On Monday, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner surprised a lot of folks by signing two gun control bills. First, he signed a bill to increase the waiting period on all gun purchases to three days. Second, he signed the “Snitch Bill” or Lethal Violence Order of Protection bill. In the end, gun owners now face two new gun control measures and we received nothing in return.
The National Rifle Association’s announcement spells out the impact of the bills on Prairie State gun owners.
On July 17th, Governor Bruce Rauner signed House Bill 2354 and Senate Bill 3256 into law. NRA opposed these bills during the legislative process because they will allow Second Amendment rights to be revoked without due process and expand waiting periods.
House Bill 2354, sponsored by Rep. Kathleen Willis (D-77), will allow for the issuance of protective orders to infringe on Second Amendment rights based on third party allegations with little, if any, real evidence and limited “due process” for the respondent. Hearings for the orders will be ex parte, where the respondent is not present to challenge the accuser and defend against allegations made against them. The issuance of an order will immediately prohibit the respondent from exercising their Second Amendment rights. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms should not be treated as a second-class right and should only be restricted consistent with the constitutional requirements of due process.
Senate Bill 3256, as amended by Representative Jonathan Carroll (D-57), will expand the 72 hour waiting period to all firearms. In addition, it will eliminate the current waiting period exemption for nonresidents attending gun shows in Illinois. Current Illinois law requires a 72 hour waiting period for handguns and a 24 hour waiting period for long guns. Waiting periods are an archaic relic from before the digital age, since they were originally meant to give local law enforcement time to complete background checks. Since the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) came into operation in 1998, technology has allowed background checks to be done instantly, activating the law that eliminated the federally required waiting periods.
Both bills passed earlier in the session by veto-proof majorities in the General Assembly.
Obviously, increasing the waiting period to three days does nothing to prevent crime. And they actually hurt domestic violence victims, forcing them to wait to acquire the best means of protection when they’re threatened. After all, court orders don’t stop bullets.
While a “cooling off period” makes for a good soundbite, it makes for poor public policy on self-defense. Even more so for folks with a carry license. If Land of Lincoln politicians thought the waiting period served as a cooling off period, they would have no problem exempting concealed carry licensees or anyone trading one gun for another at a dealer.
Instead, gun control activists see this as just another way to make gun ownership more difficult. Sort of like how racist politicians in the 1950s would place voting stations at distant or inconvenient places in poor, minority neighborhoods.
Early on, the Illinois State Rifle Association’s Executive Director nicknamed HB-2354’s predecessor bill the “Snitch Bill”. That bill would have allowed courts to consider anonymous complaints against gun owners, potentially exposing us to having our gun rights revoked, at least temporarily, without benefit of due process.
The National Rifle Association, as well as the Illinois State Rifle Association and Guns Save Life fought tooth and nail to oppose that bill. Thankfully, it died after gun owners educated their elected officials.
Soon enough, HB-2354 rolled onto the scene. As Guns Save Life’s executive director, I work closely with the NRA-ILA’s people here in Illinois. Candidly, the National Rifle Association serves as the leaders of the pro-gun communities here in Illinois. After all, they have the members, clout, experience and resources to lead. Throughout this fight, both the NRA and GSL maintained opposition to the bill for our respective organizations, citing due process issues.
On several occasions in the past year, we have had judges speak at our Guns Save Life monthly meetings. Sometimes, I would ask the about abuses in our existing Illinois protective order law. One family court judge at the Chicagoland meeting freely shared how commonly family law attorneys use an order of protection as a bargaining chip in child custody and divorce proceedings. Another judge estimated that as many as one third of the petitions he sees seem suspect at best.
For me, I’ve seen this personally with a couple of friends who had their lives turned upside down after estranged spouses received plenary protective orders against them. These temporary orders invalidated these good people’s Firearms Owner ID cards, forcing them to divest themselves of their guns and ammo immediately. In both cases, a judge later restored their rights. About two weeks afterwards.
Not only that, but the mere issuance of the order in their past followed them. Illinois law requires concealed carry instructors to receive and maintain their carry license with few exceptions. One of the instructors on the GSL Defense Training team had his Illinois State Police instructor certification pulled after he couldn’t get his carry license in a timely manner.
Why couldn’t he get his license? Because his estranged wife received a temporary restraining order a couple of years earlier based upon unsubstantiated allegations. A judge vacated the order of protection ten days after issuance, but his local police department filed an objection to his carry license application based solely upon that baseless complaint. And the Illinois State Police refused to issue him a carry license.
Thirty thousand dollars in legal fees and eighteen months later, he got his carry license. Most of us complain about the $153 fee Illinois charges for a carry license. Few, myself included, could afford $30,153.
Just as with the earlier “red flag” bill, Guns Save Life worked side-by-side with the NRA to fight HB-2354. We put a lot of resources and energy into fighting the measure. It turns out, not everyone on the pro-gun side was fighting with us.
At least one gun rights group now claims involvement in crafting the later versions of the onerous bill. Illinois Carry, an online discussion forum, revealed publicly last week how they worked closely with Democrats to fashion this bill.
Illinois Carry’s spokewoman Valinda Rowe posted this on Illinois Carry last Friday.
HB2354 Update – Firearm Restraining Order – Emergency Intervention
We have been in conversation about this bill with some of the most knowledgeable Second Amendment attorneys and 2A experts in the nation. In their opinion this is one of, if not the best bills of its kind.
