85 replies to this topic

[Don Gwinn]

http://www.myfoxchic...d-carry-gun-law

There's video of a short interview at the link, but here's the quote they got from Rep. Ford:

Quote

State Rep. La Shawn Ford, who represents a west side neighborhood with more than its share of crime, is also chairman of a 13-member General Assembly task force that is studying what would happen in Chicago if concealed carry was legalized.

"The report shows it will not be a dramatic impact," Ford said.

Still, Ford said he'd vote against a pending concealed carry proposal unless it's amended to ban the sort of high-capacity, rapid fire weapons used in the latest massacre in Colorado.

Read more:

http://www.myfoxchic...w#ixzz21N3YxsrP

This would be good news, obviously.  Tying it to an assault weapons ban is a non-starter, but a lot can happen between now and then.

[willxjcherokee]

High Capacity , rapid fire weapons?

Oh dear I hope this doesn't hurt our chances of RTC.

[papa]

Well obviously you guys with the Glocks will have to get rid of them before he will vote for it.

I hope that he can be brought to his senses but won't hold my breath.

Edited by papa, 22 July 2012 - 11:11 AM.

[Patriots & Tyrants]

He is going for political points. The CCW bill could ban all firearms in Illinois except bolt action rifles and he would still not support it.

[TyGuy]

papa, on 22 July 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

Well obviously you guys with the Glocks will have to get rid of them before he will vote for it.

I hope that he can be brought to his senses but won't hold my breath.

Why?  He didn't say to get rid of exploding guns.  ;-)

[billzfx4]

I guess I'll have to store my "rapid-fire" 870 out of state.

[GarandFan]

54% in favor ... in Chicago!  That is just awesome!  Those town hall meetings and various other outreach efforts are really making a difference.

That level of support in Chicago itself is very high, and I am very pleased about this.

[papa]

GarandFan, on 22 July 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:

54% in favor ... in Chicago!  That is just awesome!  Those town hall meetings and various other outreach efforts are really making a difference.

That level of support in Chicago itself is very high, and I am very pleased about this.

Yes I agree , that is an awesome number.  Be a little harder for the reps there to say the people are against it .

[lockman]

With the support for RTC even in Chicago in the majority, Rep. Ford seems to be back peddling a bit. Hopefully this semi-auto issue will not be a deal killer.

Rep. Ford will also need to clarify why a vetted license holder should be limited in the number of shots they may require in the face of multiple offenders with 17 shpt pistols? Or multiple offenders with any sort of weapon. As for Kotowski he is just a serial liar.

[vess1]

No.  I say NO deals to ban anything.  RTC now.  No deals that can be taken back after the fact.  Even if it would get us another vote (which it may or may not) I would want any compromise bill with a ban on anything voted down.  No deals now.  That time has passed.

Sent from my Motorola Electrify using Tapatalk 2

[vezpa]

I have grown to hate the ban on high capacity magazines lately but if we will get the votes we need to pass CCW by only allowing us to have a 10- 12 round magazine I'm all for it.  I think that is a point we can all fight later.  Almost every gun made now has a lower capacity magazine made for it.  All you old farts with 1911s are good to go.  My LCP carries 7 on board.  Revolvers are no problem.

I understand that implementing magazine restrictions won't deter any kind of crime but this is one of the areas where we can give our legislatures something and not suffer too much while still getting something we have been fighting for so long to get.  If the votes come with a magazine limit of 10 or 12 I'm game.  If I can't stop a threat with 10-12 rounds I guess it just isn't my day.  if the magazine limit is less than 10 however it is definitely a no-go.

Edited by vezpa, 22 July 2012 - 01:27 PM.

[GarandFan]

I suggest you guys ignore Ford's comment about banning guns as a prerequisite for passing a concealed carry bill.  It just ain't going to happen.

The majority of all statewide constituencies ... downstaters, cook county, and Chicago itself support concealed carry.  Ford is just talking out of his ass.

