NRA-ILA Lobbied Against IL License to Carry Bill

[Kenny]

Ohh Yea that is another thing he told me..... they could not promote a bill like 2257 because it would put their members in a situation where they could go to jail for making a wrong turn. http://www.rockfordracing.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/jerk.gif

[lockman]

Scott Christman called me back!! He went on & on but his general message was if they give up anything in IL that it would hurt efforts in the rest of the USA. (bull****) He went on to say if they were to get on board with a STHR bill then they would be admitting that BHO was right when he said "What works in Nebraska may not work in Chicago" I basically got the feeling that he was just trying to pacify me and could really give a **** about LTC here he just doesn't want to lose any ground. I personally say it is time to go all in & go for it!!!

 

 

Exactly what would the NRA be "giving up" by supporting a preemptive LtC bill? Wouldn't there be more gained than lost?

 

I'm asking that of Mr. Christman, not you, Kenny! You do good work, friend!

 

We were not giving anything up! What were we giving up?

[Kenny]

Scott Christman called me back!! He went on & on but his general message was if they give up anything in IL that it would hurt efforts in the rest of the USA. (bull****) He went on to say if they were to get on board with a STHR bill then they would be admitting that BHO was right when he said "What works in Nebraska may not work in Chicago" I basically got the feeling that he was just trying to pacify me and could really give a **** about LTC here he just doesn't want to lose any ground. I personally say it is time to go all in & go for it!!!

 

 

Exactly what would the NRA be "giving up" by supporting a preemptive LtC bill? Wouldn't there be more gained than lost?

 

I'm asking that of Mr. Christman, not you, Kenny! You do good work, friend!

 

We were not giving anything up! What were we giving up?

 

 

I told him the same thing.. If we have nothing how are we giving up? His reply "You aren't giving up anything but in other places in the United States they will see it as a sign of weakness"

 

The whole convo kept going back to the same theme---- F$%K Illinois we are just using IL as a pawn in the rest of the US ------ At least that's how I interpreted it.

[burningspear]

Exclude Chicago from LTC and preempt the rest of the state. If municipalities are allowed to prevent LTC, a veritable patchwork, land mind/mine {intentional} situation would emerge. Peoria, Oak Park, Evanston, Champaign, Urbana, Decatur, Danville, Carbondale, Moline, Marion, Maywood, Effingham, Charleston, Cicero, and others could and might opt out.

[abolt243]

Exclude Chicago from LTC and preempt the rest of the state. If municipalities are allowed to prevent LTC, a veritable patchwork, land mind/mine {intentional} situation would emerge. Peoria, Oak Park, Evanston, Champaign, Urbana, Decatur, Danville, Carbondale, Moline, Marion, Maywood, Effingham, Charleston, Cicero, and others could and might opt out.

 

Any confirmation that any of the cities you mention WOULD opt out?? I can say on pretty good authority that Peoria, Decatur, Carbondale, Marion, and Effingham would NOT! We're assuming way too much here and borrowing trouble. There would be huge opposition locally for any downstate city that tried to opt out.

 

AB

[burningspear]

I don't mind being wrong. I just put together a list of various cities throughout the State to illustrate the possible obstacles if cities were allowed to opt out.

 

But, without a doubt, if the only option I had, if I were a lawmaker, was a LTC bill that allowed municipalities to opt out, I would vote for that bill and work very hard to replace it with a Statewide carry bill.

[Chris]

I don't mind being wrong. I just put together a list of various cities throughout the State to illustrate the possible obstacles if cities were allowed to opt out.

 

But, without a doubt, if the only option I had, if I were a lawmaker, was a LTC bill that allowed municipalities to opt out, I would vote for that bill and work very hard to replace it with a Statewide carry bill.

 

One of the problems that could be if we made it only that Chicago could opt out is that we'd have to gain another 11 votes.

[GNHNTN]

Okay, I know somebody on here has the facts (Abolt,GF,or somebody) can someone please tell me how many Shall Issue States originally passed a STHR LTC bill the first time around and then came back to fix it later? I would love to include that in my trio of e-mails that I am in the process of drafting. This whole "weakness" and "giving up" thing has me biting through my bottom lip. That said, I would love nothing more than to have the NRA back us. and I feel that if we melt their phone lines and fax machines, and welcome them Mon. morning with a few thousand well thought-out e-mails they will not have a choice but to re-think their position on Illinois.

