Jump to content

Madigan and Jones


GWBH

Recommended Posts

Did anyone find Represenatative Madigan or Senator Jones "available" during IGOLD to discuss any issues you had with proposed legislation? They were not available when I visited their offices. I'd like to find out if anyone was able to have an audience with them before I send them a letter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone find Represenatative Madigan or Senator Jones "available" during IGOLD to discuss any issues you had with proposed legislation? They were not available when I visited their offices. I'd like to find out if anyone was able to have an audience with them before I send them a letter.

 

 

I sadly wasnt at IGOLD but I'll bet you a fin that no one from our side got to see them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a confirmed appointment with Senator Jones at last year's IGOLD and he cancelled after I waited over an hour past our scheduled time. I followed up with him and met with him for about an hour in his Chicago office in the Thompson Center in downtown Chicago. Bottom line, he listens and converses about the subject but you know where he will be standing when the votes count. He won't even bring pro-gun bills up for any type of a vote. He is non-confrontational in his conversations. Go ahead and write and call. I still do. But be aware of who you are dealing with. I know you are.

 

Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I received the following email from an attendee :

 

My buddy and I were famished by the time we traversed both State Buildings. We took the tunnel on the way back from the Straton Building and passed the cafeteria and decided to get something to eat. As we walked in it appeared they had closed, but I was determined to see if anything was left. I grabbed a danish and cup of Pepsi and the lady protested they were closed and she had no change. I told her I did, that wasn't a problem and I headed back for the door where I noticed three Crook County Reps sitting in the corner. One was Emil Jones who wasn't in his office when we went to see him. They were talking to some lady whose back was to us. All three Reps gave disproving looks to us, but hey, I was hungry. :-) One of them was Jones . . . . It struck me as a funny place to hold a meeting . . . I also felt, they were hiding in place to avoid all of us gun owners, so they hid in an area that was suppose to be closed. I've never seen a more pompous bunch of liberal jerks in my life. . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed three Crook County Reps sitting in the corner. One was Emil Jones who wasn't in his office when we went to see him. They were talking to some lady whose back was to us. All three Reps gave disproving looks to us, but hey, I was hungry. :-) One of them was Jones . . . . It struck me as a funny place to hold a meeting . . . I also felt, they were hiding in place to avoid all of us gun owners, so they hid in an area that was suppose to be closed. I've never seen a more pompous bunch of liberal jerks in my life. . . .

 

Don't hold back Molly - tell us what you REALLY think! :thumbsup:

 

Seriously, they can afford to be arrogant and pompous as they control the legislature. They say what bills be heard and which don't.

 

I wish I had a magic wand to fix what ails northeast Illinois.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I thought - their receptionist lied to me - probably under threat of retaliation, and they fled the place and hid out in the urban jungle - hoping not to be detected.

Watch for the next post - a letter to both of these clowns. Oh I'll be nice, (buttery and all) but I'm hacked and gotta do something!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GWBH - I found my summary report from last year. This was the meeting that I had with Emil Jones in his downtown Chicago office. I posted it last year but it's still valid. Let's keep trying.

 

This is quite long however, considering it was a personal conversation with Senate President Emil Jones, Jr., I felt as though it deserves the detail and length. I probably left some of the details out so if anyone has any questions on any specific point, please ask.

 

This morning I met with Senate President Emil Jones, Jr. in his downtown Chicago office at 11:00 a.m. We talked for 45 minutes on various and numerous topics regarding gun-rights issues. It helps to understand the man before any reading of this summary. He is a life-long resident of Chicago. On the subject of guns in particular, he is not comfortable with the thought that he could own a gun. He mentioned one instance whereby he was at a gun range in Springfield at the request of former Governor George Ryan. He said they had a machine gun that was demonstrated. With this comment he made a motion of a machine gun in full automatic mode. He said he did not like that demonstration. So we went from there. Please remember that this entire meeting was very cordial and I thoroughly enjoyed the conversation with Senator Jones. Many of his beliefs and statements seem to be based on some of the same misinformation we usually hear. He was not overbearing on his beliefs however. He was almost just bringing up topics with a statement and then we went form there.

 

That having been said, we discussed (in this order) many gun-rights issues:

• He wanted to know why anyone would want to own an “assault weapon”. We discussed the mechanical components of his “assault weapon” and I explained that these components are the same as though of “normal” looking hunting rifles.

