Gun Owners in Illinois One Step Closer to Major Victory

Darthlawsuit

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2010
Messages
3,530
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — Gun owners in the only state still banning concealed weapons would win that right under a plan approved by the Illinois House on Friday, but the governor and other powerful Democrats oppose the plan because it would wipe out local gun ordinances – including Chicago’s ban on assault weapons.

The proposal, which passed 85-30, was brokered by House Speaker Michael Madigan, a Chicago Democrat, as a way to abide by a federal appeals court’s ruling that ordered the state to adopt a concealed-carry law by June 9. But the plan has drawn strong opposition, with Gov. Pat Quinn calling it a “massive overreach” because of the way it would curb local firearms regulations.

Chief among those regulations is Chicago’s ban on assault-style weapons, which would be stricken from the books. That’s a deal-breaker for Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who backs tough restrictions to curb gun violence in the nation’s third largest city.

You must be registered for see images


“This legislation is wrong for Illinois. It was wrong yesterday in committee, it’s wrong today, and it’s wrong for the future of public safety in our state,” Quinn said in a statement after the House vote.

The legislation is being sponsored by Rep. Brandon Phelps, a southern Illinois Democrat and ardent gun-rights supporter whose more permissive plan failed by seven votes last month.

Madigan took the rare step on the floor of describing how he had worked against that Phelps plan in April – legislation which still got double the number of votes Chicago Democrats garnered on a more restrictive measure.

“Those vote counts are very telling,” Madigan said. “They tell the reason why I stand before you today, changing a position I’ve advocated for well over 20 years. But that’s what happens in a democracy, where there’s free and open debate.”

He said the state needed one uniform firearms law to reduce the potential confusion for gun owners packing weapons and traveling throughout the Prairie State. There are 220 “home rule” communities which are free from state oversight to devise local guidelines on any issue, including guns. If June 9 comes and goes without a law, each of those municipalities could write its own restrictions, he said.

“The effect of not taking any action would be to open up the possibility that there could be up to 220 different sets of rules on the question of carrying weapons, so that as people attempted to move about the state, they would contemplate the possibility that there would be a change in the rules up to 220 times,” Madigan said.

You must be registered for see images


The measure would require Illinois State Police to issue a permit to any applicant who has a Firearm Owners Identification card, completes required training, passes a background check, and pays a $150 fee. But it significantly broadens the places where guns would be prohibited, including mass-transit buses and trains, which was a demand of Chicago Democrats.

In addition to the Chicago assault-weapons ban, it would pre-empt any city or county gun regulation, such as taxes on gun sales or requirements for reporting lost or stolen guns. Phelps and Madigan argue that it would be best to have one statewide law to reduce confusion and have future restrictions get state legislators’ approval in Springfield.

But Quinn’s office said the pre-emption would jeopardize public safety.

The legislation also is opposed by Senate President John Cullerton, a Chicago Democrat like Quinn and Madigan. The Senate’s plan would only pre-empt local laws by requiring them to adopt concealed-carry laws. Opponents of Phelps’ plan note that the only issue that the federal court addressed was conceal-and-carry, not other gun provisions.

The legislation was forced by a 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in December that decreed the state’s ban on concealed carry unconstitutional. The court gave lawmakers until June 9 to enact a law.

 

Darthlawsuit

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2010
Messages
3,530
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Legalizing guns is like voting for the murder rates to go up :I

yes! soon very soon all our goals will be achieved.. *girei plays*
Wrong, Chicago and Washington DC have extreme gun control measures and their murder rates lead our country. Kennesaw Georgia made every head of household required to own a gun and they went about 5 years without a single murder with a pop of 30,000

You must be registered for see images


You must be registered for see images


Guns prevent criminals from having control. If a law abiding citizen owns a gun it won't be used in a crime but it can be used to STOP a crime. Criminals don't obey the laws from the gitgo so they don't give a f*** what laws you pass unless it has a direct effect on them (being shot when robbing a house).
 
