Your Letters To The Illinois General Assembly

[glockready]

State Rep Zalewski on 03/07/2012 you stated "If I could be assured that 99% of the law-abiding citizens that want to exercise what they consider to be their full Second Amendment Right, If I can ensure they were are all responsible gun owners, then I would be happy to support the bill".

Don't "responsible" gun owners go through a background check conducted by the Illinois State Police to obtain a FOID card to even posses an unloaded gun and ammunition? So are you implying that 99% of gun owners are not responsible? If so, then why are the Illinois State Police Issuing FOID cards to irresponsible gun owners at an alarming rate? The State Police are required to issue FOID cards within 30 days of (430 ILCS 65/5) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-5) States "The Department of State Police shall either approve or deny all applications within 30 days from the date they are received, and every applicant found qualified pursuant to Section 8 of this Act by the Department shall be entitled to a Firearm Owner's Identification Card upon the payment of a $10 fee".

Why is the Illinois State Police allowed to violate the law and take up to 60 days to process an application after the payment is processed? Who is being irresponsible?

Do you think that you could support responsible gun owners this year and work with the other legislators to pass a good concealed carry bill?

 

 

 

Please let me know, so I can share this information with other "responsible gun owners" like myself.

Your Amendments to HB1155 & HB997 only criminalize responsible gun owners and create "gun free zones" for criminals to attack unarmed civilians. I don't think that you are serious about supporting the Second Amendment.

 

 

Here is a letter I wrote to Representative Zalewski. He has been an opponent of the Second Amendment here in Illinois working to keep the criminals armed and the law-abiding citizens unarmed and helpless. His attacks have continued this year with his Amendments to HB1155 & HB997. Show us your letters to the State Representatives and their responses here. Lets see how out legislators respond.

[lee n. field]

State Rep Zalewski on 03/07/2012 you stated "If I could be assured that 99% of the law-abiding citizens that want to exercise what they consider to be their full Second Amendment Right, If I can ensure they were are all responsible gun owners, then I would be happy to support the bill".

 

Point him to the disparity between our lobby day and theirs. They scared up, what, ten people? We had (given the figure I see most often for igold) eight hundred times the attendance.

[dumpnpump]

What a weasel!!!

[glockready]

What a weasel!!!

 

He still is a weasel send him an email and let him know how you feel. He has usually responded to my emails.

repzalewski@gmail.com

[GWBH]

I was pretty worked up last night and couldn't sleep just thinking about his rhetoric so I also wrote Rep Zalewski.

 

Dear Representative Zalewski,

 

My name is Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx. I grew up around firearms and was introduced to the shooting sports at a very young age. After high school, I went on to serve our country in the United States Army with both Company L (RANGER) 75^th Infantry, 101^st Airborne Division and the 101^st Pathfinder Detachment, 101^st Airborne Division in the Republic of Vietnam. After my military service, I worked for several private military companies in various security and training capacities. I say all of that only to establish a level of credible knowledge with respect to firearms, their functions and use.

 

I believe too often, legislators look to law enforcement as the go to authority on firearms. From my experience, most police officers know very little about the weapon they carry for duty. In fact, some are so unfamiliar with their sidearms that they take their service weapons to gun stores for disassembly, cleaning and reassembly. Most view their sidearm as just another tool of the job, like a radio for communications or the ink pen they use to issue citations. In general, private firearm owners know infinitely more about firearms simply because it is their passion. They want to know about all the intricacies of the firearms they own, not just “this is the way it works”, hit the target 70% of the time and that’s adequate.

 

I listened to the debate on the house floor yesterday with respect to your amendments to House Bills HB1156 and HB1157, which were introduced to ban what you call “high capacity magazines” used in the AR platform series firearms, commonly known as the AR15 rifle. The “high capacity magazines”you referenced are what manufacturers of these rifles label as standard capacity since every new rifle in the AR series comes with a thirty round magazine as a standard feature.

