Lou Posted February 1, 2009 at 10:24 PM Share Posted February 1, 2009 at 10:24 PM Great analogy Molly. BTW, Missouri also had to pass additional laws to bring St Louis County into the 21st Century after passing the state law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted February 1, 2009 at 10:27 PM Share Posted February 1, 2009 at 10:27 PM Imagine if you will that a deadly disease is sweeping the state of Illinois - people are dying everywhere. A proven vaccine is available but Mayor Daley does not believe the vaccine is the answer to the problem and refuses to allow the vaccine to be distributed within the city . . . a few other mayors agree with Daley. Do we deny the vaccine to the citizens in the rest of the state - do we sentence them to possible death because Mayor Daley and a few like him are too dense to recognize a proven solution? No, we get the vaccine to the citizens in the rest of state and then continue to fight like Hades to get it to the good folks of Chicago too. Ohio and Nebraska were two of the most recent states to pass a LTC law - they had been struggling for as long as we have - and could not get the votes necessary. By allowing some municipalities to "opt out" they were able to get the votes needed to pass the bill - now that LTC has been proven to work in those states they now have and are improving their LTC law and are eliminating the "opt out" provision. If Chicago politicians will not even recognize the right to own a handgun in your home, they certainly are not going to recognize the right o carry one for self-defense. If we can pass a LTC law in the rest of the state we should follow the Ohio and Nebraska example and get it done. That would not be the end game - just the first down! Molly B. Molly, after the disease takes it's course there will not be enough voters in Chicago to stand in our way! You can also be assured that all the politicians and their body guards in Cook County have already got their inoculations just in case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted February 2, 2009 at 02:48 AM Share Posted February 2, 2009 at 02:48 AM One other thing to remember during this debate, when talking specifically about Home Rule, just because a law may be subject to HR, the HR unit would still have to pass the law overriding the state law. That's where the local gun owners come into play. You flood the city council meetings, county board meetings, whatever unit of local government is thinking about employing the HR power. You convince them that it would not be conducive to their future political carreer to override the LTC law!!! Just my thoughts.Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted February 2, 2009 at 03:19 AM Share Posted February 2, 2009 at 03:19 AM One other thing to remember during this debate, when talking specifically about Home Rule, just because a law may be subject to HR, the HR unit would still have to pass the law overriding the state law. That's where the local gun owners come into play. You flood the city council meetings, county board meetings, whatever unit of local government is thinking about employing the HR power. You convince them that it would not be conducive to their future political carreer to override the LTC law!!! Just my thoughts.Tim And that's where I now see the beauty of this plan. For the first time, those that won't fight for their rights - won't benefit by having them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobR369 Posted February 2, 2009 at 03:21 AM Share Posted February 2, 2009 at 03:21 AM I agree, its a start. As long as its only Chicago, and not the entire Cook County. That would really suck.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted February 2, 2009 at 04:17 AM Share Posted February 2, 2009 at 04:17 AM I agree, its a start. As long as its only Chicago, and not the entire Cook County. That would really suck.... Well, Rob, if it looks like you're gettin' left behind, I'm sorry. We have reached the point in this war, where some of us, myself included, have decided we're gonna get something done and some won't be included in the gain. I hope you're of the right stuff - that can say "I can hold out until you guys get back!" Too many "Fudds" are holding us back. Enough is enough. We have to make the charge, and we'll back for ya, Rob! We'll be comin' back!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted February 2, 2009 at 11:43 AM Share Posted February 2, 2009 at 11:43 AM I agree, its a start. As long as its only Chicago, and not the entire Cook County. That would really suck.... Well, Rob, if it looks like you're gettin' left behind, I'm sorry. We have reached the point in this war, where some of us, myself included, have decided we're gonna get something done and some won't be included in the gain. I hope you're of the right stuff - that can say "I can hold out until you guys get back!" Too many "Fudds" are holding us back. Enough is enough. We have to make the charge, and we'll back for ya, Rob! We'll be comin' back!! Whoa back there Buzz. There's not even been a non-preemtive bill hit the clerk's desk yet, we're not sure what will fly in the Legis. this year. Everything here is speculation