Latest HB2414 update

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Latest HB2414 update

Posted: 2/6/2006 2:20:34 PM EDT

Capitol Commentary by Todd Vandermyde
and ISRA Position Paper on HB 2414

This week at the Capitol saw the battle for your rights heat up once again.

HB-2414, the semi-auto gun ban continues to take center stage. Last week amendment #6 was withdrawn by the sponsor. After weeks of talk in the press about Mayor Daley wanting to bring the Olympics to Chicago, they finally realized that their bill, if signed into law, would prohibit Olympic pistol competitors from holding their events in Illinois. So the Chicago Olympics would have to hold at least some of the shooting events in Indiana or Wisconsin.

It appears that amendment # 7 will be an attempt to “fix” this little problem with the bill. While some may say it is insignificant, it points to the fact that: 1) we are winning and 2) they continue to have problems, as they have from day one.

You will note that we are not putting out a great deal of specifics to the bill. Over the past year, the City has been grasping at straws to try and pass something. They, for once, have been listening to the criticism against their bill and changing it to take away those arguments. The Olympic amendment is the latest example of that. We are not in the business of educating them about their bills. If anything, the latest problem underscores that we have been right all along. Why else would they be changing language to “protect” Olympic shooters? Or changing the language on .50 cals to assure deer hunters that their guns will not be banned? The reason is simple, we are right. And we have been right all along.

I would suggest to everyone, that while it may feel good to post all kinds of technical info and point out every little flaw in the bill on blogs or web pages, the message now is simple – NO to a gun ban. No to Chicago style gun control. . . .

At least its heading in the right direction, but keep on contacting your politicans to stop this crazy bill!

Dave W.

Posted: 2/8/2006 12:45:31 PM EDT

[#1]

Amendment 7 was filed today.

amendment 7 text

It lets you keep the rifles if you already have them, but no buying any more, "pre-ban" or not.

I don't see where anything was changed because of the olympics, but I just skimmed it.

Posted: 2/8/2006 2:22:25 PM EDT

[#2]

27 (d) This Section does not apply to or affect any of the
28 following:
* * *
13 (5) Possession of a semi-automatic assault weapon, an
14 assault weapon attachment, or a .50 caliber rifle at events
15 taking place at the World Shooting and Recreational Complex
16 at Sparta, only while engaged in the legal use of the
17 firearm, or while traveling to or from this location.

Posted: 2/8/2006 2:27:43 PM EDT

[#3]

This thing is ridiculous and obviously an attempt to make the bill more palatable to the "on-the-fence" legislator. It creates another one of those arbitratry pre-ban and postban distinctions. Plus the guns that are grandfathered in won't be transferrable (only to heirs, out-of-state, and FFL's).

Plus, how the hell do they expect you to be able to prove in a court of law that each and every "bad gun" and "bad ammo magazine" was owned prior to the effective date so you can avoid prosecution? Either the standard will be very high and oppressive (you have to produce the reciept/federal paperwork) or it will be low and be a joke: "Yeah, Jim Bob sold me those three thirty-rounder AR mags back in 2005. See, here's the receipt he wrote me on the back of 'dis here napkin."

Posted: 2/8/2006 2:32:14 PM EDT

[#4]

(B) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a
detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of
ammunition;
(C)any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold
more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a detachable
magazine; or
(D) any air rifle as defined in Section 1 of the
Air Rifle Act.

Posted: 2/8/2006 4:08:10 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
(B) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a
detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of
ammunition;
(C)any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold
more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a detachable
magazine; or
(D) any air rifle as defined in Section 1 of the
Air Rifle Act.

OK, I want all legislators recalled for stupidity.

A line was added that states that an AIR RIFLE is not an assault weapon.

These people are all morons.

Posted: 2/9/2006 9:05:56 AM EDT

[#6]

So is that basically a grandfather clause? And does it only apply to lower recievers and mags, or all other parts as well?

Posted: 2/9/2006 12:12:30 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
So is that basically a grandfather clause? And does it only apply to lower recievers and mags, or all other parts as well?

That is what I would like to know

Posted: 2/10/2006 6:40:10 AM EDT

[#8]

Speaking for myself...

