armored223 Posted August 1, 2013 at 02:18 AM Posted August 1, 2013 at 02:18 AM Just had this sent to me by a friend, is this new and is this on our radar? Smells alot like a crook county style trap. HB3647? It is bill that will crack down on anyone who possesses bomb making materials, i.e.; explosive materials (something like gun powder) and pipe material (so anyone that reloads ammo and has any pipe for plumbing). The bill is so generic as written that just having the combination of the two will make a person a terrorist bomber subject to arrest and prosecution. There was an article on this in the (Bloomington) Pantagraph on Wednesday, July 31st (page A7).
Burtonrider10022 Posted August 1, 2013 at 02:20 AM Posted August 1, 2013 at 02:20 AM A little "constrictive intent" clause never hurt anyone. /purple
Patriots & Tyrants Posted August 1, 2013 at 02:31 AM Posted August 1, 2013 at 02:31 AM Sounds like you better not be a pipefitter or plumber who also likes exploding targets.....or a reloader who is a Pipefitter or plumber...or someone who owns pipe and reloads....jeeze
abolt243 Posted August 1, 2013 at 02:38 AM Posted August 1, 2013 at 02:38 AM Yes, the sponsor, who is my rep, called as he was about to file this bill. The intent is to control the materials that were used by the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. He's well aware of the impact that too broad restrictions would have on shooters, reloaders, black powder shooters et. al. As the bill becomes refined, the intent will be clear. Stand down for now, they're not in session anyway. Tim
mauserme Posted August 1, 2013 at 03:02 AM Posted August 1, 2013 at 03:02 AM Just had this sent to me by a friend, is this new and is this on our radar? ... We have a list of Veto Session bills you can check if you're ever wondering what's on our list.
Googe1227 Posted August 1, 2013 at 03:06 AM Posted August 1, 2013 at 03:06 AM I've heard from several sources that I trust inside the CC Forest Preserve District that Dart has personally approached them and is seeking their backing to quietly try to push a bill banning concealed carry on their property. Which by the way is the property of all cook county tax payers. Has anybody else heard anything?
defaultdotxbe Posted August 1, 2013 at 03:09 AM Posted August 1, 2013 at 03:09 AM I've heard from several sources that I trust inside the CC Forest Preserve District that Dart has personally approached them and is seeking their backing to quietly try to push a bill banning concealed carry on their property. Which by the way is the property of all cook county tax payers. Has anybody else heard anything?Concealed carry is already banned on Cook County Forest Preserve land
Googe1227 Posted August 1, 2013 at 03:19 AM Posted August 1, 2013 at 03:19 AM I've heard from several sources that I trust inside the CC Forest Preserve District that Dart has personally approached them and is seeking their backing to quietly try to push a bill banning concealed carry on their property. Which by the way is the property of all cook county tax payers. Has anybody else heard anything?Concealed carry is already banned on Cook County Forest Preserve landMy bad. I thought they had excluded trails within the Forest Preserve but that was actually for municipal parks.
DjachDjach Posted August 1, 2013 at 11:52 AM Posted August 1, 2013 at 11:52 AM · Hidden by mauserme, August 1, 2013 at 04:50 PM - No reason given Hidden by mauserme, August 1, 2013 at 04:50 PM - No reason given I've heard from several sources that I trust inside the CC Forest Preserve District that Dart has personally approached them and is seeking their backing to quietly try to push a bill banning concealed carry on their property. Which by the way is the property of all cook county tax payers. Has anybody else heard anything?Concealed carry is already banned on Cook County Forest Preserve land Yeah, ban people from their right to protect themselves while in the forest preserves, but let the backforward parking weirdos run rampant! Tis' the Cook County way...!
Buzzard Posted August 1, 2013 at 12:19 PM Posted August 1, 2013 at 12:19 PM · Hidden by mauserme, August 1, 2013 at 04:50 PM - No reason given Hidden by mauserme, August 1, 2013 at 04:50 PM - No reason given What's "backforward parking" ?? Too many back-ups and pull-up during parallel parking?
wendallman Posted August 1, 2013 at 01:24 PM Posted August 1, 2013 at 01:24 PM · Hidden by mauserme, August 1, 2013 at 04:50 PM - No reason given Hidden by mauserme, August 1, 2013 at 04:50 PM - No reason given What's "backforward parking" ?? Too many back-ups and pull-up during parallel parking? Close.
