C0untZer0 Posted March 16, 2012 at 04:01 PM Posted March 16, 2012 at 04:01 PM I'm sure we all have horror story examples of dumb people we've seen at the range. There is the store clerk Bandar Abu-Karsh in Ohio who chases a robber out of his store and continues to chase him down the street firing at him (and missing) The guy who claims his Ruger just went off in a Walmart bathroom - he needs firearms potty training. The YouTube "Safety Check" drives me nuts. I don't know if Nut N Fancy started this or who - or what. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've always done my safety check by 1) Dropping the magazine 2) Locking the bolt or slide to the rear 3) Visually inspecting the chamber to ensure there is no round On YouTube these guys with their Glocks... they rack the slide five or six times fast and declare it safe. They do it so fast - there's no way they can see into the chamber. They are betting the farm on the extractor working, and what it doesn't? I think those YouTube safety checks are an acccident waiting to happen. They don't visually inspect the chamber. They go through this frenetic super-fast cycling of the slide, declare it safe and pull the trigger. They all need training as far as I'm concerned.
xmikex Posted March 16, 2012 at 06:03 PM Posted March 16, 2012 at 06:03 PM This thread has drifted FAR beyond where it should be... I'm a training junkie and I think there's a lot of people that simply don't know what they don't know about carrying and using a firearm in self defense and the related aftermath of taking a human life... HOWEVER, in my perfect world there would be no training requirements - just like there are no training requirements for buying a printer, computer, bullhorn or poster making supplies. Are we going to have a training requirement in IL? Yep. Will any state training requirement be woefully inadequate in preparing people for CCW? Yep.Will I support the any shall-issue CCW bill in IL? Oh heck yes. Are either of the CCW bills perfect? NO - but perfect is the enemy of good enough. We can get perfect later.
abolt243 Posted March 16, 2012 at 09:35 PM Posted March 16, 2012 at 09:35 PM Samy and es503, C'mon guys. PM's. AB
es503IL Posted March 16, 2012 at 11:03 PM Posted March 16, 2012 at 11:03 PM Sorry... Thought I had sent that in a PM. Oops...
samy12386 Posted March 17, 2012 at 01:50 AM Posted March 17, 2012 at 01:50 AM I never posted a comment that should have gone in PM, someone mearly felt the sudden urge to send me information that probably could have been done in PM
bob Posted March 17, 2012 at 02:28 PM Posted March 17, 2012 at 02:28 PM The history of self defense shootings seems to include a whole bunch of people who successfully defended themselves who it seems likely had very little or no formal training. I am a fan of getting at least some formal training, but it does not seem to me that requiring an expensive training course to engage in a constitutionally protected activity is truly constitutional. OTOH, that is the way most states have headed that have LTC, and most people in those states seem to have accepted the idea that expensive licenses and expensive training requirements are acceptable to them. It may become a moot point over time as more and more states embrace the idea that no license is required to carry, concealed or otherwise and fewer people accept that there is any need for either licenses or training requirements.
kurt555gs Posted March 17, 2012 at 07:49 PM Posted March 17, 2012 at 07:49 PM Wisconsin recognizes my PA permit with no finger prints or training, but does not recognize my FL permit that required finger prints, class room, and live fire training. Go figure? * Carthago delenda est *
sctman800 Posted March 17, 2012 at 08:01 PM Posted March 17, 2012 at 08:01 PM Wisconsin recognizes my PA permit with no finger prints or training, but does not recognize my FL permit that required finger prints, class room, and live fire training. Go figure? * Carthago delenda est * I am not positive but I think the problem is the 7 year license from Florida. As a general rule the more training requirements the more states that will recognize it. Jim.
samy12386 Posted March 18, 2012 at 12:24 AM Posted March 18, 2012 at 12:24 AM Government funded firearm training for low income families!!! Now that's a welfare bill I might have to support....