so far. We're just sayin' that if a state wide pre-emptive bill appears to be not able to pass, then one subject to local municipalities would be more likely to pass due to acceptance by those who would opt out and the lower number of votes needed to pass. And that's assuming that Gov Quinn would sign it!! As I said before, even if a non pre-emptive bill were signed into law, it's still up to those Home Rule units to come out against the law. That can be thwarted by the consitiuents of that unit coming together to make their views and wishes known.!! Let's not charge ahead until we get our horse headed in the right direction!! AB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglebob Posted February 2, 2009 at 02:25 PM Share Posted February 2, 2009 at 02:25 PM MollyB, I agree with you lets get LTC for most of the state. The fastest way may be to allow King Richards Kingdom to opt out. There is precidence for this in Pennsylvania the allowed Philadelphia to be may issue, and possibly Pittsburg as well to be may issue when the rest of the state was under shall issue legislation. It eventually came about that Philadelphia was shall issue as well. Most or at least many of us know how quickly non-resident permits are issued by Sheriff Nau's office in Centre county. Does that hold for Philadelphia as well? No they are a Chicago wanabee and often take several months to issue. They play games like telling your neighbors you have applied for LTC and would they vouch for your character, calling your employer and asking the same, requiring references live in Philadelphia area, and other things not required under state law. I believe they may also require fingerprinting. Also it is not uncommon for them to lose your application and you have to reapply after a couple month wait. Would New York be a "right denied state" now if they hadn't allowed NYC to issue their own permits and not recognize a New York State permit valid everywhere else in the state. New York state residents living in some counties can even get a lifetime permit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTIN Posted February 2, 2009 at 02:27 PM Share Posted February 2, 2009 at 02:27 PM I agree, its a start. As long as its only Chicago, and not the entire Cook County. That would really suck.... Well, Rob, if it looks like you're gettin' left behind, I'm sorry. We have reached the point in this war, where some of us, myself included, have decided we're gonna get something done and some won't be included in the gain. I hope you're of the right stuff - that can say "I can hold out until you guys get back!" Too many "Fudds" are holding us back. Enough is enough. We have to make the charge, and we'll back for ya, Rob! We'll be comin' back!! Whoa back there Buzz. There's not even been a non-preemtive bill hit the clerk's desk yet, we're not sure what will fly in the Legis. this year. Everything here is speculation so far. We're just sayin' that if a state wide pre-emptive bill appears to be not able to pass, then one subject to local municipalities would be more likely to pass due to acceptance by those who would opt out and the lower number of votes needed to pass. And that's assuming that Gov Quinn would sign it!! As I said before, even if a non pre-emptive bill were signed into law, it's still up to those Home Rule units to come out against the law. That can be thwarted by the consitiuents of that unit coming together to make their views and wishes known.!! Let's not charge ahead until we get our horse headed in the right direction!! AB Today, 05:43 AM Man AB do you ever sleep? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted February 2, 2009 at 03:20 PM Share Posted February 2, 2009 at 03:20 PM Too many "Fudds" are holding us back. In my opinion, it's not necessary, nor productive, to be devisive. In truth, it's not the "Elmer Fudd" type gun owner who is holding back Right-to-Carry in Illinois. It is the dyed in the wool gun haters, who are convinced that no one should own a gun, let alone carry them around in public. Let's try to put the "blame" where it is due. In that way we can focus on those truly holding us back, and encourage those who aren't holding us back to join us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobR369 Posted February 3, 2009 at 02:49 AM Share Posted February 3, 2009 at 02:49 AM Too many "Fudds" are holding us back. In my opinion, it's not necessary, nor productive, to be devisive. In truth, it's not the "Elmer Fudd" type gun owner who is holding back Right-to-Carry in Illinois. It is the dyed in the wool gun haters, who are convinced that no one should own a gun, let alone carry them around in public. Let's try to put the "blame" where it is due. In that way we can focus on those truly holding us back, and encourage those who aren't holding us back to join us. Well said Garand couldnt have put it better myself. