Proposal for Illinois and Federal gun control politicians to volunteer for gun-use waivers like California and Washington are proposing for citizens.

[ChicagoRonin70]

I got an article from the NRA-ILA today discussing "voluntary waiver" bills that will allow individuals to put themselves on a list to prevent themselves from obtaining, owning, or using firearms. It discusses bills in California and Washington State that will allow someone to voluntarily put themselves on a list that prevents them from being sold a firearm, with various strictures and conditions to get themselves off of said list. For some people, that might actually not be a bad idea. Of course, the obvious ones would be those individuals who might be inclined due to psychological reasons to be more at risk for suicide or harming others; that would be a viable reason to have a list like this that someone could choose to put themselves on, by way of taking responsibility for their behavior and being preemptive.

The other big reason for voluntarily waiving your right to obtain a firearm would, I think, be a demonstration of an individual's principles, specifically if they are anti-firearm advocates or supporters. I really think that it would be something that such folk should strongly consider, especially since many such individuals have issues with projection of their own tendencies and impulse control problems on others. In such cases, it would allow such people the comfort and peace of mind that at the very least THEY wouldn't ever be a threat with a firearm to someone if for whatever reason they lost their cool. It's "common sense" after all, right?

What is more important, is something that I've posted previously, that that politicians who advocate for gun control measures should also be held to their principles and swear off the use of firearms, either by themselves or taxpayer funded security. I called it the Illinois State Public Servant Anti-Gun Violence Solidarity Program, and I will repost the text of the measure at the end of this topic post.

I really think that it would be a fantastic endeavor to have a concerted effort by as many people as possible to send this to their elected representatives, Republican, Democrat, third party, independent, what have you, and advocate as strongly as possible that such a measure be adopted for the state of Illinois. Actually, I think that it should also be adapted as a Federal proposed legislation and apply to Federal government representatives and officers, as well.

I am quite serious about this, and I will gladly work with drafting final versions for to send to both state and Federal representatives. As well, I would eagerly write up press releases and such to send out to various media outlets, along with lists of the elected representatives that are being sent the proposed legislation and asked to sponsor it. Especially highlighted will be legislators who advocate for gun control measures, and both we and the media can be able to publicize their support of this measure by leading by example, swearing off the use of firearms as a demonstration of their principles and commitment to ending the cycle of gun violence, which necessarily begins with the people who advocate gun control. I mean, doesn't common sense and reason dictate that?

We have seen how effective our collective efforts can be with getting our elected representatives to pass legislation like the concealed carry act, so why not this? I can't imagine that if something like this proposal comes up as an actual bill that we couldn't also muster thousands of witness slips and even written testimony advocating for it and praising our elected representatives for being so committed to the principles behind preventing gun violence.

So, let's do this! I think it would be a very eye-opening experience where all sides of the argument have no choice but to agree that our politicians should lead by example on this very important subject.

Proposed: A bill to submit to Illinois state legislators for encouraging consistency and accountability in politicians' public policy and personal conduct regarding anti-gun violence legislation. I am going to title the bill as written in the heading of this post.

What the bill will do is codify behaviors of all levels of politicians and public servants in Illinois as those relate to their support of anti-gun violence policy and legislation. For instance, anyone holding public office of any kind who introduces, sponsors, votes for, or publicly endorses any sort of legislation, ordinance, or policy (official or unofficial) will be required to willingly abide by the following conditions:

1. Be ineligible for the use of personal armed security paid for by taxpayer funds.

2. Be ineligible to personally participate in the state's FOID or FCCL programs.

3. Be required to post gun-free zone signage at their legislative offices.

4. Be required to post gun-free zone signage at any personal place of business.

5. Be required to post gun-free zone signage on any personal property they own as exclusive or as primary owner.

6. Be enjoined from privately employing armed security at any place of business or personal property that they have any interest or ownership, no matter how small.

7. Be required to register on a publicly available database as a supporter and participant in the to-be-created Illinois State Public Servant Anti-Gun Violence Solidarity Program, to set an example for constituents with regard to their public commitment to anti-gun violence.

8. Be required to inform the public on any official office-holder websites or electronic media of their participation in the above-mentioned anti-gun violence public policy notification program.

They would be acting in a manner consistent with their public position on the subject of gun ownership and anti-gun violence advocacy, so their public support would be taken as a willing choice to be unable to participate in a program that they are on record as expressing a need for.

