Jump to content

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


ChicagoRonin70

Recommended Posts

ChicagoRonin70,

 

Your proposal has not gone far enough.

 

1. Do not limit participation to Public Servants - be more inclusive.

2. Require that such an aspirant obtain a FFID (Firearm Free ID) for the usual State fee.

3. The aspirant must be fingerprinted and successfully pass a Federal Background Check to make sure of the purity of the aspirant.

4. 16 hours of training should be required to ensure the FFID holder understands the Constitution, is familiar in the use of 911 along with any associated delay and understands defensive actions such as run, hide and fright.

5. Any person, including a community organizer, may object to the issuance of any FFID to an undesirable individual (secretly uses bodyguards or secretly possesses any sort of firearm, sword, automatic knife, firework, lance, spear, spork, etc.).

6. A rejected aspirant may appeal to a board of volunteers that hold FFIDs and also are drug/alcohol abstainers or are on at least step 10 of the 12 step program in order to recind the refusal.

7. Aspirants accused of verbal/physical transgressions against any other person, whether the same or opposite sex or anything in between are automatically disqualified.

 

These requirements add some teeth (even if false) to your proposal.

 

DOH

 

 

 

States could set their own standards but allow for reciprocity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ChicagoRonin70,

 

Your proposal has not gone far enough.

 

1. Do not limit participation to Public Servants - be more inclusive.

2. Require that such an aspirant obtain a FFID (Firearm Free ID) for the usual State fee.

3. The aspirant must be fingerprinted and successfully pass a Federal Background Check to make sure of the purity of the aspirant.

4. 16 hours of training should be required to ensure the FFID holder understands the Constitution, is familiar in the use of 911 along with any associated delay and understands defensive actions such as run, hide and fright.

5. Any person, including a community organizer, may object to the issuance of any FFID to an undesirable individual (secretly uses bodyguards or secretly possesses any sort of firearm, sword, automatic knife, firework, lance, spear, spork, etc.).

6. A rejected aspirant may appeal to a board of volunteers that hold FFIDs and also are drug/alcohol abstainers or are on at least step 10 of the 12 step program in order to recind the refusal.

7. Aspirants accused of verbal/physical transgressions against any other person, whether the same or opposite sex or anything in between are automatically disqualified.

 

These requirements add some teeth (even if false) to your proposal.

 

DOH

 

 

 

States could set their own standards but allow for reciprocity.

 

Wow, those are some significant teeth!

 

Actually, I did consider some similar things to what you propose when I was originally drafting this up a couple of years ago. However, I don't want it to be blatantly punitive, but rather make it a reasonable, common-sense(!), good-faith demonstration by legislators to show their solidarity with those affected by gun violence and not any sort of punishment.

 

I suppose that after it would get passed, amendments and changes containing the measures that you suggest could be added by our legislators who want to make sure that such rights-waiving politicians are ensured to be compliant with the measure as well as being knowledgeable and safe if they decide that they no longer want to waive their rights to possess and use firearms. It's certainly been done before to address some perceived deficiencies in legislation that had to be stripped down in order to get passed in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

ChicagoRonin70,

 

Your proposal has not gone far enough.

 

1. Do not limit participation to Public Servants - be more inclusive.

2. Require that such an aspirant obtain a FFID (Firearm Free ID) for the usual State fee.

3. The aspirant must be fingerprinted and successfully pass a Federal Background Check to make sure of the purity of the aspirant.

4. 16 hours of training should be required to ensure the FFID holder understands the Constitution, is familiar in the use of 911 along with any associated delay and understands defensive actions such as run, hide and fright.

5. Any person, including a community organizer, may object to the issuance of any FFID to an undesirable individual (secretly uses bodyguards or secretly possesses any sort of firearm, sword, automatic knife, firework, lance, spear, spork, etc.).

6. A rejected aspirant may appeal to a board of volunteers that hold FFIDs and also are drug/alcohol abstainers or are on at least step 10 of the 12 step program in order to recind the refusal.

7. Aspirants accused of verbal/physical transgressions against any other person, whether the same or opposite sex or anything in between are automatically disqualified.

 

These requirements add some teeth (even if false) to your proposal.

 

DOH

 

 

 

States could set their own standards but allow for reciprocity.

