent while waiting for SCOTUS and that they believe they can pass some things by hyping up the violence in chicago to put pressure on wavering democrats in both houses. Fact is... even after the SCOTUS decision comes down.. even if that decision makes bans unconstitutional.. they are still going to keep trying to pass laws that ban various firearms. Because each bill that gets signed into law will need to be challenged in court and will most likely take a year or two to get to the SCOTUS. The anti-gunners won't ever stop, they simply do not play by the rules. The McDonald case is all about incorporation of the 2nd ammendment to the states and individual. That would put the 2nd ammendment on even grounds with the first ammendment and voting rights. I fear to many people are thinking this case is going to decide everything, and it probably will not. Once you have a second ammendment incorporation, then you can go after various restrictions, registrations, taxes, fees etc as Jim Crowe style laws designed to restrict the exercising of free rights by the poor and minorities. We must have incorporation of the 2nd ammendment. If we can get that, then we can go after all of the unconstitutional laws regardless of the rest of the decision. |