This wouldn't be an infringement of the targeted civil servant/politician's rights, but rather since these individuals are of the persuasion that the free access and use of firearms are not a benefit to society or those who want to own/use them, it is legislation to ensure that they are consistent in their public policy with their behaviors and to allow them to make sure that they demonstrate solidarity that is consistent with what their legislative and policy decisions support for their constituents. Those who support anti-gun violence legislation should be helped to uphold those principles so that they provide shining examples of those principles to those they are publicly serving.

Who I expect on the pro-firearm ownership side to support this are legislators and public servants who value and support integrity among their peers. I expect anti-gun violence advocating legislators and public servants to support this to not only reduce the use and ownership of firearms on their own behalf, but to also lead by that example and in doing so prove that a reduction of the presence of firearms is of benefit to them and their constituents.

Essentially, it's an "opt out" initiative that legislators and public servants "qualify" for by their actions and public policies. The precedent that it sets is that they aren't being required to do anything other than what their public policy positions declare that they believe to be the right thing to do, and which they believe will create the most benefit.

What might also be included in the text of the bill is a mechanism by which they can request a reinstatement of being able to benefit from the possession, carry, and application of firearms, similar to how someone can use the mental health appeal to be once again allowed to get a FOID and such.

So, maybe the next point should be:

9. Individuals who qualify for the Illinois State Public Servant Anti-Gun Violence Solidarity Program can petition for removal from the program and opt in for the benefits of firearm ownership, carry, usage by paying the standard fee for the applicable FOID and/or CCL licenses from the State of Illinois, paying a reinstatement fee of $200 to cover administrative costs for removal from the Illinois State Public Servant Anti-Gun Violence Solidarity Program database and associated records, and completing a firearm familiarization and safety course of 16 hours costing $150. Alternately, upon leaving publicly held office, individuals who have qualified for the Illinois State Public Servant Anti-Gun Violence Solidarity Program will automatically be removed from the database with a requisite $200 fee being withheld from their final taxpayer-provided paycheck to cover the above-described administrative costs.

I think that's fair and equitable, given that their public policy decisions should only qualify them for this program while they are serving in a public capacity.

[mauserme]

The California bill has to be laying ground work for something bigger. What they've outlined so far is too crazy to stand on it's own.

[ChicagoRonin70]

The California bill has to be laying ground work for something bigger. What they've outlined so far is too crazy to stand on it's own.

 

Oh, I completely agree.

 

That's one of the reasons I really would like to have something like what I propose sent out en mass to as many legislators as possible, and to as many media outlets as possible, and have as many people contact their reps repeatedly, by phone and written means, as well as in public forums. With something like this, it should shift the focus where it belongs, i.e., on the people proposing gun control legislation.

[Redlin]

"The California bill, AB 1927, introduced by Assembly Member Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, directs the states Department of Justice to develop and launch a secure Internet-based platform to allow a person who resides in California to voluntarily add his or her own name to the California Do Not Sell List."

 

So someone hacks the system,adds every resident of California's name to the list,then the state drags its feet and spends the next 20 yrs. figuring out who is or isn't supposed to be on the list.Fantastic

[mic6010]

Yeah "voluntary" .....Sure... Until of course voluntarily signing those waivers becomes a stipulation on all kinds of things far beyond mental health and people will get railroaded into it. Because you know that's where its gonna head. Oh yeah, you don't HAVE to sign the wavier, but if you don't the punishment for X,Y and Z will be far worse.

 

Why the heck people would live in those states is beyond me. This one is like just a few anti gun laws away from being almost intolerable. I couldn't imagine living in an even more leftist pit of despair.

[ChicagoRonin70]

The much more important part of this post is the proposal that I outlined and the efforts to get it put out to as many legislators and media outlets as possible.

 

The California and Washington bills are just tangential examples of how if this sort of voluntary waiving of citizens' rights to obtain/keep/bear arms is allowable, then we should make sure that our elected representatives who advocate for such things are holding to the principle behind that and voluntarily renouncing their rights in a similar manner.

 

This is what needs to be focused on, and pursued, rather than those bills, which don't really affect us in Illinois to any great extent, whereas this proposal would certainly be VERY meaningful to the state, our politicians, and those affected by gun violence.

[Just some guy]

"The California bill, AB 1927, introduced by Assembly Member Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, directs the states Department of Justice to develop and launch a secure Internet-based platform to allow a person who resides in California to voluntarily add his or her own name to the California Do Not Sell List."

