Jump to content

Illinois House Bill 248 - Exemption for judges' concealed carry in government buildings


thepointbeing

Recommended Posts

I don't see the problem. We want armed teachers in a prohibited place. I want the bailiffs armed. I want the police armed and the resource officers armed. How is a judge privileged if they want to protect the court or themselves. You do understand they sentence bad people who want to do them harm sometimes. I was also for prison guards and judges being armed long before we got CC. I also remember when Todd Vandermyde got a ticket and he pushed a bill to get the law changed and it was changed so what is the problem when you see a problem and correct it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the problem. We want armed teachers in a prohibited place. I want the bailiffs armed. I want the police armed and the resource officers armed. How is a judge privileged if they want to protect the court or themselves. You do understand they sentence bad people who want to do them harm sometimes. I was also for prison guards and judges being armed long before we got CC. I also remember when Todd Vandermyde got a ticket and he pushed a bill to get the law changed and it was changed.

 

Hey everyone, spec5 doesn't see a problem so we can all go home now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that case, I would like "star" witnesses to be allowed to carry as well. Many of these witnesses are at risk of being assassinated for testifying in murder trials, armed robberies, etc...I believe they deserve the same right !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't see the problem. We want armed teachers in a prohibited place. I want the bailiffs armed. I want the police armed and the resource officers armed. How is a judge privileged if they want to protect the court or themselves. You do understand they sentence bad people who want to do them harm sometimes. I was also for prison guards and judges being armed long before we got CC. I also remember when Todd Vandermyde got a ticket and he pushed a bill to get the law changed and it was changed.

Hey everyone, spec5 doesn't see a problem so we can all go home now.

 

Since the carry law was passed for the average citizen we've taken a different stance on this kind of bill than we used to. Instead of viewing this as creating a special class, it's more similar to most of us who can carry at our places of employment without being in violation of law (employer policies notwithstanding).

 

We supported Representative McDermed's bill last session. I assume this is the same language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't see the problem. We want armed teachers in a prohibited place. I want the bailiffs armed. I want the police armed and the resource officers armed. How is a judge privileged if they want to protect the court or themselves. You do understand they sentence bad people who want to do them harm sometimes. I was also for prison guards and judges being armed long before we got CC. I also remember when Todd Vandermyde got a ticket and he pushed a bill to get the law changed and it was changed.

 

Hey everyone, spec5 doesn't see a problem so we can all go home now.

 

 

Let's mind our manners and not be violating the code of conduct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't see the problem. We want armed teachers in a prohibited place. I want the bailiffs armed. I want the police armed and the resource officers armed. How is a judge privileged if they want to protect the court or themselves. You do understand they sentence bad people who want to do them harm sometimes. I was also for prison guards and judges being armed long before we got CC. I also remember when Todd Vandermyde got a ticket and he pushed a bill to get the law changed and it was changed.

 

Hey everyone, spec5 doesn't see a problem so we can all go home now.

 

 

Let's mind our manners and not be violating the code of conduct.

 

 

Valinda,

 

That hardly constitutes violating our code.... He's right too. I know you aren't even THAT strict.

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the problem. We want armed teachers in a prohibited place. I want the bailiffs armed. I want the police armed and the resource officers armed. How is a judge privileged if they want to protect the court or themselves. You do understand they sentence bad people who want to do them harm sometimes. I was also for prison guards and judges being armed long before we got CC. I also remember when Todd Vandermyde got a ticket and he pushed a bill to get the law changed and it was changed.

 

Hey everyone, spec5 doesn't see a problem so we can all go home now.

 

Let's mind our manners and not be violating the code of conduct.

 

Valinda,

 

That hardly constitutes violating our code.... He's right too. I know you aren't even THAT strict.

 

.

 

His post borders on disrespect and antagonism. I suggest you read the COC again.