[Blaster]

Has anyone posted this on ARFCOM?

 

Yes in General Forum and OC posted in the Illinois home town forum.

 

I posted 45Supers article. Kurt the pennies will be flowing in soon.

[abolt243]

Okay, I know somebody on here has the facts (Abolt,GF,or somebody) can someone please tell me how many Shall Issue States originally passed a STHR LTC bill the first time around and then came back to fix it later? I would love to include that in my trio of e-mails that I am in the process of drafting. This whole "weakness" and "giving up" thing has me biting through my bottom lip. That said, I would love nothing more than to have the NRA back us. and I feel that if we melt their phone lines and fax machines, and welcome them Mon. morning with a few thousand well thought-out e-mails they will not have a choice but to re-think their position on Illinois.

 

I can't give you a specific number from all the states. I know that PA, OH, NE passed non-pre-emptive laws recently and have worked to improve them. MO passed their pre-emptive law knowing full well that St. Louis City would buck them on it and it would (and did) take court action to force the city to issue permits. During the years between 1993-2002 when the state of IL enjoyed a Republican Gov and many more ®'s in the Gen Assemb, 18 states passed a "shall issue" law. A quick count shows that half of them moved from a "may-issue" to "shall-issue" status. Sadly, we didn't make any progress towards a carry law.

 

Nearly every Shall Issue state in the country continues to improve and relax their laws. Maybe they were passed with pre-emption, but other concessions were made to get them passed initially, then "fixed" later.

 

The only state that did it right from the beginning is Vermont. Alaska was a "right denied" state as recently as 1991.

 

Never give up.

 

AB

[GWBH]

Guys - how many counties passed a 2A resolution??

They did so and feel the 2A is worth defending for a reason.

I'm not very happy with the NRA right now -

 

I haven't posted anything because I needed some time to cool off.

 

" His reply "You aren't giving up anything but in other places in the United States they will see it as a sign of weakness"

Oh great - a Barack Obama foreign policy statement! And - who is "they"?

 

 

Sign of weakness - maybe on the part of the NRA. As Lockman stated - what are we "giving up" - we don't have anything TO give up.

 

Once more - I'm not very happy with the NRA right now - In fact I'm pretty disgusted. They pull anything even close to this again and all my money goes to the GOA. (This has nothing to do with Todd)

EDIT: On second thought - screw 'em - My membership arrangement with them is over.

Taking a "neutral" position on my gun rights - the rights I'm paying them to take back - is unacceptable.

It's become a matter of principle.

[Lou]

Scott Christman called me back!! He went on & on but his general message was if they give up anything in IL that it would hurt efforts in the rest of the USA. (bull****) He went on to say if they were to get on board with a STHR bill then they would be admitting that BHO was right when he said "What works in Nebraska may not work in Chicago" I basically got the feeling that he was just trying to pacify me and could really give a **** about LTC here he just doesn't want to lose any ground. I personally say it is time to go all in & go for it!!!

Kenny, I'm really sorry to hear that. I interpret that as saying "we have 48 states so screw the other two"

 

They speak out of two side of their mouth. "What works in Nebraska may not work in Chicago"

OK, I can accept that so pass HB2257 ands let 90 counties in Illinois enjoy freedom and let the other 12 fend for themselves.

In a way this makes me hate the NRA lobbyist just a little less because this backwards thinking shows that Todd was just following orders.

 

But then now that I think about it, that excuse didn't fly in Nurenberg either.

[Ol'Coach]

Scott Christman called me back!! He went on & on but his general message was if they give up anything in IL that it would hurt efforts in the rest of the USA. (bull****) He went on to say if they were to get on board with a STHR bill then they would be admitting that BHO was right when he said "What works in Nebraska may not work in Chicago" I basically got the feeling that he was just trying to pacify me and could really give a **** about LTC here he just doesn't want to lose any ground. I personally say it is time to go all in & go for it!!!

Kenny, I'm really sorry to hear that. I interpret that as saying "we have 48 states so screw the other two"

 

They speak out of two side of their mouth. "What works in Nebraska may not work in Chicago"

OK, I can accept that so pass HB2257 ands let 90 counties in Illinois enjoy freedom and let the other 12 fend for themselves.