Last edited:

AllomnisymbolsparttwoT

Banned
Elite
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
5,247
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Wrong, Chicago and Washington DC have extreme gun control measures and their murder rates lead our country. Kennesaw Georgia made every head of household required to own a gun and they went about 5 years without a single murder with a pop of 30,000

You must be registered for see images


You must be registered for see images


Guns prevent criminals from having control. If a law abiding citizen owns a gun it won't be used in a crime but it can be used to STOP a crime. Criminals don't obey the laws from the gitgo so they don't give a f*** what laws you pass unless it has a direct effect on them (being shot when robbing a house).

Guns prevent criminals from having control. If a law abiding citizen owns a gun it won't be used in a crime but it can be used to STOP a crime. Criminals don't obey the laws from the gitgo so they don't give a f*** what laws you pass unless it has a direct effect on them (being shot when robbing a house).
uH NO. Guns GIVE Criminals the control over people, LUL citizens too dont give a f*** about the laws either, so you're telling me a husband and a wife fighting, that husband is full of wrath going to obey the law?? DUDE PLEASE.
 

Darthlawsuit

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2010
Messages
3,530
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
uH NO. Guns GIVE Criminals the control over people, LUL citizens too dont give a f*** about the laws either, so you're telling me a husband and a wife fighting, that husband is full of wrath going to obey the law?? DUDE PLEASE.
Mexico has strict gun control measures and everyone but law abiding citizens has a gun or two. Right now the drug cartels are as well armed as the government and there is no one to oppose them because they continue to disallow their citizens to protect themselves.

Yes. Why would the husband pull out a gun on his wife even if they are arguing? They will just yell and curse at one another, its very rare for anyone to pull a gun out on someone they love.
 

AllomnisymbolsparttwoT

Banned
Elite
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
5,247
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Mexico has strict gun control measures and everyone but law abiding citizens has a gun or two. Right now the drug cartels are as well armed as the government and there is no one to oppose them because they continue to disallow their citizens to protect themselves.

Yes. Why would the husband pull out a gun on his wife even if they are arguing? They will just yell and curse at one another, its very rare for anyone to pull a gun out on someone they love.
thats for the cops is for, their are to protect others!! You seem very smart and intellegent Props to you bro, but c'mon human beings who are killing with knives not giving a crap about the law you expect people with guns too!?

dude it happens it happens more than you think. legalizing guns is sooo bad it would send that state in more chaos than it already is in, people will abuse guns and kill whoever their have emnity with, YOU have think OUT SIDE OF THE BOX
 

Darthlawsuit

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2010
Messages
3,530
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
thats for the cops is for, their are to protect others!! You seem very smart and intellegent Props to you bro, but c'mon human beings who are killing with knives not giving a crap about the law you expect people with guns too!?

dude it happens it happens more than you think. legalizing guns is sooo bad it would send that state in more chaos than it already is in, people will abuse guns and kill whoever their have emnity with, YOU have think OUT SIDE OF THE BOX
I just posted an article where 911 said "the police cannot be sent to you". Police have between a 15min-1hour response time. If someone breaks into your house and you have 1 minute before he gets to you then how will the police showing up 29 minutes later "protect you"? What are you going to do for that 29 minutes, invite the criminals to have tea and crumpets then ask them to politely wait for the police to show up and arrest them?

Exactly, criminals will kill with knives, bombs, guns, common chemicals in every household, cars, groups of criminals, etc. When 4 of them break into your house how will you save your own life without a gun seeing as they out number you, over power you, and can run faster than most people? My solution is a gun because it has worked for 300+ years, what is yours?



Guns are already legal, well here in the USA. Such things are very rare and do not happen often. Many times these incidents involve criminals who someone tried to "reform". Guns prevent more crimes than police do over here since the police are never there when you need them. Infact 99.996% of the guns in the USA were never used in any crimes and in Kansas only .09% of concealed carry owners are even charged with a crime (Try finding any demographic with that low of criminal rates).
 