• Next we talked about the .50 caliber rifle. His questions were want use is this to sporting world and “Did you know they can bring down an airplane”. I explained the fallacy of the last statement regarding airplanes. I also told him that the .50 caliber was originally designed by the civilian population for true sports competition.

• Crime issues in urban areas.

• Concealed carry.

• Woman’s issues.

• 2A issues specifically. In our conversation on 2A, I asked Senator Jones if he would be interested in a DVD Documentary on the Second Amendment. He said that he would so I gave him my copy of "In Search of The Second Amendment". I asked him to return it after he was finished - I have my name and address on the inside of the jacket.

• Misinformation out there.

 

I offered to take him to any local range but he declined the offer three times. He just does not feel comfortable with any desire to handle any firearm. I told him that the offer is a standing and open invitation.

 

I told him twice during the course of our conversation that I wanted to develop an ongoing dialogue to further discuss gun-rights issues that I have and safety concerns he has.

 

The bottom line on his concerns is the fact that he believes we must protect the population from criminals with guns. This was mentioned at least six times. I agreed with him each and every time stating that we already have laws against criminals and future and further laws on gun-control only promotes the increase in crime and criminals and further turns law-abiding citizens into criminals. I feel that we finally agreed on this point.

 

 

 

 

I hand delivered another letter to Senator Jones along with Molly B.’s letter (Used with her permission.) I also checked the daily NRA-ILA Daily Update for April 10, 2007. I couldn’t believe what I found. It was almost like they knew what I needed. See:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264896,00.html and

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3007276&page=1"

 

How appropriate are those. We discussed these points at length. I emphasized the point I my letter where I ask him to discuss this some women that he trusts and respects. These worked very well in the promotion of the points on concealed carry.

 

Dear Senator Jones:

 

Attached are:

1. A printout of a page of the Illinois State Police website advising women on what to do if they are attacked.

2. A letter from Molly B., a female, Illinois resident on her reaction to these suggestions.

3. A copy of the news article referenced by the above mentioned Illinois resident.

4. An abstract of a criminology study conducted, in part, by Gary Kleck who received his doctorate from the University of Illinois.

 

I find it strange that the Illinois State Police would recommend that a woman allow an attacker to get close enough to her so as to require the woman to use an article such as a rat tail comb to defend herself. I believe any police officer would agree that allowing an attacker to get that close to you is a major mistake. By that time the attacker has already overpowered the woman. If she were to ever find herself in such a situation, don’t you think she would be better protected with her trained hand on a handgun in her purse instead of her trained hand on a rat tail comb in her purse? How would the police handle such an aggressor?

 

I ask that you consult with some woman and ask them (if they were properly trained and licensed in the use of a handgun) would they prefer to defend themselves against an attacker with a handgun or with a rat tail comb. Better yet, ask yourself if you would prefer that your wife, daughter, daughter-in-law, granddaughter, etc. use a rat tail comb or a handgun to persuade an attacker to cease and desist.

 

Might I respectfully suggest that you allow women, whose opinions you trust and respect, to read this entire package. Afterwards they can give you their feedback and their reactions based on their personal perspectives as women. Remember, personal training and FBI background checks are key to this initiative. Some form of this is being done in 48 other states right now.

 

Studies show that the more forceful the resistance in self protection actions (including resistance with a gun), the less likely the risk of injury to the victim. Please reference the attached abstract of a study (Resisting Crime: The Effects of Victim Action on the Outcomes of Crimes) by Jongyeon Tark and Gary Kleck. This abstract can also be found at:

 

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/1....2004.tb00539.x

 

These results appear to be in direct contradiction to the advice which is being promoted to the women of the state of Illinois by our own Illinois State Police.

 

We should be allowing all citizens, men and women, the option (and right) to fully defend themselves, if they so choose. I ask that you please reconsider your position and support legalized concealed handgun carry in Illinois by way of legislation such as the Family and Personal Protection Acts proposed in SB348 and HB1304.

 

I thank you for your consideration in this most serious of matters.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Referenced letter from Molly B.

 

I am so, so, so very angry the Illinois State Police is taking such a patronizing, chauvinistic, discriminatory attitude toward the women of Illinois who are attacked every day in this state. The following is my response, but I guarantee no matter how hard you try you cannot read into it the amount of anger and indignation I am feeling at this point.

 

Is this what it has come to for women in the state of Illinois?