In a way this makes me hate the NRA lobbyist just a little less because this backwards thinking shows that Todd was just following orders.

 

But then now that I think about it, that excuse didn't fly in Nurenberg either.

 

Ahhh, Lou! You sure know how to nail it!

[Ol'Coach]

If that is the case, if they are imposing their will over the will of the people who grant them power, then they are no better than the politicians who work so feverishly to control us.

 

But I will reserve judgment until Todd or another NRA representative has a chance to respond. And respond they must ..

 

Good point ... but consider the possibility that the will of the people has not, en masse, been communicated to the NRA higher-ups.

 

...yet! What, for them, will be considered, "en masse"? Will enough ever be enough?

[ilphil]

I guess this helps show the difference between grass-roots activists and paid lobbyists.

 

The activists follows the course they feel is right, the paid lobbyist follows the course given to him by those paying him.

This isn't intended as an insult to Todd or any other lobbyist...everybody that has a job has to do what the people signing the paychecks say to do.

 

But I think it means they just don't view the situation the same way we do...

[Molly B.]

Exclude Chicago from LTC and preempt the rest of the state. If municipalities are allowed to prevent LTC, a veritable patchwork, land mind/mine {intentional} situation would emerge. Peoria, Oak Park, Evanston, Champaign, Urbana, Decatur, Danville, Carbondale, Moline, Marion, Maywood, Effingham, Charleston, Cicero, and others could and might opt out.

 

Funny you should mention Carbondale and Peoria, cities that once took a negative view of firearms and also mentioned by the NRA as problem cities.

 

An IllinoisCarry member contacted the mayor of Carbondale who responded that Carbondale ordinances had all been amended to not interfere with license to carry and the city is ready when the legislation is passed. Peoria city council members replied they were very interested in a law providing for license to carry for law abiding responsible adults.

 

The attitude toward license to carry has changed considerably for the better with every Pro-Second amendment county resolution passed (90 to date) and with every state that has passed carry legislation, and in light of all the shootings that take place where innocent people can not protect themselves.

 

The people of Illinois have realized 48 states are not wrong and it is time for Illinois to join them.

 

Imagine a football game - we all know where the goal is - statewide preemption.

Our first down - subject to home rule license to carry.

[GWBH]

Yeah - I'm hacked off...

If a national organization employs a lobbyist to lobby for gun rights - then that's what they should be encouraged to do.

This not about gaining permission to establish a kool-aid stand on some street in Springfield.

This is about our Constitutional rights - more importantly, the right we all have (or at least should have) to protect ourselves and our families, wherever we may lawfully be, from criminals who want to harm us.

It's a personal slap in the face to me. When it comes to just me, that's one thing - but DO NOT mess with my wife and children; especilly when it comes to their well being and personal protection. I take that dead serious.

[Ol'Coach]

...Peoria, Oak Park, Evanston, Champaign, Urbana, Decatur, Danville, Carbondale, Moline, Marion, Maywood, Effingham, Charleston, Cicero, and others could and might opt out..

 

How 'bout we find out by passing HB2257?

[papa]

Like Jeff Watts , I also have not been a member of the N R A for several years. When the free year membership was offered recently , I decided to give them another try and signed up. Now I see this!!!

 

They will hear from me . If they want me to renew after this year is up , they had better show me a lot more than just being neutral on this topic. I was going to sign up my wife , my daughter , and my daughters boyfriend but not now. Not till I see a change in thier direction . And yes I do intend to let them know this also.

 

I wonder how many Illinois NRA members would remain in the ranks if they knew we in this state were being used as pawns ???? :Angry!:

 

I do not direct my anger at Todd. He has to do what the boss says so he can pay the bills.

 

Like someone else said , we shouldn't have to beg them to help us in this battle.

[bob]

A fellow from the NRA/ILA actually called me at home this evening and we had a long chat. Which very much surprised me. I never expected he would call. It was an interesting chat. I have a much better understanding of why they are unwilling to actively support the bill now.

 

Without the NRA's active support I do not think any pro-gun bill has much of a chance.

 

Molly seems to have given them the thumb in the eye. Not sure I like that or not. On the one hand, maybe it was a necessary thing. On the other, if they actually have a workable strategy to get state preemption, Molly may have screwed us all out of it, or at least made it much harder. Personally, I do not see any workable strategy to getting statewide preemption at this time.