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted February 3, 2009 at 03:40 AM Share Posted February 3, 2009 at 03:40 AM With all due respect gentlemen, I know many gunowners and a couple shop owners that won't lift a finger for the cause. Some are very good friends. And it jerks my chain to no end. Especially shop owners that exploit the hobby and do nothing to support it. If you're not part of the solution, you ARE part of the problem. That's been LONG established and undisputed. I will make a truce. I will agree not insult these do-nothings here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitter Posted February 3, 2009 at 03:54 AM Share Posted February 3, 2009 at 03:54 AM I don't think that LTC without a home rule pre-emption would even be workable. There are well over 100 home rule units in the state. If even relatively small percentage of them rejected LTC it would create a dangerous patchwork that would prevent traveling throughout the state with a firearm. That said, I don't know if I would really care if Chicago had a different law, sometimes I think that they should get what they deserve. I would just never go there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPK Posted February 3, 2009 at 03:59 AM Author Share Posted February 3, 2009 at 03:59 AM If the LTC is issued by the State Police, even Chicago resident could get the permit. It just wouldn't be good in Chicago but they could still carry throughout the rest of the state. An Illinois resident permit might also be honored in KS, CO, and other states that don't recognize non-resident permits. Get LTC passed then work on preemtion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted February 3, 2009 at 04:04 AM Share Posted February 3, 2009 at 04:04 AM Too many "Fudds" are holding us back. In my opinion, it's not necessary, nor productive, to be devisive. In truth, it's not the "Elmer Fudd" type gun owner who is holding back Right-to-Carry in Illinois. It is the dyed in the wool gun haters, who are convinced that no one should own a gun, let alone carry them around in public. Let's try to put the "blame" where it is due. In that way we can focus on those truly holding us back, and encourage those who aren't holding us back to join us. Well said Garand couldnt have put it better myself. ThanksAnd Rob, I wasn't attacking you. I was merely saying if it were to happen that you were denied a right because of where you live, I'm sorry. I was not calling you a Fudd! I was voicing my opinion of those that won't even put up a flyer. Look at it this way - Progress can be made at a steady pace, when everyone pulls their weight. If just one person stops, it requires that you carry their weight and pull their load too. I look upon everyone on this board as a friend and a team member. By you being a member of this board you are part of the solution. I was not calling you a Fudd! I can honestly say I have never intentionally attacked anyone one this board. Buzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion of Lincoln Posted February 3, 2009 at 06:09 AM Share Posted February 3, 2009 at 06:09 AM For all you non-Chicagoan out there, which I would venture to guess in 95% of the membership here, don't deny yourselves the ability for our sake. Go for the first down; don't keep throwing up the Hail Mary hoping to get the touchdown. If allowing Chicago to opt out helps get legislation passed, then go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglebob Posted February 3, 2009 at 12:59 PM Share Posted February 3, 2009 at 12:59 PM If the LTC is issued by the State Police, even Chicago resident could get the permit. It just wouldn't be good in Chicago but they could still carry throughout the rest of the state. An Illinois resident permit might also be honored in KS, CO, and other states that don't recognize non-resident permits. Get LTC passed then work on preemtion.It would be best to have preemption but if we could only get LTC passed without it I think it would be best to get LTC and then work on preemption. When Ohio got LTC there was a goofy requirement that you could not carry concealed in a vehicle. In a vehicle you were required to open carry. This was a hastle that came with LTC, but that only lasted for a year or 2. Now you can conceal carry in a vehicle as well. The open carry in a vehicle is something that the head of the state police wanted, so it was added to the LTC bill to get it passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherryriver Posted February 3, 2009 at 06:04 PM Share Posted February 3, 2009 at 06:04 PM Keep in mind that the County of Cook is also a home rule unit, the only county in the state eligible for that designation.That allows the County Board to do things the same as Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted February 3, 2009 at 06:53 PM Share Posted February 3, 2009 at 06:53 PM Keep in mind that the County of Cook is also a home rule unit, the only county in the state eligible for that designation.That allows the County Board to do things the same as Chicago. Yep, well known here on the board. Also remember that Cook Co. has a quarter of a million FIOD card holders that, should a non-preemptive bill be passed, would need to move en masse upon the county board to keep them from enacting HR on the law. They've already got a law suit on the AWB going on, a law suit against an LTC ban would be in order. Stroger and Company need to realize that they REPRESENT the will of the people, not RULE