Jump to content

What gun rights would you like to see restored in IL?


Raw Power

Recommended Posts

I see us always talking about going on the offensive. I'm curious as to what that offensive should look like.

 

I'l start.

 

I'd like to see statewide preemption on magazine limits

Silencer restrictions adhering to federal law

SBR restrictions adhering to federal law

Concealed carry on public transportation

 

 

 

I'd like to offer support for universal federal background checks on one condition:

 

In exchange for federal overturning of the 1968 GCA

 

 

 

 

Gamma had some great ideas that I'll just put up here:

 

 

 

Sound suppressor regulation has imposed an almost incalculable amount of damage to public health via hearing damage, and despite hollywood are a non-entity in crime. Should be deregulated immediately, especially considering the existing onerous Federal regulation.

Change the SBR section to just require compliance with Federal law. ATF misinterprets the wording that is there which makes it even more difficult.

There are a lot of little changes to hunting regulations that shouldn't even be controversial, like allowing pistol-caliber rifles for deer hunting, and allowing repeating pistols and pistol-caliber rifles. Allow rimfires for turkey hunting.

Pet peeve is that ISP invented a requirement for fingerprints for FCCL instructors, when there is no such requirement for licensees or in the law for instructors. Should be done away with.

IL SC just fixed one of my suggestions, allowing taser/stun guns. Knowing Illinois they'll probably try to implement some kind of separate carry license for stun guns.

Most of the statutory designated victim zones in the FCCA need to be done away with, particularly the obviously racist restrictions on public transportation. Interstate rest areas as another example are patently ridiculous to claim as being a "sensitive government facility". They have 911 call boxes just outside the building for crying out loud because it's a high crime area.

Eliminate waiting period for FCCL holders, as if the 30 day wait for a FOID and 30~100 day wait for the FCCL isn't long enough. Then someone standing there at the counter who's carrying a loaded firearm on his person can't take their firearm purchase because they might do something rash. Really?

ISP should have statutory time limits for administrative actions / appeals, beyond which courts would be empowered to take action. Existing licensees should be afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard before a revocation.

I'm sure I could come up with a lot more suggestions, these are just the most obvious that come to mind.

 

 

Other thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're topic title asks what we would like to see. You're post changes tone and suggests compromise. We've tried that and it doesn't work. The anti side sees compromise as they get something and we get to keep what's left... until they want to "compromise" again. No more compromise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) - compromise!

1949 Illinois ban on concealed carry - compromise

1962 Illinois Criminal code, restrictions on open carry - compromise

1968 FOID Act - compromise

1968 Federal Gun Control Act (GCA) - compromise

 

When total civilian disarmament is the eventual goal, compromise gets you closer to that goal every time it is employed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) - compromise!

1949 Illinois ban on concealed carry - compromise

1962 Illinois Criminal code, restrictions on open carry - compromise

1968 FOID Act - compromise

1968 Federal Gun Control Act (GCA) - compromise

 

When total civilian disarmament is the eventual goal, compromise gets you closer to that goal every time it is employed.

 

Seems to me that the Lawdog did a thing about this, with an analogy about cake.....

 

 

"I WANT ALL OF MY CAKE BACK!!" (capitols for emphases, not cyber-yelling)

 

No more compromise, zip, zilch, nada, none. The only acceptable outcome would be adherence to the Second Amendment, with a codicil that any politician that suggests further restrictions be removed from office, indicted, tried, convicted and imprisoned, all within a week's time. Yeah, that would be acceptable.

 

JMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) - compromise!

1949 Illinois ban on concealed carry - compromise

1962 Illinois Criminal code, restrictions on open carry - compromise

1968 FOID Act - compromise

1968 Federal Gun Control Act (GCA) - compromise

 

When total civilian disarmament is the eventual goal, compromise gets you closer to that goal every time it is employed.

 

^This.

 

No infringements. No stamp taxes, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) - compromise!

1949 Illinois ban on concealed carry - compromise

1962 Illinois Criminal code, restrictions on open carry - compromise

1968 FOID Act - compromise

1968 Federal Gun Control Act (GCA) - compromise

 

When total civilian disarmament is the eventual goal, compromise gets you closer to that goal every time it is employed.

^This.

 

No infringements. No stamp taxes, etc.

