Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Chicago Metro Area

Recent Profile Visitors

1,301 profile views

Tango7's Achievements


Member (24/24)

  1. So I was sitting at the table when I get an automated notice from the State. Back in the day, it was used for flag honor notices and weather warnings. But ever since JB Pritzker was installed, they use it to announce that he's having the state cat litterbox cleaned - or in this case, trying to whittle away even more of our Rights at taxpayer expense. Gov. Pritzker Takes Action to Hold Gun Manufacturers Accountable Press Release - Saturday, August 12, 2023 CHICAGO — Building on historic action to protect Illinoisans from gun violence and just a day after the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the state's assault weapons ban, Governor JB Pritzker signed the Firearm Industry Responsibility Act (FIRA) into law, holding accountable gun manufacturers who knowingly caused harm from unsafe marketing practices. Governor Pritzker signed the bill alongside lawmakers and gun control advocates at Gun Sense University, an annual training conference of more than 2,000 Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action volunteers and survivors, hosted by Everytown for Gun Safety. "Today, I proudly signed the Firearm Industry Responsibility Act into law — finally holding gun manufacturers accountable for endangering the public safety and health of our people," said Governor JB Pritzker. "We hold opioid manufacturers accountable. Vaping companies accountable. Predatory lenders accountable. Gun manufacturers shouldn't get to hide from the law—and now, they won't be able to. Here's to an Illinois where everyone feels safe in every corner of our great state." "No single industry should be given a free pass to engage in unlawful, unfair or deceptive conduct," said Attorney General Kwame Raoul. "The Firearms Industry Responsibility Act clarifies my office's ability to use the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, which is a tool to hold businesses accountable for fraudulent or deceptive practices through civil litigation. It is how my office has protected the public from opioid manufacturers, vaping companies, tobacco companies and predatory lenders. By signing this legislation, Gov. Pritzker has taken an important step to protect consumers and increase public safety." "Thoughts and prayers are hollow if we do not also act decisively. That is why we are continuing to rise to the occasion through this bill that will hold gun manufacturers accountable for advertising to our youth and promoting dangerous, illegal acts that jeopardize lives," said Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton. "For too long our communities have lost loved ones to gun violence. In Illinois, we are standing up to say ‘enough is enough'." "Depicting guns as tools for carnage is a dangerously irresponsible sales tactic that will undoubtedly lead to further murder and maiming of innocent people," said state Rep. Jennifer Gong-Gershowitz, D-Glenview. "It is tragic that we have to step in to ensure manufacturers exercise common sense. However, thankfully due to the law we are codifying today, any reckless companies participating in such behavior will face serious penalties for their wanton disregard for public safety." "As a society, we long ago established that it is irresponsible, unsafe and illegal to allow certain entities to target our children with their marketing," said Illinois Senate President Don Harmon (D-Oak Park). You see that with cigarettes and alcohol. This new law holds gun makers to the same standards, telling them to stop marketing to an audience that cannot legally purchase the product. It's common sense." Under the Firearm Industry Responsibility Act (HB 218), gun manufacturers that engage in unsafe and unlawful marketing and sale will be held accountable for actions contributing to gun violence in Illinois communities. The proposed measure will prohibit advertising and marketing that encourages para-military or unlawful private militia activity and advertising to individuals under 18 that encourages the use of a firearm in an unlawful manner including advertising the uses of cartoons, stuffed animals and clothing targeted towards children. Earlier this year, Governor Pritzker signed legislation to ban assault weapons, cap sales of high-capacity ammunition magazines, ban "switches" that convert legal handguns into assault weapons and extend the ability of courts to prevent dangerous individuals from possessing a gun through firearm restraining orders. Governor Pritzker has also signed legislation to ban unserialized, privately made "ghost guns," the first Midwestern state to do so (HB 4383). In 2021, Governor Pritzker signed legislation expanding background checks on all gun sales in Illinois and modernizing and strengthening the Firearm Owners Identification Card System (HB 562). Additionally, Governor Pritzker signed legislation (SB 337) to combat the scourge of illegal gun trafficking, making Illinois the 16th state to require gun dealers to be certified by the state after more than a decade of work. Governor Pritzker's Reimagine Public Safety Act also established the first ever Office of Firearm Violence Prevention, providing a historic investment in community-based violence prevention for the communities most affected by firearm violence. This legislation is effective immediately.
  2. The late Robert Sherrill, author of "The Saturday night special,: And other guns with which Americans won the West, protected bootleg franchises, slew wildlife, robbed countless banks, ... with the debate over continuing same" was quoted as saying that GCA '68 wasn't written so much to control guns as to control blacks. And no, Sherrill wasn't particularly pro-2A.