We started out with HB772 Lethal Violence Order of Protection which was an outrageous gun grab bill. We all fought with everything we had to defeat that version and then went on to fight to amend this version. At times it felt like a knockdown, drag out fight in the ring, at other times it was more like peace negotiations in the middle east – never easy. Nonetheless, we were able to change this monstrosity around and now the experts are telling us this bill is now more of an Emergency Intervention bill that addresses more of the real problems of mentally ill who are a danger, domestic abusers who are a danger, and those threatening terrorist acts. This bill could possibly set a new standard by which these emergency situations can be deescalated and lives saved, referring to the Waffle House, Parkland High School, and the like.
The attorneys seem to think the bill meets due process and constitutional muster because the order is not final until the firearm owner has their day in court, which must happen quickly.
What makes this bill exceptional compared to the gun grab bills:
1. The requirement for clear and convincing evidence is a high bar to provide and is one of the highest standards in the country.
2. The order is not final until the person has their day in court and that must happen within 14 days. This could even happen as early as that day or the next.
3. Ownership is not prohibited and the firearms can be transferred to someone the person trusts for safekeeping.
4. Property is returned without need to petition the court.
5. If the clear and convincing evidence of being a danger is indicative of a mental illness, the judge can issue an order for a mental health evaluation.
6. If the clear and convincing evidence of being a danger is indicative of a criminal act/terrorism, charges can be filed and an arrest warrant can be issued at the same time.
7. In the meantime, the firearms are removed from the scene and taken into safe keeping until the orders are dismissed or expire.
8. FOID/CCL could be suspended instead of revoked (if there are no additional circumstances that would make the person ineligible for a FOID/CCL). These would then be reinstated when the order is dismissed or expires. If you have been following the nightmare we have with FOID/CCL appeals, you know this is a HUGE win.
9. The penalty for false testimony is a felony and is another deterrent for abusing the process.
There are a few tweaks we would like to see and the sponsors have agreed to a trailer bill. We know trailer bills do not always happen but the major issues we fought for are in this bill. It’s better than Indiana, better even than Florida’s, in my opinion.
Where we are now – If the Gov. signs the bill as is, with the current promise for a trailer bill from the sponsors, we get a reasonable Emergency Intervention bill now with the little fixes to come in the new session.
If the Gov. vetoes or amendatory vetoes the bill, the risk is real that the whole bill will be lost and we lose all the hard work we put into getting amendments in this bill and would have to start over. In the meantime, heaven forbid if there is another killing (or worse, one in IL) – the hysteria would then drive the legislative language and it would be impossible to hold it back. If that happens, most legislators will be afraid to not support a bad bill for fear of appearing uncaring to the victims and their families.
I think most of us are very concerned about abuse of the process because we’ve seen what happens with regular orders of protection. In the next legislative session, I would like to see us take that issue on and increase the level of evidence for an OP to match this bill’s requirement for clear and convincing evidence before an order of protection can be issued.
Unlike most all proposed bills we see, this one actually addresses an issue that needs to be addressed. During the many years my husband and I were terrorized by a mentally ill family member, had this been law, it would have been a great help to us. We can identify with potential victims and we see the real world need for an emergency intervention bill like this.
How closely did Illinois Carry’s Valinda Rowe and her husband Mike work to help craft get this bill passed? Closely enough that they received an invite to appear at the signing ceremony.
That would be Valinda Rowe on the far right of this photo posted by the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence on their Facebook page. Her husband Mike is the first male face you see on the right. Of course, as a gun control group, ICHV had nothing but rave reviews for the new gun control facing Illinois gun owners.
Above is another photo of Mrs. Rowe from the 2015 Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day event.
Here’s a second photo showing the Rowes at the press conference, also from the ICHV Facebook page. On the far right is the Illinois State Rifle Association’s paid lobbyist Eddie Sullivan.
And once Governor Rauner signed the bill, Valinda Rowe posted this, also at Illinois Carry:
Governor Commits to Veto Gun Dealer Licensing Bill!
Signs Emergency Intervention Bill and 72-Hr. Waiting Period
IllinoisCarry would like to thank Governor Rauner for announcing at a press conference in Chicago today that he will veto SB337, the gun dealer licensing bill. The bill was passed by both House and Senate during the spring legislative session but has not been sent to the Governor’s desk yet. It is good to know that when it is sent, it will be dead on arrival!!
The Governor signed HB2354. The new law provides for emergency intervention when someone is threatening to commit suicide,or a school shooting, work place violence, etc.
We in the firearms community strongly feel someone who is a danger to themselves or others should not be in possession of firearms. We know how important emergency intervention is when someone is posing a danger to themselves or others. However, we also hold strong to the fact that Second Amendment Constitutional rights must also be protected. The Second Amendment community worked long and hard to insure those protections are in this bill…
For the record, Valinda Rowe’s “Second Amendment community” did not include Guns Save Life. It didn’t include the leaders in the gun rights fight in Illinois, the National Rifle Association, either. Perhaps her claims of “Second Amendment community” participation spurred the bold emphasis in the original NRA-ILA announcement.
NRA opposed these bills during the legislative process because they will allow Second Amendment rights to be revoked without due process and expand waiting periods.
As Guns Save Life’s executive director, I’m not going to allow another group to claim GSL had any part in crafting or supporting this deeply flawed gun control law. And the NRA has made it clear in their announcement that they feel the same way.
Given how Eddie Sullivan, one of the Illinois State Rifle Association’s lobbying team was also present, it would seem they too were quietly involved in these negotiations. Neither John Weber, the NRA-ILA’s Illinois liaison, or myself, were aware that the two groups had a hand in crafting the HB-2354. Frankly, I thought we all were on the same page in opposition to the bill.
It looks now as though that was not the case.
So what now?
Illinois residents find themselves stuck with these two bills. Effective January 1, 2019, we will have to wait three days to pick up all gun purchases, or to conduct private transfers as state law requires. We know it does nothing about gang violence while only inconveniencing the good guys. But just like African-Americans during the civil rights era, we will walk a little father to cast our vote. We won’t let bigots deprive us of our civil rights.