Aim64C

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
thats for the cops is for, their are to protect others!! You seem very smart and intellegent Props to you bro, but c'mon human beings who are killing with knives not giving a crap about the law you expect people with guns too!?

dude it happens it happens more than you think. legalizing guns is sooo bad it would send that state in more chaos than it already is in, people will abuse guns and kill whoever their have emnity with, YOU have think OUT SIDE OF THE BOX
Emphasis, my own.

So, if I plan to kill someone... something that is illegal... do you really think I care whether or not I'm 'allowed' to purchase a firearm?

What does it really mean? The same thing it means in Britain.

The police don't arm themselves to deal with firearms. They arm, equip, and train to take on disputes that do not involve firearms. So, when someone gets a hold of the very accessible illegal arms trade (which will only become more accessible if you try to ban firearms in a country like the U.S.) - they come marching through town with Type IV ballistic vests that laugh at anything short of a magnum handgun or rifle round and can pretty much wade right through the local police force while armed with an AK-47.

Sure - you'd see a drop in the rate of "I'm angry, stupid, and have access to a firearm in my home!" crimes, to some degree, by banning firearms. But at the cost of causing firearms increased in the support of theft and situations where a confrontation with the police is expected.

To put it in Naruto Base terms - banning firearms almost always boils down to making it so that criminals solo the police department.
 

King Of Crows

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
3,368
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Emphasis, my own.

So, if I plan to kill someone... something that is illegal... do you really think I care whether or not I'm 'allowed' to purchase a firearm?

What does it really mean? The same thing it means in Britain.

The police don't arm themselves to deal with firearms. They arm, equip, and train to take on disputes that do not involve firearms. So, when someone gets a hold of the very accessible illegal arms trade (which will only become more accessible if you try to ban firearms in a country like the U.S.) - they come marching through town with Type IV ballistic vests that laugh at anything short of a magnum handgun or rifle round and can pretty much wade right through the local police force while armed with an AK-47.

Sure - you'd see a drop in the rate of "I'm angry, stupid, and have access to a firearm in my home!" crimes, to some degree, by banning firearms. But at the cost of causing firearms increased in the support of theft and situations where a confrontation with the police is expected.

To put it in Naruto Base terms - banning firearms almost always boils down to making it so that criminals solo the police department.
Despite popular belief, our police are armed with firearms :rage: They just don't shoot people unless there is no other way around it :shy: ...
 

AllomnisymbolsparttwoT

Banned
Elite
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
5,247
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
I just posted an article where 911 said "the police cannot be sent to you". Police have between a 15min-1hour response time. If someone breaks into your house and you have 1 minute before he gets to you then how will the police showing up 29 minutes later "protect you"? What are you going to do for that 29 minutes, invite the criminals to have tea and crumpets then ask them to politely wait for the police to show up and arrest them?

Exactly, criminals will kill with knives, bombs, guns, common chemicals in every household, cars, groups of criminals, etc. When 4 of them break into your house how will you save your own life without a gun seeing as they out number you, over power you, and can run faster than most people? My solution is a gun because it has worked for 300+ years, what is yours?



Guns are already legal, well here in the USA. Such things are very rare and do not happen often. Many times these incidents involve criminals who someone tried to "reform". Guns prevent more crimes than police do over here since the police are never there when you need them. Infact 99.996% of the guns in the USA were never used in any crimes and in Kansas only .09% of concealed carry owners are even charged with a crime (Try finding any demographic with that low of criminal rates).
That dont justify legalizing guns, legalizing guns as i said before is like giving a person a free ticket to kill :I
 

Aim64C

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Despite popular belief, our police are armed with firearms :rage: They just don't shoot people unless there is no other way around it :shy: ...
You don't seem to understand.

It's one thing to deal with a guy who has a handgun. His effective range is about 50 meters, and you can make a vest proofed against 9mm and .45 caliber handgun rounds concealable. British police officers often use a derivative that sacrifices some firearm protection for better protection against punctures and slashes.