 

And any court action that would do us any good is a decade or more away from being resolved. I just do not see much of a downside for a non preempted LTC bill. We would need to do some legwork and find all the municipalities that have adopted UUW like ordinances and see whether they are willing to accomodate a LTC. We know Chicago will never agree as long as King Daley is alive and kicking. But my guess is most of the state outside of Cook county would accept it.

[Thirdpower]

We've been playing this game for over 15 years. Butting heads against the Chicago Machine.

 

I've been told directly that the issue isn't CCW, it's preemption and that the NRA's plan is to use the courts, not the legislature, after a Supreme Court win on the Chicago Handgun case.

 

So they're perfectly willing to let it sit for the next 10 to 20 years.

 

Anyone else have a problem w/ that?

[bob]

We've been playing this game for over 15 years. Butting heads against the Chicago Machine.

 

I've been told directly that the issue isn't CCW, it's preemption and that the NRA's plan is to use the courts, not the legislature, after a Supreme Court win on the Chicago Handgun case.

 

So they're perfectly willing to let it sit for the next 10 to 20 years.

 

Anyone else have a problem w/ that?

I don't know if that is their strategy but it might well be since their legislative strategy appears to be an all or nothing one and right now we can't get it all. I did point out how long it might take for the courts to get done ruling on the Chicago case. He said it was only five years for Heller to be adjudicated.

 

They may even be right.

 

I guess we have to make a fundamental choice about the direction the fight is going to go. I sure as heck do not want to go it alone without the NRA. I also do not want to do nothing for 20 years waiting for it to get decided in court.

[PHM]

It is not uncommon for the NRA to do this kind of sneaky lobbying, they have done similar things here in California.

 

The NRA is unwilling to compromise on anything, so they end up getting nothing, and those kinds of tactics just don't work in Liberal Illinois or Liberal California.

 

The smart way to do it, is incremental, just like the Anti gunners out there, they do it incrementally and look where it's gotten them, we are damn near losing everything.

 

Liberals are just playing the game a lot smarter than we are and we have to wise up or we will be just like our neighbors to the north!

[bob]

The NRA is unwilling to compromise on anything, so they end up getting nothing, and those kinds of tactics just don't work in Liberal Illinois or Liberal California.

The ironic part is many other people complain the NRA compromises too much.

 

BTW, in case any of you need reminding, the NRA is not the enemy. They just have their own idea of what is in our best interests that they are pursuing without a whole lot of input from us.

[Thirdpower]

The NRA is unwilling to compromise on anything, so they end up getting nothing, and those kinds of tactics just don't work in Liberal Illinois or Liberal California.

The ironic part is many other people complain the NRA compromises too much.

 

BTW, in case any of you need reminding, the NRA is not the enemy. They just have their own idea of what is in our best interests that they are pursuing without a whole lot of input from us.

 

"Our" best interests? No. In this case, it's "their" best interests.

[Sevesteen]

. I know that PA, OH, NE passed non-pre-emptive laws recently and have worked to improve them.

 

Ohio's original law had preemption for licensing, but still allowed local rule on other gun issues. Where it affected carry was banning specific types of guns--Some cities had 'Saturday Night Special bans', others capacity limits.

 

Our biggest issue was stupid car carry rules, requiring either holstered in plain sight, or in a locked container in plain sight, or a locked glovebox--provisions trying to avoid a veto. We had some legal wrangling on whether the state could preempt, which was finally settled in our favor.

 

Later laws mostly fixed car carry and established statewide preemption for all firearms laws, and reduced the number of state-owned buildings where carry was banned, specifically allowing bathrooms and parking garages. The car carry and statewide preemption were passed with a veto override, fairly rare in Ohio.

[Subdriver]

Got the email notice about this this evening. Already sent my emails (copy shown here):

 

 

 

I am a new NRA member (2008), a resident of the peoples republic of IL, former US Naval Officer (Submarines), and a small business owner residing in Lake County (north of Chicago). I'm also a listener to Sirius Satellite Radio on which is broadcast NRA-news (Patriot 144) which is one of my favorite programs. I was shocked to learn that NRA-ILA has lobbied against "concealed carry" in IL. I was sure that my source was mistaken only to find out, through my research, that it is true. To say that I am shocked would be an understatement.