Will S. Posted March 18, 2012 at 02:52 AM Posted March 18, 2012 at 02:52 AM Wisconsin recognizes my PA permit with no finger prints or training, but does not recognize my FL permit that required finger prints, class room, and live fire training. Go figure? * Carthago delenda est * I actually wrote them about their reciprocity and asked why they don't accept FL. The reason is because Florida does a background check but does not do a NICS. That is the foundation for their reciprocity. Without the NICS they won't accept the license.
samy12386 Posted March 18, 2012 at 02:16 PM Posted March 18, 2012 at 02:16 PM Wisconsin recognizes my PA permit with no finger prints or training, but does not recognize my FL permit that required finger prints, class room, and live fire training. Go figure? * Carthago delenda est * I actually wrote them about their reciprocity and asked why they don't accept FL. The reason is because Florida does a background check but does not do a NICS. That is the foundation for their reciprocity. Without the NICS they won't accept the license. I was always under the impression that a FBI check using fingerprints was more in depth than NICS is that not correct?
Buzzard Posted March 20, 2012 at 12:28 AM Posted March 20, 2012 at 12:28 AM Here is a E-Mail I received today from the National Gun Rights .org, very critical of HB 5745. Any Opinions? This thread started out asking for opinions on an email that was sent to DHan. And most all people that understood the bill, as it is written agreed - that the email was nothing more than an alarmist spamming for contributions from anyone that might take the bait. Unfortunately, it appears that some here did. This thread has run it's course and served it's purpose.
willxjcherokee Posted March 20, 2012 at 12:40 AM Posted March 20, 2012 at 12:40 AM Here is a E-Mail I received today from the National Gun Rights .org, very critical of HB 5745. Any Opinions? This thread started out asking for opinions on an email that was sent to DHan. And most all people that understood the bill, as it is written agreed - that the email was nothing more than an alarmist spamming for contributions from anyone that might take the bait. Unfortunately, it appears that some here did. This thread has run it's course and served it's purpose.I agree I even got caught up in it..let it die and lets start a new one to contact and rally!
Bud Posted March 20, 2012 at 02:18 PM Posted March 20, 2012 at 02:18 PM And yes, this conversation has veered off topic, but is it not useful? Do we not care about learning more about the practice of self defense and living in a world with predators? We're the most gung ho group about it and yet we don't want to talk about what's smart on the street and what may not be? Don't disagree with you but the OC/CC discussion probably deserves its own thread where people who are interested in that discussion would find it by the subject title. I have no interest in that at all but I am interested in the HB 5745 discussion.
KingWalleye Posted March 20, 2012 at 02:48 PM Posted March 20, 2012 at 02:48 PM Budman and Jeckler are right. This thing has run off the tracks a bit. The best way to get this bill passed is to get out and vote today for candidates that support rtc in Illinois.
C0untZer0 Posted March 20, 2012 at 03:22 PM Posted March 20, 2012 at 03:22 PM I am in the position of having a number of pro-gun candidates to choose from, who haven't been graded by the NRA and generally answered our survey in the affirmative. I guess in a sense it's nice that I can evaluate them on other issues and not just Second Amendment, on the other hand - I want the most effective representaive to be in the house and I'm not really sure who that is.
lockman Posted March 20, 2012 at 05:06 PM Posted March 20, 2012 at 05:06 PM And yes, this conversation has veered off topic, but is it not useful? Do we not care about learning more about the practice of self defense and living in a world with predators? We're the most gung ho group about it and yet we don't want to talk about what's smart on the street and what may not be? Don't disagree with you but the OC/CC discussion probably deserves its own thread where people who are interested in that discussion would find it by the subject title. I have no interest in that at all but I am interested in the HB 5745 discussion. I agree. The HB 5745 updates and call to arms about it should be separate. Discussion about the contents of HB 5745 should be kept general and specifics dealt with in a PM. Forgive me for I have strayed.