And now, as of the new year, we will have to deal with abuses in the new Lethal Violence Order of Protection bill. My advice for Illinois residents: consider a legal insurance program like US Law Shield that will provide legal representation should you find yourself on the wrong end of one of these emergency petitions. Anyone related to or who has had an intimate relationship with a gun owner could possibly file one of these orders of protection.
Frankly, that goes for anyone living in any of the 13 states that have one of these “red flag” laws. Other deep blue states like New York will probably have this kind of legislation soon as well.
That’s right: thirteen states have these laws and according to Bloomberg’s “The Trace”, three more have them under consideration.
Frankly, if you don’t have an attorney and fight that emergency order of protection petition, it will likely become a permanent revocation of your right to own, buy or use firearms.
I don’t see how the snitch bill can possibly be legal as it’s unconstitutional. Your depriving someone of a constitutional right with no due process and not allowing someone to face their accusers in court. The supreme court should squelch this ASAP.
The government (with the NRA’s help, just like the red flag laws) banned the most common firearm in the world, banned a quarter of the population from buying firearms at a dealer or owning a handgun, created a defacto gun registry, prohibited bearing of arms in most states and you think they’ll start striking down unconstitutional legislation NOW?
The NRA failed when it allowed the National Firearms Act of 1934 to stand without offering opposition, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the “national instant check” system, the “no new machine gun for civilians” ban in 1986, the so-called “assault weapons ban in 1991, and other infringements on the Second Amendment. The next infringement will be a ban on “bump stocks” and other “rate increasing mechanisms”, that the NRA seems to want, offering feeble or no opposition, in the spirit of “compromise”.
Let’s face it. What better way to increase membership than to “allow” infringements to be enacted and then push for a new membership drive. Yes, the NRA has done good, but its spirit of “compromise” will only lead to one thing…confiscation.
If the NRA is truly the premier “gun rights” organization, it must reject ALL compromise…
Jesus. Did you read the story? NRA is doing us proud. And give it a rest about 80 year old mistakes. Unless you can walk on water!
David. anarchyst had a comment deleted by management wherein he claimed the holocaust was fake and Hitler was going to be vindicated by history.
Take anything he says as suspect.
Do you have this ready to copy paste in every thread remotely related to the NRA? How many times does someone have to tell you the NRA wasn’t even lobbying or political/civil rights organization until the 70’s. It was the 68′ GCA that spurred them into becoming what they are today. Just get the knowledge in your skull already.
And you and what organization have done to protect 2nd A rights?
Anaryst you clearly did NOT read the story.
Unless you are a member of the NRA no bitching and moaning.
As for the ISRA if I find out that they helped with this openly stupid law I will drop my membership and encourage everyone to do the same.
I’m also angry about to the times the NRA has stabbed us in the back (especially their “sporting purposes” position), but this is not one of those times. This time they actively fought to uphold the 2nd Amendment. Your insistence on going after them even when they’ve done the right thing just hurts your credibility.
I know. 1: It was a side note 2:I also know the NRA is only opposing this because 1: the backlash they got over it 2: It doesn’t meet their entirely arbitrary standards for how it should be done. They opposed the law that included a bump stock ban in Florida, even though the same exact NRA leader said she supported it in private before testifying against it after that was leaked out.
Where have you been and what have you done?
general conclusion….illinois is one fucked-up state!…….
I could easily see KY dealers refuse to sell long guns to Illinois residents. Holding them one day is a hassle, three days might be a bridge too far. The one day requirement was why the KY Wal Marts quit selling to Illinois residents.
Your local FFL is the one who holds the firearms till the waiting period is over.
However, IL law says the waiting period starts when the transaction is complete. So if i buy a gun online and it takes 3 days to get to my local FFL, i can stop by, fill out the 4473, pay the transfer fee and leave with my new gun.
IL residents are allowed to buy long guns from neighboring states, in person, from a dealer – as long as the dealer is willing to follow IL law regarding FOID check and waiting period. I believe this is where WI/IA/MO/KY/IN dealers might just say “not worth the hassle.” For example, if an IL resident is at the Indy 1500 gun show trying to buy a long gun – you can (currently) stay overnight and pickup the next day. A 3-day wait kills that option.
Illinois residents can buy long guns from any state.
There used to be wording in federal law that “allowed” purchase from contiguous states, but that was changed in 1986 to allow purchase from any state.
Illinois law may have, at one time, mirrored the contiguous language, but if it did, it doesn’t any longer, and there is no statutory prohibition against purchasing from non-contiguous states.
Correct, but ” 2. the sale, delivery and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in the buyer’s and seller’s States.” means the waiting period has to be enforced. That means the FFL in Kentucky or Maine has to hold the weapon for 3 days. I have seen it done this way in both LGS and big box stores. The local Wal Marts quit selling to Illinois residents. When the Gander Mtn was doing it’s final week clearance, it refused long gun sales to Illinois residents because of the 24 hour hold.
I have gone in LGS the Monday after a gunshow and seen Illinois long guns stacked waiting for pickup. A three day hold might convince the local FFL to decide it isn’t worth it.
True, but any LGS or big box store that refuses to sell to an Illinois resident because of that is either lazy, or they simply don’t care about people’s rights outside of their own state.
Seriously, how hard is it to just hold onto a gun and wait for the sale? Put a tag on it that says “sold,” and include the transaction #. It’s not taking up any extra space… if they sell it, it’s gone in 3 days… if they don’t, well, then it’s still gonna be there taking up space.
Wow, and Illinois Carry is proud of their betrayal of The Constitution and American ideals.