[Davey]

NO MAG CAPS.

[Durzo Blint]

vezpa, on 22 July 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

I have grown to hate the ban on high capacity magazines lately but if we will get the votes we need to pass CCW by only allowing us to have a 10- 12 round magazine I'm all for it.  I think that is a point we can all fight later.  Almost every gun made now has a lower capacity magazine made for it.  All you old farts with 1911s are good to go.  My LCP carries 7 on board.  Revolvers are no problem.

I understand that implementing magazine restrictions won't deter any kind of crime but this is one of the areas where we can give our legislatures something and not suffer too much while still getting something we have been fighting for so long to get.  If the votes come with a magazine limit of 10 or 12 I'm game.  If I can't stop a threat with 10-12 rounds I guess it just isn't my day.  if the magazine limit is less than 10 however it is definitely a no-go.

I agree with you vezpa. We need the votes. We can fight the high capacity magazine issue another day.

[GarandFan]

vezpa, on 22 July 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

... magazine restrictions won't deter any kind of crime but this is one of the areas where we can give our legislatures something and not suffer too much while still getting something we have been fighting for ...  

So ... a prohibition on 10 rounds is fine, but one on 9 is not?



I for one am happy that the folks with boots on the ground in Springfield don't view this issue in such an arbitrary manner.

This is not about bartering for used cars.

[Uncle Harley]

I say  NO on mag capacity limits.  I plan on carrying a PMR 30  while enjoying downstate CCing.   Out here in farm country, I'm more worried about wild dogs than I am thugs, and if any of you have been unarmed and surrounded by a pack of 12 dogs that are not afraid of you,  you would realize this is a real concern for us folks that live in BFE.

[vezpa]

GarandFan, on 22 July 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

vezpa, on 22 July 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

... magazine restrictions won't deter any kind of crime but this is one of the areas where we can give our legislatures something and not suffer too much while still getting something we have been fighting for ...  

So ... a prohibition on 10 rounds is fine, but one on 9 is not?



I for one am happy that the folks with boots on the ground in Springfield don't view this issue in such an arbitrary manner.

This is not about bartering for used cars.

There is a HUGE difference in a ban on 9 vs 10 round magazines.  Most companies don't make anything for a full size pistol under 10 rounds.  Keeping it 10 or above allows almost every pistol out there to still be used.  We arent going for a ban on owning high capacity magazines, just carrying them.

And knock it off with the "we won't give an inch **** because we have already given everything but the kitchen sink.  If a magazine limit now gets us CCW then I'm all for it.  We'll fight that another day while we can still reasonably protect ourselves and our families.

Edited by vezpa, 22 July 2012 - 03:21 PM.

[vezpa]

Uncle Harley, on 22 July 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

I say  NO on mag capacity limits.  I plan on carrying a PMR 30  while enjoying downstate CCing.   Out here in farm country, I'm more worried about wild dogs than I am thugs, and if any of you have been unarmed and surrounded by a pack of 12 dogs that are not afraid of you,  you would realize this is a real concern for us folks that live in BFE.

Carry 2 guns.

On top of that law enforcement isn't going to bother you for it there anyway.

Edited by vezpa, 22 July 2012 - 03:31 PM.

[XJCraver]

vezpa, on 22 July 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

GarandFan, on 22 July 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

vezpa, on 22 July 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

... magazine restrictions won't deter any kind of crime but this is one of the areas where we can give our legislatures something and not suffer too much while still getting something we have been fighting for ...  

So ... a prohibition on 10 rounds is fine, but one on 9 is not?



I for one am happy that the folks with boots on the ground in Springfield don't view this issue in such an arbitrary manner.

This is not about bartering for used cars.

There is a HUGE difference in a ban on 9 vs 10 round magazines.  Most companies don't make anything for a full size pistol under 10 rounds.  Keeping it 10 or above allows almost every pistol out there to still be used.  We arent going for a ban on owning high capacity magazines, just carrying them.

