[45superman]

The Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (ICPGV), as the Illinois chapter of the Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV) is pushing a new omnibus gun law so draconian as to be an obvious attempt to virtually end private gun ownership in Illinois--well, legal private gun ownership, anyway.

It would require licensing (with safety training--5 hours of classroom instruction and 2 hours of live-fire training) for each gun, with the licensing requiring renewal every 2 years (I think the instruction is waived for renewal, but the written test is still required); registration for every gun, renewal required annually; "safe storage" (either trigger lock or gun safe) required--having the gun on one's person is no exception; "lost or stolen" reporting requirements--and probably stuff I missed or am forgetting. No mention was made of any limit on fees that would be required for the safety instruction and registration.

Here's the text (pdf file)--the details start on page 20.

"Only Ones" are, of course, exempt.

[Don Gwinn]

Thanks for putting this out.

[45superman]

I seriously doubt they really expect to pass it, at least in its entirety, but my guess is that they want to have this to point to as the alternative to the "reasonable" gun laws that are proposed.

Basically, this would be the anvil, and a full capacity magazine ban bill (for example) would be the hammer (or would that be vice-versa?)

[burningspear]

The violent crooks I know would never comply with these stupid, draconian measures. Only peaceable, non-violent gun owners would try to comply. Like Chicago's handgun ban and Illinois' prohibition on carrying loaded firearms by ordinary citizens, except in very limited circumstances, none of these proposed restrictions would decrease the amount of violence. Why? Bad guys don't care about gun laws and, most, if not, all of these proposals have no nexus with the real causes of violence.

All of this has been said before, but it should be repeated as often as will-not-affect-violence-gun control proposals are spewed from the mouths of the naive Brady people.

[45superman]

YASLIFF, on Oct 25 2008, 09:50 AM, said:

How much money do you want to bet that they are in Winnetca with these proposals as a bare minimum requirement? Pounding every elected official about it.


Well I guess they have been too quite for awhile.

That's a good point. I initially saw it as a proposed state law (and I still imagine that's what they would prefer), but on further examination, it looks as if their real hope is to pass it at the local level, particularly in IL jurisdictions that have dropped (or may have to drop) their handgun bans.

ICPGV seems to be based in Evanston (one of the municipalities that has recently dropped its handgun ban).

[Thirdpower]

45superman, on Oct 25 2008, 09:59 AM, said:

YASLIFF, on Oct 25 2008, 09:50 AM, said:

How much money do you want to bet that they are in Winnetca with these proposals as a bare minimum requirement? Pounding every elected official about it.


Well I guess they have been too quite for awhile.

That's a good point. I initially saw it as a proposed state law (and I still imagine that's what they would prefer), but on further examination, it looks as if their real hope is to pass it at the local level, particularly in IL jurisdictions that have dropped (or may have to drop) their handgun bans.

ICPGV seems to be based in Evanston (one of the municipalities that has recently dropped its handgun ban).

Right. This is their 'model law' concept. That's why they have parenthesis in certain parts that can be filled in w. whatever applicable department etc. would be filled in.

[GarandFan]

Gee, somebody worked a long time on that one.

Expect to see this, or variations of this, cropping up among all of the gun control groups.

This is their post-Heller model of gun control.

[Drylok]

*Bites Lip*

[45superman]

Good Lord--look at some of their other "model" laws--some (AWB, .50 cal, "universal background checks," etc.) are fairly typical gun grabber fare, but Air rifle bans? The only other one for which text is available is apparently the "Personalized Handgun" law.

"Personalized" handguns;

"Assault weapons" bans;

.50 caliber bans;

Air rifle bans, for the love of Elvis;

"Universal Background Checks";

Additional gun dealer regulation.

[Lou]

GarandFan, on Oct 25 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

Gee, somebody worked a long time on that one.

Expect to see this, or variations of this, cropping up among all of the gun control groups.

This is their post-Heller model of gun control.

I guess when they talk about "reasonable common sense gun laws" it's pretty to see who isn't reasonable and who lacks common sense.

[lockman]

I believe Mike's letter to the Editor in response to a call for more gun control fits my sentiments exactly!

-------------------------

Mike Vanderboegh: More gun laws would mean civil war

Mike Vanderboegh — 7/23/2008 5:26 am

Dear Editor:

Joe Bialek from Cleveland proposes the licensing and registration of all weapons currently in civilian hands. My question is, how exactly do you propose to do that, Joe?

There are some of us "cold dead hands" types, perhaps 3 percent of gun owners, who would kill anyone who tried to further restrict our God-given liberty. Don't extrapolate from your own cowardice and assume that just because you would do anything the government told you to do that we would.

Are you proposing to come yourself, or do you want someone else's son or daughter in federal service to take the risk? Are you truly prepared to stack up the bodies necessary to accomplish your plan? Seems a strange way to make a "safer society." More to the point, are you willing to risk your sorry hide to do it? No? I thought not.

Then quit proposing the next American civil war. We're done being pushed back from our natural rights without a fight. Be careful what you wish for.

Mike Vanderboegh

Pinson, Ala.

Mike Vanderboegh — 7/23/2008 5:26 am

[billzfx4]

I like Mike!

