148 replies to this topic

[sctman800]

24 hours is insane!!!   As allreadyt mentioned " what could you possibly teach for that amount of time?"  It is just another desperate try along the lines of "we can't ban guns so we will make ammo so expensive no one will be able to shoot."

We have allready given them more than enough to get this passed.  No more is allready too much.   Jim.

[Buzzard]

chicago, on 25 May 2012 - 11:09 AM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 24 May 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

Someone at state police is taking this very personal.

What do you mean by this exactly?

Are they angry because we made them look like a bunch of morons by mocking their own web page on women defending themselves with hair brushes and vomiting?  That web page is now non-existent.  Have they conceded to us on the ridiculousness of their advice on self defense or something??? Do they care to comment on the quiet removal of their "when confronted" web page? Are they going to revise their position on what Illinois women should do when confronted or are they going to be cowards?...

Maybe they ought not to be condescending to us and start supporting Illinois' citizen's RTC before WE start taking it personal.

Wow! I don't know that link is now down. At least, I haven't seen it mentioned here on IllinoisCarry - or anyone else's web page. Did I miss something or did anyone else know the ISP took the page down?

Thanks, ChiTown!!

[sirflyguy]

Drylok, on 25 May 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

I can not imagine how much it would cost in class room material to do a 24 class instruction. And trust me, sitting through 8 hr basic pistol courses is hard enough on the students. The longer a class lasts the more TPI you have to come up with to keep students from being bored out of their minds.

TPI: spoken like a true NRA certified instructor!

[chicago]

Buzzard, on 25 May 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

chicago, on 25 May 2012 - 11:09 AM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 24 May 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

Someone at state police is taking this very personal.

What do you mean by this exactly?

Are they angry because we made them look like a bunch of morons by mocking their own web page on women defending themselves with hair brushes and vomiting?  That web page is now non-existent.  Have they conceded to us on the ridiculousness of their advice on self defense or something??? Do they care to comment on the quiet removal of their "when confronted" web page? Are they going to revise their position on what Illinois women should do when confronted or are they going to be cowards?...

Maybe they ought not to be condescending to us and start supporting Illinois' citizen's RTC before WE start taking it personal.

Wow! I don't know that link is now down. At least, I haven't seen it mentioned here on IllinoisCarry - or anyone else's web page. Did I miss something or did anyone else know the ISP took the page down?

Thanks, ChiTown!!

You're very welcome Buzz. Along with Molly B and everyone at Illinoiscarry I'm hoping some of my ISP ads were able to help with that.

[Lou]

chicago, on 25 May 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

I don't want to be one of those guys but it appears that even Rep Phelps may be doughting whether or not HB0148 will even be called on this session now:

http://www.dailyregi...rambling?zc_p=0

Rep. Key Hatcher was asked about HB148 on her facebook page.   This is her answer:

Quote

State Representative Kay Hatcher It's still in purgatory, and I suspect it will remain there this summer. Perhaps this fall?2 hours ago via mobile · Lik

I guess this is an invitation to be a Cubs fan:  Wait til next year.

[lockman]

sirflyguy, on 24 May 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

Triple the training requirement?  It is amazing that some thing you have to be a SWAT member to be safe with a gun.  Such arrogance and ignorance.  They want to make it where the requirements are almost impossible for the average person to be able to comply.  But hey, that is how Chicago rolls.  Thanks for all you do, Todd!

Many a youtube video will dispute that all that training makes you safer. Training is not a replacement for stupid.

[Lou]

Buzzard, on 25 May 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

chicago, on 25 May 2012 - 11:09 AM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 24 May 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

Someone at state police is taking this very personal.

What do you mean by this exactly?

Are they angry because we made them look like a bunch of morons by mocking their own web page on women defending themselves with hair brushes and vomiting?  That web page is now non-existent.  Have they conceded to us on the ridiculousness of their advice on self defense or something??? Do they care to comment on the quiet removal of their "when confronted" web page? Are they going to revise their position on what Illinois women should do when confronted or are they going to be cowards?...