 

You also referenced a video which you stated proves that magazines of lesser capacity are completely adequate for self defense under private ownership of these rifles. I’m familiar with that video and it was produced for the Armalite Company, featuring magazine changes with respect to the company’s AR series weapons.

Sir, it is misleading to portray that a private citizen or even law enforcement can replicate what a trained and accomplished competition marksman can do without many, many hours of practice and experience. Its one thing to accomplish smooth and quick magazine changes at a shooting range, but quite another under the stress of a combat situation when one is in imminent danger of losing their life.

 

I do have some questions for you.

If magazines of lesser capacity are adequate for self defense, and if these lesser capacity magazines can be changed in a negligible amount of time, why would police officers need high capacity magazines for their defense? Why would they be exempted from the penalties of law, since high capacity magazines, in your view, are completely unnecessary?

 

If lesser capacity magazines can be changed in a negligible amount of time, making high capacity magazines virtually the same as a given number lesser capacity magazines, holding an equal amount of ammunition, isn’t your legislation really mute and with no point? Doesn’t the end result amount to basically the same thing?

 

I find it hypocritical that an AR series rifle with a “high capacity magazine” under the ownership of a private citizen is labeled an “assault weapon” but for law enforcement use it is characterized as a patrol rifle or patrol carbine.

It’s certainly some kind of magic that can turn a “lethal weapon of carnage” into a “politically correct tool” if one of these rifles were to pass from the hands of a private citizen into the hands of a police officer. The definition lies solely on who’s in possession of the weapon.

 

Sir, I took the oath of military service when I entered the U.S. Army in 1969. It is the same oath of office you took when you became an Illinois State Representative. We both swore allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, not the government. We swore before God that we would uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

I don’t recall a term limit mentioned when I took that oath, and I have faithfully kept my word all these years. There was no provision noted to support only what I agree with and dismantle what does not suit me personally.

 

I ask that you do the same and cease attempting to destroy my God given Constitutional Rights.

 

I’ve heard the question asked, “Why does anyone need that kind of firearm or magazine?” I could ask the question, why does anyone “need” a smart phone or why does anyone “need” a new set of golf clubs? The Second Amendment is not in the “Bill of Needs” – it is in the Bill of Rights.

Sir - there is a difference.

 

Regards,

[chicago]

Nice herpes ya little dork.

[glockready]

I was pretty worked up last night and couldn't sleep just thinking about his rhetoric so I also wrote Rep Zalewski.

 

Dear Representative Zalewski,

 

My name is Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx. I grew up around firearms and was introduced to the shooting sports at a very young age. After high school, I went on to serve our country in the United States Army with both Company L (RANGER) 75^th Infantry, 101^st Airborne Division and the 101^st Pathfinder Detachment, 101^st Airborne Division in the Republic of Vietnam. After my military service, I worked for several private military companies in various security and training capacities. I say all of that only to establish a level of credible knowledge with respect to firearms, their functions and use.

 

I believe too often, legislators look to law enforcement as the go to authority on firearms. From my experience, most police officers know very little about the weapon they carry for duty. In fact, some are so unfamiliar with their sidearms that they take their service weapons to gun stores for disassembly, cleaning and reassembly. Most view their sidearm as just another tool of the job, like a radio for communications or the ink pen they use to issue citations. In general, private firearm owners know infinitely more about firearms simply because it is their passion. They want to know about all the intricacies of the firearms they own, not just “this is the way it works”, hit the target 70% of the time and that’s adequate.

 

I listened to the debate on the house floor yesterday with respect to your amendments to House Bills HB1156 and HB1157, which were introduced to ban what you call “high capacity magazines” used in the AR platform series firearms, commonly known as the AR15 rifle. The “high capacity magazines”you referenced are what manufacturers of these rifles label as standard capacity since every new rifle in the AR series comes with a thirty round magazine as a standard feature.

 

You also referenced a video which you stated proves that magazines of lesser capacity are completely adequate for self defense under private ownership of these rifles. I’m familiar with that video and it was produced for the Armalite Company, featuring magazine changes with respect to the company’s AR series weapons.

