NRA-ILA Lobbied Against IL License to Carry Bill

[soundguy]

I live in the city. Contrary to what many on this forum, and many who choose to not live in any city think, it's a pretty nice place to live. I have occasional dreams of a place far away from tons of people. A place where I might have horses and lots of dogs. A prairie to walk through and muse over. A bit of water I can launch my kayaks in and maybe a little target berm I can shoot at when I feel the urge. For now though, I like the city.

 

As a sometimes gunner, with three different permits to carry, I would love to have a home state permit. It's not at all because I feel unsafe in the city. I don't. I have been held up at gunpoint in the city... but that was a long time ago... long before I chose to move here. I travel through all of the 'bad' neighborhoods, on a pretty regular basis, unarmed, without any general fear for my safety. Perhaps I've just acquired that city dweller's sense for lurking danger and have a knack for avoiding it. I don't see this place as any more crime filled and dangerous than any other place. Many other cities which allow concealed carry... Detroit, Miami, Atlanta, Houston and Philadelphia to name a few... Annually have a higher rate of murder and violent crime than does my Chicago. They may have fewer total murders but that's only because they have fewer people.

 

Sooo... to the topic at hand... I desire an Illinois permit to carry. One providing for preemption would be just ducky. One allowing for the city to opt out, because of home rule, works really well for me, too. And if it allows any home rule district in the state to opt out as well... bring it it on. Should our legislators allow different classes of residents in this regard, it gives those of us denied the right to carry tons of inertia to fight for that right. I imagine that many of those 'on the fence' over the issue will hop on over to the pro carry side once they become part of the 'right denied' class. Perhaps we can even challenge it in court.

 

Soon, I think, Chicago will be forced to change the way it feels about and handles gun rights. I'll take any version of the right to carry before or after that... And we must all work together to get there. Would supporting all paths to this end be so difficult? Use every little thing to our advantage. This little rift with our NRA FRIENDS should not be allowed to deepen... we need their help, They are on our side, even if they seem to be misguided.

 

Chins up everybody... and smile that now we know what is in the mind of our wealthiest friend!

[Chiburbian]

When I do contact the NRA about this tomorrow, one of the main points i wish to cover is in regards to the point that even though the "patchwork of laws" must still be followed, it removes the extremely distasteful option of being charged with a felony due to the mere posession of a pistol in the wrong geographical area.

 

That is something that benefits ALL citizens of this country right away.

[Thirdpower]

"Just wait.

 

Be patient.

 

Preemption will come.

 

All you have to do is wait for the Chicago Handgun case to get to the Supreme Court, hope for a win, wait for legislation to pass, then hope that the resulting litigation finishes and goes in your favor.

 

It shouldn't be long.

 

Just be patient. "

 

 

OK. I'll be patient. I'll wait the additional 10-20 years that this will take beyond the nearly 20 years we've already been waiting.

 

As soon as those recommending that while living in "Shall Issue" RTC states disarm in a show of solidarity until Illinois finally passes preemption.

 

Will they?

[SmershAgent]

Letter sent.

 

Dear Mr. Cox,

 

I am writing in regard to Illinois House Bill 2257, a license to carry bill that would have allowed home-rule municipalities to exempt themselves from recognizing permits. As you know, there is considerable vexation in the community of politically active gun owners over reports that the NRA instructed its lobbyist, Mr. Todd Vandermyde, to oppose "subject to home rule" carry legislation.

 

As an NRA life member and a former 23-year resident of Illinois, I am deeply disappointed by these developments. I'm well aware that an incomplete license to carry bill is not ideal, but it would have been vastly superior to the status quo - whereby no one can legally carry a defensive firearm in the state. Particularly puzzling is the justifications I have heard for the NRA's position, namely that the ensuing "patchwork" of laws would prove confusing and untenable. That is certainly a concern, but how is thay any different than what's happening now? Home rule units, most notoriously Chicago and Cook County, have already enacted a wide array of capricious, contradictory, and confusing firearm ordinances. Because they would be likely to do so in the event a "subject to home rule" carry law was passed is insufficient reason to prevent citizens from legally carrying elsewhere in the state.

 

The previous approach of introducing a preemptive carry bill has failed year after year after year. The political climate in Illinois is ferociously hostile to lawful gun ownership, and an "all or nothing" approach to concealed carry will continue to prove fruitless. I would much rather the state have an imperfect law that can be improved than no carry provision at all.