And knock it off with the "we won't give an inch **** because we have already given everything but the kitchen sink.  If a magazine limit now gets us CCW then I'm all for it.  We'll fight that another day while we can still reasonably protect ourselves and our families.

I don't know about you, but I'm damned tired of giving concessions.  I wish, with all my heart, that we had an organization with enough money AND balls in charge of this thing to tell "them" to stick their concessions right up their collective ____s .

[GarandFan]

Vezpa, my point was that the difference between 9 and 10 rounds is the same as the difference between 10 and 11.  One round.  And that difference is arbitrary, and at the end of the day, arbitrariness will not stand up to any form of heightened scrutiny.

I can't say for sure, but I strongly suspect any limits on magazine capacity will be a non-starter with those who are ushering the carry bills through the legislature.

[vezpa]

GarandFan, on 22 July 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

I can't say for sure, but I strongly suspect any limits on magazine capacity will be a non-starter with those who are ushering the carry bills through the legislature.

I hope you are correct, and don't think I like capacity limits, but if it gets us the votes we need now, I have to say do it.

[sctman800]

In my opinion we are not dealing with honest people; I am reffering to the anti-gun members of the legislature only.  How bout this scenerio, we drop our oppositon to the standard capacity magazine ban in return for the votes to pass CCW.  We get the votes for CCW and both bills go to Quinn who vetoes the CCW and signs the standard capacity ban.  Then somehow we lose the votes for an override, we are now stuck with a magazine ban and no CCW.  It doesn't matter if it is two seperate bills or the same bill it could still happen.  Quinn could line item veto the CCW out of the bill and it ends up again the same way with more restrictions and no CCW.
   Even if the bill was all passed and only restricted the magazine in the gun you are carrying, what if you forget which magazine is in the gun.  Does this mean you are carrying an illegal gun, misdomeaner or felony or grounds to lose your permit?  This is a NO DEAL for me.    Jim.

Disclamer:  I do not own any handgun that has a magazine capacity over eight rounds.

[kurt555gs]

I can't believe what I am reading. Give away "capacity limits" to get HB148? Are you kidding? You know this is knee jerk anti gun folks poking us with a stick. Those that are going to vote against concealed carry will not be swayed by giving up other rights. They will just want more, and more, and more, and more, and give nothing.

It's the same on giving up open carry. It won't make a difference, to the anti's, and will be very hard to get back.

It's time to say, ENOUGH! Thats it. Period.

[mrpapageorgio]

I agree on the no ban on mag capacity. Lets us be able to use factory magazines. A 10 rounds is not going to make much of a difference than the 13 round magazines. I don't want to have to be banned from using the factory magazines that I get with a gun.

[vezpa]

sctman800, on 22 July 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

In my opinion we are not dealing with honest people; I am reffering to the anti-gun members of the legislature only.  How bout this scenerio, we drop our oppositon to the standard capacity magazine ban in return for the votes to pass CCW.  We get the votes for CCW and both bills go to Quinn who vetoes the CCW and signs the standard capacity ban.  Then somehow we lose the votes for an override, we are now stuck with a magazine ban and no CCW.  It doesn't matter if it is two seperate bills or the same bill it could still happen.  Quinn could line item veto the CCW out of the bill and it ends up again the same way with more restrictions and no CCW.
   Even if the bill was all passed and only restricted the magazine in the gun you are carrying, what if you forget which magazine is in the gun.  Does this mean you are carrying an illegal gun, misdomeaner or felony or grounds to lose your permit?  This is a NO DEAL for me. Jim.

Disclamer:  I do not own any handgun that has a magazine capacity over eight rounds.

We wouldn't be pushing anything about "owning" high capacity magazines, just carrying for CCW purposes, If they tried to ban owning high capacity magazines it would be a whole different ballgame.