  3. Lying, From this fair state? We're dealing with a government that has repeatedly intentionally delayed cases involving determining the age at which someone can be considered an "adult" capable of requesting their own (unconstitutional) "Mother, may I please?" FOID card until the plaintiffs lose standing - even though they were fully within their rights when the case was initiated rather than fighting them on legal merits. A government that had a sworn law enforcement officer sit in front of a legislative committee and testify that the then governor's amendatory veto language should stand because in his opinion people would spend 16 hours of their life in class, then spend the 2nd highest application fee in the nation simply to go into an establishment and drink to intoxication while armed. The same sworn law enforcement officer, his colleague and their supervisor also signed witness statements in favor of said veto using their state issued email accounts and identified themselves as state employees while doing so. A government that fought allowing ordinary citizens an effective means of self defense in public using the excuse "they could under their authority, it might make people safer and it's not nonsensical" in the face of 35 other states moving from "may issue" or "non issue" to "shall issue" with no increase in illegal gun use or wrongful shootings. A government whose chamber leader utilized political pressure to deny citizens the right to carry by changing enough votes to avoid a supermajority in 2011. A government with a history of multiple governors who, knowing the process required to own firearm or ammunition in this state, willfully reduced the number of employees of the sole agency to process the permits required to exercise that right by over 50%. A government whose lead law enforcement official utilized state resources to harass lawful merchants in other states, requiring them to abide by their interpretation of Illinois law and threatening them with legal action - at taxpayer expense - if they failed to comply. There's a phrase in criminal law called "the totality of the circumstances". One action or event might not be significant, but A + B + C + D + E = something happening. Anyone from outside could see the pattern of behavior and the complete and callous disregard the majority of the elected and appointed officials have for our 2A Rights. It's a shame they cannot be held accountable for their actions under 18 U.S. Code § 242.
  4. Many years ago I was prevented from buying ammo in Wisconsin at a Dunham's on our way to a trip to "the quarry" where we used to shoot the morning after parties. My buddies laughed at me, then said they would buy it as WI residents. The teen assistant manager wouldn't sell to them either because I was with them.
  5. I remember in the pre-CCW years there being signs in all the ranges local to me NO DRAWING FROM HOLSTER for exactly this reason. Our academy was religious in their teaching us that the finger doesn't go on the bang switch until our sights are on target.
  6. In one of the FoF classes I attended our instructor had us face away from the target, then equipped two other students with foam training batons and had us spar with them for 30 seconds before blowing the whistle that was the signal for them to stop and for us to turn towards the target, draw and engage. Without using an EpiPen or a realistic enough threat to cause a dump, it wasn't bad.
  7. Saw this referenced on a large social media platform. The author mentions attending classes here in Illinois. Anybody remember them? https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/opinion/firearms-guns-america-safety.html#site-content GUEST ESSAY Firearms Classes Taught Me, and America, a Very Dangerous Lesson May 16, 2023, 5:00 a.m. ET Credit...Jérôme Berthier By Harel Shapira Harel Shapira is an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas, Austin. I did not grow up around guns, but 10 years ago, I started attending firearms training classes. I wasn’t there to learn how to protect myself or my family. I was there to learn what was taught in the classes themselves, which a broad coalition of groups — including many police officers, Republican and Democratic legislators and gun violence prevention organizations — have hailed as a path out of the nation’s epidemic of violence. I found something very different. The classes I attended trained students to believe that their lives are in constant danger. They prepared us to shoot without hesitation and avoid legal consequences. They instilled the kind of fear that has a corrosive effect on all interactions — and beyond that, on the fabric of our democracy. I took 42 classes and conducted interviews with 52 instructors and 118 students, in traditionally red states like Texas as well as blue states like Massachusetts, in urban areas like Newark as well as rural Southern Illinois. (The instructors knew I was there to conduct research; in keeping with my university’s academic protocols, I had permission to take notes in class and to record interviews but not to publish anyone’s names.) Most of all, I immersed myself in firearms schools in Texas, where I live, that cater to people who wish to learn how to use guns for self-defense. Some instructors in these schools told me they have been involved in drafting public safety protocols or running active shooter drills for public school teachers. Some of these instructors’ students have gone on to open training programs of their own. While American gun culture has diversified in recent years, the overwhelming majority of firearms instructors — in Texas it’s 75 percent — are white men. Many have a background in the military or law enforcement. Nationwide, more than 125,000 of them have taken a certification course offered by the National Rifle Association. Many states require instructors to complete additional training. First, the good news: Every firearms instructor I encountered was extremely serious about preventing accidents. When a student inadvertently pointed his gun at me for a moment, our instructor immediately chastised him. And when the student objected, saying he didn’t have his finger on the trigger, the instructor became livid and threatened to kick him out of class. But teaching people how to avoid shooting someone by accident is a small part of what these classes are about. The primary lessons are about if and when to shoot someone on purpose. And this is where the trouble begins. Instructors repeatedly told me that a big part of their job was to make people feel vulnerable, to make them aware of dangers they were not conscious of before to understand that bad things can happen at any time. One instructor told me he encourages students to carry their gun at all times. If students say they plan to leave it in the car, he responds, “So what you’re telling me is the only time you are ever going to get attacked is if you are in your car?” The instructors describe a world teeming with violent and deranged individuals. And not just any individuals. The