 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=18164

 

3. Personal attacks and flaming other members is forbidden. This includes disrespect, antagonism, baiting, name-calling and a host of other demeaning attributes. Spirited debate is encouraged and can occur without name-calling or slander. We acknowledge that disagreements are common among groups of diverse people who value individual rights, but ask that interactions remain civil. If you decide to engage in uncivil communication, pursue such matters off the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about . . . a bill for law abiding citizens who have jumped through all of the hoops and 360 daily background checks to get a CCL allowing such fine, upstanding citizens who are 7 times less likely to commit crimes than police officers and 2 1/3 times more likely to hit their targets during a defensive firearm use than police officers, to carry in all areas where they are legally allowed to be?

 

It seems like that would be the most logical and societally beneficial legislation for the "exception" of carrying concealed firearms in places that the general public aren't allowed to—you know, the general public who haven't subjected themselves to the invasion of their privacy and medical records, and who are literally *almost* infinity times more likely (as in, CCL holders can't have committed any) to have committed felonies or other disqualifying crimes.

 

I think that's the least compensation for accepting the numerous rights violations that are required for getting a CCL, not to mention the financial burden required to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the problem. We want armed teachers in a prohibited place. I want the bailiffs armed. I want the police armed and the resource officers armed. How is a judge privileged if they want to protect the court or themselves. You do understand they sentence bad people who want to do them harm sometimes. I was also for prison guards and judges being armed long before we got CC. I also remember when Todd Vandermyde got a ticket and he pushed a bill to get the law changed and it was changed so what is the problem when you see a problem and correct it?

Why should a judge be allowed to carry in a court house and not me? What makes the judge any better or more important than me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Illinois Carry can support legislation like this all they want, but these are the types of bills I file slips against.

 

A judge's life is no more important than my own, but this bill says that it is.

 

Just like the one a year or so ago which wanted to add nurses to the list of people upon whom an attack garnered an enhanced penalty.

 

All it does is says "this person's safety is more important than yours." Police, of course, being the highest of the almighty classes. Although the multiple SCOTUS ruling stating they are under no legal obligation to protect us should put us on equal playing fields as far as where and when we can legally defend ourselves, but we all know that not to be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Illinois Carry can support legislation like this all they want, but these are the types of bills I file slips against.

 

A judge's life is no more important than my own, but this bill says that it is.

 

Just like the one a year or so ago which wanted to add nurses to the list of people upon whom an attack garnered an enhanced penalty.

 

All it does is says "this person's safety is more important than yours." Police, of course, being the highest of the almighty classes. Although the multiple SCOTUS ruling stating they are under no legal obligation to protect us should put us on equal playing fields as far as where and when we can legally defend ourselves, but we all know that not to be the case.

 

Well said...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Illinois Carry can support legislation like this all they want, but these are the types of bills I file slips against. A judge's life is no more important than my own, but this bill says that it is. Just like the one a year or so ago which wanted to add nurses to the list of people upon whom an attack garnered an enhanced penalty. All it does is says "this person's safety is more important than yours." Police, of course, being the highest of the almighty classes. Although the multiple SCOTUS ruling stating they are under no legal obligation to protect us should put us on equal playing fields as far as where and when we can legally defend ourselves, but we all know that not to be the case.

I totally support enhanced penalties for attacks against firemen, policemen, and paramedics. You need them in an emergency, and their lives are on the line. So yeah, don't attack them. That's where I draw the line.

 

ETA -- I do not support added penalty for a "hate crime." If some criminal kills somebody, I don't care whether they hated that particular race, religion, sex, or whatever. The crime is the same, and the victim is dead. Murder is murder. And with regard to what I said above, it wouldn't matter whether they were emergency responders either, because for MURDER I want really really severe penalties, period. Penalties should be severe enough to be a real deterrent to all murders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Illinois Carry can support legislation like this all they want, but these are the types of bills I file slips against. A judge's life is no more important than my own, but this bill says that it is. Just like the one a year or so ago which wanted to add nurses to the list of people upon whom an attack garnered an enhanced penalty. All it does is says "this person's safety is more important than yours." Police, of course, being the highest of the almighty classes. Although the multiple SCOTUS ruling stating they are under no legal obligation to protect us should put us on equal playing fields as far as where and when we can legally defend ourselves, but we all know that not to be the case.

 

 

I totally support enhanced penalties for attacks against firemen, policemen, and paramedics. You need them in an emergency, and their lives are on the line. So yeah, don't attack them. That's where I draw the line.

