Jump to content

HB4107 Assault Weapons Ban


mauserme

Recommended Posts

Two bulls are standing at the top of a hill overlooking a pasture filled with cows, one was a young bull and the other was an old bull. The young bull excitedly says to the old bull - "Let's run down there and boink one of them cows!" The old bull says "No junior, lets walk down there and boink them all."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m just saying, we have time to file witness slips. When mauserme posts the links then I’ll file slips. No need to get all excited right this moment. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

There's a balancing act with this. We try to accommodate our forum members' enthusiasm but not overdo the emails for people that want a little less. Discussing things here while waiting to send a comprehensive, single email seems to work pretty well except in emergency situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rauner signing HB40 did upset a BUNCH of people. Assuming that he is in office if these bills pass (especially 4107) they will just keep pushing bills like 4107 if he does veto it? As much as I hate to write it, I think Pritzger is Illinois next governor which means it's time to move to a different State.

 

Considering Pritzger's physique . . .. :devil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Rauner signing HB40 did upset a BUNCH of people. Assuming that he is in office if these bills pass (especially 4107) they will just keep pushing bills like 4107 if he does veto it? As much as I hate to write it, I think Pritzger is Illinois next governor which means it's time to move to a different State. Considering Pritzger's physique . . . .. :devil: You would think so but with the Pritzger money I'm sure he has the best doctors. Elections for important positions all come down to one thing, money. The POTUS and the governor of a large State all require money. You have Rauner and Pritzger who are already campaigning and they are both billionaires. Chris Kennedy has some money but will be trounced by the sheer amount of money he is going up against. As much as I hope that Pritzger fails, Rauner is not exactly a popular governor. Signing HB40 did not help his cause and what it comes down to is the lowest common denominator, Cook County and Chicago in particular. There are 12.8 million people in Illinois of which 2.7 million are in Chicago. Cook has 5.2 million and believe me everybody who wants a hand out will vote. Rauner would need a outstanding turnout downstate to offset Cook and possibly Dupage counties. A turnout that he alienated with signing HB40. My opinion is that we are in serious trouble. Illinois will be no better off BUT gun rights will take a big hit. It's time to move before it hits the fan. In two years we make California look like they have loose gun laws. Illinois and everything that has been worked for will be lost. HB4107 looks bad now, wait until Pritzger gets in office and just signs every anti bill that crosses his desk. Maybe he has a massive coronary in office but he wont until he actually is office. By the time that happens we will be screwed.
Remember Quinn lost 99 of the 102 counties in Illinois and still won the Governership. Want to break the Dem stranglehold - change the program - 1 Senator from EACH county and 3 at large, total = 105. And 1-2 Reps (based upon population - 51 counties get 2, 51 get 1 = total 153) from EACH County. No more gerrymandered maps and screwy districts. Total representation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Want to break the Dem stranglehold - change the program - 1 Senator from EACH county and 3 at large, total = 105. And 1-2 Reps (based upon population - 51 counties get 2, 51 get 1 = total 153) from EACH County. No more gerrymandered maps and screwy districts. Total representation.

 

 

It would be nice, but it will never happen. :( And interestingly enough, it would require a change to the US Constitution in order to be legal.

 

Something that might happen is a reduction in the gerrymandered districts, depending on how SCOTUS rules on Gill v. Whitford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And interestingly enough, it would require a change to the US Constitution in order to be legal.

 

Changes in state government need an amendment to the US Constitution?

 

 

Actually yes:

 

14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

 

How it's been interpreted.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/one-person_one-vote_rule

 

So to change to "one state senator for one county", it would require an amendment to change this section in the 14th.

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...