Jump to content

ISRA on the dodge

Felixd

By Felixd
in Illinois Politics

Recommended Posts

Tip Member

Tip

Posted
Posted
Got this answer to my email to ISRA on HB562. This is the most verbosity I have seen

 

XXX,

 

The problem is you have not been told everything about the situation.

 

What people don’t understand is the Governor handed down an edict to the Democratic caucus. He was concerned that it appeared his administration wasn’t doing anything to stop the horrific violent crime rate in Illinois and most notably in Cook County & Chicago. He demanded that they pass either HB1091 or HB562 – one or the other without fail. We knew early on that one of those two bills was going to get passed and the Republicans don’t have enough votes to stop it.

 

The ISRA is a one issue organization, and we base our decisions on what is most appropriate in the long run. Our decisions are not based on animosity toward any group or individual but rather what is in the best interest of the Second Amendment rights of all Illinois firearm owners.

 

Given the political climate surrounding HB1091 and HB562 it was clear a decision had to be made on what would be the best course of action. Those who believe the ISRA should “draw a line in the sand” and say “no” to both bills, have no understanding of the mission of the ISRA – to foster the best possible environment for Illinois firearm owners. Taking a hardline and rejecting both bills simply means the anti-Second Amendment backers of those bills will do whatever they want and the ISRA will not have a seat at the table to try to get the most onerous elements of a bill removed and we did manage to accomplish a few good things.

 

Representative Denyse Stoneback (D-16th District), a cosponsor of HB1091, was adamant about three onerous provisions:

 

It would require mandatory fingerprinting,

There would be an unspecified increase in the cost though rough calculations based on other aspects of the bill, it put the cost of a new FOID card at about $75, and

Applicants would be required to go to a police station to apply.

 

Other particularly undesirable aspects to HB1091 included the “clear and present danger” aspect expanded to include “any act” intended to cause or create a risk… It was dangerously vague with significant negative implications for Illinois firearm owners.

 

The bill would also ban the private sale of firearms with all transactions required to go through an FFL. There were no positive aspects to HB1091 and the ISRA took a negative position on the bill.

 

The controversy alleging the ISRA’s lack of support for Illinois firearm owners was focused on our neutral position on HB562. It was a very carefully considered position and it requires an understanding of the bill’s contents and the ISRA’s long term strategy.

 

One of the most naïve criticisms came from those individuals who either opined that there was no such thing as “backroom deals” or those who thought there should never be any kind of “backroom deals;” everything should be discussed publicly.

 

Otto von Bismarck, former chancellor of Germany, wrote, “The less people know about how sausages and laws are made, the better they’ll sleep at night.” Backroom deals are as old as government itself and an intrinsic thread in the fabric of law making. Backroom deals are essential when you are not the dominant party. Look at the positive points in HB562.

 

First, let us be clear, the ISRA objects to the very concept of a FOID card. The Second Amendment guarantees it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, period. No FOID cards, no de facto poll tax, nothing that stands between law abiding citizens and acquiring and keeping firearms.

 

The fact is in Illinois we have such impediments and the ISRA’s long term strategy is to have the FOID card declared unconstitutional, but you do not just flip a switch and it goes away. So, the short-term strategy is to do whatever is possible to reduce the negative impact on Illinois firearm owners while implementing a strategy for the ultimate removal of the FOID card which brings us to HB562.

 

Literally hundreds of hours and many meetings were held discussing over a hundred different parts and combinations. In the end, those discussions produced a bill that had several positive elements.

 

The FOID card would automatically renew simultaneously with the CCL renewal.

Ultimately the FOID expiration would be eliminated.

The FOID and CCL would be consolidated into one card.

Ultimately an electronic version of the FOID/CCL would be developed.

A public defender would be added to the appeals board.

The change of address requirement would be eliminated.

No increase in the FOID fee.

 

There were a few other positive aspects but there were also a host of negative aspects the ISRA objected to:

 

Voluntary fingerprinting, changed from mandatory initially, but still objected to by the ISRA because fingerprinting should not be required to exercise a constitutional right.

It allowed for supervision and expungement of misdemeanor offenses if a person failed to identify where the transfer records were maintained by an FFL.

Person to person firearm transfer could either include a NICS at an FFL or through the person-to-person transfer using ISP FOID verification but also included the buyer providing a record of the transfer to an FFL within 10 days.

The seller of a firearm must save the record for 10 years.

