Jump to content

It’s here. 2019 “assault weapons ban/registration ”


steveTA84

Recommended Posts

Its only a filed bill at this point. Yes it will get out of committee but still need to flood witness slips anyway. Then bombard the Senators and Representatives with calls, letters and emails until they beg it to stop.

 

Hopefully downstate Dems will not be on board and Northern Republicans arent willing to turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by mauserme, January 24, 2019 at 08:21 PM - No reason given
Hidden by mauserme, January 24, 2019 at 08:21 PM - No reason given

9 © a semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to10 accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the11 following:22 (iv) a muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;

 

Really? A semi-auto pistol that can have a detachable magazine and a compensator is an "assault weapon"?

 

Who the **** do I speak with to join in on a lawsuit enjoining this idiotic nonsense?

 

Someone contact me about being a plaintiff in a case against this. I'm deadly serious.

Aren't all pistols semi-automatic? Don't all pistols have detachable magazines? If semi-automatic pistols are not assault weapons, why are semi-automatic rifles assault weapons? To them all weapons are "assault weapons" and they think they're too cute by half and are banning them in stages.

 

Wow the idiocy, it's obvious people who write these laws don't know anything about firearms. Democrats are bent to drive the most law abiding and productive people out of this state. This state is heading towards bankruptcy anyway so it might be a blessing in disguise.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Molly B., February 11, 2019 at 05:14 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., February 11, 2019 at 05:14 AM - No reason given

 

I don't know about the rest of you but I am tired of fighting every year to keep the cancer in this state manageable I am ready to cut it out so we can move on......

What’s your plan? Leave the state out Work on cutting the cancer out here?

 

I say we march by the thousands un-armed on the capitol and make sure they understand how we feel and if that fails we start the process of removing them from office....

Link to comment

Elect corrupt, lard-azz rich lefty who will self-finance to buy office, add water, and, viola -- INSTANT KOMMIEFORNIA!

 

Everyone who refused to vote for Rauner for whatever stupid, self-righteous reasons can go to heck along with the pudgy marxist they helped elect.

 

What a surprise, they plan to take the Cook County ordinance Statewide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a cost per gun to register it?

I think it was $25 per person

 

... (g) For the purpose of registration required under

19 subsections (e) and (f) of this Section, the Department of

20 State Police shall assess a registration fee of $25 per person

21 to the owner of an assault weapon. The fee shall be deposited

22 into the State Police Firearm Services Fund.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Molly B., February 11, 2019 at 05:14 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., February 11, 2019 at 05:14 AM - No reason given

 

 

I say we march by the thousands un-armed on the capitol and make sure they understand how we feel and if that fails we start the process of removing them from office....

Sounds like IGOLD.

 

"Don't Ban My Rifle"

One day won’t cut it. It has to be many

yes, like enough people to shut down the entire down town.

Link to comment

I say we march by the thousands un-armed on the capitol and make sure they understand how we feel and if that fails we start the process of removing them from office....

 

Sounds like IGOLD.

"Don't Ban My Rifle"

 

One day won’t cut it. It has to be many

yes, like enough people to shut down the entire down town.

 

If Pfleger can do it, so can we

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say we march by the thousands un-armed on the capitol and make sure they understand how we feel and if that fails we start the process of removing them from office....

Sounds like IGOLD.

 

"Don't Ban My Rifle"

One day won’t cut it. It has to be many

 

Not only will a single day NOT cut it, it might be time to OC on the capital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by mauserme, January 24, 2019 at 08:22 PM - No reason given
Hidden by mauserme, January 24, 2019 at 08:22 PM - No reason given

My 3+ decades old (shot out) childhood 10-22 plinker is apparently about to grow up into a full-fledged assault weapon...

 

I really hope the SCOTUS puts an end to this with the recently certified case, all they need to do in their opinion is to state that 'strict scrutiny' shall be applied to all potential infringements of the 2nd, and laws like this will fall like dominos...

All SCOTUS has to say is they are weapons in common use and are protected by the Constitution and is against the Constitution to pass ex post facto laws and registration is against and ignores the FOPA federal law.