My disappointment in our supposed “Allies” grows yet again.
This article is curious. The facts on the ground seem to be that some sort of restriction on guns was going to happen, no matter what. If so, how does a “shall not be infringed” stance prevent the inevitable? Seems the complaint here was over a “compromise” that prevented a potential disaster. The author does not indicate that his group and NRA were a hair’s breadth away from killing the bill, when others stepped in to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If, if, NRA and GSL were just about to take a victory lap, but were subverted and betrayed, that would be a different story.
RTKBA, “cold dead hands”, “shall not be infringed” are all, or nothing. Reality is not that cut and dried. Too often it is a matter of “my way” gets run over by the “hiway”.
Excellent point. If you can get a more palatable version signed, why not have a hand in drafting it.
It’s still an infringement on multiple points. A truly horrible and flagrantly unconstitutional law is much easier to tear to shreds in court when it it doesn’t have the air of legitimacy of being “moderated” by those who are supposedly defending the 2nd Amendment.
The Constitution says “shall not be infringed” for a very, very good reason. It’s because the founders were well aware that the right to defend ourselves and our country from would-be tyrants can be gradually taken away in small steps. The only legitimate reaction to such a proposal like this new law is “No! Absolutely not! Not one inch! Not even a fraction of an inch! In fact, we need to tear down the laws that are already in violation of Constitutional Law by infringing!” not “Here, let me help you get the infringement to stick by adding a spoonful of sugar to help the
medicinepoison go down.”
“The only legitimate reaction to such a proposal like this new law is “No! Absolutely not! Not one inch! Not even a fraction of an inch!”
And that stance has defeated how many gun restrictions? It is possible, you know, to fight two battles at the same time.
The second amendment is not absolute; get over it.
Here’s the proposition: You can have unfettered access to any weapon you can afford, but you must undergo professional training in use and safety regarding those weapons. If you refuse to undergo training, you can only have government-approved firearms in your home, but not outside the domicile. Those are the choices. What now?
Bull-f’in-shit. It was as absolute as the Authors could possibly make it. “Infringed” means “not even a little bit.”
“Bull-f’in-shit. It was as absolute as the Authors could possibly make it. “Infringed” means “not even a little bit.” ”
Take a breath, and read the writings of the founders surrounding the second amendment. Then consider that in 1789, the Constitution was not applicable to the States, and each State could regulate firearms. The US Constitution did not supersede State constitutions until the 14th Amendment. In short, the second amendment restricted only the federal government. Thus, RTKBA was not truly absolute, as it only applied to federal action.
If arguing “absolute” were effective, we would have no gun laws. The matter has been adjudicated; restrictions are permitted (whether we like it or not). If you want any of our constitutional rights to be absolute, you must change the political landscape, the courts, and successfully prosecute an effort to yet again amend the Constitution to declare so in no uncertain terms, which requires more words than the Second Amendment contains presently. Your are not going to get any court to defend “absolute”, today. Therefore, you are stuck with the world as it is, not as you imagine it.
I pointed you to an analysis that did exactly that. Obviously you didn’t read it.
Also read LarryinTX’s comment. Can you answer his brother’s challenge?
What does “shall not be infringed” accomplish? What has it accomplished? Refusing to fight the battle in front of you is an invitation to fail. We can stomp our feet until they bleed, absolutism accomplishes nothing, has accomplished nothing. If it could, do you think we are the first to believe it to be so? Do you really think that if the political power were present to enforce “shall not be infringed” that power would not have been used in the past?
What do you think would have been accomplished by allowing the Illinois bills to be passed with no modification favoring gun owners? Would you be happy to flap your arms and shout , “not one more inch” while watching a horrendous bill build a veto-proof majority?
The challenge is what is gained by refusing to participate, in favor of some “principle”? Bottom line is “absolutists” would rather have their second amendments rights eliminated because they refuse to do anything other than throw a fit about “absolutes”.
Fight the battle your enemy is fighting, not the one you want to fight.
Fact: “shall not be infringed” has not repealed a single gun restriction.
EWT, you are correct. My kid brother said it best a decade or two back, read all 27 words, then explain to me how it could possibly be made any more absolute.
And if memory serves, the BoR was ratified in 1791, which is why it was not a player in 1789. The first amendment does not apply to the states, 2A does.
Let’s stipulate for the moment that the wording of the Second Amendment establishes an absolute proposition. Now, press that issue in court. Any guess at the outcome?
The claim that a “right” is absolute is irrelevant. What is relevant is the jurisprudence on the issue. If you truly believe your second amendment right is absolute, act upon it. Make your own guns, make your own explosives, build your own TOW system, purchase a box of grenades…all without adhering to any of the current restrictions. Why is it we constantly hear “shall not be infringed”, but those same people abide by all the existing gun regulations?
There is one other possible means of making “absolute” relevant: legislation prohibiting federal courts (all of them) from hearing cases regarding possession of firearms and military weapons of any sort. That would leave the States, but the question would then be whether the State courts can be similarly bound, wholesale, or each case must be adjudicated federally as a civil rights matter. Of course, all that takes time and effort, which is not as self-satisfying as making absurd claims of “absolute”.
Judges can and do routinely rule according to their own preferences, violating the very laws they’re sworn to uphold. That doesn’t make it legitimate.
Gun grabbers count on obscure, hard to understand incrementalism to push their agenda towards a total ban. Not allowing to play their incremental games of confusion is the only way to stop their grand march into tyranny; and “helping” them veil their infringement is the worst of all possible worlds.
Such “compromise” actually helps the enemy. That has been true for far longer than this country has existed.