 

I am also aware that many people are pinning their hopes on the prospect of the Second Amedment being incorporated by the SCOTUS. While I agree that is likely to happen, it could still be several years away. How many honest citizens must be victimized while we wait for adjudication? And furthermore, it is not my understanding that a ruling for incorporation will necessarily eliminate cities' home rule powers; all it will mean is that cities cannot violate the Second Amendment. However, if local prohibitions against carrying are not found to be unconstitutional (like in the Heller ruling), then these legislative issues in Illinois will remain.

 

Please take my position into account as you explore the options with your staff. I appreciate what the NRA does on my behalf, but I strongly disagree with your opposition to a subject-to-home rule carry bill.

 

Sincerely,

 

-Matthew Thompson-

 

Member #XXXXXX

 

CC: Scott Christman, Randy Kozuch

[soundguy]

Letter Sent:

 

Gentlemen,

 

As a resident of Chicago, Illinois, I have acquired three out of state permits to carry a concealed weapon. I desire an Illinois permit to carry. A perfect law providing for preemption would be just ducky. One allowing for the city to opt out, because of home rule, works really well for me, too. And if it allows any home rule district in the state to opt out... bring it it on. Should our legislators choose to create different classes of residents in this regard, it would give those of us denied the right to carry tons of inertia to fight for that right. I imagine that some of those 'on the fence' over the issue will hop on over to the pro carry side once they become part of the 'right denied' class. Perhaps we could even challenge it in court.

 

It has come to my attention that the NRA has opposed any Illinois bill allowing for some localities to usurp a right to carry a gun, the imperfect bill. Would supporting all paths to returning Second Amendment rights to Illinoisans be so difficult? We need your help... And it seems to me that an imperfect right to carry, for now, would be far better than our current state of affairs..

 

Soon, I think, Chicago will be forced to change the way it feels about and handles gun rights. Until then, I'll take any version of a right to carry before or after that time comes... And we must all work together to get there.

 

 

Yours,

 

Tim XXXXX

NRA Life Member

#XXXXX

 

CC: Scott Christman, Randy Kozuch

[mauserme]

Just a thought on the NRA's neutrality on this issue.

 

If they had taken that stance from the onset then fine, so be it. But to claim neutrality after first killing the bill strikes me as nothing more than political cover.

[Molly B.]

Where did Charles go?

 

And now Dan's post has been modified.

 

Hmmmmm ...

Edited to add: Heard from Charles - he wanted his post deleted. Dan's was modified because it quoted Charles' post.

 

Please read Post #2 of this thread. We want all posts to remain on topic. And while we understand and empathize greatly with the feelings of frustration and anger this issue brings we also recognize that -

 

1. We need to keep our focus on where policies and the changes for policies are made and that is in Fairfax, VA. Let's not get distracted from that important fact.

 

2. It is my opinion and that of many others that we cannot win this battle without the NRA and all the other gun rights groups. We've had a set back and major difference of strategy, a major disagreement between the in-laws and out-laws but we must hang together or we shall surely hang separately - as the saying goes.

 

3. Mr. Vandermyde is probably the best and most effective lobbyist in the state. We may not like his abrupt way of speaking and at times arrogant manner but having spent time with him even since all this transpired we have seen the man in action and those very traits are what contribute to his effectiveness when it's directed at the other side in the halls and hearing rooms in the capitol. We would be doing major damage to our cause if we were to lose him along with his knowledge and skills.

[Kenny]

Just a thought on the NRA's neutrality on this issue.

 

If they had taken that stance from the onset then fine, so be it. But to claim neutrality after first killing the bill strikes me as nothing more than political cover.

 

 

This is exactly how I feel!!! & I am the kind of person where if you are not with me then you must be against me!!

[bob]

Just a thought on the NRA's neutrality on this issue.

 

If they had taken that stance from the onset then fine, so be it. But to claim neutrality after first killing the bill strikes me as nothing more than political cover.

You guys have probably figured out I am not much into nuances. I don't see a whole lot of difference between oppose and neutral on this kind of bill.

 

Now that I understand their thinking on the bill, I am less mad at them. Not sure I agree. They do have a point though. Its an almost certainty that at some point with a STHR LTC in place an NRA member carrying subject to a LTC will stray into a HR area that has banned CC and get arrested for it. Does the NRA then have some obligation to support such a person? Its a lot easier for them to just avoid that problem then to deal with it when it happens.