 

ETA -- I do not support added penalty for a "hate crime." If some criminal kills somebody, I don't care whether they hated that particular race, religion, sex, or whatever. The crime is the same, and the victim is dead. Murder is murder. And with regard to what I said above, it wouldn't matter whether they were emergency responders either, because for MURDER I want really really severe penalties, period. Penalties should be severe enough to be a real deterrent to all murders.

I can **maybe** see an enhanced penalty if they are specifically targeted in an ambush, i.e reporting a crime/fire/medical emergency for the sole purpose of drawing in a specific target...

 

But to otherwise enhance a penalty based strictly on the victim's job title is plainly stating that their lives are worth more than ours.

 

Random people are targeted for ambush all the time (bogus craigslist sales are just one example).

 

What's so wrong with just having a level playing field? A person has the right to self defense the same as any other. A crime against this person is no different than a crime against that person. Any other scenario places a higher value on one's life vs the other, and there's no reasonable way to justify that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Illinois Carry can support legislation like this all they want, but these are the types of bills I file slips against. A judge's life is no more important than my own, but this bill says that it is. Just like the one a year or so ago which wanted to add nurses to the list of people upon whom an attack garnered an enhanced penalty. All it does is says "this person's safety is more important than yours." Police, of course, being the highest of the almighty classes. Although the multiple SCOTUS ruling stating they are under no legal obligation to protect us should put us on equal playing fields as far as where and when we can legally defend ourselves, but we all know that not to be the case.

 

 

I totally support enhanced penalties for attacks against firemen, policemen, and paramedics. You need them in an emergency, and their lives are on the line. So yeah, don't attack them. That's where I draw the line.

 

ETA -- I do not support added penalty for a "hate crime." If some criminal kills somebody, I don't care whether they hated that particular race, religion, sex, or whatever. The crime is the same, and the victim is dead. Murder is murder. And with regard to what I said above, it wouldn't matter whether they were emergency responders either, because for MURDER I want really really severe penalties, period. Penalties should be severe enough to be a real deterrent to all murders.

I can **maybe** see an enhanced penalty if they are specifically targeted in an ambush, i.e reporting a crime/fire/medical emergency for the sole purpose of drawing in a specific target...

 

But to otherwise enhance a penalty based strictly on the victim's job title is plainly stating that their lives are worth more than ours.

 

Random people are targeted for ambush all the time (bogus craigslist sales are just one example).

 

What's so wrong with just having a level playing field? A person has the right to self defense the same as any other. A crime against this person is no different than a crime against that person. Any other scenario places a higher value on one's life vs the other, and there's no reasonable way to justify that.

 

Looks like we're on the same page.

 

Now WHO would support my position that an attempted murder, where the victim is in a coma forever, deserves the same penalty as though the victim had died right away? After all, the criminal did the same exact act, with just a slightly different bullet path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

Illinois Carry can support legislation like this all they want, but these are the types of bills I file slips against. A judge's life is no more important than my own, but this bill says that it is. Just like the one a year or so ago which wanted to add nurses to the list of people upon whom an attack garnered an enhanced penalty. All it does is says "this person's safety is more important than yours." Police, of course, being the highest of the almighty classes. Although the multiple SCOTUS ruling stating they are under no legal obligation to protect us should put us on equal playing fields as far as where and when we can legally defend ourselves, but we all know that not to be the case.

I totally support enhanced penalties for attacks against firemen, policemen, and paramedics. You need them in an emergency, and their lives are on the line. So yeah, don't attack them. That's where I draw the line.

 

ETA -- I do not support added penalty for a "hate crime." If some criminal kills somebody, I don't care whether they hated that particular race, religion, sex, or whatever. The crime is the same, and the victim is dead. Murder is murder. And with regard to what I said above, it wouldn't matter whether they were emergency responders either, because for MURDER I want really really severe penalties, period. Penalties should be severe enough to be a real deterrent to all murders.

 

 

Why is it worse to kill a police officer than a doctor or nurse?

