148 replies to this topic

[Drylok]

wilessiuc, I don't get that take from Todds post. I wouldn't be suprised at all to see a vote on a carry bill. We're at the end of the session so what the hell, we might as well run it.

[abolt243]

wilessiuc, on 25 May 2012 - 07:01 AM, said:

I'm feeling very down today. Unless I am reading Todd's posts wrong, it looks like the chance of a vote happening this session on carry is not very likely. And I for one am not confident at all that the 7th Circuit will rule in our favor. I think it is more likely they "punt" the issue. Even if they do rule for us, things will most certainly get tied up while SCOTUS looks at taking the case up on appeal. So best case scenario, we are a 1-2+ years away from any real movement. Somebody tell me I'm wrong. . .

You're wrong.

[boog]

Todd, I know you are busting your rump to get this done and I appreciate everyone's hard work, but it sure doesn't look good for us this year. I hope I am wrong and I am seriously considering moving to southwest Texas!
Boog

[boomersand]

Great job Todd and thank you for all of your hard work!   I'm glad to see that a Rep got the propaganda that we've been sending out.  They should be scared, especially with all of the brainwashing they do when it comes to their anti-gun agenda.   I continue to email every rep that voted no on HB148 and about SB1034.  I remain positive that we WILL get this done in 2012

[output]

Thanks for all the hard work Todd, Molly, and everyone else around here. This post and thread is very reassuring! If there is anything we should or could be doing please let us know.

[Drylok]

Remember guys this is one of the most anti 2A states in the nation and we have some of the most powerful, corrupt politicians at the very top but there's only about 5 of them. We have the support overwhelmingly, in the legislature and in the hearts and minds of the people. Keep your head up, RTC is coming one way or the other.

[05FLHT]

wilessiuc, on 25 May 2012 - 07:01 AM, said:

I'm feeling very down today. Unless I am reading Todd's posts wrong, it looks like the chance of a vote happening this session on carry is not very likely. And I for one am not confident at all that the 7th Circuit will rule in our favor. I think it is more likely they "punt" the issue. Even if they do rule for us, things will most certainly get tied up while SCOTUS looks at taking the case up on appeal. So best case scenario, we are a 1-2+ years away from any real movement. Somebody tell me I'm wrong. . .

It would be quite the back peddling for the 7th to give ranges 'not quite strict scrutiny' and dismiss bearing arms, which was clearly defined by SCOTUS, out of the actual text of the 2nd Amendment. Personally, I'm looking for an epic smack down to happen and to be carrying in IL with my FOID card.

Carry in IL is inevitable and my money is on sooner, rather than later.

[Tvandermyde]

There is still time to move a carry bill. We only need about 6 hours to do it.

Please excuse my poor typing on an ipad. This virtual keyboard does not do me well no matter how hard I try.

Drylock you're right they played the gun ban card, we just publicised it.

We will see if they accept the suggestions to 1034. No one can we didnt try. But my respect for at least one representative is diminished

[ishmo]

Tvandermyde, on 25 May 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

There is still time to move a carry bill. We only need about 6 hours to do it.

Please excuse my poor typing on an ipad. This virtual keyboard does not do me well no matter how hard I try.

Drylock you're right they played the gun ban card, we just publicised it.

We will see if they accept the suggestions to 1034. No one can we didnt try. But my respect for at least one representative is diminished

Thanks for all your hard work Todd.

Next time you talk to them ask them if they know anything about the numbers below.  I for one am curious how they have $1.5m sitting in an account instead of the ISP using it.  Sounds like someone's trying to advance an agenda to me.

In 2009 Illinois was given $1,209,500 by the Federal government in NARIP money yet only $45,400 of it has been spent to date according to ILCJIA Regular Authority Meeting Friday, December 2, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.and there's a suprlus of $1,164,100. The way I read the numbers below it appears the state has $1.5m available for ISP use.

