NRA-ILA Lobbied Against IL License to Carry Bill

[bob]

cook county preemption is a bill that came to be after they tried usurping the home rule authority of local governments with an ordinance to force their will over them in violation of the consitution. All municipalities in cook county had to live under the cook county ordinacne even if they had their own that was less stringent.

 

It would have taken away the ability to pass any firearms related ordinances by cook county. It is a big step in preemption as cook is the only home rule county, it applied to home rule counties.

Does it have any chance?

[Federal Farmer]

So if this not the forum to discuss concerns related to LTC, then where are we supposed to go to? You proposition that I am giving the enemies of the 2nd amendment ideas to defeat us is absurd. If this forum is supposed to be a war room, then I suggest a better bunker.

 

-Miguel

jl

 

Miguel, we have been here discussing HB 2257 for months. Where have you been?

 

P.S. I'm a Chicago resident and am in support of HB 2257. How many people outside Chicago/Cook county have died or been raped since HB2257 was killed? How many more will be in the years while we pursue a perfect bill? Also, those of us in Chicago can be issued a license and carry when we are not in Chicago. I don't know about you, but I don't spend my entire life in Chicago. When folks in Cook County start seeing their neighbors defending their lives with firearms they might get up the gumption to change things.

[Federal Farmer]

I truly do understand your strategy Molly, but you are asking that 5.3 million American Citizens to remain defenseless, while we wait for state preemption. It's somewhat of a false choice, Chicago has no right to legal ownership to own a handgun vs. STHR-LTC which would be useless in Chicago.

 

I am a long time member of other gun rights forum, so I will be discussing this issue with other members to get their insight on STHR-LTC, but I appreciate everything that you are doing on our behalf, and regardless of where we stand on the issue, we need to continue to support your efforts.

 

Miguel,

as it stands now, we are still defenseless. How many downstate folks who elect reps and senators supportive of RTC will have to die or be raped while we wait for Chicago/Cook to catch up to the times? You want those deaths on your hands? I don't.

[ACOCHICAGO]

I truly do understand your strategy Molly, but you are asking that 5.3 million American Citizens to remain defenseless, while we wait for state preemption. It's somewhat of a false choice, Chicago has no right to legal ownership to own a handgun vs. STHR-LTC which would be useless in Chicago.

 

I am a long time member of other gun rights forum, so I will be discussing this issue with other members to get their insight on STHR-LTC, but I appreciate everything that you are doing on our behalf, and regardless of where we stand on the issue, we need to continue to support your efforts.

 

Miguel,

as it stands now, we are still defenseless. How many downstate folks who elect reps and senators supportive of RTC will have to die or be raped while we wait for Chicago/Cook to catch up to the times? You want those deaths on your hands? I don't.

 

Federal Farmer,

 

In response to your assertion that I may be responsible for the deaths of downstate residents because I have some issues with STHR-LTC is ridiculous; of course I do not want to any downstate residents to die or be raped because they could not defend themselves with a firearm, as much as, I do not want Chicago residents to be kept defenseless. I know that you do not believe for one millisecond that the lives of downstate residents are more valuable than those of Chicago. I am glad to be a new member of this forum - I feel welcomed.

[GarandFan]

You want those deaths on your hands? I don't.

 

Some have been talking about "death on the hands of those who don't support or pass carry" ... or something similar. We know how foolish it is when the antis claim that murders are on the hands of law-abiding gun owners. Well, let's not be silly likewise. Let's not lose sight of the fact that deaths are on the hands of criminals.

 

 

Welcome, Miguel.

 

I live in a municipality that would certainly ban carry if a non-preemptive bill were to pass. And I strongly support non-preemptive carry.

 

Freedom for some is not as good as freedom for all, but it's a heck of a lot better than freedom for none.

 

Over the last year, I have become convinced that the best way forward with carry in Illinois is step-wise, with non-preemtive carry far and away the most logical first step.

[Tvandermyde]

we had a fair chance of passing the bill. It got 67 votes at the high point. We pulled it becuase Madigan said it would take 71. We fell 4 votes short of a super majority. We'll give it another run, but it and transportation preemption seem to have the best chances of passing.

those issues are done for the year it looks like.