 

I refer to Illinois State Police webpage on sexual assault http://www.isp.state.il.us/crime/saconfronted.cfm

 

Is this how they instruct their officers to respond to a violent attack? Talk the violent offender out of attacking? Fighting would probably be futile - give yourself up and hope you survive? Or better yet - defend your life with a comb or a key OR as a last resort - VOMIT!!! That is the most sexist and discriminatory approach to women's safety I have ever heard and I have to tell you I am livid about it.

 

This is the most lame, life-endangering piece of advice I have ever heard issued in response to a life-threatening encounter with a violent rapist or killer.

 

Let me paint a better scenario for you that takes place in 48 other states every day of the week . . . in states that honor and respect a woman's basic right to self-defense. In most of those states women enroll in firearm safety and personal protection courses, train on firing ranges, pass FBI background checks and receive a license to carry a firearm to protect themselves and their family. A .38, a 9 mm or a .45 are all far more effective than a plastic comb or sobbed plea for mercy.

 

The ISP says, "Use of a firearm to protect yourself or property is not recommended." But when a serial killer was attacking women in Louisiana the governor himself urged the women of his state to get a firearm and learn how to use it.

 

"Louisiana Gov. Mike Foster reminded women Thursday that they can pack a gun to protect themselves from a serial killer who has slain three women in the capital in the past 10 months. ”You have the right to get a gun permit," Foster said. "Learn to use it."

 

Molly B. - Continued

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59374,00.html

 

The ISP says, "Half of all the women that fire a gun trying to protect themselves shoot someone they do not want to, i.e. friend, neighbors, relatives, etc." That's doesn't mean they shot someone accidentally it means most women are raped by people they know.

 

Unfortunately, Illinois is one of only two states left that renders women defenseless, armed only with combs and keys - how barbaric!!!! Rather than post such lame advice to the women of this state how about advising them to get a firearm, take the training, get to a range and practice. At least they can protect themselves while they are in their homes - of course when they leave the protection of their homes they may need to be up to speed on vomiting and tactical comb defense.

 

This is an absolute disgrace! The women of Illinois deserve better than this and it's time they demand their basic human right to defend themselves!

 

 

Molly B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bob1950,

That was an excellent post. I have a few relatives who are just terrified of firearms as well.

Here's the letter I was going to send to Senator Jones - give me some feedback!

 

Dear Senator Jones,

On March 11th, 2008, more than 2,500 law-abiding citizens, some at great sacrifice, made their way to Springfield to reasonably discuss with their elected officials the impact of a number of firearm laws in committees of the General Assembly for this year’s session. This collection of citizens was diverse in every respect. Some were women, single moms or married with children. Some were active and retired law enforcement officers. Some represented professional occupations while others were citizens who labor ever day for a paycheck. A number were veterans of military service who saw horrific combat and shed their blood on foreign soil for their country. There were citizens who endured the trek despite disabilities, in wheel chairs, and still others who carried an oxygen regiment, just to spend time with members of their government. What brought us all together on that Tuesday was far more than a love of hunting; more than a love of competitive shooting and even more than the all important topic of self-defense. The binding power of the day was the love of liberty and respect for the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Illinois. We all came to Springfield to discuss, what we feel, are unreasonable infringements upon our individual freedoms.

Senator – we are not your enemies. We share a common goal, which is to see violent crime decrease for all citizens of this state. You’ve had more than ample opportunity to openly express your thoughts through several venues, and we came to Springfield to express ours. Sir, where were you? I came to your office, but was told you were unavailable for the day. I’m not a constituent of your district, but your position as President of the Senate, in my opinion, demands far more than district representation. Are you not interested in what I think? Do you not care about how proposed legislation affects me and my family or my rights as a law-abiding citizen of Illinois? Other members of the General Assembly were eager to share ideas and hear my concerns.

The State Constitution is really, the people speaking to their government, not the government telling the people what they lawfully can or cannot do. The powers given to the General Assembly are on loan from the citizens of Illinois. The foundation of a Republican form of government is the rule of law by which all citizens of Illinois and the United States live under. True representative government is the process of lawmakers voting on behalf of the citizen’s wishes, observing the rule of law; the U.S. and State Constitutions and not out of personal bias. Political party should have no bearing on the Constitutionality of legislation. Surely you must know and agree with the process as you have made a career of public service. If elected officials will not openly and honestly discuss issues with the citizenry, how can they possibly vote representing the people? Lawmakers should have solid facts about topics of proposed legislation, other wise they cannot vote on bills in an informed way. Your positions on issues may differ from mine, but if they are defensible, they should be able to stand on their own merit. I found it very, very disappointing that you had no intention to meet with me or listen to my concerns and ideas. That is certainly not what I expected and is not in keeping with representative government. To deny me and other law-abiding citizens an audience, when you knew full well we were coming to Springfield on March 11th to specifically meet with you was disrespectful and I certainly would not treat you in such a fashion. It does not speak well for the office of President of The Senate.