the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobR369 Posted February 3, 2009 at 11:49 PM Share Posted February 3, 2009 at 11:49 PM Too many "Fudds" are holding us back. In my opinion, it's not necessary, nor productive, to be devisive. In truth, it's not the "Elmer Fudd" type gun owner who is holding back Right-to-Carry in Illinois. It is the dyed in the wool gun haters, who are convinced that no one should own a gun, let alone carry them around in public. Let's try to put the "blame" where it is due. In that way we can focus on those truly holding us back, and encourage those who aren't holding us back to join us. Well said Garand couldnt have put it better myself. ThanksAnd Rob, I wasn't attacking you. I was merely saying if it were to happen that you were denied a right because of where you live, I'm sorry. I was not calling you a Fudd! I was voicing my opinion of those that won't even put up a flyer. Look at it this way - Progress can be made at a steady pace, when everyone pulls their weight. If just one person stops, it requires that you carry their weight and pull their load too. I look upon everyone on this board as a friend and a team member. By you being a member of this board you are part of the solution. I was not calling you a Fudd! I can honestly say I have never intentionally attacked anyone one this board. Buzz Buzz, no harm, no foul Lets all win this thing together, then have one hellava a celebration party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyldejackyl Posted February 5, 2009 at 04:09 PM Share Posted February 5, 2009 at 04:09 PM He's not the only one enamored of that little treasure, either. Anything that disconnects laws from politicians is beloved by politicians. Him and the 50 alderthieves are already considered "peace officers" - that's how they afford their own right to self defense, while the law-abiding sit defenseless. I can't wait to move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnb847 Posted February 6, 2009 at 10:11 PM Share Posted February 6, 2009 at 10:11 PM I'm sorry if this is a dumb question but I don't get it. I read the entire thread and didn't see this mentioned: What is the deal with the different versions of the Family and Personal Protection Act? There is HB0245 with John Bradley as sponsor and several co-sponsors, then there is HB462 sponsored by Brandon Phelps with several different co-sponsors. Why? What are the differences? Aren't they dividing efforts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt H Posted February 6, 2009 at 11:02 PM Share Posted February 6, 2009 at 11:02 PM I'm sorry if this is a dumb question but I don't get it. I read the entire thread and didn't see this mentioned: What is the deal with the different versions of the Family and Personal Protection Act? There is HB0245 with John Bradley as sponsor and several co-sponsors, then there is HB462 sponsored by Brandon Phelps with several different co-sponsors. Why? What are the differences? Aren't they dividing efforts? There are 3 bills, Yes they are very similar. one key difference is:HB367 gives the county sheriff the authority to issue permits.HB245 gives the state police the authority to issue permits.HB462 gives the county sheriff the authority to issue permits. The links to discussions on these 3 LTC bills can be found on the first post on THIS page.I am still reading through them for other noteworthy differences...anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted February 6, 2009 at 11:26 PM Share Posted February 6, 2009 at 11:26 PM I'm sorry if this is a dumb question but I don't get it. I read the entire thread and didn't see this mentioned: What is the deal with the different versions of the Family and Personal Protection Act? There is HB0245 with John Bradley as sponsor and several co-sponsors, then there is HB462 sponsored by Brandon Phelps with several different co-sponsors. Why? What are the differences? Aren't they dividing efforts? There are 3 bills, Yes they are very similar. one key difference is:HB367 gives the county sheriff the authority to issue permits.HB245 gives the state police the authority to issue permits.HB462 gives the county sheriff the authority to issue permits. The links to discussions on these 3 LTC bills can be found on the first post on THIS page.I am still reading through them for other noteworthy differences...anyone? I've tried to reply three times and keep getting kicked of the 'net. I'll try again. 462 differs from 367 in the training section, lack of reciprocity section, prohibited places section and probably others. It's a way of seeing what would appeal to the most legislators. As one picks up steam, support will migrate to it and the others will languish in committee or 2nd reading. Read the bills, compare them. There's at least one other bill coming that I'm pretty sure will have more differences. Let's get them all out here before we choose one over the other. That's what the legislators are doing. Once we see them all, we'll need to get our legislators to sign onto the chosen bill as sponsors. The more sponsors a bill has, the more likely it is to be called to debate on the floor. AB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.