Molly B. Posted March 20, 2012 at 07:56 PM Posted March 20, 2012 at 07:56 PM OC/CC debate posts have been split off into their own topic. In doing so another 30-45 minutes of my life have slipped away, never to be seen again. Please guys, please try to stay on topic. Please?
boog Posted March 22, 2012 at 12:40 PM Posted March 22, 2012 at 12:40 PM 2 more co-sponsors were added yesterday and 1 was a DBoog
abolt243 Posted March 22, 2012 at 01:30 PM Posted March 22, 2012 at 01:30 PM 2 more co-sponsors were added yesterday and 1 was a DBoog 35 sponsors, half enough to pass it with a Super. 8 Dems. Cool.
scough Posted March 22, 2012 at 03:00 PM Posted March 22, 2012 at 03:00 PM How many sponsors did we have for HB0148?
Drylok Posted March 22, 2012 at 03:13 PM Posted March 22, 2012 at 03:13 PM How many sponsors did we have for HB0148? Looks like about 51
boog Posted March 22, 2012 at 03:17 PM Posted March 22, 2012 at 03:17 PM someone correct me if my math is wrong, but the way I calculate it we need 12 more Dem's to sign on or vote yes because we know 2 Rep's will vote know. Does this sound right?boog
abolt243 Posted March 22, 2012 at 03:40 PM Posted March 22, 2012 at 03:40 PM someone correct me if my math is wrong, but the way I calculate it we need 12 more Dem's to sign on or vote yes because we know 2 Rep's will vote know. Does this sound right?boog Mathematically you may be right. We'll know for sure when the lights on the big board start lighting up. Until then, it's all speculation. Case in point, the vote on HB148 last year. T
es503IL Posted March 22, 2012 at 07:12 PM Posted March 22, 2012 at 07:12 PM John E. Bradley (D - Marion, 117th District) signed on today as a co-sponser. He was a "Yes" on HB148.
scough Posted March 22, 2012 at 08:15 PM Posted March 22, 2012 at 08:15 PM do we actually have a listing of the co-sponsors of both bills? It would be interesting to see if we have any new faces on HB5745 that did not co-sponsor HB0148. Even more importantly, if we have converted any Nays.
abolt243 Posted March 22, 2012 at 08:17 PM Posted March 22, 2012 at 08:17 PM do we actually have a listing of the co-sponsors of both bills? It would be interesting to see if we have any new faces on HB5745 that did not co-sponsor HB0148. Even more importantly, if we have converted any Nays. You can access that information at ILGA.gov. stand by, i'll get youa link. Here, bookmark this link. ILGA Go exploring there. click on Bills and Resolutions for listing of bills, their history and sponsors/cosponsors. Lots of info there
scough Posted March 22, 2012 at 08:44 PM Posted March 22, 2012 at 08:44 PM On second thought, similar to the HB0148 & BH5745 differences, I'm not sure it makes sense to contrast and post this either.
Drylok Posted March 22, 2012 at 08:47 PM Posted March 22, 2012 at 08:47 PM On second thought, similar to the HB0148 & BH5745 differences, I'm not sure it makes sense to contrast and post this either.Eh it doesn't really matter because it's public info. Anyone can look it up on ILGA and it's on the very main page when you plug in a bill. It's no secret
scough Posted March 22, 2012 at 09:14 PM Posted March 22, 2012 at 09:14 PM Ok then, we have 3 new sponsors that on onboard for HB5745 that did not sponsor HB0148: Eddie Lee Jackson, Sr., Raymond Poe, and Scott E. Penny. Not sure how they voted on HB0148 without a link to that scoreboard photo, but I believe they all voted in favor. We do however have 16 that Co-Sponsored HB0148 that have no yet signed on to HB5745. I suspect they will soon, but it's good to see 3 new Co-Sponsors this time around. I can't wait for the first Nayer to come on board. That will be reason to celebrate!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.