 

Millions of people have been waiting for relief for years in states like Connecticut, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, California and lately Washington, Oregon and Illinois from Bloomberg's arbitrary and repressive laws calling rifles in common use made for civilians "assault weapons" and weapons of war and standard capacity magazines "high capacity" which king Bloomberg has said 3 bullets is all that people need for deer hunting and he keeps changing the definition from 10 to 7 to now 5 rounds.

 

About time the Supreme Court reaffirms that arms in common use cannot be banned or restricted and puts in their place municipalities and states who have ignored Heller and McDonald and use loopholes to restrict people's 2nd Amendment rights also by calling any guns they want to ban "assault weapons" and high capacity and persecuting millions of people for property they bought legally and which is protected by the 2nd Amendment.

 

These Unconstitutional and tyrannical laws have made hundreds of thousands of people leave their families and friends and jobs. Millions of people are waiting for SCOTUS to get relief from tyrannical laws imposed on them through corruption and passed with lies and propaganda for financial gain by corrupt politicians who have broken their oath.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by mauserme, January 24, 2019 at 08:22 PM - No reason given
Hidden by mauserme, January 24, 2019 at 08:22 PM - No reason given
Seems to be a copy/paste of Cook County's ban, which, as I've said before, technically bans any and all semiauto rifles due to its (probably deliberately) obtuse wording. If this passes how long until someone pulls a Maura Healy and "interprets" the law to ban everything? And of course since by that time the registration period will have long passed we'll have to surrender everything we didn't think was an "assault weapon"
Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by mauserme, January 24, 2019 at 08:22 PM - No reason given
Hidden by mauserme, January 24, 2019 at 08:22 PM - No reason given

Seems to be a copy/paste of Cook County's ban, which, as I've said before, technically bans any and all semiauto rifles due to its (probably deliberately) obtuse wording. If this passes how long until someone pulls a Maura Healy and "interprets" the law to ban everything? And of course since by that time the registration period will have long passed we'll have to surrender everything we didn't think was an "assault weapon"

To the courts friend. Our last stand is the judiciary.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by mauserme, January 24, 2019 at 08:22 PM - No reason given
Hidden by mauserme, January 24, 2019 at 08:22 PM - No reason given

 

Seems to be a copy/paste of Cook County's ban, which, as I've said before, technically bans any and all semiauto rifles due to its (probably deliberately) obtuse wording. If this passes how long until someone pulls a Maura Healy and "interprets" the law to ban everything? And of course since by that time the registration period will have long passed we'll have to surrender everything we didn't think was an "assault weapon"

To the courts friend. Our last stand is the judiciary.

 

 

No, you're missing a box, my friend.

Link to comment

 

 

I say we march by the thousands un-armed on the capitol and make sure they understand how we feel and if that fails we start the process of removing them from office....

Sounds like IGOLD. "Don't Ban My Rifle"
One day won’t cut it. It has to be many

We work, most of them don’t, and have time to chant and march. Founders are smacking their foreheads. The scum needs to be physically removed from office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by mauserme, January 24, 2019 at 08:22 PM - No reason given
Hidden by mauserme, January 24, 2019 at 08:22 PM - No reason given

 

My 3+ decades old (shot out) childhood 10-22 plinker is apparently about to grow up into a full-fledged assault weapon...

 

I really hope the SCOTUS puts an end to this with the recently certified case, all they need to do in their opinion is to state that 'strict scrutiny' shall be applied to all potential infringements of the 2nd, and laws like this will fall like dominos...

All SCOTUS has to say is they are weapons in common use and are protected by the Constitution and is against the Constitution to pass ex post facto laws and registration is against and ignores the FOPA federal law.

 

But, people like Pelosi have gone on record time and time again stating that rifles like the AR15 are 'not in common use' and they are bound to argue the 'not in common use' for every new firearm, bullet or whatever design that is brand new and obviously not in common use 'yet' isn't protected, you have to broaden the scope to apply 'strict scrutiny' to all infringements of the 2nd, that is a far greater encompassment and simple ruling that is applicable to be included on even the most basic 2nd case that the Supreme Court rules upon.

 

 

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:
 
It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, but the Court generally evaluates it separately.
Link to comment

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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