coyotedustr Posted August 1, 2013 at 01:32 PM Posted August 1, 2013 at 01:32 PM · Hidden by mauserme, August 1, 2013 at 04:50 PM - No reason given Hidden by mauserme, August 1, 2013 at 04:50 PM - No reason given The cook county forest preserve is full of a group of male individuals looking to make connections if you will. The problem is rampant. The cook county forest preserve police will even admit it to you if you ask them. Their signal to each other is to park with the front of their car facing outword. I mountain bike it in the woods and have started taking trails that avoid the parking lots all together as they give you some of the creepiest looks you have ever seen as you ride past them. One of the main reasons I would want to carry in the cook county forest preserves. They are clearly not as safe as Dart would have you believe...
Murf Posted August 1, 2013 at 02:49 PM Posted August 1, 2013 at 02:49 PM I know there are some folks concerned that HB3647 will ban exploding targets/tannerite as well.
RockerXX Posted August 1, 2013 at 02:58 PM Posted August 1, 2013 at 02:58 PM The intent is to control the materials that were used by the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. He's well aware of the impact that too broad restrictions would have on shooters, reloaders, black powder shooters et. al. As the bill becomes refined, the intent will be clear. Regardless of intent the law will have very little to no impact on those bent on doing wrong, and I highly suspect no matter how well intended or written it will be abused to railroad people by our legal system... It's simply another 'feel good' law to appeal to those that actually think it will do something...
really?_ILivehere Posted August 1, 2013 at 03:19 PM Posted August 1, 2013 at 03:19 PM · Hidden by mauserme, August 1, 2013 at 04:50 PM - No reason given Hidden by mauserme, August 1, 2013 at 04:50 PM - No reason given The cook county forest preserve is full of a group of male individuals looking to make connections if you will. The problem is rampant. The cook county forest preserve police will even admit it to you if you ask them. Their signal to each other is to park with the front of their car facing outword. It happens in every forest preserve I've ever visited no matter what county, we've made fun of the behavior for as long as I can remember. It's truly odd to see all these dudes parked backwards in the parking spaces while sitting in their cars, very creepy. I've however had the thought to try it myself. NO! I don't swing that way, but often wondered what would happen. I'm interested in "the signal" and how it's executed because I think there's more than just parking backwards in a parking space as I frequently fly R/C at places like Palos. When I unload my gear, I park backwards out of convenience but have never been approached for doing so.
AlphaKoncepts aka CGS Posted August 1, 2013 at 04:35 PM Posted August 1, 2013 at 04:35 PM · Hidden by mauserme, August 1, 2013 at 04:50 PM - No reason given Hidden by mauserme, August 1, 2013 at 04:50 PM - No reason given The cook county forest preserve is full of a group of male individuals looking to make connections if you will. The problem is rampant. The cook county forest preserve police will even admit it to you if you ask them. Their signal to each other is to park with the front of their car facing outword. I mountain bike it in the woods and have started taking trails that avoid the parking lots all together as they give you some of the creepiest looks you have ever seen as you ride past them. One of the main reasons I would want to carry in the cook county forest preserves. They are clearly not as safe as Dart would have you believe...I heard this way back when I was a teenager, and if you ever go to a forest preserve literally there are sometimes just guys sitting there. In my travels I will somteimes need to kill time between appointments and in the summer the forest preserves are fairly cool places to sit in the shade. I park sideways taking up 3 or 4 spots. Call it homophobia but I don't want anyone approaching me.
AlphaKoncepts aka CGS Posted August 1, 2013 at 04:36 PM Posted August 1, 2013 at 04:36 PM The intent is to control the materials that were used by the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. He's well aware of the impact that too broad restrictions would have on shooters, reloaders, black powder shooters et. al. As the bill becomes refined, the intent will be clear. Regardless of intent the law will have very little to no impact on those bent on doing wrong, and I highly suspect no matter how well intended or written it will be abused to railroad people by our legal system... It's simply another 'feel good' law to appeal to those that actually think it will do something... This. It is a law that will not work and thus is not a needed law. Making pipe bombs is already illegal, and people still do it. So why ban the ingredients? I am against it wholly.
