90 replies to this topic

[drdoom]

The important thing we also need to make them aware of, is how the state ALREADY bans the sale and possession (for private citizens): full-autos, suppressors, short-barreled shotgun/rifle(s). It's also a violation of the first amendment for the County to tell me how my firearm should look and function. Oh and could someone also be kind enough to point out that, the standard deer rifle has a higher chamber pressure than an AR? Cause I'm sick of hearing the usual AR's are high-powered crap.

[JackTripper]

drdoom, on 23 April 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

It's also a violation of the first amendment for the County to tell me how my firearm should look and function.

Help me out here. Can you explain that statement further?

[bob]

JackTripper, on 24 April 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

drdoom, on 23 April 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

It's also a violation of the first amendment for the County to tell me how my firearm should look and function.

Help me out here. Can you explain that statement further?

There has been suggestions from various quarters that a firearms appearance is a first amendment expression, given that primarily cosmetic features really don't change the function of the firearm. I am not sure a court will ever buy into such an argument. But, it gives the other side something else to have to argue against I guess.

[Davey]

bob, on 25 April 2012 - 05:28 AM, said:

JackTripper, on 24 April 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

drdoom, on 23 April 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

It's also a violation of the first amendment for the County to tell me how my firearm should look and function.

Help me out here. Can you explain that statement further?

There has been suggestions from various quarters that a firearms appearance is a first amendment expression, given that primarily cosmetic features really don't change the function of the firearm. I am not sure a court will ever buy into such an argument. But, it gives the other side something else to have to argue against I guess.

This reminds me of a short documentary I saw.  In fact I think it was a Penn and Teller episode of Bullsh!t.

In short a woman flashed her breasts in public as a form of protest.  She was arrested and she fought it claiming that showing her breasts in public was a protected form of speech.  She won.

[pitbull1022]

Its screwed for you guys up north. Chicago even screws us down here. But at least (so far) I can own and keep my AR and AK.

[Gunslinger]

in response to the FU Illinois comment a few pages back...... should have said FU Chicago and left it at that. The rest of Illinois is doing just fine, we would have gotten rid of the FOID (never even would have had it) if it were not for Chicago, and we would have had RTC years ago if it were not for Chicago. Guns are part of life down here and 75% of folks know it. The other 25% are college students from Chicago who came down here for school and never left. I agree, I hate Illinois gun laws but Illinois is not the problem. I have an AK with two 75 round drums in the trunk of my car right now as well as a Glock in my center console and I have no worries about local LEO hassling me if they were to ever see it. They would be loaded if it were not for Chicago. Stop blaming the whole state for your cities problems, almost all the reps, sheriffs and even beat cops from everywhere else in the state are on our side.Sorry for the rant but it really ticks me off when people from Chicago blame Illinois as a whole for the gun control problems. Its not our fault down here and never has been, but we are happy to help you guys try to fix it.Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk 2

Edited by Gunslinger, 25 April 2012 - 10:47 AM.

[Sigma]

I wish I could understand what home rule meant

[Federal Farmer]

Sigma, on 25 April 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

I wish I could understand what home rule meant

Home rule means that municipalites and Counties (over a certain population, I believe) can enact ordinances that are more strict than IL state law.  It was, I believe, created for enacting tax codes initially.

[Gunslinger]

Federal Farmer, on 25 April 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

Sigma, on 25 April 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

I wish I could understand what home rule meant

Home rule means that municipalites and Counties (over a certain population, I believe) can enact ordinances that are more strict than IL state law.  It was, I believe, created for enacting tax codes initially.

Tax and gun control goes hand in hand.

[JR1987]

Sigma, on 25 April 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

I wish I could understand what home rule meant

The way I've always understood it, as a non-lawyer, was that if your local municipality had gun laws, you followed those laws.

Chicago has it's own ban on weapons, though I do not know it exactly. I believe it's in magazine capacity. So Chicago citizens must follow that law.

Some cities are not home rule, and they are forced to follow the next law; in this case Cook's law.

My city for example has laws in regards to firearms; and it essentially only bans anything that can fire more than one bullet with one trigger pull.