[ishmo]

Thanks for the links 45, it's nice to know what's coming down the road. Seems like they've combined the worst of California and the DC regulations and added a few conditions to them. As I said elsewhere, the battle against bs goes on.

[45superman]

I have a bit more here (although there's little, if any, information that isn't in this thread).

More at Days of Our Trailers.

[GWBH]

billzfx4, on Oct 25 2008, 05:06 PM, said:

I like Mike!

He is a man of few words but gets his point across!!

[FST_Kent]

I'd like Mike to tell me how he really feels

As far as the ICPGV goes...........they're just pissin' on themselves preaching to a couple hundred in their choir while the rest aren't listening.

[Lou]

Damn - I wish I had written that.

[45superman]

It's refreshing to see all the support for Mr. Vanderboegh's letter. Back when it was written, many gun bloggers got their knickers badly twisted, because they were afraid he "made us look bad."

A few examples (and there are many more):

Here,

and here,

and here,

and here,

and here,

and here.

David Codrea (War on Guns) and I were a in the distinct minority in defending Mr. Vanderboegh and his letter.

I have never met Mr. Vanderboegh, but have corresponded with him by email and phone (this correspondence started as a result of the big debate over the letter), and flatter myself with the distinction of considering him a friend.

It looks as if folks here are made of sterner stuff than many gun bloggers. That makes me proud.

[Hossua]

All valid criticism. Regardless, I'm with Mike. It's a personal decision, and not a very smart one. Don't Tread On Me.

[billzfx4]

45superman, on Oct 25 2008, 07:32 PM, said:

It's refreshing to see all the support for Mr. Vanderboegh's letter. Back when it was written, many gun bloggers got their knickers badly twisted, because they were afraid he "made us look bad."

A few examples (and there are many more):

Here,

and here,

and here,

and here,

and here,

and here.

David Codrea (War on Guns) and I were a in the distinct minority in defending Mr. Vanderboegh and his letter.

I have never met Mr. Vanderboegh, but have corresponded with him by email and phone (this correspondence started as a result of the big debate over the letter), and flatter myself with the distinction of considering him a friend.

It looks as if folks here are made of sterner stuff than many gun bloggers. That makes me proud.

I really can't believe the jackass who responded with this article.
"I agree, we shouldn’t need a license to exercise our God-given and Constitutionally recognized right, but currently we could be arrested if we carry concealed, and having part of a right is better than none of it."

Having part of a right is better than none of it?!?! You have got to be kidding me. It's this kind of mentality that got us into this situation in the first place. Death by a thousand cuts anyone?

[45superman]

No argument here, Billz.

[GarandFan]

The gun ban groups (all the usual suspects) have been "running with" the Heller decision. That's the best that any losing party can do. I am sure they'd love to see it challenged (as do the opponents of Roe in regard to that decision), but I don't see that happening any time soon. For now, even Paul Helmke acknowledges that it's real and meaningful ... that there is an individual right to gun ownership, and that "guns cannot be banned." However, they are going to take the "in common use" language and the list of "presumptively lawful" restrictions and milk them for all they are worth. Thus, they will push for:

"Assault weapons" and .50 BMG bans, plus restrictions on magazine capacity.

They are also going to argue that the slippery slope is gone (which is quite contrary to reality) and argue for:

Personalized (user authorized) handguns, universal background checks, and additional gun dealer regulation as mentioned by Superman. I suspect the universal checks (gun show "loophole") will be front and center this next year.

But I think that the biggest push will be the big three ...

- Mandagory training at the federal level, coupled with
- Gun owner licensing at the federal level
- Gun registration at the federal level

These people are not going away. They will work to restrict gun ownership as much as they possibly can, and they would no doubt include prohibition and confiscation if they could still get away with it. In other words, they will take as much as we allow them to take. That is just the way it is. We must be there every step of the way.

[GarandFan]

Joyce Foundation grants awarded April and July 2008 are posted: http://www.joycefdn..../AllGrants.aspx

Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is a project of Legal Community Against Violence. Frankly, I am not sure where the Illinois Campain Against Handgun Violence fits in, because when you search for that group, the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is returned. The appearance is that there are many groups with slighly different names doing the same thing. I think confusion is a central part of their strategy.

Joyce anti-gun rights grants for 2008:

Ceasefire Pennsylvania Education Fund $350,000 2 yrs.
To support the Pennsylvania Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

United Against Illegal Guns Support Fund $325,000 1 yr.
To support four diverse Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition members in hiring city coordinators to act as regional point persons for the coalition.

Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence $100,000 1 yr.
To hire an executive director, recruit member organizations, develop and implement policy, advocacy, and communications plans, and manage the day-to-day operations of a new Chicago based initiative, For Kids' Sake: Safer Homes, Schools and Communities.

Legal Community Against Violence $100,000 1 yr.
To increase staff capacity that would enable LCAV to respond to requests for technical assistance and policy analysis from mayors, state legislators, and county executives as well as key state based gun violence prevention groups.

United Against Illegal Guns Support Fund $175,000 1 yr.
To support the state legislators' and county executives' coalition and growth.

WAVE Educational Fund $50,000 6 mos.
To plan a statewide public education campaign focused on specific gun policy reform goals.