Maybe they ought not to be condescending to us and start supporting Illinois' citizen's RTC before WE start taking it personal.

Wow! I don't know that link is now down. At least, I haven't seen it mentioned here on IllinoisCarry - or anyone else's web page. Did I miss something or did anyone else know the ISP took the page down?

Thanks, ChiTown!!

They took that page down just prior to IGOLD.  And after I made all those ISP rape protection weapons........

[GarandFan]

chicago, on 25 May 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

I don't want to be one of those guys but it appears that even Rep Phelps may be doughting whether or not HB0148 will even be called on this session now:

http://www.dailyregi...rambling?zc_p=0

Look ... I know this is frustrating for all.  And I know this seems to be going through iteration after iteration, session after session, with hopes building, then let down, then building again.

Personally, I'd rather see a carry bill come to the floor right away and pass.  However, given Sheperd/Moore, there may be advantages to a carry bill NOT coming to the floor this session.  These are interesting times.

[Buzzard]

chicago, on 25 May 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

I don't want to be one of those guys but it appears that even Rep Phelps may be doughting whether or not HB0148 will even be called on this session now:

http://www.dailyregi...rambling?zc_p=0

If you didn't wanna be "one of those guys"  . . . then why did you answer so quickly??  

Seriously, thanks for the link to the article. But I guess I'm reading that differently than you are - the 'ol the glass is half full or half empty thing. I didn't see the word "doubt" in Rep. Phelps quote there at all:

Quote

Concealed Carry — HB 148
Phelps' highest profile bill, HB 148, which would open Illinois up to concealed carry of firearms currently sits in the Rules Committee awaiting a vote where the representative is not sure when or even if it will be called this session. "We're waiting for the speaker to call the bill. The problem right now is with the time we have with Medicaid, pension reform, and the (state facility) closings," he said. "We're hoping to get to it. It may be one of those things we have to wait for the fall sessions."

It's my thinking that if "the powers that be" want to pass a RTC bill rather than have the courts settle it - it will get called! But if those same people want to "roll the dice" as someone said here - then perhaps it will get pushed down the road to the fall session. But many of the minds here think that the courts will render a decision by then. Not the SCOTUS of course, but the courts where the case now sits. We shall see.

And what's my thinking? I'm going with what intel I'm hearing right now . . . and that is . . . .

[GarandFan]

[vezpa]

GarandFan, on 25 May 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

Sorry but the glass here in Illinois looks more like the image below. Deny existence of the glass in the first place.

Edited by vezpa, 25 May 2012 - 01:15 PM.

[Drylok]

GarandFan, on 25 May 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

chicago, on 25 May 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

I don't want to be one of those guys but it appears that even Rep Phelps may be doughting whether or not HB0148 will even be called on this session now: http://www.dailyregi...rambling?zc_p=0

Look ... I know this is frustrating for all. And I know this seems to be going through iteration after iteration, session after session, with hopes building, then let down, then building again. Personally, I'd rather see a carry bill come to the floor right away and pass. However, given Sheperd/Moore, there may be advantages to a carry bill NOT coming to the floor this session. These are interesting times.

I would be inclined to agree Garand but the only problem with that is we are only 1 election and 1 SCOTUS justice away from losing at the high court and for the high court to overturn Heller and McDonald. If Obama wins and Kennedy gets sick, dies or retires we are toast and not for a session or a year but closer to 3 decades

[sirflyguy]

lockman, on 25 May 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

sirflyguy, on 24 May 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

Triple the training requirement?  It is amazing that some thing you have to be a SWAT member to be safe with a gun.  Such arrogance and ignorance.  They want to make it where the requirements are almost impossible for the average person to be able to comply.  But hey, that is how Chicago rolls.  Thanks for all you do, Todd!

Many a youtube video will dispute that all that training makes you safer. Training is not a replacement for stupid.