[abolt243]

Just a thought on the NRA's neutrality on this issue.

 

If they had taken that stance from the onset then fine, so be it. But to claim neutrality after first killing the bill strikes me as nothing more than political cover.

You guys have probably figured out I am not much into nuances. I don't see a whole lot of difference between oppose and neutral on this kind of bill.

 

Now that I understand their thinking on the bill, I am less mad at them. Not sure I agree. They do have a point though. Its an almost certainty that at some point with a STHR LTC in place an NRA member carrying subject to a LTC will stray into a HR area that has banned CC and get arrested for it. Does the NRA then have some obligation to support such a person? Its a lot easier for them to just avoid that problem then to deal with it when it happens.

 

 

It is the licensee's responsibility to know the laws, including "no carry" zones. The NRA would have no more "obligation" to defend that person than to defend any one else that broke the law.

 

AB

[Tvandermyde]

we've had two female lobbyists. I worked for both of them. Being female did not have any real impact one way or another.

[PPK]

we've had two female lobbyists. I worked for both of them. Being female did not have any real impact one way or another.

Oh well. The idea sounded good on paper.

[SirMatthew]

You guys have probably figured out I am not much into nuances. I don't see a whole lot of difference between oppose and neutral on this kind of bill.

 

Now that I understand their thinking on the bill, I am less mad at them. Not sure I agree. They do have a point though. Its an almost certainty that at some point with a STHR LTC in place an NRA member carrying subject to a LTC will stray into a HR area that has banned CC and get arrested for it. Does the NRA then have some obligation to support such a person? Its a lot easier for them to just avoid that problem then to deal with it when it happens.

 

A person carrying a firearm is responsible to know when and where LTC is acceptable and when it is not, just as is the case today concerning transportation of firearms. I don't think anyone would have the obligation to support or defend such a person who broke the law by carrying into a restricted area. When in doubt, don't carry. If a person got arrested for doing so, and it very well could happen (maybe on purpose?), lawsuits would result. Complaints and lawsuits about unfairness and confusion could very well result in changes which lead us even closer to preemption. An odd way of looking at it, but the confusion created by the patchwork could be part of the strategy to move closer to preemption after a STHR foothold has been acquired.

 

I kind of see the whole picture like being stuck on a highway during a traffic jam. We could sit in our car and wait for hours before traffic begins moving and then arrive at our destination (preemption) later on in the day. Those who are in no particular hurry to get to their destination (e.g. the NRA) don't mind the wait.

 

Or...we could take a detour which takes us on a path which requires more turns. It takes more effort than merely being patient, but at least we are moving. I can all but guarantee ambulance drivers would pursue this option rather than sit in traffic because they want to get people to the destination as quickly as possible.

 

Let the NRA sit in traffic while we take the detour. It matters little what road we take or who gets there first, but some people need to get there NOW.

[mauserme]

I have a question or two for anyone that can answer factually.

 

We have been told that 71 votes would be needed to pass HB2257 into law because

 

1) Speaker Madigan will subject it to rules regarding preemption

 

and (or possibly "or" depending on your take)

 

2) The Governor will veto the bill and 71 is needed to override

 

My questions are, from whence do we derive this information? Has it ever been confirmed? Can it be confirmed without an actual vote?

 

And no, these are not meant in any way to be accusations. But if the only source is from an opposing group, perhaps there has been a misinterpretation.

[Buzzard]

we've had two female lobbyists. I worked for both of them. Being female did not have any real impact one way or another.

That's what I had imagined. I think there's only about two things that are important to a politician. One is getting elected. Two is what will get him re-elected. And from what I know, that entails keeping his constituants and his political party relatively happy without stepping on too many toes.

[Jeff Watts]

Had a nice chat with Molly B. and while my feelings towards the NRA haven't changed, I understand her position. (I do disagree, however.) At this point, The NRA-ILA has to prove themselves to me, and regain my trust. I doubt the NRA cares about my opinion or anyone else's for that matter, but if they wish to try, I'll listen to what they have to say, and give them the chance to back it up with actions.

[SirMatthew]

I have a question or two for anyone that can answer factually.

 

We have been told that 71 votes would be needed to pass HB2257 into law because

 

1) Speaker Madigan will subject it to rules regarding preemption

 

and (or possibly "or" depending on your take)

 

2) The Governor will veto the bill and 71 is needed to override

 

My questions are, from whence do we derive this information? Has it ever been confirmed? Can it be confirmed without an actual vote?