 

Our legislature is not in all year so we'll pick it up again when they come back for the next session. With three weeks lift, there is not a lot of time to start over as deadlines for bills to pass committee and cross-over are past and it would take suspension of the rules -- not likely to happen.

[Federal Farmer]

I truly do understand your strategy Molly, but you are asking that 5.3 million American Citizens to remain defenseless, while we wait for state preemption. It's somewhat of a false choice, Chicago has no right to legal ownership to own a handgun vs. STHR-LTC which would be useless in Chicago.

 

I am a long time member of other gun rights forum, so I will be discussing this issue with other members to get their insight on STHR-LTC, but I appreciate everything that you are doing on our behalf, and regardless of where we stand on the issue, we need to continue to support your efforts.

 

Miguel,

as it stands now, we are still defenseless. How many downstate folks who elect reps and senators supportive of RTC will have to die or be raped while we wait for Chicago/Cook to catch up to the times? You want those deaths on your hands? I don't.

 

Federal Farmer,

 

In response to your assertion that I may be responsible for the deaths of downstate residents because I have some issues with STHR-LTC is ridiculous; of course I do not want to any downstate residents to die or be raped because they could not defend themselves with a firearm, as much as, I do not want Chicago residents to be kept defenseless. I know that you do not believe for one millisecond that the lives of downstate residents are more valuable than those of Chicago. I am glad to be a new member of this forum - I feel welcomed.

 

I fail to understand your argument that passing LTC that allows municipalities to opt out somehow takes a right away from Chicago residents. It doesn't. The argument is absurd.

[Ol'Coach]

I do not want Chicago residents to be kept defenseless.

 

Your insinuation that the passage of HB2257 would keep Chicago residents defensless is rediculous! They would only be defenseless in Chicago, and they would be no more defenseless than they already are, or will continue to be while the rest of the state continues to wait for Chicago voters to do something about it! With the passage of HB2257 they could venture outside those confines, and enjoy life knowing they were not defenseless.

 

Yes, Virginia, (pun intended) there is a world outside of Chicago!!!

 

Don't blame the rest of the state for what Chicagoans control! Unfortunately, for the rest of us, things continue as they have for at least the last 39 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (1970 IL ConCon)

[abolt243]

we had a fair chance of passing the bill. It got 67 votes at the high point. We pulled it becuase Madigan said it would take 71. We fell 4 votes short of a super majority. We'll give it another run, but it and transportation preemption seem to have the best chances of passing.

those issues are done for the year it looks like.

 

Our legislature is not in all year so we'll pick it up again when they come back for the next session. With three weeks lift, there is not a lot of time to start over as deadlines for bills to pass committee and cross-over are past and it would take suspension of the rules -- not likely to happen.

So this preemption bill HB172 and the transportation preemption bill HB173 stood the best chances of passing and yet they were both defeated.

 

For yet another year . . . So it would seem that something as radical as LTC with preemption would stand even less of a chance.

 

 

But, HB182, ruled NON Pre-emptive by the parliamentarian, passed,,,, with 72 votes.

 

There stands our argument for subject to home rule LTC. We need to at least give it a chance!!

 

It's as plain as the noses on our faces.

 

 

 

Tim

[mauserme]

I believe "things came to light" after I was aksed a question by ABOLT243 at a forum for Bob Flider in Mt. Zion. I said what I said in response to a question I was asked at a public forum. So I wasn't hiding anything, it was the first time I was asked about it or presented with it. ...

 

Is that the official response then? We were not lied to because we didn't ask prior to that?

 

Shame on us for assuming the NRA would support us. And shame on us for not choosing our allies more wisely. Lesson learned, at least for me.

 

 

 

 

And I have a pretty thick skin over all.

With respect, this is not about you.

[Tvandermyde]

we had a fair chance of passing the bill. It got 67 votes at the high point. We pulled it becuase Madigan said it would take 71. We fell 4 votes short of a super majority. We'll give it another run, but it and transportation preemption seem to have the best chances of passing.

those issues are done for the year it looks like.

 

Our legislature is not in all year so we'll pick it up again when they come back for the next session. With three weeks lift, there is not a lot of time to start over as deadlines for bills to pass committee and cross-over are past and it would take suspension of the rules -- not likely to happen.