 

So someone hacks the system,adds every resident of California's name to the list,then the state drags its feet and spends the next 20 yrs. figuring out who is or isn't supposed to be on the list.Fantastic

It would be interesting to see how they would ensure the person adding their name is in fact that person. Not let's say a vengeful spouse or someone else that has a substantial amount of personal information. Fingerprints?

[ChicagoRonin70]

So, it appears that I have to delete some of the information regarding the California and Washington laws in order to get the appropriate focus on using voluntary waivers of firearm rights by Illinois and other politicians, which is something that certainly affects we here in Illinois vastly more than the proposed California and Washington. This isn't a post meant to draw attention to what is going on in those states, but rather to actually try to use that sort of proposed action to the benefit of those in Illinois, and possibly with Federal measures as well.

[biggun 1]

shows how stupid those snowflakes are,i don,t want to buy a firearm so put me on a list so i can,t buy one.one of the dumbest things yet.

[ChicagoRonin70]

shows how stupid those snowflakes are,i don,t want to buy a firearm so put me on a list so i can,t buy one.one of the dumbest things yet.

 

Or, it could mean that they have the strength of their convictions to put their money where their mouth is. That's the thrust of my posting, and what I want to legitimately see about getting some organization and collective push behind, so that we can have our politicians, here in Illinois and in D.C., stand up for what they believe in and give us citizens a good example. If only one person does it, they can be ignored. But, as we've seen, if many of us do it, it's a lot harder to brush us aside, especially if many sources in the media are contacted and given the information I've listed above.

 

So, if I put up my time and effort to write up a copy of the proposal, as well as form letters to send to our legislators, would you be on board to contacting your reps to get them to sponsor what I propose?

[cybermgk]

_{Interesting. One can't voluntarily waive a right, if it is not, In fact a right to begin with. So Ca's new law attempt is implicitly stating it is every Californians right to bear arms.}

[BobPistol]

The public servant anti-gun law will never pass.

LWW's/antis will never give up their "rights" - they just want to take them away from others

[mauserme]

 

shows how stupid those snowflakes are,i don,t want to buy a firearm so put me on a list so i can,t buy one.one of the dumbest things yet.

Or, it could mean that they have the strength of their convictions to put their money where their mouth is. That's the thrust of my posting, and what I want to legitimately see about getting some organization and collective push behind, so that we can have our politicians, here in Illinois and in D.C., stand up for what they believe in and give us citizens a good example. If only one person does it, they can be ignored. But, as we've seen, if many of us do it, it's a lot harder to brush us aside, especially if many sources in the media are contacted and given the information I've listed above.

 

So, if I put up my time and effort to write up a copy of the proposal, as well as form letters to send to our legislators, would you be on board to contacting your reps to get them to sponsor what I propose?

 

I have a few thoughts I'd like to share.

 

The Illinois Spring Session is going to be challenging. We're in a transitional period that will embolden some of our opponents. They are going to test us - look for our weaknesses. Our focus will be on working against dealer licensing of course, and maybe lost and stolen requirements as well as our own twists on mental health.

 

Things like the California bill are shared from state to state among the various antigun groups, just as dealer licensing has been. We can't sit back and think what happens in California stays in California. We have to pay attention to them and a few other states to see what may come our way.

 

Bills like the one you're suggesting won't work. I think it would be difficult to find an Illinois legislator to carry this bill and more difficult to move it anywhere. Even if it did pass it would simply point out the anti's hypocrisy to people who already see that in them. And it would plant the idea to run a California style bill instead.

 

You put this in National Politics which is why, I think, people's focus is outside of Illinois.

[JTHunter]

How long do you think it will be after such a list is formed that somebody hacks into it to use as a "shopping list" of people who have willingly made themselves into potential theft victims?

[kevinmcc]

I am do with them being barred from security.

 

Nancy Pelosi really irritates me with that point, staunch anti-gun but has armed security...

[soundguy]

shows how stupid those snowflakes are,i don,t want to buy a firearm so put me on a list so i can,t buy one.one of the dumbest things yet.

 

It's like taking a chastity pledge in lieu of sex education.

Sign 'em up!

[Hap]

If CA enacts such a law, you can bet that every plea deal will include "volunteering" for the no-guns list.

[Jeffrey]

Could this start as a voluntary sign up that would morph into a "sign up your neighbor for him" backdoor move?

[THE KING]

I can see this going sideways. If you think like an anti-gun nut they probably have ideas laying in wait to screw us over somehow.