 

 

 

I understand that, without a pre-emption clause, concealed carry would leave the burden on the law-abiding gun owners residing in IL to "stay clear" of the areas (like the city of Chicago) where it would likely remain illegal. However, the vast majority of the state counties and municipalities have already passed non-binding resolutions in support concealed carry. Many of us already possess CC permits for other states which, so far, are useless here.

 

 

 

I'm asking you to reconsider NRA-ILA's position on this effort and SUPPORT us in IL the same 2nd Amendment rights as those in 48 other states.

 

 

 

If I am misunderstanding NRA-ILA's position on this issue of importance to IL members, please write me back and explain where I am confused.

 

 

 

Respectfully,

 

Steve XXXXXX

NRA #15XX09332

 

I'l post anything I get back.

[Johnnybgood]

I just got home from work and I find this in my email. I am life member. I think I will wait to say anything on this. I am to angry to think straight right now.

[mauserme]

A quote from a recent member's 2nd post on the forum

 

The best call to arms is going to be the "Freedom Bridages" I'm working on setting up by senate district. We have a targeted list of senate districts that we need to organize in. My goal is to have 500 campaign volunteers with a command structure in place starting in June. We start circulating petitions in August for the 2010 election.

 

If you want to pass RTC we need to win more seats, beat back the anti-gunners in a couple of chanllenges and give the suburban legislators the peace of mind that they can vote with us and still win elections.

 

We don't win many floor votes by the debate or arguements we make. We win them by helping the right people get elected.

 

Get them elected and the lobbying gets easy/

 

Todd

 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?s...amp;hl=election

 

 

Now, I'm not posting against any individual nor against the idea presented. Given recent developments, however, I am wondering about the motive behind a lobbyist joining the forum. Do we have a comrade in arms or are we the subjects of the same lobbying efforts used on the legislature?

 

 

BTW, in case any of you need reminding, the NRA is not the enemy. They just have their own idea of what is in our best interests that they are pursuing without a whole lot of input from us.

 

 

Not to mention just a smidgen of disrespect for those who don't jump on their bandwagon

 

ok boys and girls,

 

based on the thread here, I expect maybe 30 people to show up. ...

 

 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?s...p;hl=boys+girls

 

Personlly I'm feeling just a little to old to be talked down to.

[junglebob]

With friends like these - who needs enemies . . .

NRA Lobbied Against License to Carry Bill in IL

 

A little background first. For the past decade and a half license-to-carry bills introduced in the IL General Assembly have become routine and hold little to no expectation of passing due to opposition from the Chicago/Cook Co. legislators. That opposition means every year the same old bills calling for statewide preemption which would force the carry law into Chicago guarantees the bill is dead on arrival. A bill or two may make the headlines but never to the floor for a vote largely due to the opposition of Mayor Daley and Cook County legislators. The likelihood of a statewide preemption bill being passed is greatly reduced by the fact that bills preempting home rule status require 71 votes for passage rather than a simple majority of 60. Double or triple that reduction by the fact that in Chicago it is illegal to even own a handgun let alone carry one for self-defense purposes. We find it somewhat ludicrous to even consider a statewide preemptive bill passing in the state of Illinois given those circumstances.

 

Other states like Ohio and Nebraska faced years of major opposition like this. They finally won their battle by passing a carry law which we in Illinois would call "subject to home rule". An imperfect bill that allowed major cities to opt out but did provide a means for license-to-carry to get a foothold in the state. Pro-Second Amendment groups in Ohio were then able to prove carrying firearms for self-defense works and they came back in just a few short years and successfully expanded the law to include everyone. Nebraska, just two short years after passing their license-to-carry bill now has statewide preemption according to their state's Attorney General and are now working to amend their law.

 

With those recent successes in mind many license-to-carry supporters in Illinois were very excited when down state Representative Brandon Phelps courageously decided it was time to try the same strategy in Illinois - how about a bill that would require only a simple majority of 60 votes, would provide an opportunity for license-to-carry to get a foot in the door, something similar to what has been so successful in Ohio and Nebraska . . . how about a "subject to home rule" bill which would allow home rule municipalities to opt out if they so chose but citizens in the vast majority of the state would be free to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms? The Citizens Self-defense Act, HB 2257, was born.

