abolt243 Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:23 AM Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:23 AM Ladies and gents. In this thread Todd asks us to contact our Reps. Please give them two messages: 1. Oppose any amendments to HB1155 that are not endorsed by the NRA/ISRA/Illinois Carry. 2. Support ONLY amendments to HB1155 that ARE endorsed by NRA/ISRA/Illinois Carry. Emails should be short and to the point. Example:************************************************************************** Dear Rep XXXXXXX, We expect to see several amendments offered for HB1155 on Tues, Feb 26. I would respectfully ask that you oppose any amendments that are not endorsed by the NRA and that you would support and vote YES on any amendment that IS endorsed by the NRA. Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter. Abolt *************************************************************************************************** You can change it up depending on your relationship with your rep, but the message is the same Oppose anything not endorsed by the NRA and vote yes and support anything endorsed by the NRA. Beginning tomorrow, as soon as the staff arrives in the office we want to begin the phone call campaign. The message is the same, oppose if not an NRA amendment, support if it's NRA endorsed. The staff will be keeping score. You more than likely won't talk to your rep, but be courteous and nice to the folks that answer the phone. They're just doing their job, and in most cases are on our side of this issue. If you do happen to talk directly to your rep, you might encourage him/her to be sure and be present for the festivities on Tues. We don't want our YES votes to cut and run ahead of the forecast snowstorm. Todd's post linked above explains the mechanics of what we expect to happen on Tues. Please reread his post for background information and to prepare yourself for the show. Even if you're a seasoned veteran around here, this is different than we've seen before. A good example of using the rules to your advantage. Thanks everyone for your help. We can have a carry bill through the House by Thursday night if we all do our job!!
Lou Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:28 AM Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:28 AM Tim Thanks for the clarification.
GWBH Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:30 AM Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:30 AM Thanks Tim - any news on the Senate Bill?
sctman800 Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:41 AM Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:41 AM All this makes my head hurt. Jim.
shawby1 Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:41 AM Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:41 AM ok regrouped a little sent email about NRA endorsed hb 1155 amendment, will be on phone tomorrow am
blazzinbird Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:47 AM Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:47 AM All this makes my head hurt. Jim. I'm getting a ulcer
Mr. Fife Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:52 AM Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:52 AM Why don't we just come up with a bill of our own that they are very passionate about at the moment?
GarandFan Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:52 AM Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:52 AM Folks ... I suspect most here know it, but in case you don't, there is nothing magical about a particular bill number (such as HB997). What is important is the language ... the "bill" is simply the vehicle which moves the language forward through the legislature to eventually become codified into state statutes. It's the language of the good shall-issue carry bill that matters ... whether it it placed into HB1155 or whatever. And remember, all of this could change tomorrow, and the next day, etc.! So just keep your eyes out for such changes. Todd, Abolt, Molly, etc. will keep us posted on what to do. Interesting time for concealed carry in Illinois ... and the eyes of the nation are watching too (given Illinois will be the last standing domino of complete carry prohibition to fall).
abolt243 Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:53 AM Author Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:53 AM Thanks Tim - any news on the Senate Bill? Todd speaks to that in the thread linked above. Our focus is on the House this week. We don't expect any action in the Senate on gun bills. It appears that Madigan wants to pass A bill and send it to the Senate.
TFC Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:55 AM Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:55 AM This is where we have to be careful.The anti side is going to take advantage of confusion as well as the distraction of the assault weapon hearing that are coming up this week.
abolt243 Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:56 AM Author Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:56 AM Why don't we just come up with a bill of our own that they are very passionate about at the moment?Not sure exactly what you mean, but the reason we have to use 1155 is because it's through committee and is sitting at second reading. A different bill would start over, have to go through committee, observe the reading periods and delays and not voted on for several weeks, if the speaker would even allow it to the floor. Not to mention that the deadline for introducing new bills has passed. The only way is to use a bill already on the floor. As Todd has said repeatedly, we didn't make this up and choose this method, but that's what we've been dealt.
GWBH Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:58 AM Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:58 AM Thanks Tim - any news on the Senate Bill? Todd speaks to that in the thread linked above. Our focus is on the House this week. We don't expect any action in the Senate on gun bills. It appears that Madigan wants to pass A bill and send it to the Senate. Thanks Tim, Guys, This is similar to Quinn gutting the ammo bill and replacing his language trying to pass an AWB.We're gonna gut this and replace it with language from HB0997 (I think!! )
abolt243 Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:58 AM Author Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:58 AM NO BAD BILL......NO BAD AMENDMENTS!!
Bud Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:59 AM Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:59 AM All this makes my head hurt. Jim. I'm getting a ulcer and Madigan is its' name
abolt243 Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:59 AM Author Posted February 25, 2013 at 01:59 AM Thanks Tim - any news on the Senate Bill? Todd speaks to that in the thread linked above. Our focus is on the House this week. We don't expect any action in the Senate on gun bills. It appears that Madigan wants to pass A bill and send it to the Senate. Thanks Tim, Guys,This is similar to Quinn gutting the ammo bill and replacing his language trying to pass an AWB.We're gonna gut this and replace it with language from HB0997 (I think!! ) NOW YOU GOT IT!! NO BAD BILL......NO BAD AMENDMENTS!!