This is the way I understand it. If your city does not have a firearms law, then you are subject to Cook.

Your city must have home rule, AND it must have a firearms law on the books.

[Gunslinger]

JR1987, on 25 April 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

Sigma, on 25 April 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

I wish I could understand what home rule meant

The way I've always understood it, as a non-lawyer, was that if your local municipality had gun laws, you followed those laws.

Chicago has it's own ban on weapons, though I do not know it exactly. I believe it's in magazine capacity. So Chicago citizens must follow that law.

Some cities are not home rule, and they are forced to follow the next law; in this case Cook's law.

My city for example has laws in regards to firearms; and it essentially only bans anything that can fire more than one bullet with one trigger pull.

This is the way I understand it. If your city does not have a firearms law, then you are subject to Cook.

Your city must have home rule, AND it must have a firearms law on the books.

Not if you don't live in crook. The rest of us only abide by the state and federal laws.

[JR1987]

Gunslinger, on 25 April 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

JR1987, on 25 April 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

Sigma, on 25 April 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

I wish I could understand what home rule meant

The way I've always understood it, as a non-lawyer, was that if your local municipality had gun laws, you followed those laws.

Chicago has it's own ban on weapons, though I do not know it exactly. I believe it's in magazine capacity. So Chicago citizens must follow that law.

Some cities are not home rule, and they are forced to follow the next law; in this case Cook's law.

My city for example has laws in regards to firearms; and it essentially only bans anything that can fire more than one bullet with one trigger pull.

This is the way I understand it. If your city does not have a firearms law, then you are subject to Cook.

Your city must have home rule, AND it must have a firearms law on the books.

Not if you don't live in crook. The rest of us only abide by the state and federal laws.

Yeah, I get it. Cook County sucks. But he seemed to be hinting at the Cook ban. That's why I answered in regards to Cook County.

I

[Gunslinger]

I get it. Sorry. Just wanted to clarify for anyone else who might be confused that cook county or any other home rule area has nothing to do with the rest of the state.

[xmikex]

Gunslinger, on 25 April 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

in response to the FU Illinois comment a few pages back...... should have said FU Chicago and left it at that. The rest of Illinois is doing just fine, we would have gotten rid of the FOID (never even would have had it) if it were not for Chicago, and we would have had RTC years ago if it were not for Chicago. Guns are part of life down here and 75% of folks know it. The other 25% are college students from Chicago who came down here for school and never left. I agree, I hate Illinois gun laws but Illinois is not the problem. I have an AK with two 75 round drums in the trunk of my car right now as well as a Glock in my center console and I have no worries about local LEO hassling me if they were to ever see it. They would be loaded if it were not for Chicago. Stop blaming the whole state for your cities problems, almost all the reps, sheriffs and even beat cops from everywhere else in the state are on our side.Sorry for the rant but it really ticks me off when people from Chicago blame Illinois as a whole for the gun control problems. Its not our fault down here and never has been, but we are happy to help you guys try to fix it.Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk 2

I don't think I've ever heard anyone badmouth downstate when it comes to gun rights in IL. We all know that Chicago dominates state politics because it has the most people (representative democracy can be a MF-er).

Cook county has over 5 million people.
Illinois has a population of 12.8 million.

That's a LOT of people in 1 geographic area that are able to control a state.  It's not a conspiracy.  It's not back-room deals.  It's population / demographics.  When you have that high a percentage of the population of a state, you run it.

We need to take people shooting, win hearts and minds  and transform Chicago / Cook because Chicago isn't going anywhere.

[Gunslinger]

I was referring to people saying F Illinois in previous posts when it is obviously Chicago that is the problem. I agree no one blames downstate but they blame the state as a whole.