I am not one bit appeased by the proposed Amendment 7, or any other amendment to this illegal bill. The crux of my arguement against HB2414 is that it violates the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Period. With or without amendments I remain adamantly opposed and have told my Representative, that in any of its proposed forms, this ban is objectionable on those grounds.

The back room trades and games being played are dangerous. Give an inch and they will take a foot. Give a foot and they will take a mile. And they most certainly will do everything possible to tighten the noose, if not next month, then next year. This is not a compromise situation.

By the way, have you noticed that the specific purpose of this bill has never been clearly stated? It is NOT the reduction of violent crime (no Illinois politician will respond to the only scientific study done on this subject by John Lott, University of Chicago). It is NOT the control of murder with an "assault weapon". Here in Illinois, there has not been a murder with an "assault weapon" since 1930 (a statistic from my Congressman). Wake up and smell the coffee. This is a gun grab, one step at a time. And I implore everyone here to keep pressure on your Representatives until this is soundly defeated. Do not give up lest you regret it later.

I will not "deal" for my freedom. It is guaranteed. It is unalienable. And I will not barter for it. Pig-headed? Maybe. But I'm not dealing for a new car here. THIS IS MY FREEDOM.

Posted: 2/10/2006 6:44:14 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Speaking for myself...

I am not one bit appeased by the proposed Amendment 7, or any other amendment to this illegal bill. The crux of my arguement against HB2414 is that it violates the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Period. With or without amendments I remain adamantly opposed and have told my Representative, that in any of its proposed forms, this ban is objectionable on those grounds.

The back room trades and games being played are dangerous. Give an inch and they will take a foot. Give a foot and they will take a mile. And they most certainly will do everything possible to tighten the noose, if not next month, then next year. This is not a compromise situation.

By the way, have you noticed that the specific purpose of this bill has never been clearly stated? It is NOT the reduction of violent crime (no Illinois politician will respond to the only scientific study done on this subject by John Lott, University of Chicago). It is NOT the control of murder with an "assault weapon". Here in Illinois, there has not been a murder with an "assault weapon" since 1930 (a statistic from my Congressman). Wake up and smell the coffee. This is a gun grab, one step at a time. And I implore everyone here to keep pressure on your Representatives until this is soundly defeated. Do not give up lest you regret it later.

I will not "deal" for my freedom. It is guaranteed. It is unalienable. And I will not barter for it. Pig-headed? Maybe. But I'm not dealing for a new car here. THIS IS MY FREEDOM.

+1
If I want to buy a new evil black rifle, then I should be able to...if this bill passes, I won't be able to, so this bill needs to go down in flames.

Posted: 2/10/2006 7:18:59 AM EDT

[#10]

Consider this:

The bill is MOST dangerous for those who would like to purchase a black rifle after THE DATE. The Constitutional right to buy a black rifle will be taken from your children and their children. We're talking about surrendering the Constitutional rights of future generations here, grandfather clause or no. It's insidious. And it is wrong.

Posted: 2/10/2006 7:49:32 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Consider this:

The bill is MOST dangerous for those who would like to purchase a black rifle after THE DATE. The Constitutional right to buy a black rifle will be taken from your children and their children. We're talking about surrendering the Constitutional rights of future generations here, grandfather clause or no. It's insidious. And it is wrong.

Yep, won't be able to purchase regular capacity magazines, either.

Posted: 2/10/2006 10:02:00 AM EDT

[#12]

I doubt buying magazines will ever really be a problem, illegal or not.

Posted: 2/10/2006 7:06:35 PM EDT

[#13]

This is not about gun control, this is about people control. You take away the guns, then they raise their salaries then they raise the taxes to pay for it. I was driving home on I55 the other day, and I saw a Jaguar with a official houseplate Nice car ,nice tan, jabbering away on his cell phone. Against the law by the way in chicago. zipping in and out of traffic. Any salary increase buy public servents should be voted on buy the people! Boy I wish I could go into my employer and say ,We have decided to give are selves a raise. All in favor,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!

Posted: 2/10/2006 7:11:45 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Speaking for myself...

I am not one bit appeased by the proposed Amendment 7, or any other amendment to this illegal bill. The crux of my arguement against HB2414 is that it violates the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Period. With or without amendments I remain adamantly opposed and have told my Representative, that in any of its proposed forms, this ban is objectionable on those grounds.