THAT is what Illinois Carry has accomplished. They may have been well meaning—which just makes them useful idiots—but ultimately, they’re helping the very people they claim as their enemy.
“THAT is what Illinois Carry has accomplished. They may have been well meaning—which just makes them useful idiots—but ultimately, they’re helping the very people they claim as their enemy.”
Why is it no one has answered the question: “How would ‘not another inch’ have changed the outcome of the bill, particularly the actual wording”? “Not another inch” simply means you abandon the field in a huff, and reward yourself with legislation worse than you might have gotten. Maybe “worse” is fair compensation for “compromising” on an absolute right.
Correction in last sentence…”not” is added.
“THAT is what Illinois Carry has accomplished. They may have been well meaning—which just makes them useful idiots—but ultimately, they’re helping the very people they claim as their enemy.”
Why is it no one has answered the question: “How would ‘not another inch’ have changed the outcome of the bill, particularly the actual wording”? “Not another inch” simply means you abandon the field in a huff, and reward yourself with legislation worse than you might have gotten. Maybe “worse” is fair compensation for not “compromising” on an absolute right.
For those of you who are absolutists, keep in mind that your position allows prisoners in supermax prisons to be armed.
Wow, that’s silly!
By that reasoning, they shouldn’t even be in prison because that is also a loss of their right.
When a person commits a crime, they are giving up their proper claim to their own rights. When found guilty after due process, that loss of rights is properly enforced.
The law must mean what it says. If you can make it say anything else, that leads to anarchy, favoritism, power-seeking, and social instability. Typically, that is called “Rule of Man” instead of how our country is supposed to operate: under Rule of Law.
I’m absolutist on the 2nd Amendment because the Law is absolutist.
“I’m absolutist on the 2nd Amendment because the Law is absolutist.”
If one allows for any exception to “absolute”, one is not an absolutist, merely an equivocator. Any exception to “absolute” must be based on “reasoning”, which is another form of using “common sense”. As in, it is “common sense” that when imprisoned, a person loses their rights (which is actually not true). If one person can claim an exemption to 2A “makes sense”, another person can claim that a different exemption “makes sense”. The argument then becomes a squabble over which “sense” is legitimate.
“Absolute” leaves no room for air.
So you’re tossing the Fifth Amendment under the bus along with the Second. Got it.
How do you conclude I am “tossing out” anything?
BTW, the 5th amendment is not absolute. You can be forced to testify against yourself if it is in the interest of the prosecution.
“…your position allows prisoners in supermax prisons to be armed.”
Last I heard, prisoners are humans (people), too.
@EWT: if a right is absolute, then it’s absolute. That means you can’t have it taken away from you.
“When a person commits a crime, they are giving up their proper claim to their own rights. When found guilty after due process, that loss of rights is properly enforced.”
If you read what I wrote, and what you wrote, you will see that they can’t both be right. But the problem is, it’s what you wrote that says that the 2A rights aren’t absolute. If a right is absolute, you can’t give it up, because it is inherent in your being. Yet you say it can be given up, so it’s not absolute. Besides, when you commit a crime, you don’t give up your rights. When arrested, you are read your rights. If, by committing a crime, you give up your rights, how can you have rights?
Sorry, I stand by what I said. Your attempt to wriggle out of it doesn’t stand up.
Apparently, everyone involved in the creating and passing the Bill of Rights also “attempt[ed] to wriggle out of” absolute rights with this whole “due process” thing.
Please stop being so silly.
“Apparently, everyone involved in the creating and passing the Bill of Rights also “attempt[ed] to wriggle out of” absolute rights with this whole “due process” thing.
Please stop being so silly.”
What is silly, is claiming a natural, human, civil and enumerated “right” is “absolute, except….”
You pointed out three exceptions to “absolute” that are listed in the Constitution (as amended). Big Bill, and others, are merely pointing out that it is logically impossible to claim something is “absolute, except…”
You noted three exceptions that seemed to “make sense” to those voting. The conventional wisdom is those are the only exceptions allowed to otherwise absolute rights. Thus, when another exception “makes sense” to those voting, one set of exception supporters cannot claim exclusivity prohibits another group of exception supporters. Once “exception” is acceptable, then whether a different exception is permissible is based purely on the majority of those voting. Not on some standard of absolutism that is really not absolute.
Oh, For F***’s Sake! Could you get any more willful/trollish in your “deliberate misunderstanding” of my point?!?
A person who has committed a crime has given up their claim on their own rights.
A person who has not committed a crime (or who has not been convicted via due process) STILL HAS THEIR RIGHTS FULLY INTACT! And the Second Amendment CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY states the the government SHALL NOT INFRINGE on that Right, NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT!
In other words, the Constitution’s protection for “the right of the People to keep and bear arms” is absolute except in the case of a criminal CONVICTION.
Do you “hear” yourself? You just stated that criminal conviction is an exception to “absolute”. The Second Amendment amends the constitution. Think about that. The Fifth Amendment amends the Second Amendment by stating that there are exceptions to absolute human, civil and natural rights. You are claiming that an absolute that has an exception embedded in it remains “absolute except”. You are arguing that it is possible to breach absolute, based on some idea that the breach “makes sense”. If you wish to have a world where “absolute” means “absolute, except”, just admit that the term “absolute” is not absolute.
The logical conclusion is that if any absolute right protected by the Second Amendment based on “exceptions”, then it is only political power that enforces the exception, and political power can raise different, and just as valid, other exceptions while the constitutionally protected absolute remains “absolute” (defined as “absolute, except”).
Bottom line is that “absolute” has no meaning in law, and cannot be successfully raised at bar. Given that, what does “absolute” do for protecting RTKBA?
