133 replies to this topic

[TyGuy]

stm, on 20 July 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

As a reminder, the synopsis of the bill does not always reflect what is actually in the bill. Please read through the entire bill, as well as how it amends the UUW statutes, before making any assumptions.

<--- What a goon*.  Everyone know you have to PASS the bill before you can learn what is in it!

* TOTAL joke, not at all a personal attack *

[stm]

Goon? I've been called worse! Hah! However, the Nancy Pelosi comparison stings like crazy! ;-)

It's all good, Ty. I'm just concerned that there are some misconceptions about HB5745, and what it does and does not do. The best suggestion I have is to read it for yourself.

[THE KING]

TyGuy, on 20 July 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

stm, on 20 July 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

As a reminder, the synopsis of the bill does not always reflect what is actually in the bill. Please read through the entire bill, as well as how it amends the UUW statutes, before making any assumptions.

<--- What a goon*.  Everyone know you have to PASS the bill before you can learn what is in it!

* TOTAL joke, not at all a personal attack *

THANKS NANCY !!

[vezpa]

C0untZer0, on 20 July 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

Didn't they get rid of the tinted windows law?

I wonder if you just have tinted windows and people can't see into your car - if that in itself keepd the firearm from "public view"

Although I don't have tinted windows...

Tinted window law in Illinois was removed in October of 2010 and I know for an absolute fact that Chicago still tickets for them as uses it as a excuse to pull people over.
  100% FACT.

Edited by vezpa, 21 July 2012 - 05:01 PM.

[TyGuy]

Pelosi is a swear word in our house, as in What the Pelosi!?

[colt-45]

O. so you can have tinted windows in Illinois now?

[Blackhawkpaul]

We will be lucky as hell to get  a "may issue" bil lthrough the legislature with big fees and some other miserable requirements and there are people here actually pontificating open carry and "all or none" themes? Pardon me while I laugh and cry at the same time.  Wake up! We need to get whatever passed andthen expand as we can. Or have you not noticed that Quinn is Guv, Madigan runs the House and Culelrton is Senate Prez? Take a Civics and PoliSci course.

Edited by Blackhawkpaul, 22 July 2012 - 06:57 AM.

[C0untZer0]

It's hopeless

[BigJim]

TyGuy, on 21 July 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

Pelosi is a swear word in our house, as in What the Pelosi!?

That statement makes no sense.  Who would want to "Pelosi" Pelosi?

[Milhouse86]

BigJim, on 23 July 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

TyGuy, on 21 July 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

Pelosi is a swear word in our house, as in What the Pelosi!?

That statement makes no sense.  Who would want to "Pelosi" Pelosi?

That made me laugh.

[TyGuy]

LOL.  It depends on the use of the word Pelosi.  As in to become amorous then no.  As in to not care about them whatsoever then yes.

[drdoom]

I guess another caveat to this whole discussion, is the situation of WHEN we do have some leverage. We will be the one's to kick ourselves or praise ourselves, for passing a bill that is not just good, but excellent. I feel that, way too often here, some want to take the high road, in regards to, when we do get an upper hand, we play 'nice' with the anti's, instead of playing to win. If we do get a decent hand, lets take Chicago to the cleaners on this! Seriously, why should we hold back from passing the best bill, with the most freedom, if there is NOTHING to stop us?

We should pass nothing BUT the best, and ONLY, the best bill possible.

Compromising is so last year.

[BigJim]

I'm with the Dr.  I say put a stake through the anti's hearts!

[TyGuy]

The Dr?  Where's the TARDIS?

[drdoom]

TyGuy, on 24 July 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

The Dr?  Where's the TARDIS?

Where's the sonic screw driver to brainwash Rahm?

[TyGuy]

Didn't the Fox story say a vote could be held on Aug 18th?

[TFC]

TyGuy, on 24 July 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

Didn't the Fox story say a vote could be held on Aug 18th?

One says August 18, another says in November.
Once the ruling comes out if ever, we can only hope that the right to carry element will grow a pair and play hardball..... not holding my breath.

[GldRush98]

colt-45, on 21 July 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

O. so you can have tinted windows in Illinois now?

Yes, but if you're wanting to remain legal, there are limitations.

Edited by GldRush98, 25 July 2012 - 02:46 PM.