Exactly.  The folks I have done some training with (and one of them is a retired ISP officer) have said that a lot of police officers aren't really good shots.  They do just enough to qualify each year.
I had a conversation with a friend a year or so ago.   He thought that civilians should have to have as many hours training as a cop does.  The thought of folks with guns in public scares him to death.  It really behooves all of us to help educate people about the reality of cc and the safety stats regarding such.

[Buzzard]

Drylok, on 25 May 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

GarandFan, on 25 May 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

chicago, on 25 May 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

I don't want to be one of those guys but it appears that even Rep Phelps may be doughting whether or not HB0148 will even be called on this session now: http://www.dailyregi...rambling?zc_p=0

Look ... I know this is frustrating for all. And I know this seems to be going through iteration after iteration, session after session, with hopes building, then let down, then building again. Personally, I'd rather see a carry bill come to the floor right away and pass. However, given Sheperd/Moore, there may be advantages to a carry bill NOT coming to the floor this session. These are interesting times.

I would be inclined to agree Garand but the only problem with that is we are only 1 election and 1 SCOTUS justice away from losing at the high court and for the high court to overturn Heller and McDonald. If Obama wins and Kennedy gets sick, dies or retires we are toast and not for a session or a year but closer to 3 decades

[sarcasm] C'mon Drylok, Whoever heard of a seventy-six year old man getting sick and dying?? [/sarcasm]

As far as overturning Heller and McDonald, I don't know if that would happen. When was the last time a SCOTUS decision overturned an earlier one? But then again, the justices that Obama has been appointing aren't exactly the most ethical justices I've seen, either. It's really hard to say at this point. But the main thing here is to NOT tempt fate.

[Lou]

sirflyguy, on 25 May 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

lockman, on 25 May 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

sirflyguy, on 24 May 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

Triple the training requirement?  It is amazing that some thing you have to be a SWAT member to be safe with a gun.  Such arrogance and ignorance.  They want to make it where the requirements are almost impossible for the average person to be able to comply.  But hey, that is how Chicago rolls.  Thanks for all you do, Todd!

Many a youtube video will dispute that all that training makes you safer. Training is not a replacement for stupid.

Exactly.  The folks I have done some training with (and one of them is a retired ISP officer) have said that a lot of police officers aren't really good shots.  They do just enough to qualify each year.
I had a conversation with a friend a year or so ago.   He thought that civilians should have to have as many hours training as a cop does.  The thought of folks with guns in public scares him to death.  It really behooves all of us to help educate people about the reality of cc and the safety stats regarding such.

LEOs have a minimum of 40 training in IL.  Civilians do not  need that much unless they want to give us police powers.  All I ask is for me to be able to defend myself and my family until the police arrive.  I do not want police powers so anything more than 8 hours is just their way of screwing with us.

[RECarry]

You make a good point about RTC supporters not wanting the police power" level of training. I think it will be important that the public realizes we want the right to defend our loved ones and property, wherever we are.  But the media is creating a distorted link between self-defense and the Zimmerman-was-a-vigilante-stalker crap.

Besides convincing our Reps, some positive PR would be very helpful now, else every legislator who is on the fence will fear phone calls from their whacko paranoid constituents.

Does anyone know if that is part of NRA's support?  All I her about is what they are spending on court cases.

[Tvandermyde]

Ok after marathon sessions with lawyers and state police we have reached an agreement on SB1034

Final amendment is being drafted. I believe this will work. Our largest points we got our language inserted in. This fire is out. On to the next one.

Edited by Tvandermyde, 25 May 2012 - 03:33 PM.

[Buzzard]

Tvandermyde, on 25 May 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

Ok after marathon sessions with lawyers and state police we have reached an agreement on SB1034

Final amendment is being drafted. I believe this will work. Our largest points we got put language inserted in. This fire is out. On to the next one.

Great Job, Todd!! Just remember to get a fresh O2 tank before you go running into the next fire!!