So this preemption bill HB172 and the transportation preemption bill HB173 stood the best chances of passing and yet they were both defeated.

 

For yet another year . . . So it would seem that something as radical as LTC with preemption would stand even less of a chance.

 

 

But, HB182, ruled NON Pre-emptive by the parliamentarian, passed,,,, with 72 votes.

 

There stands our argument for subject to home rule LTC. We need to at least give it a chance!!

 

It's as plain as the noses on our faces.

 

No its not all that simple. Based on the issue at hand, 172 and 173 stood the best chances. We had passed 173 before with 79 votes but got beat on a veto-override. They stripped votes off.

 

172 has never been called before and because of the cabela's issue gave us a different arguement. 67 votes I think is a good first run, being just 4 votes short of the 71 mark.

 

182 deals with a different issue. Should you be a felon for having a gun in a hotel room? Should you be a felon because you go shooting on your friends farm? it's not RTC, and the issues presented are different. is it a move n the right direction? yes. the underliying question is should you be arrested on private property and charged with a felony just because? That is different than carrying a firearm in pub-lik.

 

182 and 173 become an issue of prosecutors overstepping their bounds. it's not the same arguement as RTC. And people i.e. legislators view the issues seperately and different.

 

 

173 never got called for a vote becuase we ran out of time. 172 got beat on the 71 rule, but we got better than a bare majority. its not a win in the sense that we passed it, but compared to the other sides numbers, I'll take it as a 2 pt conversion that we got more on the board than they got all session.

 

Tim, I know your smarter than that post. and you know it takes more than posting here to flush out why bills went the way they did. If nothing else, you should know that there is a lot more to the story on session and all the bills than just a few lines typed here.

 

we are farther along than some would think. Why are the antis spending so much time on RTC? preemption against cook county their strong hold comes up 4 votes short of 71? now we go find the 4 votes.

 

4 votes short of knocking out a semi-auto ban, dealer licensing, $50 background checks with unlimited waiting periods. against the chicago machine, I'd say that's not a bad show.

 

as for a response, I'm sure HQ will issue one. I was simply responding to a question, cold, in a public forum. Tim asked me again at the sportsman's caucus about it and wanted to talk. That was march. Nothing was hidden. At any time, when asked I gave the position that I held and believed was the position of the assn.

 

We introduce bills to fix problems we see. 172 and 182 are such bills. RTC and preemption are such bills. they are talked about, we have meetings with the key players. ISRA legislative committee and myself. We sit down and go over the issues for a session in december before it starts.

 

If I had been asked then about a bill like this I would have given the same answer. If ISRA helped walk someone through the process of getting a bill drafted, I understand them helping some members understand the process. It never came up in our meetings.

 

if everything that happened is such a surprise, why didn't anybody share the idea with us before hand so we could talk it out? I'm not hard to find. because until Rep. Phelps told me about the bill, no one had brought it up to me. And these are dissucssons we could have had 6 months ago.

 

T

[Black Flag]

... comes up 4 votes short of 71? now we go find the 4 votes.

 

4 votes short of knocking out a semi-auto ban, dealer licensing, $50 background checks with unlimited waiting periods. against the chicago machine, I'd say that's not a bad show.

Todd Vandermyde:

Isn't that why the IRSA got that black guy, Goy Pugh, to help strip off a couple of votes off the black caucus?

 

Why doesn't the IRSA or the NRA get a woman lobbyist in there to deliver a message, woman to woman, in terms that a reasonable woman would understand? (ie, preventing a violent rape, stopping a home invasion, Tinley Park...)

 

Isn't that a reasonable way to peel off a few more votes?

[mauserme]

as for a response, I'm sure HQ will issue one. I was simply responding to a question, cold, in a public forum. Tim asked me again at the sportsman's caucus about it and wanted to talk. That was march. Nothing was hidden. At any time, when asked I gave the position that I held and believed was the position of the assn.

Thank you, Todd, for the good you have accomplished and for posting as much of a response as you can.