Oh yes…if you don’t like using your mind to analyze complex topics, just refuse to read anything submitted by “Sam I Am”. Refusal is your human right, and I do not fault you for employing it.
If debate is “trolling”, you are in a sad position.
Sounds like some of the groups were freelancing and wheeling and dealing instead of trying to flip a couple of votes to uphold a veto!
Surely Illinois Republicans are not that eager to throw their governor under the bus!
Rowe’s first piece reads like she thinks she is smarter than everyone else as she tries to convince her fellow gun owners that the piss landing on them is really rain.
“…she tries to convince her fellow gun owners that the piss landing on them is really rain.”
Can’t conclude that from the article. Can’t actually conclude anything. But the situation does put bright lights on the absolutist dilemma: insist on absolute acceptance of your position, or suffer worse than necessary because you had no suitable alternative.
If the listed features are implemented, why is the pre-crime legislation worse now than it would have been if not for the Illinois Carry effort?
If NRA and GSL were within moments of getting the bill killed, then we have a whole different situation. Bosch did not indicate such. Oversight?
Once the “compromise” bill was written, the next tactic was to maneuver votes so that the governor could not scrap the bill, and let it be re-written by an angry anti-gun constituency.
Knee-jerk reactions do not promote pro 2A agendas. There should not be a reason for pro-gun lobbying to be able to pass or kill anti-gun legislation. The fault is not in our stars. If you want to win, elect an overwhelming majority of representatives who will implement your agenda. If you win big, they can’t cheat their way to victory. If you cannot win big, be prepared to limit the damage, because “never” is not a profitable slogan.
If everyone wants to return to our founding fathers constitution and our rights afforded by it then get behind the Convention of States movement ! People like to piss and moan but not do anything to change things. Soros and the socialists demorats are scared of this. Go to Convention of States website and get involved.
“If everyone wants to return to our founding fathers constitution and our rights afforded by it then get behind the Convention of States movement ! ”
What doe a Convention of States actually accomplish? Proposed amendments? How many will be released to the States? How many will actually be ratified? Then what?
The current constitution wasn’t sufficient to retain the vision of the founders. Why is it people think a bunch of new amendments will “restore” that vision? Why? What is to prevent the same result as from the original/current constitution? Why does anyone think amendments from a Convention of States will instill in the public a new sense of moral fidelity to original intent?
Regardless of the success of a Convention of States (which I think would be a great exercise in political activity), the courts retain the same power to convolute the new amendments. If the thinking is that the CoS can completely re-write the constitution, change the very structure of the republic, the collection of amendments that would be needed is so unlikely to get out of convention as to be fantasy. If the thinking is the CoS will act as did the original convocation that supplanted the Confederation of States, that too is fantasy (it would be revolution, not exercising Article 5).
From what I have read, the intent of the Convention of States is to make certain government actions more illegaler, accompanied by the inability to enforce the new amendments.
In a ‘convention of states,’ the entire constitution is up for grabs, not just the amendments the convention might be called for.
There is nothing to prevent such a convention from drafting and enacting an entirely new constitution, with all the hazards that would entail,except a stronger coalition against that. And if anyone thinks common sense would prevail, I point to our legislators who actually made a law in CA that making it illegal to shoot any kind of game from a vehicle, unless it’s a whale. Or Maricopa County, AZ, where it’s illegal for more than six girls to live in a house.
IOW, probably not a good idea.
“There is nothing to prevent such a convention from drafting and enacting an entirely new constitution,”
Article 5 does not grant such authority, “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, …”
The only constitutionally legitimately authority CoS possess is to “propose” amendments. Writing a new constitution is a violation of the current constitution, and would be an act of revolution. However, note that Article 5 requires the current Congress to inform the states of which manner the States will use to ratify the amendments proposed by CoS. There is no time limit established for Congress to announce that determination.
While some uselessly fear a “runaway Convention”, the after effects are limited by the requirement for Congress to tell the States how they will ratify amendments, and the amendments must become ratified. Since there is no legitimate method for re-writing the constitution, and getting that document ratified, and such a rewrite lacks common acceptance, a “runaway” Convention would just be political theater; much sound and fury signifying nothing.
@Sam I Am: “Article 5 does not grant such authority,…”
Evidently you’ve never seen am “amendment” completely replace the words in a law.
It’s actually not all that uncommon.
An amendment that repeals the entire constitution is ludicrous. When you amend a document such that is repeals the entire base document, you have a nothing. That would mean no guiding constitution. If the thought is to make the amendment be a new constitution, where do you measure the mood of the country to accept that in numbers great enough to allow ratification? Nothing in the term “amending” is ever considered to mean “repeal and replace” the base document. When a contract becomes so burdensome as to require a completely new contract, a new contract is negotiated.
Again, Congress would get a look at any amendments proposed by a CoS. That Congress would not issue the required instructions for the manner of ratification to be used. Nothing compels the Congress to issue those instructions in a given time frame.
The mere promulgation of amendments from a CoS does not guarantee a ready audience prepared to ratify.
A Convention of States would be fun to watch, but don’t bet your future on it instituting a revolution.
Note: Without wholesale replacement of the current judicial system, the amendments from a CoS would face the same forces that put us in the position we occupy today. Question: why wasn’t the original constitution effective enough to prevent what we have wrought? Why would a new constitution fare any better?
@Sam I Am: “An amendment that repeals the entire constitution is ludicrous. When you amend a document such that is repeals the entire base document, you have a nothing. That would mean no guiding constitution.”
You forget that an amendment would have something in it, not just a deletion of all the text. While there have been amendments that amend by only deleting text, the amendment in question would delete and replace text.
The US Constitution is not amended the way a contract (or other document) might normally be amended (replacing actual text within the body of the document). An amendment that is itself an entire constitution would never have the support to be ratified. Neither would a single amendment that repeals and replaces sections of of other amendments.