 

What if you kill a man that is supporting his own family, his elderly parents and his brother and his 7 children because the brother was injured by an uninsured motorist and can't work? That should be like super duper murder, right?

 

Why is shooting a police dog the same as shooting a police officer but a police officer shooting a little taco bell dog destruction of property?

 

Why is it legal for police officers in places with AWBs to have those banned weapons? They are illegal in their jurisdiction there should be no need because they are just as safe as the normal citizens that have to wait an average of 7 minutes for them to show up.

 

Let's stop with all the separate classes. You are either a member of the military, a member of the militia (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246) or a felon. Special classes of citizen within those groups should not even be a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Illinois Carry can support legislation like this all they want, but these are the types of bills I file slips against. A judge's life is no more important than my own, but this bill says that it is. Just like the one a year or so ago which wanted to add nurses to the list of people upon whom an attack garnered an enhanced penalty. All it does is says "this person's safety is more important than yours." Police, of course, being the highest of the almighty classes. Although the multiple SCOTUS ruling stating they are under no legal obligation to protect us should put us on equal playing fields as far as where and when we can legally defend ourselves, but we all know that not to be the case.

I totally support enhanced penalties for attacks against firemen, policemen, and paramedics. You need them in an emergency, and their lives are on the line. So yeah, don't attack them. That's where I draw the line.

 

ETA -- I do not support added penalty for a "hate crime." If some criminal kills somebody, I don't care whether they hated that particular race, religion, sex, or whatever. The crime is the same, and the victim is dead. Murder is murder. And with regard to what I said above, it wouldn't matter whether they were emergency responders either, because for MURDER I want really really severe penalties, period. Penalties should be severe enough to be a real deterrent to all murders.

 

 

Why is it worse to kill a police officer than a doctor or nurse?

 

What if you kill a man that is supporting his own family, his elderly parents and his brother and his 7 children because the brother was injured by an uninsured motorist and can't work? That should be like super duper murder, right?

 

Why is shooting a police dog the same as shooting a police officer but a police officer shooting a little taco bell dog destruction of property?

 

Why is it legal for police officers in places with AWBs to have those banned weapons? They are illegal in their jurisdiction there should be no need because they are just as safe as the normal citizens that have to wait an average of 7 minutes for them to show up.

 

Let's stop with all the separate classes. You are either a member of the military, a member of the militia (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246) or a felon. Special classes of citizen within those groups should not even be a thing.

 

Whatever happened to "one state - one law"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can serve as a gateway for the rest of us down the road.

It makes it easier to challenge gun bans under the equal protection clause if numerous special classes of individuals are exempted. Eventually courts will have to rule that everyone is exempt from a gun ban if their are dozens of classes of individuals that are exempted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the gateway theory but I have lived in Chicago for almost my entire life and the Democratic Machine theory has always been designed for the privilege few. Chicago alderman have always been able to CC even b4 the FCCL, any LE who resigned b4 the national and state retired law enforcement act took effect would become conservation police officers and work 1 day a month to still meet the qualifications to carry, and living in a state where every FOID card holder could purchase a handgun except my Chicago city and a few other coattail cities angered me to no end. I'm tired of special privilege exemptions, period...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the problem. We want armed teachers in a prohibited place. I want the bailiffs armed. I want the police armed and the resource officers armed. How is a judge privileged if they want to protect the court or themselves. You do understand they sentence bad people who want to do them harm sometimes. I was also for prison guards and judges being armed long before we got CC. I also remember when Todd Vandermyde got a ticket and he pushed a bill to get the law changed and it was changed so what is the problem when you see a problem and correct it?

The problem is, the law, if changed should be ALL CCL holders should be allowed. Is my life worth any less than a Judges? What if I work as a court reporter, journalist assigned to court duty, etc and thus are there just as much, in just as much 'danger'? Is said jusdge with a CCL any more trained than I? Its the "Different laws for thee, but not for me" attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can serve as a gateway for the rest of us down the road.

I disagree. IMHO it's an additional blockage. It is EXACTLY because they don't want to grant all CCL holders, that they put forth these piecemeal grantings. Once they cover all of their own, there will be no need to allow the rest of us. Come on, you know how they think Molly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...