 

Unfortunately, I believe NRA has caused greater damage in Illinois than the anti's could ever have hoped to accomplish. Not only is there a perception (yes, I include myself in this) that NRA killed a very real chance to pass concealed carry during this legislative session, but they have undermined the confidence of the membership in the NRA itself. The reality is that this discussion is not limited to this forum alone - email networks and other forums exist and this is probably a statewide issue already. It is up to NRA to repair the damage they have caused, though for the life of me I don't know how they can. And time will tell if they are even interested.

 

As for HB172 etc, I understand that many of your efforts are intertwined but, speaking only for myself, I wonder if it might be more appropriate to continue those thoughts in other threads as Molly B started this one for a specific purpose.

 

Keith

[dan]

So now what do we do? We have a great group of grassroots people here but it seems the the NRA is either to political or uncaring about Illinois. I get the feeling that they just view us as a lost cause. I sent my e mails on Friday and no reply yet to any of them. I think the problem may be that the NRA is as political as the political reps. are. Everyone seems to talk a good game yet we consider it a success when we do not loose our rights. What bothers me the most is the lack of putting these things to a vote. It is better to fight and loose than it is to rollover and quit. I am still not real happy with the NRA after this stunt.

[PPK]

Why doesn't the IRSA or the NRA get a woman lobbyist in there to deliver a message, woman to woman, in terms that a reasonable woman would understand? (ie, preventing a violent rape, stopping a home invasion, Tinley Park...)

 

Isn't that a reasonable way to peel off a few more votes?

 

That has got to be one of the best ideas I've heard on here yet. Not that Molly isn't doing a great job already but a full time female lobbist might turn the tide.

[mauserme]

Where did Charles go?

 

And now Dan's post has been modified.

 

Hmmmmm ...

[abolt243]

C'mon guys, we're losing sight of the goal here. The NRA and Todd are NOT the enemy!!! Think of all the bad bills that have been introduced the last five years by the Chicago Anti-Gunners. Now try to imagine how many of those would have become law and what this state would be like for gun owners if we had not had Todd, the NRA, the ISRA working the hallways and offices in Springfield. Google "New Jersey Gun Laws" or "California Gun Laws" and spend some time reading if you want to feel a little better about what we've beat back here in this state. Sure, we generated some phone calls and faxes on certain votes, and they helped. But none of us have the experience, the time and the contacts to generate the results that the paid lobbyists do in Springfield. See more comments in BLUE below.

Todd Quote;

So you are the number 1 go-to guy who we grass-roots activists need to get permission from? Thank for letting us know that

Why wouldn't the full time NRA lobbyist be the "go to guy" in Springfield?? Not to get permission as such, but to co-ordinate efforts. We've got to quit dividing up into teams here. There's only two teams, US (gun owners) and THEM (antis). We grass roots activists are just one player on the team. Every member has differents strengths and can accomplish different things. We've got to work together towards the same goal. We may have disagreements at times over strategy and even as to what's the next priority. But we have to work through those disagreements and become stronger because of them, not weaker.

 

Let us not forget who pays for your full time services. It seems like the politicians forget who pays their salaries also. I'm sure that Todd's well aware of where his paycheck comes from. Thus, his promise to support the postition that headquarters sends him. You have to remember, the NRA is funded by ALL gun owners, not just those of us who hold LTC as our top priority.

 

So now what do we do? We have a great group of grassroots people here but it seems the the NRA is either to political or uncaring about Illinois. I get the feeling that they just view us as a lost cause. I sent my e mails on Friday and no reply yet to any of them. I think the problem may be that the NRA is as political as the political reps. are. Everyone seems to talk a good game yet we consider it a success when we do not loose our rights. What bothers me the most is the lack of putting these things to a vote. It is better to fight and loose than it is to rollover and quit. I am still not real happy with the NRA after this stunt.

What do we do?? Well, first of all, understand that we can't expect instantaneous responses every time we jerk somebody's chain. This alert came out on Friday. Many folks haven't even contacted the NRA yet. We can't all expect a personal response from them or all they will get done is write e-mails rather than meet, discuss and plan strategy for IL. Many state gun organizations/gun clubs/ranges/etc. must have meetings before they can send off their comments to the NRA, and they will. But it takes time.

 

Secondly, we keep doing what we're doing. Educate the public on the positive aspects of citizen gun ownership and carry. Contact your legislators. Keep writing the NRA. In short, keep doing what we're doing, but more of it.

