Jump to content

Illinois General Assembly 6/16/2021


mauserme
 Share

Recommended Posts

So what did we learn today?

 

To advance gun control, they’ll change house rules to allow remote votes

 

The ISRA will help Everytown and gun grabbers advance the laws they want because it’s “”not as bad”” as original laws they lobby for (gun grabbers)

 

2A Republicans (Wheeler) will use emotional instances (like gun grabbers) to vote for gun control

 

Democrats will lie (compromise) on bills (red flag) only to go further a session or two later

 

 

Legal IL gun owners are the only ones that will feel an impact on this stuff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder if there is anyway for ISRA members to file a class action for misrepresentation? ISRA definitely sought their own preference today and who knows what they cave to in the future.

 

I hope other national gun groups as well as the NRA come out and admonish their actions publicly and loudly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t like what happened but Pearson was right. Illinois voters want this control. We don’t have the numbers on our side. And all this is constitutional until the last court of appeal says otherwise in the future.Its gonna get dangerous being a illinois gun owner I fear.

It is not his job to represent Illinois voters. His is an unelected position to head a private group devoted to gun rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t like what happened but Pearson was right. Illinois voters want this control. We don’t have the numbers on our side. And all this is constitutional until the last court of appeal says otherwise in the future.Its gonna get dangerous being a illinois gun owner I fear.

If you’re not fighting for what’s right, you’re just making excuses for what you know is wrong. Nothing about this will prevent them from pushing for further legislation mandating fingerprints. Nothing. Pritzker and ISP Director are on record as supporting manadating and increased fees. News articles are going to still going to be published about how “this doesn’t go far enough.” ISP will come back wanting more money “to enforce what we just passed”, and they will only need 60 votes next Spring to make some or all of that happen. And Pearson will look like a fool, after giving some Republicans cover, or so he thinks, to vote for something that gets the Mom Demands of the world one step closer to what they really want. They’re not done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don’t like what happened but Pearson was right. Illinois voters want this control. We don’t have the numbers on our side. And all this is constitutional until the last court of appeal says otherwise in the future.Its gonna get dangerous being a illinois gun owner I fear.

It is not his job to represent Illinois voters. His is an unelected position to head a private group devoted to gun rights.

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don’t like what happened but Pearson was right. Illinois voters want this control. We don’t have the numbers on our side. And all this is constitutional until the last court of appeal says otherwise in the future.Its gonna get dangerous being a illinois gun owner I fear.

If you’re not fighting for what’s right, you’re just making excuses for what you know is wrong. Nothing about this will prevent them from pushing for further legislation mandating fingerprints. Nothing. Pritzker and ISP Director are on record as supporting manadating and increased fees. News articles are going to still going to be published about how “this doesn’t go far enough.” ISP will come back wanting more money “to enforce what we just passed”, and they will only need 60 votes next Spring to make some or all of that happen. And Pearson will look like a fool, after giving some Republicans cover, or so he thinks, to vote for something that gets the Mom Demands of the world one step closer to what they really want. They’re not done.

All of this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t like what happened but Pearson was right. Illinois voters want this control. We don’t have the numbers on our side. And all this is constitutional until the last court of appeal says otherwise in the future.Its gonna get dangerous being a illinois gun owner I fear.

He does not represent voters. He represents members of the ISRA and all legal gun owners in IL. No one else. I'm not a life member luckily, almost did but opted not to. I am with the NRA and partially regret that, even bumped up a couple times. That is even on hold.

 

ISRA went out on their own and decided what is best for those they represent, not what those they represent feel is best.

 

They sold out, they, caved, they folded, they succumbed to the pressure....... THEY FAILED. They failed their motto and oath, they failed members past and present and they failed to uphold anything they are supposed to stand for.

 

Anti gun groups are going to swarm IL the next session, you watch what gets proposed. ISRA bent a knee and they will pounce., strike while the iron is hot.

 

We can add National Shooting Sports Foundation to that list as well.

 

Traitors.

Edited by cls74
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t like what happened but Pearson was right. Illinois voters want this control. We don’t have the numbers on our side. And all this is constitutional until the last court of appeal says otherwise in the future.Its gonna get dangerous being a illinois gun owner I fear.

One that isn't Pearson's job to speak for the Illinois voters. It his job to represent the members of the ISRA.

 

Two, if a legitimate poll was taken of Illinois Voters, and actual given the complete info on these bills, I do not think they do want this level of control. The idiots elected corruptly, bought and paid for do. As we see by these votes.

 

Third, no, a passed law is either Constitutional, or not. It may be legal snd binding until overturned, but that does not make it Constitutional

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll also add, compromise is one thing, this was not.

 

I remember a lot of anxiety and frustrations when CC was being implemented.

 

Phelps bill 997? was the preffered bill by all, but that was not feasibke under Madigan. What we got was still good, but not the best, but that's what it was. Todd even stated, as well as Valinda, there was no holding out for a better bill, it was XX or restrictive, 997 was never an option.

 

Here there was an option, oppose. Simple and to the point. Restrictions equal no, end of point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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