 

A key aspect of items 3 & 4 is the effective date is January 1, 2024. Last year the ISRA filed a depravation of rights lawsuit in federal court over the FOID card. We began with four plaintiffs and within a month all four received their FOID cards in the mail. Clever trick but short sighted. It is a tactic frowned upon by the court and is not likely to work again. The litigation to eliminate the FOID card continues with new plaintiffs and with a far more friendly SCOTUS it is anticipated that the FOID card may very well be found unconstitutional prior to the implementation of HB562’s provision for person-to-person firearm transfers.

 

Given that either HB1091 or HB562 was going to be implemented, the ISRA took the position of objecting to HB1091 and remaining neutral on HB562. We did not want to endorse a bill that was overall anti-Second Amendment, yet we did not want to come out against it which might have increased public sentiment to stop HB562 and as a result see HB1091 approved. Clearly HB562 is the better of the choices and ISRA will continue with litigation to end the FOID card. Having said that, if the litigation is unsuccessful, HB562 will be far better to live with than HB1091.

 

What would you have had us do differently? If we objected to HB562 you’d have the far more unfriendly HB1091 now. Remember, it was definite that it would be one or the other and no way to stop it.

 

dal

 

What should they have done?

 

Objected to both, strenuously, and immediately prepared suit to challenge the provisions of 1091 and to end the FOID card.

 

As it is they capitulated to the “lesser” 582 and, in doing so, seriously weakened their case towards ending the FOID card.

 

If you don’t believe you have a winnable case get outta the way and let somebody who does believe they do pursue it.

As it is you took actions that increased the odds that litigation might be unsuccessful by actively accepting a “less onerous” infringement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
richp Member

richp

Posted
Posted

At last we get something that resembles an explanation... Thanks for posting it.

 

But why in the world didn't ISRA direct this to Molly for wider dissemination, or post it directly here?

 

This is the foremost avenue of communicating with concerned gun owners in Illinois. What can leadership in ISRA be thinking when they see the concerns voiced here so vigorously, and not approach us directly?

 

Color me supportive, but gravely disappointed.

 

Rich Phillips

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cybermgk Member

cybermgk

Posted
Posted

 

Got this answer to my email to ISRA on HB562. This is the most verbosity I have seen

 

XXX,

 

The problem is you have not been told everything about the situation.

 

What people don’t understand is the Governor handed down an edict to the Democratic caucus. He was concerned that it appeared his administration wasn’t doing anything to stop the horrific violent crime rate in Illinois and most notably in Cook County & Chicago. He demanded that they pass either HB1091 or HB562 – one or the other without fail. We knew early on that one of those two bills was going to get passed and the Republicans don’t have enough votes to stop it.

 

The ISRA is a one issue organization, and we base our decisions on what is most appropriate in the long run. Our decisions are not based on animosity toward any group or individual but rather what is in the best interest of the Second Amendment rights of all Illinois firearm owners.

 

Given the political climate surrounding HB1091 and HB562 it was clear a decision had to be made on what would be the best course of action. Those who believe the ISRA should “draw a line in the sand” and say “no” to both bills, have no understanding of the mission of the ISRA – to foster the best possible environment for Illinois firearm owners. Taking a hardline and rejecting both bills simply means the anti-Second Amendment backers of those bills will do whatever they want and the ISRA will not have a seat at the table to try to get the most onerous elements of a bill removed and we did manage to accomplish a few good things.

 

Representative Denyse Stoneback (D-16th District), a cosponsor of HB1091, was adamant about three onerous provisions:

 

It would require mandatory fingerprinting,

There would be an unspecified increase in the cost though rough calculations based on other aspects of the bill, it put the cost of a new FOID card at about $75, and

Applicants would be required to go to a police station to apply.

 

Other particularly undesirable aspects to HB1091 included the “clear and present danger” aspect expanded to include “any act” intended to cause or create a risk… It was dangerously vague with significant negative implications for Illinois firearm owners.

 

The bill would also ban the private sale of firearms with all transactions required to go through an FFL. There were no positive aspects to HB1091 and the ISRA took a negative position on the bill.

 

The controversy alleging the ISRA’s lack of support for Illinois firearm owners was focused on our neutral position on HB562. It was a very carefully considered position and it requires an understanding of the bill’s contents and the ISRA’s long term strategy.

 

One of the most naïve criticisms came from those individuals who either opined that there was no such thing as “backroom deals” or those who thought there should never be any kind of “backroom deals;” everything should be discussed publicly.

 

Otto von Bismarck, former chancellor of Germany, wrote, “The less people know about how sausages and laws are made, the better they’ll sleep at night.” Backroom deals are as old as government itself and an intrinsic thread in the fabric of law making. Backroom deals are essential when you are not the dominant party. Look at the positive points in HB562.