I'm not happy with the NRA's position on STHR carry law in IL. But I'm terribly happy that they chose to get involved in the Chicago Gun Case and the other lawsuits that they are participating in for residents of this state. I'm happy that they chose to finance a full time lobbyist for our state (one of the few that warrants our own!), and I believe that Goy Pugh is at least partly NRA funded also.

Guys, it's OK to be p***** at the NRA for their position on STHR. Call, write, let them know how you feel. Especially you Chicago based folks that understand the concept of incremental implementation of LTC. But, to completely drop your support and to malign the person that's been at the head of the effort to protect your rights for the last 15 years??? You're shooting yourselves in the foot. Or, as another member says, "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater!".

Take a breath, think about it. Imagine one gun a month, 10 round mags, a full blown assault weapons ban, no private sales, state licensing of dealers, separate permit to accquire each gun, $500 FOID cards, mental evaluation before purchase. All that and more is what's been turned back in the last five years by the folks we have in Springfield.

 

The NRA's not perfect, but they've been pretty effective the last few years.

 

Tim

[Jeff Watts]

My post was censored as well. I disagree. The NRA was caught working against us. That's the definition of the "enemy". I understand that the moderators are trying to downplay this, but this cat isn't going back into the bag. Period.

[raiven]

this could only happen if the anti gunners got ahold of the nra and they are hanging on for dear life in ilinois because they are losing control in this state.

[Topper]

I agree with Abolt, There is a much bigger picture here. As far as Todd and the NRA are concerned, if Todd wasn't here working on issues we most likely would have never known that the NRA had a different perspective on which bills are backed by the organization, and how and why they are going about it in the direction that they do. Todd's presence here shows that they are trying to work with us. I understand that most of the members here don't agree with what has happened in this instance (me included) but at least we are seeing more of how the whole political process works, and what to do about it. We need to inform the NRA how we feel and work toward a solution that suits us best. If we fight and seperate we will only weaken our cause. I am getting the feeling here that some folks think there is a conspiricy by the NRA against the gun owners.. I do not believe that is the case. They are a big organization and they have been moving in the direction they are for decades. We need to grow the site and group and convert people to our way of thinking and continue to work with the NRA to achieve what we strive for. It is easy to get p***** and start throwing stones but it will only dilute our strength. There may very well be hunting groups or what ever that think the NRA spends too much time and attention on LTC instead of their causes. We need to stay strong and strengthen our group and keep moving forward.

[SirMatthew]

I don't necessarily see the NRA organization as the enemy, at least not yet. They want LTC in Illinois just like we do, but they want to acquire it using an approach that hasn't worked for years while we want to try something different (HB2257). We want them to continue trying the old approach just in case it might work one of these years, but to do so without stepping on our new approach at the same time. There is no reason for them not to support both strategies and that is the primary reason this thread exists.

 

From a unity standpoint the NRA needs to be aligned with gun owners. Neither we or the NRA can afford to be seen by the public as groups who are at odds with each other as that will only weaken and discredit both groups.

 

It's clear Illinois citizens are not going to give up on the STHR approach, even if we have to disassociate ourselves from the NRA organization to do it. We won't be as effective, but this also hurts the NRA financially, which hinders their ability to be effective elsewhere in the country. From a financial standpoint, the NRA would be smart to support STHR legislation in order to appease Illinois NRA members.

 

If we are successful with a STHR bill the NRA did not support then they will not be able to get "credit" for helping bring LTC to Illinois. This would be incredibly embarrassing for them. They want to share in gun-rights victories and they will need to support STHR in order to claim they helped get it passed. Indeed, their support would actually help get it passed, so their claim to success would be deserved and valid.

 

The NRA organization really has no choice but to change their position about STFR, but they will need some pressure from us to do it. It's ok to have resentment and anger about the NRA organization right now, but let's please direct those emotions towards the NRA position which opposes STHR (2257) and get them to support it. Once they move in our direction we can all move forward feeling much better about the direction we are headed.

[Blaster]

My post was censored as well. I disagree. The NRA was caught working against us. That's the definition of the "enemy". I understand that the moderators are trying to downplay this, but this cat isn't going back into the bag. Period.