scenarios cluster around the public spaces of racially diverse cities. “More often than not,” an instructor who had been a high-ranking police officer said, the place you’re likely to be attacked is “in an urban part of society.” Another instructor, also a former police officer, tells students to keep their gas tanks filled at least halfway to avoid situations in which “it’s the middle of the night and you need to get gas in downtown Houston.” Outside a restaurant in Austin, an instructor saw a disheveled man sitting on the curb and nudged me in the other direction, directing me to pick up the pace. He said he had detected “potential predatory behavior” and wasn’t sure if this man was a panhandler or someone about to stick a gun in our faces. Instructors repeatedly told me that statistics about crime are meaningless when it comes to the need to carry a gun. It’s not the odds, I heard on numerous occasions; it’s the consequences. I have been taught strategies for avoiding interactions with strangers. I have participated in scenario training sessions in which students carrying guns loaded with plastic ammunition enact mock burglaries, home invasions, mass shootings and attacks by Islamic terrorists. Repeatedly the lesson was that I ought to shoot even when my instincts might tell me otherwise. For example, in one scenario, an instructor pretended to punch someone I know and care about in the head. The instructor’s back was toward me, so I held my fire. Later, I told him that I hadn’t had enough information to act. Wrong answer. Being punched in the head can be fatal, the instructor told me, so there was no time to wait. I had never heard someone advocate shooting an unarmed person in the back. The instructor did it with a sense of moral, legal and tactical clarity and conviction. Officially, the message is caution. A line I heard from multiple instructors was: If you are not about to die in the next three seconds, don’t pull the trigger. If you are not 100 percent sure, then don’t shoot. But relentlessly harping on the dangers that surround us changes the way students assess those risks. I experienced it myself. On a recent night I saw a driver who didn’t appear to realize that he was going the wrong way on a one-way street. As the other car approached, I began to slow down, roll down my window and stick my hand out in a friendly gesture. Suddenly I worried the other driver might have a gun. How might he respond to someone slowing down a car and waving at him in the middle of the night? Would he shoot? Probably not. But it’s not the odds, I remember telling myself; it’s the consequences. That’s the great irony of firearms training: In learning how to use a gun for self-defense, something that seems like it might give you confidence and a sense of safety, people end up feeling more afraid than before. “I knew the world was dangerous,” a student told me after class one day, “but this was a real wake-up call.” “He scared the daylights out of me,” I heard from another student, who went straight from class to a gun store. Others who already owned a gun told me the classes made them feel the gun should be bigger, with a larger caliber and more capacity. Firearms instructors are not the only ones who make an appearance at self-defense classes. Lawyers do, too. Lawyers who specialize in defending gun owners. They go to classes and tell students how to talk (or not) to 911 operators and police officers in the event they shoot someone. In one seminar, a lawyer emphasized the importance of explaining, “I had no choice.” With more than 200 mass shootings in our country this year alone, advocates of gun regulation often cite the tragic number of lives lost or the fact that gun-related injuries have surpassed car accidents as the nation’s leading cause of injury-related death among people under 24. But another, less recognized casualty is the kind of public interactions that make democracy viable. The N.R.A. says that “an armed society is a polite society.” But learning to carry a gun isn’t teaching Americans to have good manners. It’s training them to be suspicious and atomized, learning to protect themselves, no matter how great the risk to others. It’s training them to not be citizens. Harel Shapira is an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas, Austin. His book on American gun culture is forthcoming. The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com. A great counterpoint:
  8. Oh, it's necessary. Pritzker and the appointed hoplophobes in ISP admin are hoping for an untoward response, so they can clutch their pearls and scream "WVILGUN OWNERS! TOLD U SO!" and push even more restrictions.
  9. I know of several instructors that could offer different formats from the traditional double 8's. I've run four hours over 4 evenings, two 4's and an 8... As long as the students get the full 16 required by law, it's all good. The latest format cert was issued in 2018. I mistakenly issued an older format one 😵 and my student got rejected until he gets a corrected one .
  10. It shows the charge as "unauthorized possession/storage of weapons" and the bond being reduced on the 17th, but he's still in custody.
  11. And unlike the state, we don't have the bottomless purse of those we're assaulting or appointees with badges to intimidate those being oppressed.
  12. Maybe I'm missing your point. I understand that they said that transfers where the FTIP has been performed will be allowed. I'm not disputing that as it's plainly written (unlike most of this dreck). What I'm saying is that, under Hurtado, and the advice previously offered by the ISP, before this Pile Of Shavings law was enacted, a transfer was deemed to have started when the buyer and seller agreed to the sale. While an FTIP had to be performed before the sale concluded and the firearm was transferred, the performance of the FTIP had no bearing on when the transfer began. With the passage of this dreck, any verbal sales, or layaways that had not yet had the FTIP performed were null and void.
  13. Because the elites are still upset - not just about having to recognize our right to an effective means of self defense allowed in 49 other states to varying degrees, but because they couldn't hide their dirty laundry behind the robes of a political crony. Well, that and the fact that their only "justifications" were "we can", "it's not nonsensical" and "it might make people safer".
  • Create New...