[vezpa]

Tvandermyde, on 25 May 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

Ok after marathon sessions with lawyers and state police we have reached an agreement on SB1034

Final amendment is being drafted. I believe this will work. Our largest points we got our language inserted in. This fire is out. On to the next one.

Why can a bill they need be finished up so quickly and other's that we want be drawn out for years and years?

[05FLHT]

Tvandermyde, on 25 May 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

Ok after marathon sessions with lawyers and state police we have reached an agreement on SB1034

Final amendment is being drafted. I believe this will work. Our largest points we got our language inserted in. This fire is out. On to the next one.

Thank you and Congrats, Todd.

[snubjob]

Drylok, on 25 May 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

GarandFan, on 25 May 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

chicago, on 25 May 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

I don't want to be one of those guys but it appears that even Rep Phelps may be doughting whether or not HB0148 will even be called on this session now: http://www.dailyregi...rambling?zc_p=0

Look ... I know this is frustrating for all. And I know this seems to be going through iteration after iteration, session after session, with hopes building, then let down, then building again. Personally, I'd rather see a carry bill come to the floor right away and pass. However, given Sheperd/Moore, there may be advantages to a carry bill NOT coming to the floor this session. These are interesting times.

I would be inclined to agree Garand but the only problem with that is we are only 1 election and 1 SCOTUS justice away from losing at the high court and for the high court to overturn Heller and McDonald. If Obama wins and Kennedy gets sick, dies or retires we are toast and not for a session or a year but closer to 3 decades

You scenario is looking more likely all thr time, and it's exactly what the anti's and the chicago machine are striving for.  Madigan and his crew are capable of making it happen too. As i've said before, their power and influence over these type issues is far underestimated by many.

[abolt243]

Good job!  Crisis averted!

[stm]

Tvandermyde, on 25 May 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

Ok after marathon sessions with lawyers and state police we have reached an agreement on SB1034

Final amendment is being drafted. I believe this will work. Our largest points we got our language inserted in. This fire is out. On to the next one.

Thanks for your hard work, Todd!

[mkfrns]

Thank you also !

[Jason4567]

Todd, you are a wise and crafty lion. Keep kicking @$$!

[ishmo]

Good job Todd, glad you were able to get them to see the light  

[Bimmer]

Many Thanks Todd owe some beer!!!

[John Wisch]

Todd, thanks for your work. But I don't understand your, and many others including the ISRA opposition to a simple Training requirement.

If the Chicago anti gun crowd will bend at a 12 hour/ 18 hour training requirement, what the heck. Lets do it. If it means getting a Legal CC for IL.

"You know many of us commit class 4 felony's when we choose to go armed outside our homes or property".

It is ridiculous that there is no provision possible for a legal means of CC.

I don't care if it is a 40 hour Course. I am in... I take at least one 8 hour Firearm training course every year. Sometimes I take 3 in a year. What's the big deal.

Lastly. If I am in a Wendy's with my family and a situation requires the deployment of a CC's Firearm. I sure would rather have that CC have more Training Hours under his/her belt than less. You nor the ISRA will never convince me different on that issue.

For Gods Sakes Man seal the deal will you!!!

[mauserme]

John Wisch, on 25 May 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

"You know many of us commit class 4 felony's when we choose to go armed outside our homes or property".

It would be best if you speak for yourself John because, frankly, that is not a choice "we" make.  We, meaning Illinois Carry, is about getting a legal means of carrying a firearm for self defense through legislative, judicial, and electoral means.

If you read the thread in its entirety, however, you'll find that even though concealed carry was touched upon, the topic is not that.  Have another look.

[TFC]

When the training requirements become so onerous that they become a de-facto ban, we've gained nothing but more time before the courts and placed an undue financial burden on those who can't exercise that right. Not because of the law, but because they lack the funds to protect themselves. It has the "poll tax" effect on the issue. The city of Chicago of already requires more training than most concealed carry states require.  And based on the behavior of CPD, they likely won't obey the law anyway.

Edited by TFC, 25 May 2012 - 06:48 PM.