 

First, let us be clear, the ISRA objects to the very concept of a FOID card. The Second Amendment guarantees it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, period. No FOID cards, no de facto poll tax, nothing that stands between law abiding citizens and acquiring and keeping firearms.

 

The fact is in Illinois we have such impediments and the ISRA’s long term strategy is to have the FOID card declared unconstitutional, but you do not just flip a switch and it goes away. So, the short-term strategy is to do whatever is possible to reduce the negative impact on Illinois firearm owners while implementing a strategy for the ultimate removal of the FOID card which brings us to HB562.

 

Literally hundreds of hours and many meetings were held discussing over a hundred different parts and combinations. In the end, those discussions produced a bill that had several positive elements.

 

The FOID card would automatically renew simultaneously with the CCL renewal.

Ultimately the FOID expiration would be eliminated.

The FOID and CCL would be consolidated into one card.

Ultimately an electronic version of the FOID/CCL would be developed.

A public defender would be added to the appeals board.

The change of address requirement would be eliminated.

No increase in the FOID fee.

 

There were a few other positive aspects but there were also a host of negative aspects the ISRA objected to:

 

Voluntary fingerprinting, changed from mandatory initially, but still objected to by the ISRA because fingerprinting should not be required to exercise a constitutional right.

It allowed for supervision and expungement of misdemeanor offenses if a person failed to identify where the transfer records were maintained by an FFL.

Person to person firearm transfer could either include a NICS at an FFL or through the person-to-person transfer using ISP FOID verification but also included the buyer providing a record of the transfer to an FFL within 10 days.

The seller of a firearm must save the record for 10 years.

 

A key aspect of items 3 & 4 is the effective date is January 1, 2024. Last year the ISRA filed a depravation of rights lawsuit in federal court over the FOID card. We began with four plaintiffs and within a month all four received their FOID cards in the mail. Clever trick but short sighted. It is a tactic frowned upon by the court and is not likely to work again. The litigation to eliminate the FOID card continues with new plaintiffs and with a far more friendly SCOTUS it is anticipated that the FOID card may very well be found unconstitutional prior to the implementation of HB562’s provision for person-to-person firearm transfers.

 

Given that either HB1091 or HB562 was going to be implemented, the ISRA took the position of objecting to HB1091 and remaining neutral on HB562. We did not want to endorse a bill that was overall anti-Second Amendment, yet we did not want to come out against it which might have increased public sentiment to stop HB562 and as a result see HB1091 approved. Clearly HB562 is the better of the choices and ISRA will continue with litigation to end the FOID card. Having said that, if the litigation is unsuccessful, HB562 will be far better to live with than HB1091.

 

What would you have had us do differently? If we objected to HB562 you’d have the far more unfriendly HB1091 now. Remember, it was definite that it would be one or the other and no way to stop it.

 

dal

What should they have done?

 

Objected to both, strenuously, and immediately prepared suit to challenge the provisions of 1091 and to end the FOID card.

 

As it is they capitulated to the “lesser” 582 and, in doing so, seriously weakened their case towards ending the FOID card.

 

If you don’t believe you have a winnable case get outta the way and let somebody who does believe they do pursue it.

As it is you took actions that increased the odds that litigation might be unsuccessful by actively accepting a “less onerous” infringement.

 

SOme of exactly what I replied with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cope Member

cope

Posted
Posted

A very long winded response which says nothing new and does not justify their position in any way.

 

If we accept every word they say as true then all they had to do was simply keep their mouths shut and not file a slip.

 

As far as I am aware there is no rule or law or mandate of any type anywhere that requires them to file a witness slip. If they had not filed a slip there would be nobody asking why not.

 

They could have remained silent, and sent out another grift email begging for money for new cars for litigation to overturn the laws that they knew would pass. Everyone would have quickly donated more money to them and been none the wiser that they are actually only supporting their own self interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mikew Member

mikew

Posted
Posted
They could have remained silent, and sent out another grift email begging for money for new cars for litigation to overturn the laws that they knew would pass. Everyone would have quickly donated more money to them and been none the wiser that they are actually only supporting their own self interests.

The monies to support litigation are to be kept separate in a 501©3.

But I certainly can see where people would this this was very self-serving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Euler Member

Euler

Posted
Posted

I see the censorship police have shown up, can a mod please explain why my post was removed?

Are you sure you're looking in the right topic? I don't see a post by you that has been removed from view.

I think he's looking for this one:

 

Thanks for that, that 110% reinforces that they will not be getting a penny from me ever again! There is no reason they could not have opposed both bills, the fact they chose to remain neutral on a bill they admit they should be against but have no spine to say they are against it all I needed to hear to affirm my position that they no longer represent me...