 

And no, these are not meant in any way to be accusations. But if the only source is from an opposing group, perhaps there has been a misinterpretation.

 

HB2257 is a STHR bill (plainly stated in the bill) and, as such, should only need 60 votes. However, it has been speculated that Madigan might require 71 votes because the LTC card can be issued to all citizens in the state (even those living in home rule units like Chicago). In other words, right or wrong, it could be interpreted by Madigan to be a state-wide bill rather than a STHR bill for this very reason. Knowing Madigan's position on the issue it's possible he will require 71 votes in order to make this bill very hard to pass. It's hard to know what those in politics will do so a lot of this is speculation which cannot be confirmed. However, concerning point 2, it is factual information 71 votes would be needed to override a Governor veto.

[Don Gwinn]

Mauserme:

 

1. That is entirely possible, even likely. Obviously we can't be 100% certain, but what would you expect of Madigan? He has the power to do it as long as he's willing to accept the consequences, and at the moment, he's probably not worried about consequences. At the meeting in Springfield Monday, Todd shared with us the story of a similar bill sponsored by Rep. Terry Deering in the mid 1990's; apparently Deering tried a STHR approach and Madigan took the position that since the state would issue the cards, residents in the home-rule entities would still be able to acquire LTC's (true enough) and therefore the home-rule entities would be subject to the measure even though they wouldn't have to honor the LTC's.

My question then and now is this: If Madigan was so absolutely certain to kill this bill, why did the NRA decide to take the bullet for him? If they were that certain what Madigan would do, then the smart play would have been to let Madigan do the dirty work of killing the bill. Once he did, the scourge of STHR patchwork would have been averted, but Madigan would have been the target of our ire, not the NRA. I'm not an expert on the legislature, but that sounds like all upside to me. One possible explanation is that things aren't as certain and unchangeable as they seem.

 

2. Also entirely possible, even likely. Quinn says he opposes LTC. On the other hand, there are a few holes in that one, too. First, he said that without the bill on his desk. By the time a bill makes it that far, it may be less clear to him that he has more to gain by stopping LTC than by signing it. Second, whatever he says, he wants to run for Governor and win. He's willing to resort to looney-tunes stuff like proposing that the legislature take away his opponents' campaign funds, so if we can get to a point where there's something to be gained politically from LTC, there's no certainty that he won't sign it. And third, if we can get the votes to get to a veto, that's a victory, too. Let him defend that veto and let everyone see what happens to him. We should be forcing these people to defend their opposition to self-defense every day.

 

Now, I want to get this out of the way:

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.

Molly didn't screw anyone out of anything. Molly and a lot of other people had to figure out the best course of action, and we did what we thought was right. Don't try to set up Molly as a scapegoat; if there's blame to be taken, I'll take my share.

 

Next, I just don't see what anyone thinks we're losing or setting back in terms of NRA strategy to "get pre-emption passed soon." There IS no NRA strategy to get pre-emption passed in the foreseeable future through the legislature. If you don't believe me, ask them. I don't really blame them because I personally believe the logjam is such at the moment that there's no way pre-emptive LTC can pass in the next few years. I believe, reading between the lines, that the NRA has decided that the courts are a better way to go. In some ways, I agree, but we have no idea how long that will take. THAT is our disagreement--they want to take the long route through the courts and we want to take our shot at LTC in the legislature by offering STHR bills. Keep in mind, here, that the NRA can't keep us from offering these bills. What we're asking them for is their active support, and they have every right to say no as long as they're willing to accept the consequences.

 

Finally, do some of you actually believe that the NRA is opposed to license-to-carry legislation in Illinois? I'm asking because I want to be sure. Maybe I've misread the posts here, but that seems to be clearly implied by several of you.

[Jaybuck00]

Hello IC Members:

 

As a long time resident born and raised in Chicago, I have a few major concerns and questions regarding bill HB2237 STHR-LTC. It obvious that if this bill gets passed Chicago residents will be left defenseless once again by the state.

 

Questions:

 

How does this bill allow Chicago residents to exercise their 2nd amendment rights where the murder rate was at 510 in 2008, and crime is at an all time high?

 

How many individuals posting here who support HB2237 actually live in Chicago where most likely Chicago will opt out of STHR-LTC?

 

How can Chicago residents be assured that if HB2237 gets passed that there would not be an easing of pressure towards state wide preemption so that ALL citizens, including Chicago, can finally exercise their right to self defense with a firearm?

