Jump to content

Response from IL Senator Nolan


lockman

Recommended Posts

Dear Senator Nolan:

 

My frustration grows ever higher in light of the Lane Bryant and NIU shootings. When will this state allow its citizens to defend themselves with the right to carry (RTC). Illinois has very excellent laws in the use of deadly force but under threat of imprisonment prohibits the possession of the most effective defensive tool unless you are on your own land. I urge you to support SB-0348 concealed carry and SB0458 Firearms Preemption. Please sign on as a co-sponsor to this life safety legislation.

 

If you have any reservations I would urge you to contact the licensing authorities in other RTC states, they can provide the information on the impact the legislation has had in their states. The results have all been positive. The doom and gloom predictions have never materialized in any of the states passing RTC.

 

A gentleman visiting from Arizona commented in the Daily Herald yesterday about the Lane Bryant murders, “Why is my life worth less in Illinois?†As an RTC permit holder he could legally carry in every state from Arizona to the western border of Illinois.

 

What can be done to turn this around?

 

RESPONSE

 

I will consider doing this if the sponsors will amend the bill to allow for ballistics registry of all new handguns sold in Illinois. Compromise.

 

m.noland

 

P.S. Best to use my senator@noland.org address for legislative matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should inform him that Maryland has such a system and the Maryland State Police have asserted that the system is a waste of their time and money.

 

Wish I had a news article to share regarding that though.

 

 

Here is something at least on that.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page...T20040121a.html

 

 

Here is a source that claims the Maryland State Police advocate a repeal of that law.

http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-relea...ryland-boon.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your life or a sample of your expended cartridges! What do you all think about that comprimise?

 

The state already has a registry of every legal gun owner. They don't need a new registry of every legal handgun. Tell him we've done more than our share of "compromising", and now it's the other side's turn.

 

Should inform him that Maryland has such a system and the Maryland State Police have asserted that the system is a waste of their time and money.

 

Wish I had a news article to share regarding that though.

 

Here is something at least on that.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page...T20040121a.html

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,66007,00.html

 

Maryland and New York already require ballistic fingerprinting. So far it hasn't helped convict a single criminal in Maryland despite "fingerprinting" 17,000 guns sold since January 2000. New York hasn't had success either.

 

And there isn't likely to be success any time soon, according to the study.

 

The report included the test firing of more than 2,000 rounds from 790 pistols.

 

When cartridges from the same manufacturer were test-fired and compared, computer matching failed 38 percent of the time. With cartridges from different manufacturers, computer matching failed 62 percent of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Senator Nolan:

 

My frustration grows ever higher in light of the Lane Bryant and NIU shootings. When will this state allow its citizens to defend themselves with the right to carry (RTC). Illinois has very excellent laws in the use of deadly force but under threat of imprisonment prohibits the possession of the most effective defensive tool unless you are on your own land. I urge you to support SB-0348 concealed carry and SB0458 Firearms Preemption. Please sign on as a co-sponsor to this life safety legislation.

 

If you have any reservations I would urge you to contact the licensing authorities in other RTC states, they can provide the information on the impact the legislation has had in their states. The results have all been positive. The doom and gloom predictions have never materialized in any of the states passing RTC.

 

A gentleman visiting from Arizona commented in the Daily Herald yesterday about the Lane Bryant murders, “Why is my life worth less in Illinois?†As an RTC permit holder he could legally carry in every state from Arizona to the western border of Illinois.

 

What can be done to turn this around?

 

RESPONSE

I will consider voting for you if you will support the RTC bill HB4544. Compromise.

 

lockman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Senator Nolan:

 

My frustration grows ever higher in light of the Lane Bryant and NIU shootings. When will this state allow its citizens to defend themselves with the right to carry (RTC). Illinois has very excellent laws in the use of deadly force but under threat of imprisonment prohibits the possession of the most effective defensive tool unless you are on your own land. I urge you to support SB-0348 concealed carry and SB0458 Firearms Preemption. Please sign on as a co-sponsor to this life safety legislation.

 

If you have any reservations I would urge you to contact the licensing authorities in other RTC states, they can provide the information on the impact the legislation has had in their states. The results have all been positive. The doom and gloom predictions have never materialized in any of the states passing RTC.