Sincerely,

 

******

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bob1950,

That was an excellent post. I have a few relatives who are just terrified of firearms as well.

Here's the letter I was going to send to Senator Jones - give me some feedback!

 

Dear Senator Jones,

On March 11th, 2008, more than 2,500 law-abiding citizens, some at great sacrifice, made their way to Springfield to reasonably discuss with their elected officials the impact of a number of firearm laws in committees of the General Assembly for this year’s session. This collection of citizens was diverse in every respect. Some were women, single moms or married with children. Some were active and retired law enforcement officers. Some represented professional occupations while others were citizens who labor ever day for a paycheck. A number were veterans of military service who saw horrific combat and shed their blood on foreign soil for their country. There were citizens who endured the trek despite disabilities, in wheel chairs, and still others who carried an oxygen regiment, just to spend time with members of their government. What brought us all together on that Tuesday was far more than a love of hunting; more than a love of competitive shooting and even more than the all important topic of self-defense. The binding power of the day was the love of liberty and respect for the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Illinois. We all came to Springfield to discuss, what we feel, are unreasonable infringements upon our individual freedoms.

Senator – we are not your enemies. We share a common goal, which is to see violent crime decrease for all citizens of this state. You’ve had more than ample opportunity to openly express your thoughts through several venues, and we came to Springfield to express ours. Sir, where were you? I came to your office, but was told you were unavailable for the day. I’m not a constituent of your district, but your position as President of the Senate, in my opinion, demands far more than district representation. Are you not interested in what I think? Do you not care about how proposed legislation affects me and my family or my rights as a law-abiding citizen of Illinois? Other members of the General Assembly were eager to share ideas and hear my concerns.

The State Constitution is really, the people speaking to their government, not the government telling the people what they lawfully can or cannot do. The powers given to the General Assembly are on loan from the citizens of Illinois. The foundation of a Republican form of government is the rule of law by which all citizens of Illinois and the United States live under. True representative government is the process of lawmakers voting on behalf of the citizen’s wishes, observing the rule of law; the U.S. and State Constitutions and not out of personal bias. Political party should have no bearing on the Constitutionality of legislation. Surely you must know and agree with the process as you have made a career of public service. If elected officials will not openly and honestly discuss issues with the citizenry, how can they possibly vote representing the people? Lawmakers should have solid facts about topics of proposed legislation, other wise they cannot vote on bills in an informed way. Your positions on issues may differ from mine, but if they are defensible, they should be able to stand on their own merit. I found it very, very disappointing that you had no intention to meet with me or listen to my concerns and ideas. That is certainly not what I expected and is not in keeping with representative government. To deny me and other law-abiding citizens an audience, when you knew full well we were coming to Springfield on March 11th to specifically meet with you was disrespectful and I certainly would not treat you in such a fashion. It does not speak well for the office of President of The Senate.

Sincerely,

 

******

 

paragraphs, paragraphs.....paragraphs! :headbang1:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Oc. Break it into a couple additional paragraphs.

 

Remeber to always ask that he at least take responsibilty to ALLOW bills to be brought up for consideration and a vote before the entire Senate (and House when it comes to Speaker Madigan). If they don't allow it, it will never get before anyone for consideration. We need to keep pounding on the procedural aspects of the legislature also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Oc. Break it into a couple additional paragraphs.

 

Remeber to always ask that he at least take responsibilty to ALLOW bills to be brought up for consideration and a vote before the entire Senate (and House when it comes to Speaker Madigan). If they don't allow it, it will never get before anyone for consideration. We need to keep pounding on the procedural aspects of the legislature also.

 

Point well taken guys - will revise.

Thanks for the input - I'm hacked off, but need to be "under control" so to speak. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant to add earlier that there are paragraphs, but when I did the copy and paste, the format didn't follow.

I also caught a couple of other flaws - thanks for the advice guys - much appreciated!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...