jlowrie Posted August 1, 2013 at 04:44 PM Posted August 1, 2013 at 04:44 PM · Hidden by mauserme, August 1, 2013 at 04:50 PM - No reason given Hidden by mauserme, August 1, 2013 at 04:50 PM - No reason given ...Their signal to each other is to park with the front of their car facing outword... I always back into parking spaces as it makes for a much easier egress if leaving in a hurry. Don't get too many untoward advances in the park district... (not like when i first moved to the Chicago area and rented an apartment in boystown) but then again I'm not usually just sitting in the car either.
jlowrie Posted August 1, 2013 at 04:47 PM Posted August 1, 2013 at 04:47 PM · Hidden by mauserme, August 1, 2013 at 04:50 PM - No reason given Hidden by mauserme, August 1, 2013 at 04:50 PM - No reason given I park sideways taking up 3 or 4 spots. Call it homophobia but I don't want anyone approaching me. So you are the one blocking all the good parking spots when I take the kids out fishing.
mauserme Posted August 1, 2013 at 04:51 PM Posted August 1, 2013 at 04:51 PM In spite of a clever play on the word "backward" I've removed off topic posts.
RockerXX Posted August 1, 2013 at 05:28 PM Posted August 1, 2013 at 05:28 PM So why ban the ingredients? I am against it wholly. As am I, fully against it as I can easily see a law like this being abused beyond belief while it serves no legit purpose... I have experienced first hand and been charged for having ordinary items that the police said were for illegal purposes because they wanted to fabricate evidence that fit their agenda and story... When they say the law is about preventing people from say making PETN, just outlaw the final product and leave it at that... Because the truth is most people here have 4 or 5 out of the 6 things needed to synthesize PETN... And it only takes a basic understanding of organic chemistry to fill in the rest of the blanks and even synthesize the last item needed from more common household stuff... Yeah, they would have to likely prove 'intent' to get a conviction but accusations, charges, legal cost, and time served are costly enough even without a conviction... Been there and done that and it was one of the worst and most costly years of my life...
SiliconSorcerer Posted August 1, 2013 at 07:37 PM Posted August 1, 2013 at 07:37 PM It would be a challenge to walk into anyone's home and not find a combination of something I couldn't make explode.I'm surprised how somethings have gotten more difficult to obtain (LEGIT STUFF) while others clearly more dangerous are now much more readily available (and cheaper) on ebay.
GUNS&LAWYERS Posted August 1, 2013 at 08:02 PM Posted August 1, 2013 at 08:02 PM I know there are some folks concerned that HB3647 will ban exploding targets/tannerite as well. It was my impression that if you lived in one of Illinois' hostile counties, you all ready had to be careful with your tannerite use. The UUW makes the possession of a "container containing an explosive substance of over one-quarter ounce for like purposes" illegal. Thus, once you mixed the binary in an amount over 1/4 ounce, you are only a police or prosecutor's lie away from intending to use it as a bomb. I don't know of any case law which has dealt with tannerite yet, but I could see it happening.
RockerXX Posted August 1, 2013 at 08:22 PM Posted August 1, 2013 at 08:22 PM I know there are some folks concerned that HB3647 will ban exploding targets/tannerite as well. It was my impression that if you lived in one of Illinois' hostile counties, you all ready had to be careful with your tannerite use. The UUW makes the possession of a "container containing an explosive substance of over one-quarter ounce for like purposes" illegal. Thus, once you mixed the binary in an amount over 1/4 ounce, you are only a police or prosecutor's lie away from intending to use it as a bomb. I don't know of any case law which has dealt with tannerite yet, but I could see it happening. Yeah that law is a classic catch all law, as they could charge you with possession of a gas can for your lawn mower, a can of flammable household cleaner like GOOF OFF, or even the vanilla extract bottle in your spice rack... The list could go on for miles and everyone is guilty of a crime under that wording... A perfect example of a useless law that can be abused by LE but stops nor prevents anything...
GUNS&LAWYERS Posted August 1, 2013 at 08:42 PM Posted August 1, 2013 at 08:42 PM Crap...I didn't know that my vanilla was explosive. I better get it out of the house.
RockerXX Posted August 2, 2013 at 12:09 AM Posted August 2, 2013 at 12:09 AM Crap...I didn't know that my vanilla was explosive. I better get it out of the house. FDA requires it to be dissolved in at least 70 Proof alcohol if it's labeled pure vanilla extract, mini molotov cocktail!
Plinkermostly Posted August 4, 2013 at 03:18 PM Posted August 4, 2013 at 03:18 PM No more mentos and diet coke.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.