 

A gentleman visiting from Arizona commented in the Daily Herald yesterday about the Lane Bryant murders, “Why is my life worth less in Illinois?†As an RTC permit holder he could legally carry in every state from Arizona to the western border of Illinois.

 

What can be done to turn this around?

 

RESPONSE

 

I will consider doing this if the sponsors will amend the bill to allow for ballistics registry of all new handguns sold in Illinois. Compromise.

 

m.noland

 

P.S. Best to use my senator@noland.org address for legislative matters.

 

We have "compromised" for decades now and have gotten nothing in return. No more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No compromise!!!!!!! We have allready given away too much. Yes Blago would veto out the RTC and then we would have another useless to us law. Of course this would be registration of all new handguns. then it would become all guns transfered even between indivudials then all guns including long guns. This is a list I won't accept being on. No compromise!!!!!!!!! Jim.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No compromise!!!!!!! We have allready given away too much. Yes Blago would veto out the RTC and then we would have another useless to us law. Of course this would be registration of all new handguns. then it would become all guns transfered even between indivudials then all guns including long guns. This is a list I won't accept being on. No compromise!!!!!!!!! Jim.

 

Five ladies shopping for a new dress and five students trying to get an education have already done the compromising. Serialization of ammo or ammo accountability would have done absolutely nothing to stop or prevent NIU, Tinley Park, Kirkwood, Nebraska Mall or the Colorado Church. A well placed and handled handgun did in one of them and could have in the others, given the chance!!

 

 

The FOID card, background check, waiting period, and gun free zones did not stop the NIU shooting. Why would one more law do any better??

 

We've compromised since 1968 in this state, time for the other side to give in return!!

 

AB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've seen first hand how the Gov. "compromises"! Nothing doing - we don't compromise for what is rightfully ours and protected by the U.S. Constitution!!

 

 

When is this guy up for reelection?

 

Molly B.

 

LOoks to be a Freshman, bio says "Years served, 2007-Present". So, as Phil says, "Not soon enough". 'Course, as in the case of our US Senator, Obama, that "Present' could also be his voting record!!!!

 

AB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MY RESPONSE:

 

 

Mike,

 

 

The Maryland state police have recommends that "this program be suspended, a repeal of the collection of cartridge cases from current law be enacted, and the Laboratory Technicians associated with the program be transferred to the DNA database unit."

 

Maryland's 'Ballistics Fingerprint' System Not Working, Report Says

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/archive/200...L20050112b.html

 

How Reliable Is Ballistic Fingerprinting?

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,66007,00.html

 

Lawmakers Consider Scrapping Signature Gun Program

 

http://www.newsline.umd.edu/justice/gunprints031105.htm

 

Personally if it were not for the millions of dollars it would cost to set up and the ongoing cost to maintain it I would not have a problem with it. But I could not justify the cost expenditure knowing that 5 or less minutes with and emery board or file would render any previous ballistic registration of that firearm worthless. But if you are not familiar with firearms I guess one would not know it can be so easily defeated. It is akin to putting the serial number on the gun in washable ink.

 

 

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

 

 

HIS ANSWER:

 

Excuses. Compromise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MY RESPONSE:

 

 

Mike,

 

 

The Maryland state police have recommends that "this program be suspended, a repeal of the collection of cartridge cases from current law be enacted, and the Laboratory Technicians associated with the program be transferred to the DNA database unit."

 

Maryland's 'Ballistics Fingerprint' System Not Working, Report Says

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/archive/200...L20050112b.html

 

How Reliable Is Ballistic Fingerprinting?

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,66007,00.html

 

Lawmakers Consider Scrapping Signature Gun Program

 

http://www.newsline.umd.edu/justice/gunprints031105.htm

 

Personally if it were not for the millions of dollars it would cost to set up and the ongoing cost to maintain it I would not have a problem with it. But I could not justify the cost expenditure knowing that 5 or less minutes with and emery board or file would render any previous ballistic registration of that firearm worthless. But if you are not familiar with firearms I guess one would not know it can be so easily defeated. It is akin to putting the serial number on the gun in washable ink.

 

 

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

 

 

HIS ANSWER:

 

Excuses. Compromise.

 

It sure was considerate of him to offer such a constructive, well-reasoned response to your legitimate arguments about why his proposal is ill-conceived.

 

This guy obviously is not a friend to gun owners, and I resent how he thinks he can reduce us to begging for his "consideration" by sending terse, two word demands for support of a failed program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what I would send.