GWBH Posted February 25, 2013 at 02:02 AM Posted February 25, 2013 at 02:02 AM AHEM - I think I had it - but not sure what "it" was - so THANKS
abolt243 Posted February 25, 2013 at 02:06 AM Author Posted February 25, 2013 at 02:06 AM We old bird hunters understand "guttin'" stuff!! Tim
GWBH Posted February 25, 2013 at 02:09 AM Posted February 25, 2013 at 02:09 AM We old bird hunters understand "guttin'" stuff!! Tim Ok - But I prefer abolt243 and GWBH are NOT just a couple of pretty faces! (and Molly too - )
mrpapageorgio Posted February 25, 2013 at 03:17 AM Posted February 25, 2013 at 03:17 AM This is what I've wrote to my rep so far, but I'm trying to figure out how to close it: "This week, several amendments will be offered offered for HB1155, particularly on Tuesday, Feb 26. As a college student and living in a household that includes a member of law enforcement who is also in support of concealed carry, I respectfully ask that you oppose any amendments that are not endorsed by the NRA and that you would support and vote YES on any amendment that is endorsed by the NRA. The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Illinois's ban on concealed carry is unconstitutional and must institute a concealed carry bill with "reasonable" restrictions. One provision that some representatives are calling for that the NRA does not endorse is "may issue." Judge Posner in his ruling has insinuated that "may issue," would not be an acceptable provision. The provision of "may issue" has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court regarding Maryland's concealed carry law and New York's "may issue" provision is pending cert before the Supreme Court. The state cannot afford to pass a carry bill with bad provisions and have to pay legal fees not only to the state's attorneys, but to the NRA and Second Amendment Foundation when the state loses, like the City of Chicago did after the McDonald decision. " I'm trying to figure out what to put as the last line to basically say, "Lets not waste anymore money fighting a bad carry bill in court with the NRA that can be used for something the state could put to good use"
abolt243 Posted February 25, 2013 at 03:23 AM Author Posted February 25, 2013 at 03:23 AM This is what I've wrote to my rep so far, but I'm trying to figure out how to close it: "This week, several amendments will be offered offered for HB1155, particularly on Tuesday, Feb 26. As a college student and living in a household that includes a member of law enforcement who is also in support of concealed carry, I respectfully ask that you oppose any amendments that are not endorsed by the NRA and that you would support and vote YES on any amendment that is endorsed by the NRA. The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Illinois's ban on concealed carry is unconstitutional and must institute a concealed carry bill with "reasonable" restrictions. One provision that some representatives are calling for that the NRA does not endorse is "may issue." Judge Posner in his ruling has insinuated that "may issue," would not be an acceptable provision. The provision of "may issue" has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court regarding Maryland's concealed carry law and New York's "may issue" provision is pending cert before the Supreme Court. The state cannot afford to pass a carry bill with bad provisions and have to pay legal fees not only to the state's attorneys, but to the NRA and Second Amendment Foundation when the state loses, like the City of Chicago did after the McDonald decision. " I'm trying to figure out what to put as the last line to basically say, "Lets not waste anymore money fighting a bad carry bill in court with the NRA that can be used for something the state could put to good use" If I may be so bold, that's a really nice letter. But it'll never get read, at least by the rep. That would be a great letter to send when they're not in session, but when the game is on and the stuff is hitting the fan, shorter is better. The first paragraph would be more than enough and very effective. JMHOTim
mrpapageorgio Posted February 25, 2013 at 04:02 AM Posted February 25, 2013 at 04:02 AM My rep I highly believe is anti so trying to get the message across that it wouldn't be good to go blindly with Madigan
brianj - now in Kansas Posted February 25, 2013 at 02:53 PM Posted February 25, 2013 at 02:53 PM Do we try to sit down and contact every Rep in the state, or just our own personal Reps? Brian
Lou Posted February 25, 2013 at 02:54 PM Posted February 25, 2013 at 02:54 PM Do we try to sit down and contact every Rep in the state, or just our own personal Reps? Brian Call all of them but if you have to make choices concentrate on those who are against us first.
abolt243 Posted February 25, 2013 at 02:54 PM Author Posted February 25, 2013 at 02:54 PM Do we try to sit down and contact every Rep in the state, or just our own personal Reps? Brian Whatever you have time for.
Der Krampus Posted February 25, 2013 at 02:58 PM Posted February 25, 2013 at 02:58 PM Removed list, Wrong List of emails
Lou Posted February 25, 2013 at 03:01 PM Posted February 25, 2013 at 03:01 PM That looks like the SENATE emails. WE NEED TO CONCENTRATE ON THE HOUSE RIGHT NOW !!
sctman800 Posted February 25, 2013 at 03:02 PM Posted February 25, 2013 at 03:02 PM When I called Naomi Jakobsson's offices both Springfield and Urbana the ladies on the phone reminded me that I was not in her district. Jim.
Der Krampus Posted February 25, 2013 at 03:03 PM Posted February 25, 2013 at 03:03 PM Whoops my bad! Thank Lou
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.