And on a side note, I bet that with the recent shootings in Tuscon and now Colorado (where high capacity mags were clearly used) the high capacity limits ARE going to come into play in order to get CCW passed whether we like it or not.  Its what the Antis do.

Edited by vezpa, 22 July 2012 - 04:09 PM.

[bersa380]

vezpa, on 22 July 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

sctman800, on 22 July 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

In my opinion we are not dealing with honest people; I am reffering to the anti-gun members of the legislature only.  How bout this scenerio, we drop our oppositon to the standard capacity magazine ban in return for the votes to pass CCW.  We get the votes for CCW and both bills go to Quinn who vetoes the CCW and signs the standard capacity ban.  Then somehow we lose the votes for an override, we are now stuck with a magazine ban and no CCW.  It doesn't matter if it is two seperate bills or the same bill it could still happen.  Quinn could line item veto the CCW out of the bill and it ends up again the same way with more restrictions and no CCW.
   Even if the bill was all passed and only restricted the magazine in the gun you are carrying, what if you forget which magazine is in the gun.  Does this mean you are carrying an illegal gun, misdomeaner or felony or grounds to lose your permit?  This is a NO DEAL for me. Jim.

Disclamer:  I do not own any handgun that has a magazine capacity over eight rounds.

We wouldn't be pushing anything about "owning" high capacity magazines, just carrying for CCW purposes, If they tried to ban owning high capacity magazines it would be a whole different ballgame.

And on a side note, I bet that with the recent shootings in Tuscon and now Colorado (where high capacity mags were clearly used) the high capacity limits ARE going to come into play in order to get CCW passed whether we like it or not.  Its what the Antis do.

where do you draw the line a 10 round magazine in your carry gun and a standard capacity magazine on your person is that ok? What if you are carrying while going to the range to shoot another gun and have standard capacity magazines in the car? I would rather wait until we have the votes for a good than try to ram one through with lots of compromises. I can see them saying they don't need standard capacity mags for concealed carry so why shoud they be legal the same argument they make about hunting and standard capacity mags.

Sent from my MB870 using Tapatalk 2

[frankw438]

The words of Abraham Lincoln come to mind:

"I may walk slowly, but I never walk backward."

I don't think we need to go backwards in our fight to restore our 2nd Amendment rights.

[bersa380]

frankw438, on 22 July 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

The words of Abraham Lincoln come to mind:

"I may walk slowly, but I never walk backward."

I don't think we need to go backwards in our fight to restore our 2nd Amendment rights.

  Great quote!

Sent from my MB870 using Tapatalk 2

[kurt555gs]

I just can't believe any one here is falling for this capacity ban trick. Really.

[ishmo]

I didn't see anything in the article about a mag capacity restriction.  The battle over mag capacity was fought several years ago and they lost.  I see no point in giving it to them on a silver platter in exchange for a possible vote.  Keep in mind Illinois Dems aren't known for keeping their word.  What Ford is talking about is basically a statewide version of the Cook AWB with a likely yearly registration requirement and substantial fee like Emanuel wanted a while back if current owners are grandfathered.

I hate to sound positive here but on a slightly different note I think we got the better of the deal on the report in spite of the timing.

Considering that the report is a bipartisan, state sanctioned effort the findings in it will have some legitimacy when used in the argument for CCW.  The fact that Ford said "The report shows it will not be a dramatic impact," also seems to take away the "blood in the streets and road rage shootout" arguments the anti's have used so effectively against us in the media  There are a couple of other good things but I'm not going to put them out here for the wrong folks to see.

As far as what he said about voting against it did anyone ever think that maybe he's trying to cover his ass and keep Madigan's heat off of him.  It's a very dicey game he's playing politically and if you follow the stories in the media you'll notice there's a lot of contradictory information being put out there.  Ford didn't vote for HB148 the last time and while his vote would be good to have I don't think not having it will sink a CCW bill that's called for a vote.

Edited by ishmo, 22 July 2012 - 05:12 PM.