 

Yes the cat is out of the bag. Now that it is, don't you think that the pressure that they are now feeling will change some things. I personally don't consider the NRA the enemy. I think they need to be educated on how we feel in Illinois.

[bob]

Preemption is a good thing apart from LTC.

 

It seems like we might be able to get county preemption. I don't think there are any townships that have preemption. Why not just roll ALL none municipal units of local government into the bill. I seem to recall park districts at least have some kind of home rule or home rule like authority.

 

I don't think we could get preemption against municipalities right now, but in 5 years or so, the McDonald case may make it pretty moot at which point it might be doable.

[Black Flag]

Why doesn't the IRSA or the NRA get a woman lobbyist in there to deliver a message, woman to woman, in terms that a reasonable woman would understand? (ie, preventing a violent rape, stopping a home invasion, Tinley Park...)

 

Isn't that a reasonable way to peel off a few more votes?

 

That has got to be one of the best ideas I've heard on here yet. Not that Molly isn't doing a great job already but a full time female lobbist might turn the tide.

Full-time would be nice, but she wouldn't neccessarily have to be full-time in order to be effective.

[drdoom]

The NRA does not understand the climate here in Illinois, it's a unique climate. You got the city-state of Chicago, with anti-gun zealots, then you have pro-gun counties elsewhere, and a handful of suburbs that are gun-friendly too. In my view, whatever it takes to pass CCW, we should do it. The NRA does not understand the power of Chicago, as we know it. This CCW bill gives the anti's what they want, they get to keep their gun-free zones, their bans, etc. As for this NRA notion of "oh, there will be a patchwork of laws state-wide!" well there already is, and I'm sure almost every Illinois citizen would rather be astute, and study all local laws, and carry their concealed weapon than wait another 500 years.

[Rich]

Here's my letter, sent via email. Thanks to Molly and all who have brought this situation to my attention.

 

10 May 2009

 

To: Chris Cox, Executive Director, NRA-ILA

Scott Christman, Assistant Executive Director, NRA-ILA

Randy Kozuch, Director, ILA-State and Local Affairs

 

From: Rich XXXX, Savoy IL NRA # XXXXXXX

Re: NRA ILA strategy regarding Illinois' home rule exemption

 

I am writing to express my strong opinion that NRA-ILA should act to change the strategy on how we might achieve license-to-carry rights for the entire State of Illinois. I am a new resident of Illinois, having moved from a state where I was able to exercise my 2nd amendment rights. I look to the NRA as a key team member in the effort to change the way 2nd amendment rights are trampled in Illinois, and I applaud and thank you for your growing efforts. I think that our local lobbyist is doing a good job under trying circumstances, including work against all the anti-gun efforts that perpetually show up.

 

My understanding is that NRA-ILA is repeatedly (annually) supporting those LTC bills to the Illinois legislature that require a complete home-rule exemption. However, NRA and all other proponents of this approach have failed repeatedly for years thanks to the Chicago-land opposition to the home rule exemption component. Personally I find home-rule to be absurd, making a virtual patchwork of conflicting laws with the consequence of being in compliance in one place but not in another. But that is not the central issue here. We need a foothold.

 

It is time for you to reconsider your strategy. Limited LTC in those jurisdictions that agree is vastly preferable to no LTC in the entire state. The NRA-ILA approach seems to be one of "all or nothing", i.e. either give me the whole state or nothing. That is not working. If it doesn't work after repeated attempts, change the approach. I don't want to wait 20 years for your current strategy to finally pay off.

 

As a life member of NRA, . I respectfully request that you get out this mindset regarding home-rule exemption and try something new. As we see on t-shirts around here, "48 states can't all be wrong". What is wrong with Illinois is its politics, and if you good folks at the NRA ILA and the ILA-State and Local Affairs personnel haven't figured that out yet, take a step back and re-think your approach.

 

Thank you.

[bob]

My post was censored as well. I disagree. The NRA was caught working against us. That's the definition of the "enemy". I understand that the moderators are trying to downplay this, but this cat isn't going back into the bag. Period.

The NRA is not the enemy. They are working toward a similar goal as the rest of us. They just have a longer time frame then we do. The NRA strategy gives us a better bill, but many of us will be in nursing homes by then.