The back room trades and games being played are dangerous. Give an inch and they will take a foot. Give a foot and they will take a mile. And they most certainly will do everything possible to tighten the noose, if not next month, then next year. This is not a compromise situation.

By the way, have you noticed that the specific purpose of this bill has never been clearly stated? It is NOT the reduction of violent crime (no Illinois politician will respond to the only scientific study done on this subject by John Lott, University of Chicago). It is NOT the control of murder with an "assault weapon". Here in Illinois, there has not been a murder with an "assault weapon" since 1930 (a statistic from my Congressman). Wake up and smell the coffee. This is a gun grab, one step at a time. And I implore everyone here to keep pressure on your Representatives until this is soundly defeated. Do not give up lest you regret it later.

I will not "deal" for my freedom. It is guaranteed. It is unalienable. And I will not barter for it. Pig-headed? Maybe. But I'm not dealing for a new car here. THIS IS MY FREEDOM.

+1
If I want to buy a new evil black rifle, then I should be able to...if this bill passes, I won't be able to, so this bill needs to go down in flames.

+1

Dave W.

Posted: 2/11/2006 2:26:45 PM EDT

[#15]

Over the past year, the City has been grasping at straws to try and pass something.

I wish they would pass on this bill, pass on dick and blowhard, and quit passing gas in our general assembly.
I really torques me that these idiots keep shirking the real issues in this state. We do not need any new gun laws, we have plenty already. What we need is hard core legislation and a commitment to stand by it that deals with violent crime of any nature with extreme predjudice. No deals, no paroles, no pardons etc. HArd core prison time busting rocks, tending to roads, etc just like the old days. No more cushy prison terms.

Posted: 2/11/2006 5:58:44 PM EDT

[#16]

I just don't see the justification. Are there really THAT many gun crimes in this state? I mean, we all know that gun control doesn't reduce gun crime, but the libs have forever used that arguement. What are they using this time? That rifles are scary? Are people really convinced that a constitutional right is worthless because guns are scary?

Posted: 2/11/2006 6:02:02 PM EDT

[#17]

I think Illinois is trying to become a poster state on assault-weapons. If Illinois can't come though, well other states would have a hard time getting a ban also.

Posted: 2/11/2006 6:18:40 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
I think Illinois is trying to become a poster state on assault-weapons. If Illinois can't come though, well other states would have a hard time getting a ban also.

I think you're right, they're trying to set an example for other states.

The fact that there are so many manufacturers here only makes them want to pass the law more to make a statement.

Only a theory, my tinfoil might be on too tight...

Posted: 2/13/2006 9:58:57 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
I just don't see the justification. Are there really THAT many gun crimes in this state? I mean, we all know that gun control doesn't reduce gun crime, but the libs have forever used that arguement. What are they using this time? That rifles are scary? Are people really convinced that a constitutional right is worthless because guns are scary?

There are plenty of gun crimes in the state. 95%+ of them are committed by people with illegally owned weapons in the City of Chicago, so the whole legislation is a farce.

Nationally less than 1% of crimes committed with a firearm are committed with an "assault weapon" I did a great deal of research on this last year based on D.O.J. facts and figures.

Posted: 2/13/2006 10:37:33 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
There are plenty of gun crimes in the state.

Significantly more than other states?

Posted: 2/13/2006 12:19:22 PM EDT

[#21]

Back to my original question--if anyone actually knows it, I would really appreciate it. BTW, I am not really in favor of having a GF clause in it, I would rather leave it out and hopefully have the bill go down in flames because of it, but I don't make the laws, just trying to live with the ones the useful idiots pass...

Quoted:
So is that basically a grandfather clause? And does it only apply to lower recievers and mags, or all other parts as well?

Posted: 2/13/2006 2:05:07 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
There are plenty of gun crimes in the state.

Significantly more than other states?

I don't know exact figures, buyt I think it is around 40% of murders in Chicago are by firearms, so approimately 350-400 murders per year. I think you would be hard pressed to find that many murders by firearms across the rest of the State combined during a year.

Chicago has a tendency to skew the figures on just about all data on the State, but we already knew that.