 

Let's see, no ID to vote so no ID to put you on this list. It will be like the no fly list. Your name gets put on and then you have to figure out how to get off it.

 

No, they wouldn't do that would they?

[albike]

They should also have a list for Druggies - So they can't buy drugs. Alcoholics list so they can't by Alcohol. With a few more lists, we can solve all the worlds problems.

[cybermgk]

If CA enacts such a law, you can bet that every plea deal will include "volunteering" for the no-guns list.

THIS I see as a likely motive for it. Though I think a LOT of 'crimes' will be offered a lesser penalty if the person 'volunteers'.

 

 

OR

 

They want to use it as a propaganda machine, or misused stats. "See, X number of people (in y area) opted out of ever having a gun, ergo, we need to enact more gun control:"

[cybermgk]

Could this start as a voluntary sign up that would morph into a "sign up your neighbor for him" backdoor move?

That would be patently unconstitutional. But, accidently having your name added...............................

[BigJim]

It will be like the no fly list. Your name gets put on and then you have to figure out how to get off it.

I read to get off the CA list you have to have a shrink sign an affidavit stating that you are not now or in the future a threat to yourself or others. Try and find a shrink that will sign off on that. Once you are on the list you will remain on the list.

[ChicagoRonin70]

 

 

shows how stupid those snowflakes are,i don,t want to buy a firearm so put me on a list so i can,t buy one.one of the dumbest things yet.

Or, it could mean that they have the strength of their convictions to put their money where their mouth is. That's the thrust of my posting, and what I want to legitimately see about getting some organization and collective push behind, so that we can have our politicians, here in Illinois and in D.C., stand up for what they believe in and give us citizens a good example. If only one person does it, they can be ignored. But, as we've seen, if many of us do it, it's a lot harder to brush us aside, especially if many sources in the media are contacted and given the information I've listed above.

 

So, if I put up my time and effort to write up a copy of the proposal, as well as form letters to send to our legislators, would you be on board to contacting your reps to get them to sponsor what I propose?

 

I have a few thoughts I'd like to share.

 

The Illinois Spring Session is going to be challenging. We're in a transitional period that will embolden some of our opponents. They are going to test us - look for our weaknesses. Our focus will be on working against dealer licensing of course, and maybe lost and stolen requirements as well as our own twists on mental health.

 

Things like the California bill are shared from state to state among the various antigun groups, just as dealer licensing has been. We can't sit back and think what happens in California stays in California. We have to pay attention to them and a few other states to see what may come our way.

 

Bills like the one you're suggesting won't work. I think it would be difficult to find an Illinois legislator to carry this bill and more difficult to move it anywhere. Even if it did pass it would simply point out the anti's hypocrisy to people who already see that in them. And it would plant the idea to run a California style bill instead.

 

You put this in National Politics which is why, I think, people's focus is outside of Illinois.

 

 

I am going to change the title back to the new one that I had put up, because I am not only advocating for Illinois politics to be addressed, but also Federal politics. I put it in the National Politics section because I am referring to both the California and Washington legislation, and proposing how such legislation can both affect Illinois and national firearm policies.

 

This post really isn't delving into the California-style policy, and the whole point is to make sure that our politicians, both local and Federal, are representing us with their commitment to their principles.

 

As for this sort of legislation not working, if enough individual and collective voices are applied to it, and especially if it is tied to any attempts to pass voluntary waivers of rights legislation for citizens, not to mention publicized as widely as possible—especially if politicians aren't willing to embrace a measure like this for themselves but are willing to try to pass legislation for citizens to waive their firearm ownership rights—this certainly will shed a very bright and revealing spotlight on the true nature of such legislation and the motivations of those who propose it.

 

But, as they say, if the people won't act on it, and use the power of their voices, then it's going to fall on deaf ears and legislation like the California/Washington ones will be the only things that actually get passed.

 

It's time to put the shoe on the other foot, wouldn't you say?

[ChicagoRonin70]

The public servant anti-gun law will never pass.

 

LWW's/antis will never give up their "rights" - they just want to take them away from others

 

Well, then if enough of us voters and citizens call attention to it, and link ANY attempt to pass voluntary gun-possession rights waivers for citizens to this sort of measure, and hue and cry as vociferously as possible to bring notice to the lack of the politicians' support of their own principles when it applies to them, then it will force the subject to be addressed.

[ChicagoRonin70]

I am do with them being barred from security.