Sir, it is misleading to portray that a private citizen or even law enforcement can replicate what a trained and accomplished competition marksman can do without many, many hours of practice and experience. Its one thing to accomplish smooth and quick magazine changes at a shooting range, but quite another under the stress of a combat situation when one is in imminent danger of losing their life.

 

I do have some questions for you.

If magazines of lesser capacity are adequate for self defense, and if these lesser capacity magazines can be changed in a negligible amount of time, why would police officers need high capacity magazines for their defense? Why would they be exempted from the penalties of law, since high capacity magazines, in your view, are completely unnecessary?

 

If lesser capacity magazines can be changed in a negligible amount of time, making high capacity magazines virtually the same as a given number lesser capacity magazines, holding an equal amount of ammunition, isn’t your legislation really mute and with no point? Doesn’t the end result amount to basically the same thing?

 

I find it hypocritical that an AR series rifle with a “high capacity magazine” under the ownership of a private citizen is labeled an “assault weapon” but for law enforcement use it is characterized as a patrol rifle or patrol carbine.

It’s certainly some kind of magic that can turn a “lethal weapon of carnage” into a “politically correct tool” if one of these rifles were to pass from the hands of a private citizen into the hands of a police officer. The definition lies solely on who’s in possession of the weapon.

 

Sir, I took the oath of military service when I entered the U.S. Army in 1969. It is the same oath of office you took when you became an Illinois State Representative. We both swore allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, not the government. We swore before God that we would uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

I don’t recall a term limit mentioned when I took that oath, and I have faithfully kept my word all these years. There was no provision noted to support only what I agree with and dismantle what does not suit me personally.

 

I ask that you do the same and cease attempting to destroy my God given Constitutional Rights.

 

I’ve heard the question asked, “Why does anyone need that kind of firearm or magazine?” I could ask the question, why does anyone “need” a smart phone or why does anyone “need” a new set of golf clubs? The Second Amendment is not in the “Bill of Needs” – it is in the Bill of Rights.

Sir - there is a difference.

 

Regards,

 

Very well written. Did he respond to your email?

[glockready]

Nice herpes ya little dork.

LOL

[phattony]

I would bet he probably got that sore on his lip from kissing Madigan's A**

 

[GWBH]

Very well written. Did he respond to your email?

 

Thank you sir - and no, not yet...

Your's was concise and hit the point head on - nice work!

[glockready]

I would bet he probably got that sore on his lip from kissing Madigan's A**

 

He has been kissing a lot of a s s. The Madigan Machine.

[blazzinbird]

I just emailed him to

[glockready]

I just emailed him to

Very good! He needs to hear the voice of "THE PEOPLE". He was not elected to do as he wished with our Constitutional Rights! He was elected to protect our rights.

[TTIN]

Awww give him a break guys.With that whiney little girl's voice of his,he's probably got small mans disease and is getting back at us manly types who have obviously bullied the little twerp all his life.

[milq]

Does his mom know he's dressed up and pretending to be a Rep? Is he 16?

[Ricky Two Guns]

Sooo from reading this thread we have undoubtfully determened he is most definetly a. butt sucking herpes infested weasel?? ADIMIN we need a new smiley!

[cshipley92]

Guys, just saying, if we have any hope of changing his mind, we'd better hope he never reads this thread.

[d38runner]

Guys, just saying, if we have any hope of changing his mind, we'd better hope he never reads this thread.

 

+1. Making fun of the guy for having a cold sore and how he got it just makes us look homophobic, which is exactly how the anti-gunners want to portray us (they're all a bunch of racist, homophobic gun-toting rednecks). Remember, this is a hearts and minds battle, and we want to convince the soccer mom from Elmhurst who is on the fence, or the gay accountant from Lake Forest who is starting to get interested in guns. This won't do it.

 

Also, for the record, most people contracted HSV-1 (the virus that causes cold sores) from when they were a kid and received a kiss from a parent or relative who had it, or when sharing drinks with other kids (so, through no fault of their own).