 

Attention Illinois gun grabbers, the ISRA just told you how to get them on the side of any anti-gun bill, just put out two anti-gun bills and demand one will pass, the ISRA will roll over like a puppy and capitulate to at least one of them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mikew Member

mikew

Posted
Posted

While the ISRA wants to be able to fight another day, to fuel that fight they depend on membership and donations from the gun owner who has an internet connection and does not understand the hidden machinations of Illinois Politics.

Yet those gun owners may not be receiving or properly understanding the psychic messages being sent to them from Chatsworth that explain the pretzel logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cybermgk Member

cybermgk

Posted
Posted

 

Are you sure you're looking in the right topic? I don't see a post by you that has been removed from view.

 

I stand corrected, and appologize, I saw the same quoted letter I replied to but didn't see my reply, didn't realize the letter was quoted in both threads.

 

Yes, not everyone checks every thread, wanted everyone to see their 'response'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Felixd Member

Felixd

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The argument stands that the ISRA leadership needed to address the situation of 31May through communications with their entire membership. They chose obfuscation instead. The very idea that they only address, what they obviously did, through emails to enquiring members shrieks of the desire to hide the obvious. The attitude that what we are offered is the best we can get is a failure of leadership to remember that they negotiated away a portion of our collective civil right.

 

We need the ISRA, but not it’s current leadership. Who can believe them or have confidence in them after this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
crufflesmuth Member

crufflesmuth

Posted
Posted

Given the current climate, I'll give the ISRA credit: they outplayed a bad hand.

 

Could it have been communicated better? sure.

 

Do I like the FOID system? no.

 

You know what else I don't like? having to renew my FOID.

 

The renewal requirement is why the FOID is a giant albatross of a disaster, for the ISP to administer: and they know it.

 

Criticism for the ISRA:

 

I can understand not wanting to show, or tell people the reality: politics and making deals. But not keeping people at bare minimum informed, I think a change in leadership and vision is needed.

 

I'll appreciate NOT having to renew my FOID, when and IF that happens.

 

Of course, the above presumes ANY of these changes have been signed into law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JDW Member

JDW

Posted
Posted

Thanks for posting their reply Mr.MGK I still don't agree with them. I think ISRA needs a stronger, smarter, and more willing to communicate leadership. That's just my opinion though.

 

I have no regrets about resigning my membership in ISRA. The current leader has a bad case of bigshotitis :) which does no one any good. (BTW, that and the term cowboyitis were stolen directly from the late Tony Soprano)

 

One of the greatest things about being a paying member of IC, is that the leadership folks are great and willing communicators. If only we could get them to run NRA and ISRA, we'd be better off. Maybe things wouldn't go our way, but at least we'd feel like we were in the loop. Thanks to great leaders in the community like, Molly, Mauserme, and Todd V, we at least have a slight clue. I'm grateful for that and all IC members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Felixd Member

Felixd

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Moving slightly off topic, is anyone aware of the parallel conversation going on at Shotgunworld.com? It seems a gentleman from Plainfield, who touts himself to be a "shotgun expert", has decidedly aligned himself with the ISRA in this matter. It also seems as if something more than just poor logic is directing his commentary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EdDinIL Member

EdDinIL

Posted
Posted

Yep. He’s the shotgun expert. Check his post count, he has a lot to say. Todd V talked to him and set him straight on ISRA issues he had wrong.

 

I knew someone had posted a link to that conversation, but couldn't remember who or where. Is he on Todd's (our) side now, or is he still firmly in the ISRA camp?

 

My two cents: By keeping quiet until the vote was complete, the ISRA thought it would be better to beg forgiveness than ask permission. Had they gone to the members ahead of the vote and asked our opinions, I'm sure most of us would have told them to say no as loudly as possible.

 

Fast forward to the future: If the bills actually don't pass and everything is improved because the ISRA still has a seat at the table, I'll eat my words. I don't see it happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mikew Member

mikew

Posted
Posted

 

Yep. He’s the shotgun expert. Check his post count, he has a lot to say. Todd V talked to him and set him straight on ISRA issues he had wrong.

 

I knew someone had posted a link to that conversation, but couldn't remember who or where. Is he on Todd's (our) side now, or is he still firmly in the ISRA camp?

 

My two cents: By keeping quiet until the vote was complete, the ISRA thought it would be better to beg forgiveness than ask permission. Had they gone to the members ahead of the vote and asked our opinions, I'm sure most of us would have told them to say no as loudly as possible.

 

Fast forward to the future: If the bills actually don't pass and everything is improved because the ISRA still has a seat at the table, I'll eat my words. I don't see it happening.

 

https://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=534196&start=40

 

Has he circled back to defending the ISRA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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