 

Nancy Pelosi really irritates me with that point, staunch anti-gun but has armed security...

 

See, this is what I'm talking about! It's time to make sure that our politicians are holding to their principles and are willing to take actions like the one I am proposing to show their solidarity with citizens who are threatened by gun violence!

 

Thus the name of the proposed measure:

 

The Public Servant Anti-Gun Violence Solidarity Program

 

Again, I'm using Illinois as the initial focal point for this, but this should absolutely be proposed and pursued to all possible ends at the Federal government level, as well. I fervently believe that politicians like Pelosi should be given the chance to embrace the core of their convictions and show that they will lead us from the front against gun violence.

[ChicagoRonin70]

Come on, people, I've actually gone and written a detailed blueprint here for this proposed measure, even if it is a preliminary draft. It's certainly at least as comprehensive as a lot of the weakly crafted bills and proposals that are actually put forth by elected officials.

 

What I'm asking for here is both input on how to expand and crystallize this as something that can actually be submitted to as many legislators as possible, with MANY voices and signatures behind it demanding that as many legislators as possible put this forward and sponsor it. I'm volunteering to do the writing work with regard to drafting up the final versions that get sent out, as well as accompanying letters and correspondence that can go to politicians and to media outlets.

 

That is the way measures get attention and get traction and weight behind them. After all, it's how concealed carry got proposed and passed here, isn't it? And where better to push something like this than the very group that was instrumental in having that done?

 

Instead of complaining about California or Washington doing this sort of thing, it's about time we took the initiative and put the focus where it belongs: On the politicians who are proposing such measures for citizens. They are citizens, too, and we should make sure that they are, again, leading by prominent example.

[TRJ]

I think it was Operation Veritas that shot hidden video footage of sending undercover "anti-gunners" with signs into field offices for government officials. The goal was to get the govt officials to post signs on their homes and offices that declared them to be gun free. No takers. It turns out that everybody they talked to was anti-gun, but also unwilling to hang what amounted to a rob me welcome mat in front of their home. That's the problem with this. They won't pledge themselves. So many of them we call anti-gun are actually pro-gun so long as the guns are in their (govt) hands only. Gun control is just another scheme to control people in the end.

[ChicagoRonin70]

I think it was Operation Veritas that shot hidden video footage of sending undercover "anti-gunners" with signs into field offices for government officials. The goal was to get the govt officials to post signs on their homes and offices that declared them to be gun free. No takers. It turns out that everybody they talked to was anti-gun, but also unwilling to hang what amounted to a rob me welcome mat in front of their home. That's the problem with this. They won't pledge themselves. So many of them we call anti-gun are actually pro-gun so long as the guns are in their (govt) hands only. Gun control is just another scheme to control people in the end.

 

The Project Veritas thing was not actually legislation that a LARGE contingent of voters would be contacting their elected officials regarding, nor putting out numerous media announcements. That illustrates my point here precisely:

 

If it's just one person doing it, and doing so in an unofficial fashion, they can be ignored by the elected representatives. However, if it is done as a significant block of voting constituents, to as many legislators on as many levels of government as possible, and if the media's attention is brought to the matter repeatedly and loudly by repeated contacts and communications, then it can't be ignored.

 

Again, it is what worked for concealed carry legislation, and so we should take a tried and true course of action and apply it to this.

[mauserme]

I am going to change the title back to the new one that I had put up, because I am not only advocating for Illinois politics to be addressed, but also Federal politics. I put it in the National Politics section because I am referring to both the California and Washington legislation, and proposing how such legislation can both affect Illinois and national firearm policies.

 

This post really isn't delving into the California-style policy, and the whole point is to make sure that our politicians, both local and Federal, are representing us with their commitment to their principles.

 

As for this sort of legislation not working, if enough individual and collective voices are applied to it, and especially if it is tied to any attempts to pass voluntary waivers of rights legislation for citizens, not to mention publicized as widely as possible—especially if politicians aren't willing to embrace a measure like this for themselves but are willing to try to pass legislation for citizens to waive their firearm ownership rights—this certainly will shed a very bright and revealing spotlight on the true nature of such legislation and the motivations of those who propose it.

 

But, as they say, if the people won't act on it, and use the power of their voices, then it's going to fall on deaf ears and legislation like the California/Washington ones will be the only things that actually get passed.

 

It's time to put the shoe on the other foot, wouldn't you say?

I've sent you a PM.