67 replies to this topic

[TyGuy]

.

Edited by TyGuy, Yesterday, 11:37 PM.

[TyGuy]

.

Edited by TyGuy, Yesterday, 11:37 PM.

[TyGuy]

Velocigoose, on 22 May 2013 - 09:15 PM, said:

This bill is trash and anyone that supports it should feel bad. ...

BTW - it's a joke folks.

Edited by TyGuy, Yesterday, 11:37 PM.

[gangrel]

woldy2, on 22 May 2013 - 08:47 PM, said:

chevsuz12, on 22 May 2013 - 08:40 PM, said:

I agree with most, that we could have better, but this isnt that bad! I am currently in Los Angeles and was discussing this with some of the folks here, and they would love to have this bill!  Do what nearly all other states have done, take what we can then work to make it better!

I am ok with the overall bill......but have some concerns.  My biggest being training.
I am confused by the wording on p.32 that states the training requirements for instructors.  It states the various requirements for law enforcement instructors, then for the 6th requirement it states the word "and".
I think this is a mistake, if it stated "or" then I would think his would allow NRA Certified Instructors.

Any thoughts?

It allows for NRA handgun instructors

Where did you see that?  'Cause that's not how I read it at all...

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Edited by gangrel, Today, 12:26 AM.

[chevsuz12]

gangrel, on 23 May 2013 - 12:24 AM, said:

woldy2, on 22 May 2013 - 08:47 PM, said:

chevsuz12, on 22 May 2013 - 08:40 PM, said:

I agree with most, that we could have better, but this isnt that bad! I am currently in Los Angeles and was discussing this with some of the folks here, and they would love to have this bill!  Do what nearly all other states have done, take what we can then work to make it better!

I am ok with the overall bill......but have some concerns.  My biggest being training.
I am confused by the wording on p.32 that states the training requirements for instructors.  It states the various requirements for law enforcement instructors, then for the 6th requirement it states the word "and".
I think this is a mistake, if it stated "or" then I would think his would allow NRA Certified Instructors.

Any thoughts?

It allows for NRA handgun instructors

Where did you see that?  'Cause that's not how I read it at all...

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

    (d) A person seeking to become a certified firearms
2        instructor trainer, in addition to the requirements of
3        subsection © of this Section, shall:
4                (1) possess a high school diploma or GED certificate;
5            and
6                (2) have at least one of the following valid firearms
7            instructor certifications:
8                    (A) certification from a law enforcement agency;
9                or
10                    ( certification from a firearm instructor course
11                offered by a State or federal governmental agency;
12                    © certification from a firearm instructor
13                qualification course offered by the Illinois Law
14                Enforcement Training Standards Board; and
15                    (D) certification from an entity approved by the
16                Department that offers firearm instructor education
17                and training in the use and safety of firearms.

Notice the word "or" between sections (A), ( and the word  "and" between sections ©, (D).  I would think this can be interpreted in different ways; and should be clarified.

I assume that the "entity approved by the department" could mean an NRA certified instructor.   But nothing states that.

EDIT---I have no idea why the smileys are showing up.  I am typing on my iPad

Edited by chevsuz12, Today, 01:03 AM.

[jandy2640]

Hash this crap out all you want but the fact is the fee for the permit and the cost of training effectively exempts 70% of the people with a legitimate need for CC. The Madigan machine knows it and YOU know it. Can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

[vezpa]

8x57, on 22 May 2013 - 08:12 PM, said:

You guys keep saying it will take 71 votes to change it later.  As it is, we had what, about 68 for our bill originally?  That's 8 more than we need to pass an improvement, and only 3 fewer than what is required to override a veto.  Most importantly, one thing I've noticed is that the legislature doesn't take very kindly to the Governor vetoing something that passed both houses with a majority.  I think those 68 votes to pass an improvement could easily turn into at least 71 if the governor vetoes it.  Also, once the legislature realizes CCW is somewhere between no big deal and a very good thing for society, I think we'll see even more support for it.  This has proven true in other states.

Again, we absolutely must take this deal because TV and others in know are all saying it's this or 183, no cliff.  Besides, even if there was a cliff to go over, we'd be rolling the dice with the courts again (which don't forget move at the speed of molasses).  This bill provides an extremely strong foundation on which to start building.  We'd be really foolish not to take it.

When Lisa is governor nothing will change.  She will be governor and will probably die in office like her father.
.

[jandy2640]

The (pooch) as they say, has been screwed. Into the floor.