I do not know the breakdown of IL vs. the national statstics, but IIRC IL fell pretty close in line with the national averages. The DOJ data was an overall of the 50 states. I woudl imagine that the ISP would have data for just IL and the two could be compared.

Posted: 2/15/2006 11:45:48 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There are plenty of gun crimes in the state.

Significantly more than other states?

I don't know exact figures, buyt I think it is around 40% of murders in Chicago are by firearms, so approimately 350-400 murders per year. I think you would be hard pressed to find that many murders by firearms across the rest of the State combined during a year.

Chicago has a tendency to skew the figures on just about all data on the State, but we already knew that.

I do not know the breakdown of IL vs. the national statstics, but IIRC IL fell pretty close in line with the national averages. The DOJ data was an overall of the 50 states. I woudl imagine that the ISP would have data for just IL and the two could be compared.

I didn't spend too much time, but I found 2002 numbers for Chicago, there were 647 homicides in the city that year, 511 caused by firearm.

In 2002, there was a total of 1231 gun deaths in the state,

728 homicides (59% of all IL gun deaths),
466 suicides (38% of all IL gun deaths),
and 17 unintentional shootings, 6 legal intervention, and 14 of undetermined intent (3% of all IL gun deaths combined).

So, 511 out of the 728 gun related homicides that year were from chicago. Even taking into account the population of the area, that seems a pretty high percentage, 70% or so?

Posted: 2/15/2006 11:56:19 AM EDT

[#24]

Thanks , for breaking that down .... Interesting Huh?

Posted: 2/16/2006 4:13:56 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I just don't see the justification. Are there really THAT many gun crimes in this state? I mean, we all know that gun control doesn't reduce gun crime, but the libs have forever used that arguement. What are they using this time? That rifles are scary? Are people really convinced that a constitutional right is worthless because guns are scary?

There are plenty of gun crimes in the state. 95%+ of them are committed by people with illegally owned weapons in the City of Chicago, so the whole legislation is a farce.

Nationally less than 1% of crimes committed with a firearm are committed with an "assault weapon" I did a great deal of research on this last year based on D.O.J. facts and figures.

I did a breakdown of the "hundreds of assault wepons" the CPD seized for this thread.

IIRC, they seized roughly 400 "assault weapons" in '05... out of 9.800 guns total.

That makes 4.08% boys n girls.

According to the NIJ (Uniform Crime Reports), in the years before the AWB, "AW's" accounted for less than 2% of all guns used in crimes. Statistically, you had a better chance to get killed by a pillow, extension cord, or baseball bat than an AW.

Of all people, the late Mike Royko actually commented on the frivolity of the AWB... and he was a devout anti handgunner.

Times have changed, but IIRC the % is still ridiculously low.

Posted: 2/20/2006 1:44:28 PM EDT

[#26]

JUST GOT THIS OFF THE ISRA SITE TODAY:

URGENT ALERT – YOUR ACTION NEEDED

House Bill 2414, a bill that would result in the banning of nearly every gun you own, may come up for a vote any day now.

The outstanding efforts that gun owners have made to bring attention to this bill are paying off. Some supporters of HB2414 are getting nervous. They have even resorted to telling fibs about their real position on the bill. One of these representatives is Linda Chapa LaVia who is from the Aurora area. In a recent newspaper article, Chapa LaVia claimed that she opposed HB2414. However, Chapa LaVia is signed on as a Co-Sponsor of HB2414. Chapa LaVia is trying to sneak under the radar – telling the public one thing but, when it comes to voting, she’ll side with Daley and Blagojevich.

It’s very important that we remind Chapa LaVia that you are watching her. She needs to know that she can’t have it both ways.

3 THINGS THAT YOU MUST DO TO HELP SAVE YOUR GUNS…

1. Starting Tuesday morning, you must call Chapa LaVia’s Springfield office at (217) 558-1002. Politely tell the person that answers the phone that you know that Chapa LaVia is a sponsor of HB2414 – the Daley Gun Grab. Then tell them that you also saw the article in the Daily Herald where Chapa LaVia said she opposes HB2414. Ask the person who answers the phone to clarify Chapa LaVia’s stance on HB2414. It does not matter if you live in Chapa LaVia’s district; call anyway – SHE OWES THE GUN OWNERS OF ILLINOIS AN ANSWER.