 

 

 

 

I am trying to understanding the long term view of what the members are trying to accomplish, however, based on what I have read here and in the news, it appears that Chicago residents will once again become sacrificial lambs so that LTC can be achieved in Illinois.

 

It's simple. We really have two choices:

 

1) The entire state is made to suffer for another decade or so while we wait out the decisions of court cases that may or may not go our way.

 

2) We work incrementally towards the same goal w/ some areas reaping earlier benefits than others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jaybuck00

 

 

You are correct to assume you will be left out but putting the shoe on the other foot Chicago area is the reason the rest of downstate IL. cannot get carry legislation passed. By working to allow LTC in 90 some counties that otherwise are suffering the same fate as Chicago would be a step in the right direction for your city too. You must organize before election time & for once do the right thing by putting the crooked politicians that holds hands with Daley out on the street.

It will have to be earned & will not be easy here or up there but it can be done. It has to be done & one day it will come to past........hopefully in my lifetime.

[mauserme]

Molly didn't screw anyone out of anything. Molly and a lot of other people had to figure out the best course of action, and we did what we thought was right. Don't try to set up Molly as a scapegoat; if there's blame to be taken, I'll take my share.

I think you did not direct that at me, but since you quoted me earlier in your post I'll post my feelings in response.

 

Blaming Molly B for this situation is like blaming me, a gun owner, when gangbangers shoot it out in Chicago. It is simply illiogical.

 

 

 

 

Finally, do some of you actually believe that the NRA is opposed to license-to-carry legislation in Illinois?

For myself, I belive the NRA is interested in self promotion. If LTC advances that then they are in favor but it is secondary to their desires.

 

 

EDIT:

 

And in a bit of irony, I just opened my email to find an ISRA alert telling us we should ask Representatives Pihos and Bellock "When will Illinois get Concealed Carry?".

 

Exactly what bill are they supposed to vote for? Or is this a just in case we get something 10 years from now, supposing you're still in office and haven''t changed your mind ....

[Kenny]

Finally, do some of you actually believe that the NRA is opposed to license-to-carry legislation in Illinois?

For myself, I belive the NRA is interested in self promotion. If LTC advances that then they are in favor but it is secondary to their desires.

 

 

 

Wow that pretty much sums it up I have been trying to say that but didn't know how to say it!!!

[lockman]

Hello IC Members:

 

As a long time resident born and raised in Chicago, I have a few major concerns and questions regarding bill HB2237 STHR-LTC. It obvious that if this bill gets passed Chicago residents will be left defenseless once again by the state.

 

Questions:

 

How does this bill allow Chicago residents to exercise their 2nd amendment rights where the murder rate was at 510 in 2008, and crime is at an all time high?

 

How many individuals posting here who support HB2237 actually live in Chicago where most likely Chicago will opt out of STHR-LTC?

 

How can Chicago residents be assured that if HB2237 gets passed that there would not be an easing of pressure towards state wide preemption so that ALL citizens, including Chicago, can finally exercise their right to self defense with a firearm?

 

 

 

 

I am trying to understanding the long term view of what the members are trying to accomplish, however, based on what I have read here and in the news, it appears that Chicago residents will once again become sacrificial lambs so that LTC can be achieved in Illinois.

 

It's simple. We really have two choices:

 

1) The entire state is made to suffer for another decade or so while we wait out the decisions of court cases that may or may not go our way.

 

2) We work incrementally towards the same goal w/ some areas reaping earlier benefits than others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jaybuck00

 

 

You are correct to assume you will be left out but putting the shoe on the other foot Chicago area is the reason the rest of downstate IL. cannot get carry legislation passed. By working to allow LTC in 90 some counties that otherwise are suffering the same fate as Chicago would be a step in the right direction for your city too. You must organize before election time & for once do the right thing by putting the crooked politicians that holds hands with Daley out on the street.

It will have to be earned & will not be easy here or up there but it can be done. It has to be done & one day it will come to past........hopefully in my lifetime.

 

And you would still benefit from reciprocity in many other states. Reduce the number of foreign permits you need to travel in addition to the non-felony status is violated.

[lockman]

The relationship between the NRA and many of its members has strained many times over the years but the NRA's general trend has been in a forward direction. I have taken issue with the NRA's strategies that seem to give precedent to LTC over unlicensed carry. If it is indeed a right to defend yourself with arms then the state requiring a license is contrary to that position. The NRA has also favored legislation that has restricted open carry in exchange for more lenient concealed carry. From many perspectives the NRA is considered anti open carry.