[Trevis]

I'm worth d38, as much as it may seem fun, character attacks are not a good thing. This is the tactic of the side who is trying to take our rights (or have taken). We know Zalewski is wrong, and is a puppet of the machine. He's one of the younger reps, and for sure, Madigan and the team have made sure he plays on their court. This is our issue. Anything else is a distraction.

 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[Lou]

From today's Tribune:

 

Madigan's plan

This is in response to the March 7 editorial, "'What are you waiting for?' "

As I was reading it, I couldn't help but think that one of House Speaker Michael Madigan's motives is to make Governor Pat Quinn look even more ineffective than he already is.

 

What's in it for Madigan that is so important that it allows Illinois to sink even billions more in debt while silly political games are being played in the Illinois House?

The answer just might be the 2014 Democratic primary for governor.

Making Quinn look bad will help his daughter, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, when she challenges the incumbent governor next year.

Do I really believe that Speaker Madigan would let Illinois sink even more in debt in some Machiavellian plot so that he can control two-thirds of Illinois government?

Yeah, I do.

— Louis J. Berardi, Downers Grove

http://www.chicagotr...0,6065057.story

[glockready]

Mr. XXXXX,

Thank you for reaching out to me regarding your Second Amendment rights. I will support any legislation that protects the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. I am a proud co-sponsor of HB0997.

Criminals will carry weapons regardless of the legality of the practice—as the old saying goes, when you outlaw guns, the only ones with guns are outlaws. Concealed carry gives responsible, law-abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves and their families.

Again, thank you for taking the time to reach out to me.If you have any questions, comments, or thoughts about this piece of legislation or any other state legislation, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me or my office.

With Best Wishes

Sincerely,

Mike Smiddy

State Representative

71st District

[glockready]

Thank you for contacting me about this very important issue. I appreciate your feedback and your opinion.

 

Unfortunately, due to limited resources and staffing, I am able to only respond personally on this issue to residents of the 46^th District. I strongly encourage you to contact your representative in the Illinois House, if you have not done so already, and make them aware of your position on this issue. If you are unsure of whom your representative is you can find out by calling the Illinois State Board of Elections at (217) 782-4141 or visiting http://gis.elections.il.gov.

 

Sincerely,

 

Deb Conroy

State Representative

46^th District

 

Madam Conroy, my Representative & Senator are both aware of my position on gun control legislation in Illinois. They support the Constitution of the United States and the Right of the People to keep and bear arms. I am concerned about Illinois legislators like yourself who make it their personal agenda to attack the Second Amendment. You may think you are only accountable to the people of the 46th District of Illinois, but your vote affects residents of the entire State of Illinois as a whole. You will continue to receive emails from the PEOPLE of Illinois. They will expect that you answer for your actions as a public official.

[glockready]

 

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the 2nd amendment. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you concerning this matter.

In December 2012 the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Illinois' ban on concealed carry. The court gave the state 180 days to put in place a law that allows "the carrying of guns in public." The court stated that "reasonable limitations, consistent with public safety and the 2ndAmendment can be included in the legislation.

I joined with a bipartisan group of legislators in supporting House Bill 997, which legalizes concealed carry for trained, licensed law-abiding citizens, while putting in place reasonable restrictions. This legislation respects the Constitutional rights set forth in the Second Amendment, while keeping our communities, families and neighborhoods safe.

I was frustrated and disappointed by the lack of seriousness with HB1155. While I do support several common sense amendments, the fact of the matter is that because of the overreaching nature of the nearly 26 separate restrictions added to HB1155, this legislation will undoubtedly be struck down by the courts. Additionally, I do not support a ban on magazines or any proposal that is not backed by the NRA.

I appreciate you sharing your ideas about how to make Illinois concealed carry law effective and efficient. Please know I am a strong proponent of our 2nd Amendment Right to conceal and carry, and I believe rights should be afforded to responsible law abiding gun owners. I truly hope that a more reasonable compromise can be reached.

 

Sincerely,

 

Joe Sosnowski

State Representative

District 69