Jump to content

Why preemption of local laws (AWB, CFP, etc) is needed


defaultdotxbe

Recommended Posts

There is some talk about how Cullerton wants to pull that from the bill but no one seems to be talking about why it is needed (other than the obvious issue of AWB and CFP being bad laws)

 

The reason is because Chicago and other jurisdictions can still use them to control carry. Whats to stop Chicago from claiming you need a CFP to possess a gun within the city, even if you don't live?

 

There is also the CPD Superintendent's arbitrary "unsafe handguns" list that they could use to ban common carry pieces.

 

And how about mag bans? What happens to someone carrying a Glock 9mm who wanders into a jurisdiction with a mag ban, is the standard 17 round magazine in violation?

 

 

 

These reasons, and I'm sure there are many more, are why we absolutely need statewide preemption of ALL firearm laws

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cullerton can't do anything to the bill. The Senate has to give it an up/down vote. Since it originated in the Senate and was amended by the House, that's how it works. Cullerton can have it voted down and send 183 to the House....ha yeah that's a good idea Madigan will just slap the same amendment on it and send it back to the Senate. Or Quinn could try an amendatory veto, I don't see that working at all. Oh well we shall see next week.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cullerton can't do anything to the bill. The Senate has to give it an up/down vote. Since it originated in the Senate and was amended by the House, that's how it works. Cullerton can have it voted down and send 183 to the House....ha yeah that's a good idea Madigan will just slap the same amendment on it and send it back to the Senate. Or Quinn could try an amendatory veto, I don't see that working at all. Oh well we shall see next week.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

183 started as a House Bill though... So if Cullerton sends it to the House, it is only for concurrence... Right? Same thing that 2193 did...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The perfect example of why preemption is needed is the cook awb and all the home rule villages that ignore it. Nobody knows if they are legal or not with their ar and standard cap mags. There are threads about it at least once a month.

 

 

However someone said that it'll be easier to pass bans in the future because of this 2193's preemption. I admit I don't understand how it would be easier, but if so that's scary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cullerton can't do anything to the bill. The Senate has to give it an up/down vote. Since it originated in the Senate and was amended by the House, that's how it works. Cullerton can have it voted down and send 183 to the House....ha yeah that's a good idea Madigan will just slap the same amendment on it and send it back to the Senate. Or Quinn could try an amendatory veto, I don't see that working at all. Oh well we shall see next week.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

183 started as a House Bill though... So if Cullerton sends it to the House, it is only for concurrence... Right? Same thing that 2193 did...

 

Skinny.....he's right. Up or down IF 183 makes it back to the house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The perfect example of why preemption is needed is the cook awb and all the home rule villages that ignore it. Nobody knows if they are legal or not with their ar and standard cap mags. There are threads about it at least once a month.

 

 

However someone said that it'll be easier to pass bans in the future because of this 2193's preemption. I admit I don't understand how it would be easier, but if so that's scary.

 

Scare tactics from those ignorant of the process or knowingly attempting to subvert the bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However someone said that it'll be easier to pass bans in the future because of this 2193's preemption. I admit I don't understand how it would be easier, but if so that's scary.

 

Not at all. Any future gun control will have to be run through the Illinois General Assembly, where there are always people like us paying attention.

 

I have no idea how Chicago passes its regs, but I know pretty well how the process works in the ILGA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However someone said that it'll be easier to pass bans in the future because of this 2193's preemption. I admit I don't understand how it would be easier, but if so that's scary.

 

Not at all. Any future gun control will have to be run through the Illinois General Assembly, where there are always people like us paying attention.

 

I have no idea how Chicago passes its regs, but I know pretty well how the process works in the ILGA.

 

In Chicago you just pay the Alderman to pass whatever you like. You know like the parking deal....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However someone said that it'll be easier to pass bans in the future because of this 2193's preemption. I admit I don't understand how it would be easier, but if so that's scary.

 

Not at all. Any future gun control will have to be run through the Illinois General Assembly, where there are always people like us paying attention.

 

I have no idea how Chicago passes its regs, but I know pretty well how the process works in the ILGA.

The belief is that future bills will require a simple majority rather than supermajority. But that is not true, a statewide AWB or mag ban would not need to preempt home rule, the antis are perfectly happy to allow home rule units to pass even more restrictive bans.

 

What it does do, as others have noted, it means we only have to watch one place for new bills, not hundreds of different counties and towns

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However someone said that it'll be easier to pass bans in the future because of this 2193's preemption. I admit I don't understand how it would be easier, but if so that's scary.

 

Not at all. Any future gun control will have to be run through the Illinois General Assembly, where there are always people like us paying attention.

 

I have no idea how Chicago passes its regs, but I know pretty well how the process works in the ILGA.

The belief is that future bills will require a simple majority rather than supermajority. But that is not true, a statewide AWB or mag ban would not need to preempt home rule, the antis are perfectly happy to allow home rule units to pass even more restrictive bans.

 

What it does do, as others have noted, it means we only have to watch one place for new bills, not hundreds of different counties and towns

 

Going forward ANY gun laws are excluded from home rule so if this bill passes those days are over. What we need is a Governor who can veto bad gun legislation and we are set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is some talk about how Cullerton wants to pull that from the bill but no one seems to be talking about why it is needed (other than the obvious issue of AWB and CFP being bad laws)

 

The reason is because Chicago and other jurisdictions can still use them to control carry. Whats to stop Chicago from claiming you need a CFP to possess a gun within the city, even if you don't live?

 

There is also the CPD Superintendent's arbitrary "unsafe handguns" list that they could use to ban common carry pieces.

 

And how about mag bans? What happens to someone carrying a Glock 9mm who wanders into a jurisdiction with a mag ban, is the standard 17 round magazine in violation?

 

 

 

These reasons, and I'm sure there are many more, are why we absolutely need statewide preemption of ALL firearm laws

Very well said. We need total preemption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...