This is a hunting and farming community that I live in - so most of the police officers around here have ready access to a long-barreled weapon. It may not be on their person the entire time - but the department outfits them with those weapons (and authorizes the personal armaments of some officers to carry on duty) because you've got a lot of people around here who regularly drop man-sized targets from 250+ meters away.

You'll never get into your effective range if you're stuck with a handgun. Which is why our standard beat police have these.

Typically, though - people who put the kind of time and money into using the higher powered rifles are mentally stable and do not regularly shoot people. It draws unwanted attention to them and would result in severe restrictions. But the police arm for them because the potential threat is more obvious.

But when you ban firearms - the bureaucrats use that as a reason to cut budgets. "No more assault rifles. You all don't need to carry counters to those. No funding for long barreled weapons for you."

It's at that point that criminals begin to realize that switching to long-barreled weapons ("assault rifles") gives them virtual immunity to the police. Normally - the police would have weaponry that is able to address the difference in effective ranges. Now, however, they don't.

So, if you want to rob a bank - you can now, reliably, shoot your way out. It's now worth the extra cost to go from a handgun to intimidate civilians to a rifle to flat-out nullify the police.

Sure - "SWAT" can eventually get there - but they have to be called up, gear up, and deploy - a process which can take half an hour or longer. I could wipe out my whole police department in that amount of time (assuming none of them were carrying something with enough range and power to defeat whatever level of armor protection I'm using - and Type IV is rated for point-blank against 7.62 armor piercing - so have fun).

Which is exactly the type of thing you see happen in Britain. Some guy will decide to go shooting with a rifle - and the police manage to get him under control a few hours and a few dozen victims later. Rarely are these events classified as typical firearm violence - they actually get covered by deaths related to terrorism (since the assailant often has political, religious, or other ties that can plausibly explain their motivations).
 

King Of Crows

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
3,368
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
You don't seem to understand.

It's one thing to deal with a guy who has a handgun. His effective range is about 50 meters, and you can make a vest proofed against 9mm and .45 caliber handgun rounds concealable. British police officers often use a derivative that sacrifices some firearm protection for better protection against punctures and slashes.

This is a hunting and farming community that I live in - so most of the police officers around here have ready access to a long-barreled weapon. It may not be on their person the entire time - but the department outfits them with those weapons (and authorizes the personal armaments of some officers to carry on duty) because you've got a lot of people around here who regularly drop man-sized targets from 250+ meters away.

You'll never get into your effective range if you're stuck with a handgun. Which is why our standard beat police have these.

Typically, though - people who put the kind of time and money into using the higher powered rifles are mentally stable and do not regularly shoot people. It draws unwanted attention to them and would result in severe restrictions. But the police arm for them because the potential threat is more obvious.

But when you ban firearms - the bureaucrats use that as a reason to cut budgets. "No more assault rifles. You all don't need to carry counters to those. No funding for long barreled weapons for you."

It's at that point that criminals begin to realize that switching to long-barreled weapons ("assault rifles") gives them virtual immunity to the police. Normally - the police would have weaponry that is able to address the difference in effective ranges. Now, however, they don't.

So, if you want to rob a bank - you can now, reliably, shoot your way out. It's now worth the extra cost to go from a handgun to intimidate civilians to a rifle to flat-out nullify the police.

Sure - "SWAT" can eventually get there - but they have to be called up, gear up, and deploy - a process which can take half an hour or longer. I could wipe out my whole police department in that amount of time (assuming none of them were carrying something with enough range and power to defeat whatever level of armor protection I'm using - and Type IV is rated for point-blank against 7.62 armor piercing - so have fun).

Which is exactly the type of thing you see happen in Britain. Some guy will decide to go shooting with a rifle - and the police manage to get him under control a few hours and a few dozen victims later. Rarely are these events classified as typical firearm violence - they actually get covered by deaths related to terrorism (since the assailant often has political, religious, or other ties that can plausibly explain their motivations).

We have tea and crumpets, you lose. :happy: !
 
Top