Exhibit #3- Federal Funding Sources FY 2012
Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority
Federal Funding FY 2012

NARIP-National Instant Criminal Background Check System Act Record Improv. Program Total
Total Award  $1,209,500
Interest Earned  $0
Grant Total  $1,209,500
Expense- to- Date  Through 11/09/11  $45,400
Revenue/Expenditures FY 2012  $0
Remaining Revenue through 11/09/11 $1,164,100

NCHIP-National Criminal History Improvement Program Total
Total Award  $590,000
Interest Earned  $0
Grant Total  $590,000
Expense- to- Date  Through 11/09/11  $248,743
Revenue/Expenditures FY 2012   $18,957
Remaining Revenue through 11/09/11  $341,257

1 Total Award represents grants that are active during the FY 2012.
2 Grand total includes interest earned, which may be added to administrative funds and/or distributed to grantees.
3 Grant Expenditures-to-date represent all expenses incurred from the inception of the grant award that are currently active during FY 2012.
4 Revenue/Expenditures values represent expenditures and cash draw-downs during the FY 2012 July 1st through November 9, 2011. These values exclude obligations. JABG and JAG awards are
drawn down as awarded while the remaining grant draw-downs are reiumbursements of expenditures.

[Buckfarrack]

boog, on 25 May 2012 - 07:28 AM, said:

Todd, I know you are busting your rump to get this done and I appreciate everyone's hard work, but it sure doesn't look good for us this year. I hope I am wrong and I am seriously considering moving to southwest Texas!
Boog

Boog,i'm sure you know what you are doing but unless you are very familiar with southwest Texas and NOT depending on weekly paychecks to live,or gettng rich,i would strongly suggest South to SouthEAST Texas,like San Marcos or New Braunfels and east rather than west.I go down ther alot.Ok,i'll shut-up,because i might be right behind you.Once you live down there,it's real hard not to go back,i can tell you that much.

[Xwing]

Todd, Thanks for the update.
I am also curious about the 24 hour training requirement. I agree it's a bad deal. But I assume this was an "anti" rep who suggested it. Did he/she promise to change to a "yes" vote for that?  Were there several reps who would change to a "yes" vote?

[Jeffrey]

Xwing, on 25 May 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

Todd, Thanks for the update.
I am also curious about the 24 hour training requirement. I agree it's a bad deal. But I assume this was an "anti" rep who suggested it. Did he/she promise to change to a "yes" vote for that?  Were there several reps who would change to a "yes" vote?

I'm wondering the same.  I know a 24 hour training is not what any of us have in mind.  It could be a foot in the door if it gives us the votes.  We have to start somewhere right?

[boog]

Buckfarrack, on 25 May 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

boog, on 25 May 2012 - 07:28 AM, said:

Todd, I know you are busting your rump to get this done and I appreciate everyone's hard work, but it sure doesn't look good for us this year. I hope I am wrong and I am seriously considering moving to southwest Texas! Boog

Boog,i'm sure you know what you are doing but unless you are very familiar with southwest Texas and NOT depending on weekly paychecks to live,or gettng rich,i would strongly suggest South to SouthEAST Texas,like San Marcos or New Braunfels and east rather than west.I go down ther alot.Ok,i'll shut-up,because i might be right behind you.Once you live down there,it's real hard not to go back,i can tell you that much.

Their is another oil boom going on sw of San Antonio, and lots of land surveying jobs . I am a Licensed Land Surveyor in Illinois so it will be real easy to get a job there as the housing market here has just about broke me with very little work. Just something I am really considering
Boog

[Bud]

24 hour training is ridiculous.

It's a requirement designed to make the antis feel good.

I am a State certified pistol instructor. Any idea what I would charge for 24 hours of training? Per student?

I guarantee that would put a concealed carry permit well out of the reach of most residents

And what the h*** would I use for a 24 hour curriculum? Shooting from a barricade? multiple assailant drills? shooting from a car?

The mind boggles when you consider how completely out of touch Illinois politicians are with reality.

[Federal Farmer]

Bud, on 25 May 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

24 hour training is ridiculous.

It's a requirement designed to make the antis feel good.

I am a State certified pistol instructor. Any idea what I would charge for 24 hours of training? Per student?

I guarantee that would put a concealed carry permit well out of the reach of most residents

And what the h*** would I use for a 24 hour curriculum? Shooting from a barricade? multiple assailant drills? shooting from a car?

The mind boggles when you consider how completely out of touch Illinois politicians are with reality.

