richp

Mauser, You are right as to comprehensive, widespread enforcement. But on an individualized basis, getting caught in a random event (wrong place, wrong time, wrong cop, wrong prosecutor) is still likely to be a life altering experience -- both emotionally and financially.

This would be the perfect case to take to the SC -- a clear and present danger that a citizen has perceived, and taken reasonable precautions to defend from.

It's more likely that if a vacancy came up on the Supreme Court under Biden, they would offer her that life appointment - something far more attractive than a Senate seat that she would have to compete for every 6 years.

Kamala would never take a downgrade like that.

Focus people, focus... Our common goal here is to focus on full restoration and reactivation of our Second Amendment rights.

The real answers to these problems are too complex and too difficult, and so deeply entrenched in dysfunctional social systems and politics, that they default to the easy answers - targeting people who are law abiding. LP

Yes, there are other conditions that must be fulfilled as well, just to get into the IROCC system. I was just referring to the annual qualification and cost requirements, which differ considerably from the non-LEO process. And of course it's worth noting that most other states do not have the restrictive bureaucracy that Illinois has built up around LE retirees carrying. But then, this is Illinois...

Not exactly. Retired law enforcement have to qualify annually to retain an IROCC card. Incidentally, it's not a free pass -- it's $75 a year for one gun, and $100 a year if you want to qualify on both revolver and autoloader.

That would get it down to 12 minutes -- still way too much material for the average person to absorb and usefully retain all but the most high profile content. So make all your important points in three minutes, and then if you want, add on the ego-driven or entertaining stuff that causes attention drift for many people when interspersed with the core points. Of course that might not work in an internet environment where clicks and monetization are big motivators. Yeah, color me cynical. But realistic.

I'm sorry, I just can't drag myself through lengthy Youtube presentations like that anymore. If only those commentators would provide a separate sort of executive summary in about two or three minutes, I think they would be able to draw a lot more people into the fold.

https://heyjackass.substack.com/p/the-lightfoot-compendium?sd=pf

"... or prevents them from being able to care for themselves." ?????? How vague and practically difficult is that to implement in a fair and constitutional manner?

That's taken care of.

I made a point of amending my will to specifically identify to whom my guns were to be given upon my death. My thought was to remove any question or ambiguity about their legal disposition.

And along those same lines, a departing assistant states attorney in Cook County has this to say about the situation here. https://www.chicagocontrarian.com/blog/departing-cook-county-prosecutor-upbraids-kim-foxx-in-searing-exit-letter

Over the long run, one could visualize a situation where having training in some modest way protects you against litigation or prosecution, while not being trained makes you more vulnerable. I'm not saying this is the way it should be. I'm just saying given the way our society is trending, it's not beyond possibility.

If only just one more Supreme Court decision would resolve this for all time... The antis are going to try to ferret out every nook and cranny available to them, and litigate every one to the fullest extent they can. And in most cases they will have the resources of government behind them to prevent the exercise of our rights. It's going to be a real tough and long battle on many fronts.

Okay, then I don't get it. Why would there be some significant underwriting difference between having and not having a CCL, if it wasn't training, which presumably would somewhat reduce the risk of a person carrying doing something stupid, unwise, or patently illegal?

Is their assumption that having a CCL entails training?

One might expect that at some point insurance companies that offer concealed carry insurance, and perhaps companies with more general liability coverage built into their policies, will either require, or give a discount for training. That might kick in if you had firearms under some kind of an additional rider on your homeowner policy. Sort of along the lines of the discount I get on my homeowner's insurance for having a security system.

So what would what he calls "unlawful militia activity" look like in illinois?

Thanks Euler. Too many ever-lengthening legal threads for my foggy old mind to keep accurate track of.

Get the state to cite one example of a 50 caliber long gun being used in a crime here. The stats for long guns generally are minimal in relation to our crime, but a .50?

I should have indicated sarcasm when I asked my question about why this guy was trying to squeeze money. Yes, it sounds like a typical sleazy, opportunistic politician.

If the state is fully defending the law in this arena of multiple lawsuits, why does this guy need private money?