 

Keeping in mind a statewide preemptive law is the ultimate goal, IllinoisCarry members, including members residing in municipalities sure to ban the practice, have given their full support to the idea of subject to home rule carry and believe the premise behind it is the best hope of getting any kind of license-to-carry bill passed in the state of Illinois.

 

HB2257 started off with good promise, the sponsor reported he felt sure he could garner the 60 votes needed to pass it out of the House. So it came as a huge shock and disappointment to learn from legislators that the NRA was actually lobbying against it.

 

When contacted by lllinoisCarry the NRA-ILA lobbyist confirmed the NRA-ILA was indeed lobbying against the bill and vowed to kill it. The reason given for the opposition was that the bill did not include statewide preemption, that it would create a patchwork of ordinances all across the state which could be detrimental to license holders, and it would ultimately be vetoed by Gov. Quinn and still need 71 votes for a veto override. Therefore we should continue to wait and work toward a change in the political makeup of the IL legislature.

 

IllinoisCarry maintains that statewide preemption didn't pass even when we did have a more favorable party in office and continuing to wait for countless more years will only result in more defenseless victims being violently assaulted and murdered. Citizens in the rest of the state where license to carry is being welcomed should not be denied the right to defend themselves just because other municipalities choose to infringe on their citizens' rights.

 

Furthering the argument for a subject to home rule bill like HB2257, IllinoisCarry is confident it will lead to statewide preemption as it has in Ohio and Nebraska. IL firearm owners already have to work within a patchwork of city ordinances concerning firearms and a look at the listing of city ordinances on the Illinois State Police website would verify that fact. Although Gov. Quinn may very well veto the bill, we will never know that if every such bill is killed by the NRA-ILA without a good hard push for passage.

 

We need the NRA-ILA and their hardworking lobbyists on the IL Second Amendment team. But we differ greatly on this issue of denying an opportunity for a subject to home rule bill to come to a vote. The NRA-ILA lobbyist for Illinois is one of the best in the country and has been invaluable in the battle to curtail bad gun bills in the state of Illinois. We recognize a lobbyist must follow the bidding of the organization they represent. We have been assured by him that if the NRA-ILA changes their stance on the issue to one of support then he will support the issue also.

 

Now after weeks of conversation with the NRA-ILA, their leadership team has temporarily changed their position from opposition to neutral while they claim to study the issue. It is our opinion a subject to home rule license-to-carry bill will not advance in Illinois without the support of the NRA-ILA. We need the NRA to SUPPORT subject to home rule carry in Illinois.

 

WHAT CAN YOU DO? LOBBY THE NRA!

 

If you are an NRA member, resident of Illinois, visit Illinois, or even travel through Illinois please call the numbers below - REMEMBER BE POLITE BUT FIRM- and tell them you want their support for subject to home rule license-to-carry in Illinois. If you are a resident of Chicago or any other municipality that might exercise the right to "opt out" of concealed carry, assure the NRA-ILA that you know the most effective and expeditious way to get concealed carry into your area is to get it into the rest of the state first. Do not let them get caught up in HB2257 specifically - bills can be amended, it's the issue of subject to home rule we want them to support.

 

Contact the following NRA-ILA leadership team:

 

Chris Cox

Executive Director

NRA-ILA

1-800-392-8683

1-703-267-3973 fax

CCox@NRAhq.org

 

Scott Christman

Assist. Ex. Dir.

NRA-ILA

703-267-1140

SChristman@NRAhq.org

 

Randy Kozuch

Director

ILA-State and Local Affairs

703-267-1202

703-267-3976 fax

RKozuch@NRAhq.org

 

p.s. It has been suggested that when emailing/faxing use the following in your subject line - PLEASE SUPPORT "SUBJECT TO HOME RULE" LICENSE-TO-CARRY IN ILLINOIS

 

(write your own message or copy and paste the following)

 

Please support ‘subject to home rule' license-to-carry in Illinois. While I understand this is not the optimal kind of law, it is a first, baby-step that has been effective in other states, such as Ohio and Nebraska.

 

Thank you,

 

(Sign with your full name and NRA Member if you are)

Are there addresses for those 3 NRA leadership people, seems to me letters or faxes would be best. If they had a thousand sheets of paper it would demonstrate our opposition better than 1000 emails that can be deleted.