 

 

 

So how do you roll back those compromises in the state of IL right now, under the current conditions?

 

Some of you who keep saying "no infringement" must have a plan that doesn't depend on waiting around for someone on the national level to do something about it, or waiting for Madigan to retire, right?

 

I get that this is an uphill battle, but without a cohesive strategy or end-goal, we're currently just running around like Mike the headless chicken.

 

bhioyfpx.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Easy fix... remove the 3 day wait for anyone with a CCL.

 

That is not a fix, what you just suggested literally requires an accurate registry/database so you just went in a circle prescribing what isn't wanted.

 

That is actually quite an interesting point. Unintended consequences stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Easy fix... remove the 3 day wait for anyone with a CCL.

 

That is not a fix, what you just suggested literally requires an accurate registry/database so you just went in a circle prescribing what isn't wanted.

 

 

I'm genuinely confused by your statement. There is currently no registry, and I have a CCL card in my pocket.

 

Those who have a CCL should not have a wait on long guns or pistols.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The only compromise I offered was at the Federal level, but ok... I'll bite.

How do we accomplish what you are asking for in Illinois under current conditions?

 

What's the plan?

Vote every democrat out of office in the state.

 

Republicans with a plan to unscrew the whole mess are already in place.

 

 

Ah, so you're a realist then. Got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Easy fix... remove the 3 day wait for anyone with a CCL.

 

 

 

That is not a fix, what you just suggested literally requires an accurate registry/database so you just went in a circle prescribing what isn't wanted.

Actually this option doesn't require a registry, just that a person has a FCCL. If you're qualified to carry you should be qualified to buy.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Easy fix... remove the 3 day wait for anyone with a CCL.

 

That is not a fix, what you just suggested literally requires an accurate registry/database so you just went in a circle prescribing what isn't wanted.

I'm genuinely confused by your statement. There is currently no registry, and I have a CCL card in my pocket.

 

Those who have a CCL should not have a wait on long guns or pistols.

This is saying that “it’s ok that I pay dearly for the permission slip, from the kings of Illinois, to exercise my constitutional right” because I get permission to buy guns right away. I agree that a concealed carry permit is a nearly literal statement that you are currently armed, but is still seems like an unfair “compromise” doesn’t it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Easy fix... remove the 3 day wait for anyone with a CCL.

 

 

 

That is not a fix, what you just suggested literally requires an accurate registry/database so you just went in a circle prescribing what isn't wanted.

Actually this option doesn't require a registry, just that a person has a FCCL. If you're qualified to carry you should be qualified to buy.

 

Huh? If you have a CCL you are in a registry/database of people that are very likely to own firearms. I know a lot of people that get FOIDs but don't have firearms, I have yet to meet one person with an IL CCL that doesn't own a firearm, that isn't to say they don't exist but one can make an educated guess that what 90% of CCL card holders own or possess firearms? That is a pretty accurate registry of gun owners IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) - compromise!

1949 Illinois ban on concealed carry - compromise

1962 Illinois Criminal code, restrictions on open carry - compromise

1968 FOID Act - compromise

1968 Federal Gun Control Act (GCA) - compromise

 

When total civilian disarmament is the eventual goal, compromise gets you closer to that goal every time it is employed.

^This.

 

No infringements. No stamp taxes, etc.

 

 

 

So how do you roll back those compromises in the state of IL right now, under the current conditions?

 

Some of you who keep saying "no infringement" must have a plan that doesn't depend on waiting around for someone on the national level to do something about it, or waiting for Madigan to retire, right?

 

I get that this is an uphill battle, but without a cohesive strategy or end-goal, we're currently just running around like Mike the headless chicken.

 

bhioyfpx.jpg

 

 

How? IDK but hopefully usurpation can be rolled back civilly and not require water the tree of liberty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

<snip>

 

When total civilian disarmament is the eventual goal, compromise gets you closer to that goal every time it is employed.

 

No more compromise, zip, zilch, nada, none. The only acceptable outcome would be adherence to the Second Amendment, with a codicil that any politician that suggests further restrictions be removed from office, indicted, tried, convicted and imprisoned, all within a week's time. Yeah, that would be acceptable.

 

JMHO

 

 

^ This. Consequences for politicians who refuse to uphold, or conspire to weaken, our enumerated rights. Otherwise there is no end to the erosion.

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...