Tradition has been that an amendment may supersede (repeal) a prior amendment, but none change words or sentences in other amendments or the Constitution itself. It is one of the oddities of our system. We leave the history of our Constitution open and obvious, from the beginning. One does not need to read through several generations of the Constitution in order to understand the history.
But no matter the plan to convert a CoS into a Constitutional Convention, it runs smack up against Congress, and the courts; just like the current one. Question again: Why does anyone think that new amendments, or a new Constitution will be more successful at disciplining government than the current one? Or is the unstated intention of the supporters of a CoS merely to establish a “breather”, until we can get back to business as usual? Words on a page will not convert the basic nature of humans. Words on paper will not bring on constitutional utopia.
@Sam I AM:
I’m not trying to say that such a convention would replace the constitution, just that it could.
Arguing that it would clash with congress doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen. What I’m saying is that the constitution itself offers a way to replace the constitution.
I still wish the comment section would honor the “Notify me of follow-up comments by email” check box. It would make following any replies much easier.
Is anyone listening? Every once in a while, I mention this, and nothing happens. I mean nothing.
Article 5 only allows amendments, as in what we have commonly done from the beginning. I just can’t find any authority for an amendment to be an entire replacement. Could a CoS go rogue? Of course. There could also be an armed revolt that would be successful. Cudda, wudda, shudda. The reality is anyone dreaming a CoS would launch a successful “stealth” revolution is, well, dreaming.
Not experiencing the “replies by email” problem myself, but the “edit” after posting function has been inop for the last year or so. Got a note back from TTAG that they could not duplicate the “edit” malfunction.
“I just can’t find any authority for an amendment to be an entire replacement. ”
And I see nothing that forbids it.
And given that it happens already in other lawmaking, there is nothing that makes me believe it couldn’t be done to the constitution.
Saying, “Well, it hasn’t happened yet” is in no way a prohibition to it happening in the future. Especially with no prohibition to it happening in the first place.
Agree, the constitution does not specifically prohibit an amendment that is, itself, an entire constitution.
Given the political climate, it is all but impossible to believe a CoS could agree on a total re-write in any time frame that the members would allow, before abandoning the convention entirely.
Given the political climate, there is no assurance a CoS can agree on more than a handful of amendments before they all must return to their jobs and families.
Given the political climate (lack of revolutionary fervor among the populace), there is little chance a set of revolutionary amendments would be ratified. Congress would establish the means of ratification in a manner to best protect their vested interests, dampening the appetite in the States for ratifying revolutionary amendments. Take an amendment to force a balanced budget. The argument against is simple: None of the predicted financial disasters shouted for the last fifty years has happened.
The major consideration for any, and all, amendments proposed by a CoS still requires enforcement (howz that worked out with the original Constitution?). There is no sane mechanism for more strict enforcement by the departments of government. Even court rulings are ignored with impunity.
All that said, it would be fun to observe an historical event such as a CoS.
I’m sure they believed that if they didn’t get involved in the gun-control legislation something even worse would get passed. This is what gun-control “accommodation” looks like—our side accommodates while the 2nd amendment is incrementally abridged. No doubt they saw themselves as preserving what they could, in the face of implacable force. This is also what Vidkun Quisling did. And like the Nazis did with Quisling, the gun-controllers will pass these “gun-rights supporters” around like trophies to demonstrate what “reasonable” people can do. When you lack courage, cutting the best deal you can get has an enormous attraction. If I didn’t know that was rain on my leg, I’d swear it was pee.
Garrison, you nailed it. Similarly, the misguided antics of France’s 3rd Republic and the Vichey government in WWII are the same brand of stupid…
You are saying you would rather be proud of your intransigence and lose your “gun rights”?
“When you lack courage, cutting the best deal you can get has an enormous attraction. ”
Do you have a concept of how things would have turned out with the use of “not one more inch”? Are you for “honorable death”? Remember, “honorable death” is still dead, and the death didn’t stop the rain.
You do realize you are promoting accepting the worst the gun grabbers have to offer, just for the satisfaction of saying, “No”. The situation, as reported, is real, not imaginary, not video game, not Hollywood. “Shall not be infringed” vs. Oh, yes I can”. Victory for “Oh, yes I can” seems to have been assured, with the only question being the reach of the infringement.
I am informed that several years ago in Colorado, the legislature was about to drastically limit firearm magazine capacity. All but one “pro-gun group” were absolutists, demanding the bill be denied pre-vote hearings; leaving magazine capacity with no restrictions. The gun grabbers had the large majority, and the severe restriction was going to be 5 or 10 rounds. One of the pro gun groups “negotiated” a settlement for 15 rounds (which became law). The absolutists were livid about the “betrayal”, preferring to have the state mandate 5 round magazines rather than yield anything, under the guise of “shall not be infringed”. It is amazing how many people would rather see all their second amendment right be destroyed, rather than work to limit the damage.
There is a really good reason why “boiling the frog” is a go-to analogy in such cases. If the left got what they truly wanted, people would react against them exactly as they should. But these “small step” infringements actually help violate our rights by making them seem “reasonable.”
Please explain hot refusing to bend in the face of overwhelming power, and losing everything, is superior to fighting back, winning victories and living to fight another day?
Boiling frogs do not know what is happening to them. The people who arranged limits in the Illinois bill knew what was happening, and were fighting back with the power that had at their disposal. If, and when, the pro-gun supporters have sufficient power to successfully press for changes to gun controls, it will be beneficial to have a starting point that requires only incremental change, rather than expect the public to accept radical change. If the current bill allows uncontested temporary restraining orders, but a mandatory court date within fourteen days, then a change to pre-order court appearance will be more acceptable than trying to come from no court date, and no real procedure to contest the order after it expires.
