tkroenlein
-
Posts
8,894 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by tkroenlein
-
-
2020 is the year the FOID dies.
-
So you get equal rights and then you want to give them up. Makes sense, totally.No Sir. I would however give up a Certain Weapon if it was agreed upon by the majority of members of my community that it is the best interest of us all to not have that particular weapon in our district. It wouldn't stop me from arming myself nor protecting my family and property. If I didn't agree I would either store the weapon in a district where it was legal or I would move to a district where it would be legal. But thats just me Sir.One of the beauties of freedom is that the members of your community may, on their own, choose to not purchase a certain firearm. If they agree with your sentiments that may happen. Forcing your desires on a community against it's will and against it's enumerated right is, however, the opposite of freedom.Choose freedom. It's a wonderful place to be.
I will certainly give this Comment my final reply to any on this thread. There was a Man who became President in our great land of freedom and liberty. His position was you must Give up your Property as it is wrong and you cannot and shall not possess it any further. Over half of the Country disagreed with this President and the Country went to War over it. Hundreds of thousands died because they felt it was their inalienable right to own their property....Hundreds of thousands died in opposition of those beliefs....That President was Abraham Lincoln war was the Civil war and that property was Slaves...Freedom Sir has always been paid for in blood.
I'd bet that Abe Lincoln would have little to fight for had slaves been afforded the Constitutional freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.
And while evil men did say it was their "right to own property," that doesn't make it so. The same way that evil men today deny others the basic dignity that comes with the ability to defend themselves, and call that "progress."
-
This is an excellent idea. Cordell, please read the Federalist Papers and another great resource is "The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights 1787-1792. by David Young. I believe it is the most exhaustive compilation of historical facts concerning the Second Amendment.
So, please read the Federalist Papers- if you haven't already - before commenting further.
p.s. The folks here are not trying to change your opinion, they are merely challenging your opinion and asking you to back it up with historical fact.
Molly I have read the federalist Papers and I do realize the Second Amendment originally was meant for defense through form of civilian militia. With you personally Molly I could never go back and fourth Because I would be totally biased, close my mouth and agree with whatever you say..............But as for Others my Beliefs specifically on 2nd amendment will forever be from a Progressive Perspective because when the framers formed it people such as myself were slaves and not citizens and the only law that I would've been protected under would have been the right for a Slave Owner to claim me as his property. So until the civil rights act of 1964 (when the civil rights act of 1875 was actually enforced under the law) I did not have equal rights. So my views might always differ from the Original interpretation of second amendment that many here may appreciate. And my view may be unpopular here but I'm a voter just like everyone else and We all can exercise our voices at the ballot box.
/thread
-
Of course, when speaking of one's rights, it's never correct to let that devolve into a requirement to prove the usefulness of the right to someone on their terms.
The right exists. It is given to each of us by the Creator, with a capital "C", the Founders referred to in the Constitution. That is sufficient to insist upon our continued ability to exercise it individually, even in the face of those who see no value in it.
In this sense the analogy to the First Amendment still holds in that many people see faith as anachronistic, yet never question that the expression of faith found in religion is a protected right.
Oh, and Papa's use of $'s to enclose his post is meant to signify sarcasm.
Listen it should be quite clear that I won't be moved on my beliefs the same as you won't be moved that the "Founders had it all right" I've shown you that the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES agrees with my position not yours. You claim to be freedom loving but when that very freedom is exhibited through the form a vote within the highest Court in our land. A decision was reached and concluded that LAWMAKERS can ban not all but CERTAIN WEAPONS but you are still arguing that you should be able to Own whatever weapon your money can buy you. It just doesn't fly.
You need to read that decision again. Nowhere does it say that weapons in common use can be banned. When you read "certain weapons," think of a shotgun that fires anthrax coated razor blades, not a rifle that uses technology perfected in the 1800's that fires conventional metallic cartridges.
-
It is not the killing efficacy of civilian arms, but rather the totality of civilian arms possession, that keeps tyranny at bay.
Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.
Let us not forget that when the dems had control of all branches of govt after Sandy Hook, Harry Reid REFUSED to call gun control for a vote.