Looks like she is playing both sides. Lets all call her office starting 2-21-06 and voice our opinion.

Dave W.

Posted: 2/20/2006 6:17:53 PM EDT

[#27]

ill be calling as well a few buddys where i work

Posted: 2/20/2006 6:27:15 PM EDT

[#28]

+1

Dave W.

Posted: 2/21/2006 7:25:42 AM EDT

[#29]

she has here answering machine on

Posted: 2/21/2006 8:41:58 AM EDT

[#30]

Leave a polite message and keep tryin'

Dave W.

Posted: 2/21/2006 10:31:56 AM EDT

[#31]

lmfo!!!!!!!

NOW THE MESSAGE SAYS YOU HAVE REACHED THE CO CHAIR OF THE VETERANS AFFAIRS COMITIEE...

OPS SORRY FOR THE CAPS

crap i did it again lol

Posted: 2/21/2006 10:36:22 AM EDT

[#32]

ok i got through to her local office and got no answer to my guestion.....

they did take my name address and number though............

"whos gonna came a knockin now lol "

Posted: 2/21/2006 8:28:25 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
lmfo!!!!!!!

NOW THE MESSAGE SAYS YOU HAVE REACHED THE CO CHAIR OF THE VETERANS AFFAIRS COMITIEE...

OPS SORRY FOR THE CAPS

crap i did it again lol

I got the same message. I douibt anyone will return my call but I left a message anyway. I'm very curious as to what her answer is going to be.

Posted: 2/22/2006 10:08:39 AM EDT

[#34]

Amendment 8 was filed today.

text

There's a specific exemption for Olympic events in this amendment.

Posted: 2/22/2006 11:56:14 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Amendment 8 was filed today.

text

There's a specific exemption for Olympic events in this amendment.

..that's because the city of shitago is wanting to host the Olympics.

Posted: 2/22/2006 11:56:30 AM EDT

[#36]

There is also and exemption that any weapon that can be used for hunting. Can't you use AR's and AK's for coyote in IL??? That would be a fucking hilarious loophole! But officer, my 2-dozen AK's are legal because I have a hunting license.

They are really dying to get this passed, every imaginable grandfather and exception is in this one!!!

"Semiautomatic assault weapon" does not include:
(A) any firearm that:

(iv) is lawful for any hunting use permitted
under the Wildlife Code;

Posted: 2/22/2006 12:24:16 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
There is also and exemption that any weapon that can be used for hunting. Can't you use AR's and AK's for coyote in IL??? That would be a fucking hilarious loophole! But officer, my 2-dozen AK's are legal because I have a hunting license.

They are really dying to get this passed, every imaginable grandfather and exception is in this one!!!

"Semiautomatic assault weapon" does not include:
(A) any firearm that:

(iv) is lawful for any hunting use permitted
under the Wildlife Code;

...that was in 7 also.

Posted: 2/22/2006 12:27:37 PM EDT

[#38]

i'm almost positive that you can use ur ar for hunting here in IL the only thing we will have that is illegal (if all else is legal) would be the 30 rnd mags.....but i don't think they'd resort to total nazism if you had a few hundred 30 rnd'rs layin around...i mean afterall the rifle is legal.....but if they don't put anything in there about how many rounds allowed in mag's then i'd say i'm gonna be doing a lot of hunting all the time now lol!!!.....used to trap coyotes to quit killin all my deer and to keep them from comin up to my house and killin my dogs....hell now i'll just take my ar and leave the traps at home lol.....take less time ne ways and i won't have to go beat them w/ a stick and put the .22 to their head lol

*edited for crappy spelling and my use of the f-bomb...sorry folks had a long day and have a migraine*

Posted: 2/22/2006 12:34:40 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Amendment 8 was filed today.

text

There's a specific exemption for Olympic events in this amendment.

..that's because the city of shitago is wanting to host the Olympics.

No kidding, really?

If you'd like to help us out with more obvious stuff, you can let everyone know that Daley is anti-gun and banning guns doesn't help.

Posted: 2/22/2006 12:47:25 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Amendment 8 was filed today.

text

There's a specific exemption for Olympic events in this amendment.

..that's because the city of shitago is wanting to host the Olympics.

No kidding, really?

