Jump to content


Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    southern Indiana

Recent Profile Visitors

1,272 profile views

Xwing's Achievements


Member (24/24)

  1. I can't believe there is open question on this board on whether this ordinance is good or bad. Of course it is a terrible way for Kane to become more like Cook, and ban everything they can. As usual, the anti's take things in little pieces, and ban / restrict whatever they can at the moment, always moving away from freedom. Email sent to cpierog@kanecoboard.org, mmolina@kanecoboard.org, dberman@kanecoboard.org, alewis@kanecoboard.org, mbates@kanecoboard.org, blenert@kanecoboard.org, rford@kanecoboard.org, msilva@kanecoboard.org, mgumz@kanecoboard.org, tkoppie@kanecoboard.org, dbrown@kanecoboard.org, jmartin@kanecoboard.org, kshepro@kanecoboard.org, TWallace@kanecoboard.org, mdavoust@kanecoboard.org, bwojnicki@kanecoboard.org, mkenyon@kanecoboard.org, dallan@kanecoboard.org, dfrasz@kanecoboard.org, mIqbal@kanecoboard.org, cstrathmann@kanecoboard.org, csurges@kanecoboard.org, vtepe@kanecoboard.org, ckious@kanecoboard.org, jsanchez@kanecoboard.org. If you cannot attend the meeting, at least let them know why this ordinance is a bad idea (email or phone)...
  2. Even better would be if the media stopped feeding the school shooters by giving them all the publicity & notoriety, and therefore encouraging the next group of school shooters. But at least if teachers had the option to be armed, the body count would go down. Greenwood was still a tragedy for the 3 innocent victims, but much less a tragedy because of the good guy with a gun.
  3. Wow. SCOTUS specifically ruled on a subject, and the 9th Circuit is ignoring their ruling on the exact same subject? It's been 11 years since that case started, but I guess the liberal judges can laugh that they can deny Young's rights for another year or two?
  4. I see that the dictator-in-chief has spit out a new possibly unconstitutional executive order: https://www.foxnews.com/us/gov-pritzker-overhauls-illinois-gun-rules-highland-park-massacre-critics-warn-2nd-amendment-breach Interested to see how ISP will redefine "clear and present danger" per this emergency rule change. I haven't seen the exact text of it though. Hopefully there is still stringent due process before denying someone their rights... I don't think anyone minds if the likes of Crimo are denied, but government usually has a tendency to over-reach and deny many times more rightful owners than those who should actually be...
  5. Also, FYI, in Indiana "no guns" signs have no force of law. So no matter how they posted it, they can't charge the CCW-holder with a crime. All they can do is ask him or her to leave (and then charge with trespass if the CCW-holder refuses to leave.)
  6. You can carry legally anywhere that is not on that list of 23 places in 430 ILCS65 (a) and places with specific signage per 430 ILCS 66 (a-10) It's certainly a bigger list than it should be, but anywhere not on that list is legal. Different from the recently passed New York law and the soon-to-be-passed California law, where virtually everywhere in the state is prohibited. In NY (now) & CA (soon), they've prohibited all public avenues, all private businesses, many sidewalks, parking lots w/o real vehicle exceptions, etc... They purposely have responded to Bruen by making sure it's impossible to actually carry. So Illinois "prohibited places" list is large, but there are certainly states with much worse.
  7. What a shock? An anti-gunner who has no experience with firearms but hates them just the same? Sounds qualified...
  8. To be realistic, your options are #1 or #2. Both cost money and quite a bit of time. It's certainly not "right", but it is the reality. The state has made sure that restoring your rights is a painful and frustrating process. Unless you've left something important out, you should be successful with #2, but it'll be neither free nor quick. You've done nothing disqualifying, as the offense was a Class B misdemeanor, and the act only provides for suspension of your license after a second violation.
  9. Bad news, NY already did that. New York's terrible and completely unconstitutional law: See 265.01-e 3 (d),(e),(g),(h),... They create a class of license holders to whom the ludicrous restrictions do not apply. I hope the courts slap NY down hard for this blatant disregard for SCOTUS decisions they don't like.
  10. Pretty much as predicted. The left-wingers running the state are proud that the licenses they must issue will be virtually worthless. They've banned carry in about every location possible (including virtually all private businesses), and also made it very hard to even legally leave your gun in your car. So virtually no-one will be actually able to legally carry.
  11. Yes, if it's "on base". There are a bunch of "Federally prohibited places". But most of them are places that only apply to a small portion of the population. Link to a list of them: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/federal-ccw-law/federally-banned-locations-for-carrying-firearms/
  12. Good for Texas. How come all the Dems vote in lockstep and are united in hatred of the 2nd amendment, while some Republicans ignore the party platform and decide to help push gun control? No liberal will vote for them anyway; so they just lose conservate votes for no reason...
  13. Well, that was terrible news. All the gun-hating Dems got enough RINOs to support another diminishment of gun rights of citizens. And of course commie Biden was thrilled to sign it.
  14. 🤬 And I see that 5 RINOs including Kinzinger voted for that absolute garbage. Of course along with every Democrap other than 2. The Dems are back to banning all normal sized magazines. It of course is a sliding scale, as we've seen in liberal states. They ban what they can for now, and then keep on decreasing the number over time.
  • Create New...