 

Our beef with the NRA is about strategy. If we forget the real enemy, we will never win.

 

No matter what happens, nothing good is likely to pass this year. We should be coming together with a consensus of the most important things to pass next year that actually have a chance and work on them.

[PPK]

I had a long talk with someone in Scott Christman's office yesterday. Probably lasted about 45 minutes which really suprised me. The NRA is not the enemy, at least not now, it's Chicago politicians. I kind of understand their position a little bit but I sure don't agree with it. They told me pretty much the same thing they told Kenny. I tried to explain our position, that the "all or nothing" approach would always leave us with "nothing."

 

The NRA needs to lead, follow, or stay the heck out of the way. But don't fight against us! Sounds like they decided to stay the heck out of the way and it didn't sound like much of a chance they would change their mind about that.

 

After talking to them I'm pretty sure they'll stay nuetral, which is a whole lot better than lobbying against us. But they are not the enemy. I believe they helped stop a lot of bad bills and I hope they stay in the fight with us. We just need better communication and with Todd on the forum, it sounds like we've got that.

 

I really like Black Flag's idea of female lobbyists and hope the NRA or ISRA will run with this idea.

[Drylok]

I have been typing and deleting off and on for 36 hours now.

Is anyone here who is opposed to 2257 willing to just admit that the reason you oppose it is because you live in a home rule unit and you don't want for some in Illinois to have this and some not? Grow up guys! You can't deny that the signing of 2257 would be a victory and would get us a heck of a lot closer to our goal than we are now.

And friends in the opt out cities please know that I for one will NEVER STOP FIGHTING UNTIL ALL OF US CAN EXERCISE OUR RIGHT!

 

FYI I work and spend most of my time in a city that will opt out of 2257 and I support it 100%.

[SirMatthew]

I had a long talk with someone in Scott Christman's office yesterday. Probably lasted about 45 minutes which really suprised me. The NRA is not the enemy, at least not now, it's Chicago politicians. I kind of understand their position a little bit but I sure don't agree with it. They told me pretty much the same thing they told Kenny. I tried to explain our position, that the "all or nothing" approach would always leave us with "nothing."

 

The NRA needs to lead, follow, or stay the heck out of the way. But don't fight against us! Sounds like they decided to stay the heck out of the way and it didn't sound like much of a chance they would change their mind about that.

 

After talking to them I'm pretty sure they'll stay nuetral, which is a whole lot better than lobbying against us. But they are not the enemy. I believe they helped stop a lot of bad bills and I hope they stay in the fight with us. We just need better communication and with Todd on the forum, it sounds like we've got that.

 

I really like Black Flag's idea of female lobbyists and hope the NRA or ISRA will run with this idea.

 

Neutrality is better than opposition, but, unfortunately, I doubt some of those in favor of 2257 are going to accept their neutrality as a respectable position. An old saying goes something like, "Be hot or cold, but lukewarm will be rejected." People who feel strongly about 2257 simply won't support a gun-rights organization that refuses to support a promising STHR bill.

 

So then, there is the reality we are facing. The NRA is effectively saying we're on our own here with a STHR bill. Not acceptable...I'm going to keep hounding them. If we can't convince a GUN-RIGHTS ORGANIZATION to support a STHR bill then it only shows how difficult it will be to convince Illinois lawmakers to support it. Nevertheless, this approach will not be dropped as it appears to offer more hope than the long-term NRA strategy.

 

This is not one of those situations that can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction merely by agreeing to disagree. The NRA could be right about everything else, but this single situation with the NRA leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth. It's not helping their cause to avoid helping ours.

 

STHR will be pursued with or without the NRA's blessing and we won't be as effective in our efforts. The NRA will suffer financial fallout and loss of membership if they remain neutral. It's a lose/lose situation, yet STHR offers more hope for LTC than the age-old strategy the NRA has been pursuing for years.

 

What a sad state of affairs.

 

Edit: My home county went RED on the Pro 2A Resolution and, like Drylok, it is possible my home city would opt out of a STHR LTC bill. I work at a place that strictly forbids firearms even now, so no hope of that changing. Yet, STHR offers hope for our state and I will support it even if I won't personally reap the benefits of it right away.