[JR1987]

xmikex, on 25 April 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

Gunslinger, on 25 April 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

in response to the FU Illinois comment a few pages back...... should have said FU Chicago and left it at that. The rest of Illinois is doing just fine, we would have gotten rid of the FOID (never even would have had it) if it were not for Chicago, and we would have had RTC years ago if it were not for Chicago. Guns are part of life down here and 75% of folks know it. The other 25% are college students from Chicago who came down here for school and never left. I agree, I hate Illinois gun laws but Illinois is not the problem. I have an AK with two 75 round drums in the trunk of my car right now as well as a Glock in my center console and I have no worries about local LEO hassling me if they were to ever see it. They would be loaded if it were not for Chicago. Stop blaming the whole state for your cities problems, almost all the reps, sheriffs and even beat cops from everywhere else in the state are on our side.Sorry for the rant but it really ticks me off when people from Chicago blame Illinois as a whole for the gun control problems. Its not our fault down here and never has been, but we are happy to help you guys try to fix it.Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk 2

I don't think I've ever heard anyone badmouth downstate when it comes to gun rights in IL. We all know that Chicago dominates state politics because it has the most people (representative democracy can be a MF-er).

Cook county has over 5 million people.
Illinois has a population of 12.8 million.

That's a LOT of people in 1 geographic area that are able to control a state.  It's not a conspiracy.  It's not back-room deals.  It's population / demographics.  When you have that high a percentage of the population of a state, you run it.

We need to take people shooting, win hearts and minds  and transform Chicago / Cook because Chicago isn't going anywhere.

I agree with that bolded section to no end.

"Common sense gun laws" make sense... Until you realize they don't. Because you remember that the bad guys will get the goods regardless of the law. It takes time to get people over that. Most people catch on after a little while. But the problem is their bubble world.

I take my friends shooting as a group once a month. They love it. They will talk about it weeks after, and weeks before we go again. Slowly people are coming around; even people up here. Things are changing; even in the short period of time I've been involved.

More and more people are taking an interest in shooting as a hobby, and as self defense. I love to take people shooting; the smile on their face is priceless.

Hell I've only had most of my friends engaged in it for a little over 3-4 months now and they are already pro 2A.

Take someone shooting, teach them. I've meet a lot of anti-gun people... but they change their tune quickly when they shoot. Of course there are those so against it nothing will change them. But seriously, that part in bold is the best strategy.

I wish more private ranges would open up to the public once in a while. Have an open shoot once a month; raise awareness. The problem up here is there are no public options; and the ones avaliable are VERY strict (no standing).

I'd go shooting once a week if there were a range 30 minutes away.

Edited by JR1987, 25 April 2012 - 12:07 PM.

[Sigma]

Welli meant a home rule that enacts gun ordinances but excludes or don't mention the firearms in the cook county awb

[JR1987]

Sigma, on 25 April 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

Welli meant a home rule that enacts gun ordinances but excludes or don't mention the firearms in the cook county awb

The way it seems to be interpreted is this:

For example this is my municipalities law:

Quote

B. Certain Types Of Weapons Prohibited Or Restricted: No person in the village shall sell, manufacture, or carry the following:
1. Two Or More Shots: Any weapon from which two (2) or more shots of bullets may be discharged by a single function of the firing device.
2. Chemical Mace, Noxious Gas Prohibited; Exception: Any chemical mace, noxious liquid gas, or like substance; except, however, that United States postal service employees, in the course of their official duties, may use an animal repellent in accordance with existing postal service regulations, on attacking animals.

They ban anything that fires more than one round by a single trigger pull.

This means that as long as it's not a burst or full auto weapon, there are no problems.

This is MY interpretation. They specifically outlaw anything with burst or full auto capabilities, but semi-automatics are perfectly acceptable.

I feel it is accurate, and others in my town and otherwise agree. Cook County has a home rule exemption; as long as the municiplaity has gun laws.

Their ban steps on gun laws in my municipality, it's preempted by home rule.

Edited by JR1987, 25 April 2012 - 03:21 PM.

[Sigma]

Well Im thinking if a bad or uninformed cop arrests you for a Glock with 15 rounds. The prosecutor will say well he was in Cook County and the ordinance says these items must be removed from the county.

[JR1987]

Sigma, on 25 April 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

Well Im thinking if a bad or uninformed cop arrests you for a Glock with 15 rounds. The prosecutor will say well he was in Cook County and the ordinance says these items must be removed from the county.

That is true, but uniformed cops can do that to anyone in regards to any law.

