Jump to content

SB 2510 gaining traction. Will “assault” rifles be banned soon?


vk60187
 Share

Recommended Posts

I heard that Ted Cruz the other day said he expects a red tsunami.  Difference between now and 2010 I think is people are ticked and more involved.  In 2010 I was kind of following politics but didn’t care nearly as much as now.  I’ll probably never vote for a democrat again at this point after being a democrat until about 2008.  I wonder how many people are coming to that conclusion now days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/26/2022 at 5:27 PM, illinois_buckeye said:

I heard that Ted Cruz the other day said he expects a red tsunami.  Difference between now and 2010 I think is people are ticked and more involved.  In 2010 I was kind of following politics but didn’t care nearly as much as now.  I’ll probably never vote for a democrat again at this point after being a democrat until about 2008.  I wonder how many people are coming to that conclusion now days.

 

I expect it is quietly going the other way...

Only time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/26/2022 at 8:04 PM, soundguy said:

 

I expect it is quietly going the other way...

Only time will tell.

 

"Quietly"? As in Mark Zuckerberg's manipulations?  As in voting machines that glitch? As in '2000 Mules" dropping off ballots quietly at 3:00am?  If there was a quit blue wave, would any of election fraud be necessary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/26/2022 at 8:47 PM, RECarry said:

 

"Quietly"? As in Mark Zuckerberg's manipulations?  As in voting machines that glitch? As in '2000 Mules" dropping off ballots quietly at 3:00am?  If there was a quit blue wave, would any of election fraud be necessary?


Quietly as in folks just to the right of the middle thinking “the new Republicans are too far to the right and we need some balance and stability instead of these crazies”.

 

If you still think there is rampant  election fraud, you may have been misled. Or perhaps it is me. I truly hope none of us are that “part of the people” Lincoln spoke of in a speech long ago. 
 

“Judge Douglas cannot fool the people: you may fool people for a time; you can fool a part of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all the people all the time.”

 

Abraham Lincoln

1858 - Clinton, Illinois

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/26/2022 at 9:07 PM, mauserme said:

Keep in mind, guys. that you're in Illinois Politics in a thread about a state level bill that may become critically important in the near future.   Folks come here looking for information about their gun rights.  Some of the other discussion might be better in the Back Room.


Sorry… it is difficult to not comment when the conversation digresses to political points which are less relevant each day. And I understand the desire to interject thoughts unrelated to a topic. 
 

Please remove all offending digressions if you feel you should. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, hypothetically, let's suppose an AWB passes both houses and is signed by the governor.  Even assuming it's struck down because of Bruen:

 

1) there will be mass non-compliance (see NY SAFE Act)

2) there are 2A sanctuary counties that claim they won't enforce it

3) how do we exercise our 2A rights without becoming test cases

 

Could the state go after businesses that don't comply, for example FFLs and their state licenses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2022 at 8:16 AM, EdDinIL said:

So, hypothetically, let's suppose an AWB passes both houses and is signed by the governor.  Even assuming it's struck down because of Bruen:

 

1) there will be mass non-compliance (see NY SAFE Act)

2) there are 2A sanctuary counties that claim they won't enforce it

3) how do we exercise our 2A rights without becoming test cases

 

Could the state go after businesses that don't comply, for example FFLs and their state licenses?

 

 I think it is going to fall onto law enforcement....do they even bother?   

I can honestly see it as being another "tack-on" charge until some type of court action takes place.

My bigger concern would be something like local shooting ranges not allowing assault style weapons because they don't want to deal with the headache.    I almost feel bad for law enforcement.  It is a tough situation to be in.  If someone is not committing a crime (say they are lawfully shooting their AR at a range), do you arrest them?  Do you simply confiscate the firearm but not arrest them?  Do you ignore it?   Without an underlying crime, that would be a tough spot to be in, and a good way to gel labeled a jack-booted thug if you do make an arrest or confiscate a weapon. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2022 at 12:33 PM, 2smartby1/2 said:

 

 I think it is going to fall onto law enforcement....do they even bother?   

I can honestly see it as being another "tack-on" charge until some type of court action takes place.

My bigger concern would be something like local shooting ranges not allowing assault style weapons because they don't want to deal with the headache.    I almost feel bad for law enforcement.  It is a tough situation to be in.  If someone is not committing a crime (say they are lawfully shooting their AR at a range), do you arrest them?  Do you simply confiscate the firearm but not arrest them?  Do you ignore it?   Without an underlying crime, that would be a tough spot to be in, and a good way to gel labeled a jack-booted thug if you do make an arrest or confiscate a weapon. 

 

If they, the overlords that RULE over us, make a law that unicorns are unlawful to possess, and your in public with your unicorn, and an officer confiscates your unicorn and or arrests you, is the officer a jack booted thug? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2022 at 1:19 PM, mab22 said:

If they, the overlords that RULE over us, make a law that unicorns are unlawful to possess, and your in public with your unicorn, and an officer confiscates your unicorn and or arrests you, is the officer a jack booted thug? 

Perhaps another question is: If a soldier cannot be compelled to obey an unlawful order can a law enforcement officer be compelled to enforce an unconstitutional law??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2022 at 1:19 PM, mab22 said:

If they, the overlords that RULE over us, make a law that unicorns are unlawful to possess, and your in public with your unicorn, and an officer confiscates your unicorn and or arrests you, is the officer a jack booted thug? 

Yes, because I know, you know, and they know it is Unconstitutional.    “I’m just following orders” seems like a poor excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2022 at 8:06 PM, 2smartby1/2 said:

Yes, because I know, you know, and they know it is Unconstitutional.    “I’m just following orders” seems like a poor excuse.


I do know 2 things, not all of this is not entirely directed at you specifically.

 

1.  A FOID card is unconstitutional, so why don’t they just not bother with seeing if someone has a FOID when they are in possession of a firearm. Because they risk loosing their job or risk suspensions and so on. You also might get told to tell it to the judge. When they F up, I wouldn’t have a problem telling them to tell it to the judge.

2. Why is the blame being placed on the Police, when it’s the damn politicians in Springfield making these laws that they are expecting the police to enforce?! Why are we blaming the police and the soldiers when we’re not looking higher up the food chain!? What about the mayors, sheriffs, city council, county boards, county presidents, why aren’t you expecting them to tell police not to enforce X Y Z, put the blame squarely where it lies, on your overlords.
 

Why do people who keep having their rifgts trampled on day in day out by DemoKrauts keep electing and supporting them?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2022 at 4:42 PM, Flynn said:

 

Isn't that circulatory?  At the time a soldier would be refusing an order it likely would have not been declared unlawful by a court at that time either.

Not sure, I would have to apply the FOID rule, if it’s an infringement, then why are we still playing the you have to have a FOID to buy a firearm game. 

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...