[Drylok]

CCers rule OCers drool Raaaawr Glad to see nothing has changed around here. Hee hee

[j2dawson]

TyGuy, on 21 July 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

Pelosi is a swear word in our house, as in What the Pelosi!?

In our house it's more like, "I'll be back, I have to take a Pelosi."

[BigJim]

As I see it there is no need to pass this bill.  If it ever gets to Quinn's desk he'll gut it and turn it into a bill against us like he did the ammo bill.

[miztic]

BigJim, on 02 August 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:

As I see it there is no need to pass this bill.  If it ever gets to Quinn's desk he'll gut it and turn it into a bill against us like he did the ammo bill.

If we have the votes to pass the bill with pre-emption, we'll also have the votes to override his veto. I'm not worried about Quinn.
I suspect we'll get nothing, our bill won't even get called for a vote until the courts make them do it.

[axel2078]

miztic, on 03 August 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:

BigJim, on 02 August 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:

As I see it there is no need to pass this bill.  If it ever gets to Quinn's desk he'll gut it and turn it into a bill against us like he did the ammo bill.

If we have the votes to pass the bill with pre-emption, we'll also have the votes to override his veto. I'm not worried about Quinn.
I suspect we'll get nothing, our bill won't even get called for a vote until the courts make them do it.

How long could that take? Are we talking several more years here?

[sleepercaprice1]

DoYouFeelLucky, on 18 July 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

Open carry is a bad idea.  If I'm in a place that's getting robbed I don't want them opening fire in the direction of the person they see with an openly carried firearm and putting myself and family at risk because we just happen to be in the direction of fire.  I also don't want some temporarily crazed individual scanning the vicinity for someone openly carrying and stealing their gun to commit suicide or to hurt someone else.  I believe that concealed carry is the responsible method.

I don't think the question here is if concealed or open carry is tactically advantageous. The question is what should be legal. I do not condone open carry because it will alarm some individuals and I am considerate enough that I respect others' feelings. However, I do not think it is right for me to be subjected to arrest in the event that my cover garment slides up and might expose my concealed weapon.

I will welcome any legislation that allows me to carry a firearm to protect myself and my family. I understand that refinements will likely have to happen incrimentally, just as the loss of our basic rights did.

People need to be conditioned slowly and considerately. When CCW becomes law here, it will be a big deal and much will be made of the fact that people are carrying guns among us. After a short time, when nothing happens, it will become a non-issue. Peolple don't worry about police open carrying and in time, they won't worry about anyone open carrying.

Out west, where people are used to carrying guns on their ranches, a gun on the hip is not even given a second look. I've hunted in S. Dakota and gone into restaurants with a gun open carried and not gotten so much as a glance.

In my opinion, we take what we can get and build on it from there.

[cgs]

It's when I read threads like this that I realize how little I know about the process of "the law". Are all of you lawyers?  Seems like you'd already have to be a lawyer to understand some of the legaleze going on here.

[lockman]

There are a few attorneys here, but anyone can play one one the Internet. When it comes to legal advice found around here, like president Regan said, "Trust but verify".  Always refer to the source such as statutes and court decisions.

[cgs]

Yeah, but that's the thing, who has time to follow such a demanding hobby in regards to statutes and bills and decisions but a lawyer who is already in the thick of it anyways?   That's why I am awed when I read threads like this. I know the knowledge is out there and public domain, but it still take time to find and a brain to comprehend. I don't consider myself to be less than itnelligent in any sort of way, but understanding the leagleze can get very confusing.

[RANDY]

I have found that the more of the legalese that a person reads the easier it is to understand

[SFC Stu]

Molly B., on 18 July 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

Molly B., on 18 July 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

papa, on 18 July 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

We either support the 2A or we don't!

If someone prefers one over the other, it does not mean they don't support 2A.

And I would not bail on a RTC bill in this God-forsaken state just because it doesn't start off with open carry - if the votes are not there for open carry.  It would be like bailing on a RTC bill because it wasn't constitutional carry.

Thank you!

[kurt555gs]

I think the votes are there for open carry, if you limit it to outside of home rule area's. I would like to see open carry statewide, but there is no need to throw it out when a compromise can be had. Texas has been fighting to bring open carry into law without success.  So has Florida. Oklahoma just did, but not without years of fighting. To many here, open carry is important. It has shown to be very difficult to get back ones concealed only laws are passed.