Jump to content

ICPGV's "model" gun law


45superman

Recommended Posts

The Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (ICPGV), as the Illinois chapter of the Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV) is pushing a new omnibus gun law so draconian as to be an obvious attempt to virtually end private gun ownership in Illinois--well, legal private gun ownership, anyway.

 

It would require licensing (with safety training--5 hours of classroom instruction and 2 hours of live-fire training) for each gun, with the licensing requiring renewal every 2 years (I think the instruction is waived for renewal, but the written test is still required); registration for every gun, renewal required annually; "safe storage" (either trigger lock or gun safe) required--having the gun on one's person is no exception; "lost or stolen" reporting requirements--and probably stuff I missed or am forgetting. No mention was made of any limit on fees that would be required for the safety instruction and registration.

 

Here's the text (pdf file)--the details start on page 20.

 

"Only Ones" are, of course, exempt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt they really expect to pass it, at least in its entirety, but my guess is that they want to have this to point to as the alternative to the "reasonable" gun laws that are proposed.

 

Basically, this would be the anvil, and a full capacity magazine ban bill (for example) would be the hammer (or would that be vice-versa?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The violent crooks I know would never comply with these stupid, draconian measures. Only peaceable, non-violent gun owners would try to comply. Like Chicago's handgun ban and Illinois' prohibition on carrying loaded firearms by ordinary citizens, except in very limited circumstances, none of these proposed restrictions would decrease the amount of violence. Why? Bad guys don't care about gun laws and, most, if not, all of these proposals have no nexus with the real causes of violence.

 

All of this has been said before, but it should be repeated as often as will-not-affect-violence-gun control proposals are spewed from the mouths of the naive Brady people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much money do you want to bet that they are in Winnetca with these proposals as a bare minimum requirement? Pounding every elected official about it.

 

 

Well I guess they have been too quite for awhile.

 

That's a good point. I initially saw it as a proposed state law (and I still imagine that's what they would prefer), but on further examination, it looks as if their real hope is to pass it at the local level, particularly in IL jurisdictions that have dropped (or may have to drop) their handgun bans.

 

ICPGV seems to be based in Evanston (one of the municipalities that has recently dropped its handgun ban).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much money do you want to bet that they are in Winnetca with these proposals as a bare minimum requirement? Pounding every elected official about it.

 

 

Well I guess they have been too quite for awhile.

 

That's a good point. I initially saw it as a proposed state law (and I still imagine that's what they would prefer), but on further examination, it looks as if their real hope is to pass it at the local level, particularly in IL jurisdictions that have dropped (or may have to drop) their handgun bans.

 

ICPGV seems to be based in Evanston (one of the municipalities that has recently dropped its handgun ban).

 

Right. This is their 'model law' concept. That's why they have parenthesis in certain parts that can be filled in w. whatever applicable department etc. would be filled in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Lord--look at some of their other "model" laws--some (AWB, .50 cal, "universal background checks," etc.) are fairly typical gun grabber fare, but Air rifle bans? The only other one for which text is available is apparently the "Personalized Handgun" law.

 

"Personalized" handguns;

 

"Assault weapons" bans;

 

.50 caliber bans;

 

Air rifle bans, for the love of Elvis;

 

"Universal Background Checks";

 

Additional gun dealer regulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee, somebody worked a long time on that one.

 

Expect to see this, or variations of this, cropping up among all of the gun control groups.

 

This is their post-Heller model of gun control.

 

 

I guess when they talk about "reasonable common sense gun laws" it's pretty to see who isn't reasonable and who lacks common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Mike's letter to the Editor in response to a call for more gun control fits my sentiments exactly!

 

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

 

Mike Vanderboegh: More gun laws would mean civil war

 

Mike Vanderboegh — 7/23/2008 5:26 am

 

Dear Editor:

 

Joe Bialek from Cleveland proposes the licensing and registration of all weapons currently in civilian hands. My question is, how exactly do you propose to do that, Joe?

 

There are some of us "cold dead hands" types, perhaps 3 percent of gun owners, who would kill anyone who tried to further restrict our God-given liberty. Don't extrapolate from your own cowardice and assume that just because you would do anything the government told you to do that we would.

 

Are you proposing to come yourself, or do you want someone else's son or daughter in federal service to take the risk? Are you truly prepared to stack up the bodies necessary to accomplish your plan? Seems a strange way to make a "safer society." More to the point, are you willing to risk your sorry hide to do it? No? I thought not.

 

Then quit proposing the next American civil war. We're done being pushed back from our natural rights without a fight. Be careful what you wish for.

 

Mike Vanderboegh

 

Pinson, Ala.

 

Mike Vanderboegh — 7/23/2008 5:26 am

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's refreshing to see all the support for Mr. Vanderboegh's letter. Back when it was written, many gun bloggers got their knickers badly twisted, because they were afraid he "made us look bad."

 

A few examples (and there are many more):

 

Here,

 

and here,

 

and here,

 

and here,

 

and here,

 

and here.

 

David Codrea (War on Guns) and I were a in the distinct minority in defending Mr. Vanderboegh and his letter.

 

I have never met Mr. Vanderboegh, but have corresponded with him by email and phone (this correspondence started as a result of the big debate over the letter), and flatter myself with the distinction of considering him a friend.

 

It looks as if folks here are made of sterner stuff than many gun bloggers. That makes me proud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's refreshing to see all the support for Mr. Vanderboegh's letter. Back when it was written, many gun bloggers got their knickers badly twisted, because they were afraid he "made us look bad."