More hours must be more better.

[Bud]

and Boog, i was in San Antonio and south of there just two months ago.
Every thing south of San Antonio is considered cartel turf.

I have several very close friends doing everything they can to get out of there and move much further north in Texas.

[abolt243]

Jeffrey, on 25 May 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

Xwing, on 25 May 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

Todd, Thanks for the update.
I am also curious about the 24 hour training requirement. I agree it's a bad deal. But I assume this was an "anti" rep who suggested it. Did he/she promise to change to a "yes" vote for that?  Were there several reps who would change to a "yes" vote?

I'm wondering the same.  I know a 24 hour training is not what any of us have in mind.  It could be a foot in the door if it gives us the votes.  We have to start somewhere right?

Gents, let's put this in perspective.  California, the most rabid anti gun state with a carry license only requires 16 hours of instruction.  And you're suggesting that we go along with 24 hours??  Three whole days of classroom instruction?  What in the world would you teach for three days??

This is an act of desperation on the part of the antis.  They see it coming, it's inevitable.  They're just looking for something to hang on the wall and say, "yeah, carry passed, but by God we got that out of them first!"

Let Todd do his work.  He's negotiating all the time.  I have high expectations for the next 7 days.

AB

[GarandFan]

Tvandermyde, on 24 May 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

Guys I am at a bar reading gun blogs/ forums is that a pathetic life?

Not when you consider that other people are parked on their couches watching "Glee" or "Family Guy" or "Bad Girls Club" ...

Now THAT is a pathetic life!  (disclaimer - no offense meant to anyone who enjoys watching the above or any other pathetic TV programs)

[Drylok]

I can not imagine how much it would cost in class room material to do a 24 class instruction. And trust me, sitting through 8 hr basic pistol courses is hard enough on the students. The longer a class lasts the more TPI you have to come up with to keep students from being bored out of their minds.

[GarandFan]

wilessiuc, on 25 May 2012 - 07:01 AM, said:

And I for one am not confident at all that the 7th Circuit will rule in our favor. I think it is more likely they "punt" the issue.

I somewhat agree that the court or panel may not rule in our favor.  But I can tell you this ... I am absolutely confident that "our side" has the correct and objective interpretation of this issue and it's history.  Sooner or later, it will face an objective court that will render a decision of integrity.

[Jeffrey]

I'm thinking of the 24 hour class as more of a IDPA drill with a little desk time thrown in.

[pyre400]

GarandFan, on 25 May 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

Not when you consider that other people are parked on their couches watching "Glee" or "Family Guy" or "Bad Girls Club" ...

Now THAT is a pathetic life!  (disclaimer - no offense meant to anyone who enjoys watching the above or any other pathetic TV programs)

No offense taken since I DVR them, and watch them from an office chair, while not doing gun/political stuff...

However, you may have just hit 80% of the population with that stroke  

[ilphil]

Jeffrey, on 25 May 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

Xwing, on 25 May 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

Todd, Thanks for the update.
I am also curious about the 24 hour training requirement. I agree it's a bad deal. But I assume this was an "anti" rep who suggested it. Did he/she promise to change to a "yes" vote for that?  Were there several reps who would change to a "yes" vote?

I'm wondering the same.  I know a 24 hour training is not what any of us have in mind.  It could be a foot in the door if it gives us the votes.  We have to start somewhere right?

If we are desperate enough to cave in on something as ludicrous as 24 hr training requirement what makes anyone think we could just "get it changed later"?
You don't think Quinn would veto any attempt to ease the requirements? Then we are right back into the position of needing 71 votes to override the veto.
Let's just stand firm and get a bill that is far from perfect, but at least isn't totally crazy.

[Jeffrey]

ilphil, on 25 May 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

Jeffrey, on 25 May 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

Xwing, on 25 May 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

Todd, Thanks for the update.
I am also curious about the 24 hour training requirement. I agree it's a bad deal. But I assume this was an "anti" rep who suggested it. Did he/she promise to change to a "yes" vote for that?  Were there several reps who would change to a "yes" vote?

I'm wondering the same.  I know a 24 hour training is not what any of us have in mind.  It could be a foot in the door if it gives us the votes.  We have to start somewhere right?