Besides, it's not the number of rounds in the magazine, its the ABILITY for the weapon to ACCEPT a high capacity magazine, at least if I remember correctly.

So by that defintion A LOT of weapons are illegal, including the Ruger 10/22.

[colt-45]

a 10/22 is legal in Chicago as long as you don't modify it.

[JR1987]

colt-45, on 26 April 2012 - 07:22 AM, said:

a 10/22 is legal in Chicago as long as you don't modify it.

Right, but that's because like my own city, Chicago is home rule. For those cities without home rule in Cook a 10/22 is illegal.

Edited by JR1987, 26 April 2012 - 09:18 AM.

[kurt555gs]

My Henry Varmint Express 17HMR lever action rifle is considered an "assault weapon" in Cook County and Chicago.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

[willxjcherokee]

kurt555gs, on 29 April 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

My Henry Varmint Express 17HMR lever action rifle is considered an "assault weapon" in Cook County and Chicago.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

waaat
Thats crazy...
I am a person that believes no weapon can be an "assault weapon" but seriously... a lever action .17hmr o_O

[Sigma]

So we will get a chance to show the difference in cosmetics, then they will rule in favor of the state.
What was the weapon Dick Heller tried to register?

[bob]

Sigma, on 29 April 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

So we will get a chance to show the difference in cosmetics, then they will rule in favor of the state.
What was the weapon Dick Heller tried to register?

I think it was some kind of 22LR revolver.

[drdoom]

I live in a home rule town, so I'm not impacted by the ban, but even so, regulating firearms based on their cosmetics, is just asinine. Oh well, forget the first amendment, it's the second amendment violation that has me pissed.

[Tvandermyde]

there are differing views on what Home rule units can do or what is legal in this case as you have a home rule county trying to overrule municipalities.

One thought is the county superscedes unless the town specifically addresses the issue. I am not of that camp.

The other one is if a town passes any gun ordinance, then they have decided the level of regulation, and the County ordinance is of no effect as it clashes with the miunicipal ordiance. This is supported by the state consitution.

Next is tjat the County ordiance only applies in un incorproated areas where they have jurisdiction.

typically, counties can do little in in corporated ares of town, or villages. other than tax issues like an amusement tax or gas tax.

Cook tried to infer that their ordiance superseded an local ordiance unless specifically contradicted and none of the towns took them to court. That would have settled the matter. But the cook dealers got their city councels to pass ordinances to allow them to operate. This was inthe hayday of civil suits and trying to run all the cook dealers out of business. I am certain that if they had not fought back, and won, then Daley would have been doing bloomberg type stuff in the collar counties when he got done with Cook.


Anther reason why we need to kill off HB-1907

[Talonap]

Tvandermyde, on 30 April 2012 - 07:24 AM, said:

there are differing views on what Home rule units can do or what is legal in this case as you have a home rule county trying to overrule municipalities.

One thought is the county superscedes unless the town specifically addresses the issue. I am not of that camp.

The other one is if a town passes any gun ordinance, then they have decided the level of regulation, and the County ordinance is of no effect as it clashes with the miunicipal ordiance. This is supported by the state consitution.

Next is tjat the County ordiance only applies in un incorproated areas where they have jurisdiction.

typically, counties can do little in in corporated ares of town, or villages. other than tax issues like an amusement tax or gas tax.

Cook tried to infer that their ordiance superseded an local ordiance unless specifically contradicted and none of the towns took them to court. That would have settled the matter. But the cook dealers got their city councels to pass ordinances to allow them to operate. This was inthe hayday of civil suits and trying to run all the cook dealers out of business. I am certain that if they had not fought back, and won, then Daley would have been doing bloomberg type stuff in the collar counties when he got done with Cook.


Anther reason why we need to kill off HB-1907

So are we only talking about Home Rule towns here? Thanks Todd!

[Jason4567]

kurt555gs, on 29 April 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

My Henry Varmint Express 17HMR lever action rifle is considered an "assault weapon" in Cook County and Chicago.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

How so? Maybe in Cook, but not for any reason I can see in Chicago. Only semi auto rifles are limited, not lever action.

Edited by Jason4567, 30 April 2012 - 12:16 PM.