Many have opined that it was a political move. I'll offer an alternative opinion. Harry Reid knew that the American people would not bow to another Clinton style gun ban.
What's Connecticut's compliance rate up to, 4%?
Yes, AR15s and the like are NEEDED.
I saw a statistic the other day. The .gov bureaus' now have more armed agents than the US Marine Corps. Think about that.
So please enlighten me! If there was ever an attempt of tyrannical takeover in this Country. What use will you have for any of your small arms if there's an Abrams tank outside your door Sir? Go ask the Palestinians how their firearms have held up against Israel. That argument stinks.
There will not be an Abrams tank outside my door. That is the point you're missing about widespread civilian ownership. It will never happen.
-
It is not the killing efficacy of civilian arms, but rather the totality of civilian arms possession, that keeps tyranny at bay.
Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.
Let us not forget that when the dems had control of all branches of govt after Sandy Hook, Harry Reid REFUSED to call gun control for a vote.
Many have opined that it was a political move. I'll offer an alternative opinion. Harry Reid knew that the American people would not bow to another Clinton style gun ban.
What's Connecticut's compliance rate up to, 4%?
Yes, AR15s and the like are NEEDED.
I saw a statistic the other day. The .gov bureaus' now have more armed agents than the US Marine Corps. Think about that.
-
I got my FOID and CCL address changes in under 30 and 60 days, respectively.
-
Mmmm hmmmm...I'm sure someone was interested in your story...
-
How do you know that these guy were really deputies and not some criminals using phony uniforms and forged paperwork? Criminals could impersonate law enforcement officers and potentially confiscate guns and ammo as well as a FOID card. Criminals could probably alter a FOID card to enable them to buy guns and/or ammo.
I really cant know for sure. That same question is bothering me too. I have a video of the 20min visit. I can share it via PM if you like to see it. I live in a very decent area of DuPage county where police is present everywhere (160k population). It would be very risky for outsiders to impersonate law enforcement officers in the middle of the day next to a very busy street.
Wait...You're in DuPage?!
Total scam job. Call the...gulp...ATF...as well as ISP and report the attempted theft.
-
There is nothing preventing children from having a FOID card.To address the constant quoting of only 10% (on the average) have FOID cards:
That is faulty math because one of premise used is invalid. Of the total population, how many are children too young to have a FOID card? How many are elderly and in assisted care or skilled care facilities? How many would not qualify for a FOID card. How many households mistakenly believe that only one person in a household needs a FOID card? How many households have guns with no, or an expired, FOID card in a household?
My somewhat informed guess is that about 30% of our voters in Illinois own guns, and that is a much better number to consider. But, that is a guess no matter how informed I believe it to be.
As long as their fairy godmother says so.
-
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Hallelujah! Not only a dealer in my neck of the woods, but someone I enjoy doing business with.
-
I hope he signs it before the knife cops start rounding people up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Being that this is the end of the session and there is no serious opposition to the bill (like there was with the CC law,) I expect this will get passed to the governor and signed right quick. Read: I have a shopping cart ready to go.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
My concern with this bill as written is that many cities have local ordinances that make switchblades illegal also. I don't see anything in the text of the bill that preempts local ordinances.
So even if we get this passed, it may not change things in all practicality. I can't own one in my town, or in the neighboring city I have to drive through to get to work.
-- FrankGood point. Surprised something like that didn't get caught by the knife rights people, although I suppose there could have been some protest by one side during negotiation. I'd guess many of those local restrictions are mostly in the Chicago or heavily populated urban areas.
They could always propose a House amendment but then it would need to go back to the Senate again which is how the bill died last year iirc.
I would consider contacting my house rep but they are the type that would ban pop tarts because they could be eaten into the shape of a gun so I fully expect a negative vote on this bill from them.
Looked at the 2015 and 2016 versions of this bill and none of them had preemption language either
It could be that the knife rights folks understand that an issue like this is more palatable in small doses. You want maximum opposition? Tell Chicago they don't get to have a say in it...
-
I'm guessing that civil rights restoration is the restoration of voting rights. But, what is a gubernatorial pardon?
That's when you get pardoned by Da Gubna.
Our gubnas only get to sign pardons during yard time.
-
You will most assuredly need a very good lawyer.