If you'd like to help us out with more obvious stuff, you can let everyone know that Daley is anti-gun and banning guns doesn't help.

The Olympic thang was mentioned to me by my rep a few weeks ago along with what they (the good guys) were thinking they (the bad guys) was trying to pull. One of which is to make the bad guys look good to their party members and voters who are against gun ownership and such, and that they (the bad guys) not really wanting the bill to advance much further in the house knowing that it could hurt them down the road come general election time.

Posted: 2/22/2006 2:34:51 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
i'm almost positive that you can use ur ar for hunting here in IL the only thing we will have that is illegal (if all else is legal) would be the 30 rnd mags.....but i don't think they'd resort to total nazism if you had a few hundred 30 rnd'rs layin around...i mean afterall the rifle is legal.....but if they don't put anything in there about how many rounds allowed in mag's then i'd say i'm gonna be doing a lot of hunting all the time now lol!!!.....used to trap coyotes to quit killin all my deer and to keep them from comin up to my house and killin my dogs....hell now i'll just take my ar and leave the traps at home lol.....take less time ne ways and i won't have to go beat them w/ a stick and put the .22 to their head lol

*edited for crappy spelling and my use of the f-bomb...sorry folks had a long day and have a migraine*

It's on page 36 of this pdf document.

Keep in mine the following from that FAQ on the DNR site....

At all times when in possession of firearms, hunters must also comply with
the other firearms regulations as outlined in the Illinois Criminal Code.

So as I read it, if the criminal code is amended to ban the AR, then you would not be covered by the DNR code.

Posted: 2/22/2006 2:44:48 PM EDT

[#42]

Reading the following line in both the firearms and the magazine ban portions, "This Section does not apply to a person who possessed a device prohibited by subsection (b) before the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 94th General Assembly." It seems that it means just that, does not apply to an original possessor, in any way, shape or form.

And the same line, "This Section does not apply...", is used where it applies to law enforcement, military types, and whatnot. So I equate the"This Section does not apply..." line to mean the same thing as it pertains to original before ban possessors, and after ban gestapo exceptions.

What a messy bill, indeed.

Posted: 2/22/2006 3:00:48 PM EDT

[#43]

As it is..or may come to be.

If you the ban goes into effect, those who don't have one will be frack. If the ban goes into effect and there is no grandfather clause, those who do have one will be frack.

So the bottome line is...someone is going to be frack.

Posted: 2/22/2006 8:57:37 PM EDT

[#44]

I'm no lawyer, and did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night but the way I read it, it says;

Semiautomatic assault weapon" does not include:
(A) any firearm that:

(iv) is lawful for any hunting use permitted
under the Wildlife Code;

Now if neither the wildlife code nor the criminal code doesn't specifically ban the AR, and it's legal to hunt coyotes with, I don't see how the ban wouldn't apply to it.

The DNR code says it's OK unless prohibited by the criminal code, the criminal code says it's OK as long as it's legal to hunt with and right now you can hunt coyotes with it.
If the DNR changes the code to no semi-auto or single shot and bolt action only we're screwed.

I really don't know how the criminal code could specifically ban the AR, because the are so many different names that company's use CAR, PCR, XM ect. unless they said semi-auto m16 look-a-likes.

Posted: 2/23/2006 8:45:36 AM EDT

[#45]

NRA-ILA Action Alert

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Anti-gun legislators continue their frantic attempts to build support for House Bill 2414, sponsored by Representative Edward Acevedo (D-2).This bill seeks to ban countless semi-automatic handguns, rifles, shotguns, and .50 caliber rifles.

A vote on HB 2414 could take place as early as next week, and anti-gun extremists are pulling out all the stops to strong-arm lawmakers into supporting this assault on the Second Amendment.

Please contact Representative Joe Dunn and Representative Ed Sullivan to thank them for their support of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms and to continue that support by opposing the unnecessary and restrictive HB 2414. Representative Dunn can be reached at (217) 782-6507. Representative Sullivan can be reached at (217) 782-3696. ...

Dave W.

Posted: 2/23/2006 1:25:25 PM EDT

[#46]

EVERYONE KEEP CALLING AND E-MAILING!!!

Dave W.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Latest HB2414 update

Hometown » Illinois

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us