Feel free to use/modify it.

 

 

 

No Senator.

Those aren't excuses. Those are facts.

 

 

One more fact for you Senator.

Gun owners have attempted to compromise with legislative supporters of gun control before.

In the 94th General Assembly, three bills were passed as part of a compromise.

 

SB1333 which ended the 'gun show loophole'

SB2104 which established a statewide standard for transporting firearms.

SB0057 which contained the provisions of both SB1333 and SB2104

 

All three bills were passed within days of each other. SB1333 and SB2104 passed with more than enough votes to override any vetoes the governor might issue.

SB0057 was very close to having that majority as well.

 

The Governor vetoed SB2104 and used his amendatory veto power on SB0057 to strip out the compromise legislation we wanted and left the legislation that gun control supporters wanted.

 

When it came time for a veto override, gun owners were stabbed in the back as several legislators who support gun control but agreed to the compromise changed their votes and refused to vote for a veto override.

 

This is what compromise has gotten gun owners. We give, and get nothing in return.

Legislative supporters of gun control have shown they cannot be trusted to hold up their end of a compromise.

If any compromise is to happen, we must first see the governor's signature on a bill that gun owners want.

To do any less is to assure that gun owners are the only ones who will do any giving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO COMPROMISE From here on out we become the squeaky wheel and don't stop squeaking until the CCW grease is applied.

 

 

NO COMPROMISE

Ditto !

 

 

 

What do you all think about that comprimise?

 

No way. No compromises.

 

I said that before I read any responses. And I am glad that we all, independently, think this way.

 

 

 

You guys are starting to sound like ME......................about damn time

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compromise?? On my RIGHTS as a citizen??

Who do these people think they are?

This is exactly what happens when voters elect someone they believe is "smart" in place of someone with common sense.

 

Compromise is NOT in my vocabulary when it comes to my RIGHTS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Send him this:

 

Compromise. Let me explain "compromise" to you, in very simple terms, so that you are sure to understand. This phenomenon is addressed in a Hamline Law Review paper by Olson and Kopel (1999), which provides an analysis of the situation in England: ( http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html ). To visualize your compromise, imagine a graph with time on the X-axis and gun rights on the Y-axis; from the origin (of the graph), time runs from past to present, and gun rights run from absolute infringement to absolutely no infringement. If you examine the history of gun control in the United States (and certainly within Illinois), you will witness increasingly more restrictive laws over time. Thus, over time, the line has moved down this slope with the passage of gun regulations (infringements). Based on history, it is apparent that movement of the line is not equally bi-directional; it appears very easy for the line to move downward over time and likewise, very difficult for it to move up. Hence, the “slippery slope.” The only logical end-point of this history, and of that line, is an eventual absolute (“lawful”) infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Explain to me, Senator, how series of compromises on this issue can not, or will not, end in a total loss of our rights?

 

These are rights. Constitutionally protected rights. There is no compromise when it comes to rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right on GF - but I fear the Senator is not smart enough to understand what you wrote!

He'd probably think dorvinion is agreeing with him!

 

I suspect you are wrong....and I suspect that he understands completely. He supports gun control, and does not support gun rights.

 

He realizes that ANY compromise on the part of gun owner's rights is a win for them. With any right, you can only loose, never gain more. There is a wall against which absolute rights butts up against. There can be net movement in one way, and one way only...loss of rights. With each compromise, and no matter what we get out of it, the ratchet clicks down the slope to complete gun control. I am not paranoid or unreasonable. This is effectively a truth...a mathematical proof if you will...of a physical property. It's the right to bear arms. You either have the right, or you move further toward not having the right.

 

He understands, and knows that any loss of gun rights is a net win for them. But he probably thinks that we might fall for it.

 

We must convince him that we are on to the reality here.

 

Does anyone not understand what I am saying here....why it is a "proof" not just a supposition...that we can loose more gun rights, but cannot gain more back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compromises only work when all parties are dealing in good faith.

As the Demonocratic leadership has proven time and time again, then have no intention of acting in good faith.

You cannot compromise with people that have no honor and who's word is worthless.

 

It's time to force those that claim to be on our side to put their VOTES where their mouths are. If they refuse, then it will be up to their constituents to make them pay the ultimate political price for their hypocrisy and run them out of office.

 

I think we are getting to the point where the choices really are that simple...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...