 

A few examples (and there are many more):

 

Here,

 

and here,

 

and here,

 

and here,

 

and here,

 

and here.

 

David Codrea (War on Guns) and I were a in the distinct minority in defending Mr. Vanderboegh and his letter.

 

I have never met Mr. Vanderboegh, but have corresponded with him by email and phone (this correspondence started as a result of the big debate over the letter), and flatter myself with the distinction of considering him a friend.

 

It looks as if folks here are made of sterner stuff than many gun bloggers. That makes me proud.

 

 

I really can't believe the jackass who responded with this article.

"I agree, we shouldn’t need a license to exercise our God-given and Constitutionally recognized right, but currently we could be arrested if we carry concealed, and having part of a right is better than none of it."

 

Having part of a right is better than none of it?!?! You have got to be kidding me. :headbang1: It's this kind of mentality that got us into this situation in the first place. Death by a thousand cuts anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gun ban groups (all the usual suspects) have been "running with" the Heller decision. That's the best that any losing party can do. I am sure they'd love to see it challenged (as do the opponents of Roe in regard to that decision), but I don't see that happening any time soon. For now, even Paul Helmke acknowledges that it's real and meaningful ... that there is an individual right to gun ownership, and that "guns cannot be banned." However, they are going to take the "in common use" language and the list of "presumptively lawful" restrictions and milk them for all they are worth. Thus, they will push for:

 

"Assault weapons" and .50 BMG bans, plus restrictions on magazine capacity.

 

They are also going to argue that the slippery slope is gone (which is quite contrary to reality) and argue for:

 

Personalized (user authorized) handguns, universal background checks, and additional gun dealer regulation as mentioned by Superman. I suspect the universal checks (gun show "loophole") will be front and center this next year.

 

But I think that the biggest push will be the big three ...

 

- Mandagory training at the federal level, coupled with

- Gun owner licensing at the federal level

- Gun registration at the federal level

 

These people are not going away. They will work to restrict gun ownership as much as they possibly can, and they would no doubt include prohibition and confiscation if they could still get away with it. In other words, they will take as much as we allow them to take. That is just the way it is. We must be there every step of the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joyce Foundation grants awarded April and July 2008 are posted: http://www.joycefdn.org/GrantList/AllGrants.aspx

 

Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is a project of Legal Community Against Violence. Frankly, I am not sure where the Illinois Campain Against Handgun Violence fits in, because when you search for that group, the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is returned. The appearance is that there are many groups with slighly different names doing the same thing. I think confusion is a central part of their strategy.

 

Joyce anti-gun rights grants for 2008:

 

Ceasefire Pennsylvania Education Fund $350,000 2 yrs.

To support the Pennsylvania Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

 

United Against Illegal Guns Support Fund $325,000 1 yr.

To support four diverse Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition members in hiring city coordinators to act as regional point persons for the coalition.

 

Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence $100,000 1 yr.

To hire an executive director, recruit member organizations, develop and implement policy, advocacy, and communications plans, and manage the day-to-day operations of a new Chicago based initiative, For Kids' Sake: Safer Homes, Schools and Communities.

 

Legal Community Against Violence $100,000 1 yr.

To increase staff capacity that would enable LCAV to respond to requests for technical assistance and policy analysis from mayors, state legislators, and county executives as well as key state based gun violence prevention groups.

 

United Against Illegal Guns Support Fund $175,000 1 yr.

To support the state legislators' and county executives' coalition and growth.

 

WAVE Educational Fund $50,000 6 mos.

To plan a statewide public education campaign focused on specific gun policy reform goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think confusion is a central part of their strategy.

 

I think it's a combination of Death of a Thousand cuts.

Remember back in April of this year the ICPGV held that rally in Napierville at a satellite campus building of NIU ?

 

Reminder of the event. It turned out to be a total pro gun blowout on the organizers, although the press coverage skimmed past that item.

There's a pdf copy of their event flyer in April at the bottom of this post

 

I recall around that time of the year there were discussions of a change in Brady type lobby groups that were changing tactics to attack on a more local level, that the national level campaigns were loosing effectiveness.

 

It's only natural to accept the idea that they will push their agenda in any local community that may be open to the spiel , such as Winetka, Wheaton , anywhere there's is a likely place for them to skulk around and attempt back door local legislation before it's realized by the general public (like us) ! It's a handy set of pre written legislation to stick in the ear of local legislators that may not be immediately used and Whom may have no personal knowledge of firearm ownership and safety to begin with.

 

To be put forward in the event such as: Say your city was declared the murder capitol of the nation... or a Loon goes crazy in a shopping mall. Rather than say How did this fail with the Existing laws we already have, they lean towards passing some knee jerk "feel good legislation" and ICPGV conveniently has this pre written for them.

 

A lot of the rules and regulations are even taken from CCW type conditions from other state regulations such as leo approval.

 

I guess then if you can jump thru all these restrictions, classes, storage conditions, background checks, police training, and fee's then there should certainly be no objection to CCW. I mean it would only be natural ... Right?:headbang1: Wouldn't that be a nice little innocent question to throw back at a legislator? :laugh:

 

 

Registration..... must have possession of certificate of approval..... can you say "Paperin Bitte"

Charlton Heston must be rolling over in his grave on this.

 

When did american citizens have to start paying fees and register a constitutional right? Go after the Criminals and don't turn the law abiding, into criminals while your doing it.

pdf_ICPGV_napierville_flyer.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...