 

NRA must realize that a compromise on our goals is unacceptable but a compromise on the time table to get there is prudent and local and state concerns and efforts that do not give up ground should not be dismissed without consultation and representation of the local interests. I guess you can say that IllinoisCarry and ISRA has been preempted by the NRA.

 

I'm still the NRA. I am just in the minority faction I guess.

[burningspear]

Agreed and well put.

[mauserme]

And you would still benefit from reciprocity in many other states. Reduce the number of foreign permits you need to travel in addition to the non-felony status is violated.

Not to mention that some states (Michigan, for example) require a person be licensed in their state of residence in order to carry there. Non-resident licenses do not work.

 

 

 

NRA must realize that a compromise on our goals is unacceptable but a compromise on the time table to get there is prudent and local and state concerns and efforts that do not give up ground should not be dismissed without consultation and representation of the local interests. I guess you can say that IllinoisCarry and ISRA has been preempted by the NRA.

 

I'm still the NRA. I am just in the minority faction I guess.

 

I hope we can accomplish at least that much. I truly do.

 

Am I still the NRA? I don’t honestly know. I think I am what I perceived the NRA to be.

[asfried1]

Just a thought on the NRA's neutrality on this issue.

 

If they had taken that stance from the onset then fine, so be it. But to claim neutrality after first killing the bill strikes me as nothing more than political cover.

You guys have probably figured out I am not much into nuances. I don't see a whole lot of difference between oppose and neutral on this kind of bill.

 

Now that I understand their thinking on the bill, I am less mad at them. Not sure I agree. They do have a point though. Its an almost certainty that at some point with a STHR LTC in place an NRA member carrying subject to a LTC will stray into a HR area that has banned CC and get arrested for it. Does the NRA then have some obligation to support such a person? Its a lot easier for them to just avoid that problem then to deal with it when it happens.

 

Does the NRA have some obligation to support my family if I get killed in an part of Illinois that would not have used home rule to prohibit LTC? After all, they were against (before they were neutral) a bill that would open up most of Illinois to LTC and armed self-defense.

[GarandFan]

Does the NRA have some obligation to support my family if I get killed in an part of Illinois that would not have used home rule to prohibit LTC? After all, they were against (before they were neutral) a bill that would open up most of Illinois to LTC and armed self-defense.

 

With all due respect, you are being ridiculous with that kind of argument.

 

Presumably your life insurance company would be obligated to support your family in such a case, but only to the terms of your policy (assuming you have one). And I think that life insurance policies are available via the NRA (assuming you are a member).

[Ashdump]

Does the NRA have some obligation to support my family if I get killed in an part of Illinois that would not have used home rule to prohibit LTC? After all, they were against (before they were neutral) a bill that would open up most of Illinois to LTC and armed self-defense.

 

With all due respect, you are being ridiculous with that kind of argument.

 

Presumably your life insurance company would be obligated to support your family in such a case, but only to the terms of your policy (assuming you have one). And I think that life insurance policies are available via the NRA (assuming you are a member).

 

 

GF, I think the legislature would be the proper entity to hold accountable for deaths resulting from being forcefully disarmed by illegal laws. Of course, we all know how that would go!

[Drylok]

Does the NRA have some obligation to support my family if I get killed in an part of Illinois that would not have used home rule to prohibit LTC? After all, they were against (before they were neutral) a bill that would open up most of Illinois to LTC and armed self-defense.

 

With all due respect, you are being ridiculous with that kind of argument.

 

Presumably your life insurance company would be obligated to support your family in such a case, but only to the terms of your policy (assuming you have one). And I think that life insurance policies are available via the NRA (assuming you are a member).

 

 

GF, I think the legislature would be the proper entity to hold accountable for deaths resulting from being forcefully disarmed by illegal laws. Of course, we all know how that would go!

 

That would be my logic as well. If you are injured or killed by an attacker and you had the legal ability to defend yourself but chose not to, that's your fault.

But if you are injured or killed by an attacker because you live in a state that does not allow you to protect yourself the blood is on the hands of the attacker and of the legislature.

[TTIN]

Somebody help me out here,please.Back when then Gov. Edger vetoed our last almost passed LTC bill,did we need a super majority for the bill to get out of the GA? If so,why then didn't we have the votes for an override?

 

TIA