If we are desperate enough to cave in on something as ludicrous as 24 hr training requirement what makes anyone think we could just "get it changed later"?
You don't think Quinn would veto any attempt to ease the requirements? Then we are right back into the position of needing 71 votes to override the veto.
Let's just stand firm and get a bill that is far from perfect, but at least isn't totally crazy.

I understood that changes later do not require the super majority that Madigan created for us.

[abolt243]

They would not to get past the House or the Senate, but IlPhil is speaking of overriding a Governor's Veto after passage in both chambers.  it would be nice to think that we might have a Governor from the other side of the aisle by then, but let's keep on the target at hand for now.

AB

[stm]

Twenty-four hours? Firearms training for armed security in Illinois is only twenty hours.

[mstrat]

ilphil, on 25 May 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

If we are desperate enough to cave in on something as ludicrous as 24 hr training requirement what makes anyone think we could just "get it changed later"?

Even if you changed from the ludicrous 24 hours to a merely-insane 16 hours... can you imagine the headlines in the trib and scumtimes?

"Gun radicals trying to let the untrained carry guns"

[chicago]

Tvandermyde, on 24 May 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

Someone at state police is taking this very personal.

What do you mean by this exactly?

Are they angry because we made them look like a bunch of morons by mocking thier own web page on women defending themselves with hair brushes and vomiting?  That web page is now non-existent.  Have they conceded to us on the rediculousness of their advice on self defense or something??? Do they care to comment on the quiet removal of thier "when confronted" web page? Are they going to revise thier position on what Illinois women should do when confronted or are they going to be cowards?...

Maybe they ought not to be condescending to us and start supporting Illinois' citizen's RTC before WE start taking it personal.

[Buzzard]

Tvandermyde, on 25 May 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

There is still time to move a carry bill. We only need about 6 hours to do it.

Please excuse my poor typing on an ipad. This virtual keyboard does not do me well no matter how hard I try.

Drylock you're right they played the gun ban card, we just publicised it.

We will see if they accept the suggestions to 1034. No one can we didnt try. But my respect for at least one representative is diminished

abolt243, on 25 May 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

Gents, let's put this in perspective.  California, the most rabid anti gun state with a carry license only requires 16 hours of instruction.  And you're suggesting that we go along with 24 hours??  Three whole days of classroom instruction?  What in the world would you teach for three days??

This is an act of desperation on the part of the antis.  They see it coming, it's inevitable.  They're just looking for something to hang on the wall and say, "yeah, carry passed, but by God we got that out of them first!"

Let Todd do his work.  He's negotiating all the time.  I have high expectations for the next 7 days.

AB

Now then - All of you Naysayers that keep bleating that "Carry won't happen this session" and "If we had a chance - it would've been voted on by now" and "What are we waiting for? VOTE on it, already!" ....yeah all of you......

...I don't wanna hear another PEEP out of you for at least a week!! I'd ask for even more time, but I'm a realist and you just can't shut up that long.

And for all you guys that are jumping on the twenty four hour training bandwagon . . . just what are the poor folks in the 'hood gonna do?? As Bud said . . .

Bud, on 25 May 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

24 hour training is ridiculous.

It's a requirement designed to make the antis feel good.

I am a State certified pistol instructor. Any idea what I would charge for 24 hours of training? Per student?

I guarantee that would put a concealed carry permit well out of the reach of most residents

And what the h*** would I use for a 24 hour curriculum? Shooting from a barricade? multiple assailant drills? shooting from a car?

The mind boggles when you consider how completely out of touch Illinois politicians are with reality.

The Antis are just trying to eliminate as many applicants as possible! That's all they're doing, And by saying you'd accept their permit requirement - you guys are playing right into the antis hands!

I agree with Abolt, let Todd do his work. (And this is just me saying this) .....you guys trying to renegotiate the deal and rewrite the bill - please stop tipping the canoe - you're not helping things one little bit!

[chicago]

I don't want to be one of those guys but it appears that even Rep Phelps may be doughting whether or not HB0148 will even be called on this session now:

http://www.dailyregi...rambling?zc_p=0