 

Wow, those are some significant teeth!

 

Actually, I did consider some similar things to what you propose when I was originally drafting this up a couple of years ago. However, I don't want it to be blatantly punitive, but rather make it a reasonable, common-sense(!), good-faith demonstration by legislators to show their solidarity with those affected by gun violence and not any sort of punishment.

 

I suppose that after it would get passed, amendments and changes containing the measures that you suggest could be added by our legislators who want to make sure that such rights-waiving politicians are ensured to be compliant with the measure as well as being knowledgeable and safe if they decide that they no longer want to waive their rights to possess and use firearms. It's certainly been done before to address some perceived deficiencies in legislation that had to be stripped down in order to get passed in the first place.

 

 

Basically, I plagiarized the IL FOID/CCL requirements as I understand them. Furthermore, on the positive side, any list of FFID holders is not subject to public access or FOIA requests. Also, there is no need to conceal ones adopted Firearm-Free attitude unless you see that as a problem that would require additional rules. Cook County and Chicago cannot relax any of the rules in the proposed legislation unless the region is renamed Madiganistan. :hairy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

ChicagoRonin70,

 

Your proposal has not gone far enough.

 

1. Do not limit participation to Public Servants - be more inclusive.

2. Require that such an aspirant obtain a FFID (Firearm Free ID) for the usual State fee.

3. The aspirant must be fingerprinted and successfully pass a Federal Background Check to make sure of the purity of the aspirant.

4. 16 hours of training should be required to ensure the FFID holder understands the Constitution, is familiar in the use of 911 along with any associated delay and understands defensive actions such as run, hide and fright.

5. Any person, including a community organizer, may object to the issuance of any FFID to an undesirable individual (secretly uses bodyguards or secretly possesses any sort of firearm, sword, automatic knife, firework, lance, spear, spork, etc.).

6. A rejected aspirant may appeal to a board of volunteers that hold FFIDs and also are drug/alcohol abstainers or are on at least step 10 of the 12 step program in order to recind the refusal.

7. Aspirants accused of verbal/physical transgressions against any other person, whether the same or opposite sex or anything in between are automatically disqualified.

 

These requirements add some teeth (even if false) to your proposal.

 

DOH

 

 

 

States could set their own standards but allow for reciprocity.

 

Wow, those are some significant teeth!

 

Actually, I did consider some similar things to what you propose when I was originally drafting this up a couple of years ago. However, I don't want it to be blatantly punitive, but rather make it a reasonable, common-sense(!), good-faith demonstration by legislators to show their solidarity with those affected by gun violence and not any sort of punishment.

 

I suppose that after it would get passed, amendments and changes containing the measures that you suggest could be added by our legislators who want to make sure that such rights-waiving politicians are ensured to be compliant with the measure as well as being knowledgeable and safe if they decide that they no longer want to waive their rights to possess and use firearms. It's certainly been done before to address some perceived deficiencies in legislation that had to be stripped down in order to get passed in the first place.

 

 

Basically, I plagiarized the IL FOID/CCL requirements as I understand them. Furthermore, on the positive side, any list of FFID holders is not subject to public access or FOIA requests. Also, there is no need to conceal ones adopted Firearm-Free attitude unless you see that as a problem that would require additional rules. Cook County and Chicago cannot relax any of the rules in the proposed legislation unless the region is renamed Madiganistan. :hairy:

 

 

We'll have to add those to the later amendments to the measure once it gets passed, I think. For common sense and consistency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

States could set their own standards but allow for reciprocity.

 

Wow, those are some significant teeth!

 

Actually, I did consider some similar things to what you propose when I was originally drafting this up a couple of years ago. However, I don't want it to be blatantly punitive, but rather make it a reasonable, common-sense(!), good-faith demonstration by legislators to show their solidarity with those affected by gun violence and not any sort of punishment.

 

I suppose that after it would get passed, amendments and changes containing the measures that you suggest could be added by our legislators who want to make sure that such rights-waiving politicians are ensured to be compliant with the measure as well as being knowledgeable and safe if they decide that they no longer want to waive their rights to possess and use firearms. It's certainly been done before to address some perceived deficiencies in legislation that had to be stripped down in order to get passed in the first place.

 

I remember it well

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...