No offense at the OP, but I'm glad the process of reinstating rights is convoluted and expensive.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Call your state rep and have him or her ask about it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Once it goes active, you are waiting on the mail, usually within a week.
-
-
There is NO prohibition on liquor stores.
(9) Any building, real property, and parking area
under the control of an establishment that serves alcohol on its premises, if more than 50% of the establishment's gross receipts within the prior 3 months is from the sale of alcohol. The owner of an establishment who knowingly fails to prohibit concealed firearms on its premises as provided in this paragraph or who knowingly makes a false statement or record to avoid the prohibition on concealed firearms under this paragraph is subject to the penalty under subsection (c-5) of Section 10-1 of the Liquor Control Act of 1934.
-
wishbone, thanks for the clarification. I believe this is the exception that you are referring to-
© A licensee shall not be in violation of this Section while he or she is traveling along a public right of way that touches or crosses any of the premises under subsection (a), (a-5), or (a-10) of this Section if the concealed firearm is carried on his or her person in accordance with the provisions of this Act or is being transported in a vehicle by the licensee in accordance with all other applicable provisions of law.
And here is the prohibition in question-
(15) Any building, classroom, laboratory, medical clinic, hospital, artistic venue, athletic venue, entertainment venue, officially recognized university-related organization property, whether owned or leased, and any real property, including parking areas, sidewalks, and common areas under the control of a public or private community college, college, or university.
And Black's definition of right of way-
The right of passage or of way is a servitude imposed by law or by convention, and by virtue of which one has a right to pass on foot, or horseback, or in a vehicle, to drive beasts of burden or carts, through the estate of another. When this servitude results from the law, the exercise of it is confined to the wants of the person who has it. When it is the result of a contract, its extent and the mode of using it is regulated by the contract. Civ. Code La. art. 722. Bight of way, in its strict meaning, is the right of passage over another mans ground; and in its legal and generally accepted meaning, in reference to a railway, it is a mere easement in the lands of others, obtained by lawful condemnation to public use or by purchase. It would be using the term in an unusual sense, by applying it to an absolute purchase of the fee-simple of lands to be used for a railway or any other kind of a way. Williams v. Western Union Ry. Co., 50 Wis. 76, 5 N. W. 482. And see Kripp v. Curtis, 71 Cal. 62, 11 Pac. 879; Johnson v. Lewis, 47 Ark. 60. 2 S. W. 329; Bodfish v. Rodlish, 105 Mass. 317; New Mexico v. United States Trust Co., 172 U. S. 171, 19 Sup. Ct. 128. 43 L. Ed. 407; Stuyvesant v. Woodruff, 21 N. J. Law, 130, 57 Am. Dec. 156.
In reading the first section that I pasted, it is clear that a licensee may travel along a public right of way. To be a right of way, refer to the definition. That would be the same type of right of way that's in my yard, and is a public right of way by virtue of the rights incorporated by the village. "My property," maintained by the village, and open to public travel.
In the second section that I've pasted, prohibition #15, the sidewalks owned or leased by the listed entities are clearly prohibited areas.
The difference between the two sidewalks lies in whether or not any legal right of way has been established by the state or a municipality via a process such as those described in the definition that I pasted.
Unfortunately, there appears to be no exception for "common use" in the statute such as you suggest.
-
I'm having a hard time understanding this conversation about "right of ways" and way it's being debated. I think folks must be talking about two different areas.
I have a public right of way in my front yard. Two actually. The village map shows that my property extends to the center of the street, yet I have a sidewalk and half a street that the public is legally entitled to travel. These are public right of ways. It is maintained by the taxpayers' money.
There are many such right of ways in, on, and around college campuses. The easiest way to tell if it is public or private is to look at it and decide if it desperately needs repair. That would be the public property.
-
-
I bet the other states are wondering the same about their licenses not being allowed in Illinois.. Any idea why our permit is not allowed there yet?What about South Carolina? Any idea why our permit is not allowed there yet?
I know the answer to this one. It's because their carry law, like ours and the majority of other states, do not have recognition written into it, as would be proper per the 14th Amendment. There are many states that have it right, though.
People v. Brown - FOID ruled unconstituional in IL District Court
in Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion
Posted