If absolutism about any of our enumerated rights were the rule of law, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. This is life. People are involved. Absolutes cannot survive.
Oh come on! Surely you’re not that dense about human nature!
Let me put it this way: Do you jump into very cold or hot water? Or do you inch in?
People react to big evil exposed all at once, even if it’s initially successful. But small evils, gradually increasing over time tend to succeed. For example, Germany didn’t start with the ovens all at once because it would not have worked.
We should never be helping evil work by slowing it down enough for people to accept it.
What is your proposal for enforcing “shall not be infringed”? Slogans are meaningless, they are only hopes and dreams; opioids for the masses. What is your proposal for enforcing “shall not be infringed”?
Again you fail to deal with reality. When faced with a restriction of gun possession, do you just let it be implemented? Do you jsut scream and shout, and let it be implemented?
As I noted, if GSL and NRA were inches from defeating the restraining order bill (or even the waiting period bill), and another “pro-gun” group blocked that victory, then you have room to complain. If GSL and NRA were going to lose entirely, then what sense does it make to just let it happen, and not try to mitigate the damage? The other side has “absolutes” also: they want all “gun rights” eliminated. They have no intention of voluntarily drafting legislation that permits any means of gun ownership. You have no tolerance for any restrictions. That’s nice. But which group holds the political power? Do you really believe “shall not be infringed” would have blocked the legislation as originally written?
You haven’t answered any of my questions or challenges. Why should I answer any more of yours?
You don’t win a tug-of-war by stepping forward by choice.
“You haven’t answered any of my questions or challenges. Why should I answer any more of yours?”
I think it is because your questions do not deal with the reality of existing law. This is not a discussion of academic theory (absolutist rendering of 2A), but a dive into what actual effect slogans have on “gun rights”. Permitting ever burdensome restrictions in order to find the right case, and the right SC to one day declare the 2A to be absolute (abolishing every gun regulation in the nation) seems a Fabian tactic; losing everywhere in hopes of one day exhausting your enemy due to all the effort they expend to win, win, and win again.
Absolutely, we should swarm all such legislative sessions and *insist* on the most outrageous in-your-face laws anyone can imagine, then dare anyone to pass them, or court to enforce them.
Swarming the legislatures sounds like something that could be productive. The 50 state capital pro-gun rallies may be instructive, however. Kinds a nothing burger in the end. I imagine that is because the pro-2A supporters (which does not necessarily include all legal gun owners) don’t have time to be rabble and mobs.
The more outrageous the grab the better the chance you have of getting it overturned in court later due to flagrant overreach. Watering it down so it’s not terribly offensive makes that harder.
You think that a mag limit of 5 rounds withstands court challenges as easily as a mag limit of 15 rounds? I sure don’t.
“The more outrageous the grab the better the chance you have of getting it overturned in court later due to flagrant overreach. ”
Serious question: Have you read where any of the existing DVROs have been successfully challenged, and vacated on the whole?
From Heller: “92 U. S., at 553, States, we said, were free to
restrict or protect the right under their police powers.” That would seem to include DVROs.
IL seems to be an absolute hotbed of 2A betrayers. Rock River Arms, Springfield Armory, now Illinois Carry.
Gonna say it now, i left not a day too soon. I love Tennessee. Walked into the lgs bought a stripped lower and walked out with it after the nics check. No bullshit wait times, no bullshit taxes or extra fees. F*ck you Illinois. And F*ck you IC, and Rauner for having no balls to veto this.
“It Might Surprise You Who Helped Write Illinois’ New Lethal Violence Order of Protection Law”.
In best church – lady voice: “Could it be sa-TAN?!
I still maintain that all ex-parte “protection order” laws are unconstitutional on their face. Fortunately, we now have a SCotUS that’s likely to take a look at them.
“I still maintain that all ex-parte “protection order” laws are unconstitutional on their face.”
In the matter at hand, it seems the ex parte proceedures were eliminated.
“In the matter at hand, it seems the ex parte proceedures were eliminated.”
Not the way I read the article.
“The order is not final until the person has their day in court and that must happen within 14 days. This could even happen as early as that day or the next.”
That’s not an elimination; it’s an allowing of the ex parte procedures to take place, with a statutory limitation of fourteen days on any orders. Possibly.
I say “possibly” because we know that anyone charged with a crime has a right to a speedy trial, but often the prosecution will offer “good reasons” to deny the defendant such. Does anyone here actually believe the same thing won’t happen here?
Appears I projected the “final order” to be a requirement that an order not be issued at all until the adjudication during the “fourteen days”. (reading from the posting, not the actual bill).
The dichotomy between “not one inch”, and mitigation remains. No one can wish the bill(s) away by sloganeering, so, what next? Just let the gun grabbers do their worst? Refuse to attempt any sort of modification of the language? All or nothing, when nothing demonstrably has the upper hand? This is, “take my ball and go home” type politics; you don’t get to play, and someone else decides the entire outcome.
Unfortunately, the near-impossible: education.
Most people really don’t want to spend the time or energy to be educated (or educate themselves) unless they deem it to be necessary.
In the case of many people, it’s a case of ‘I know what I know.’ When someone tries to tell them something that goes against ‘what they know,’ it’s obvious that someone is a liar. Facts are irrelevant to these people. And, unfortunately, far too many people in charge politically fall into that category; they ‘know what they know.’
We see this all the time when it comes to guns. The FBI (the people who know about this) tell us that violent crime is still trending down over the last few decades. But people who ‘know what they know’ are positive that gun crime is spiraling upward out of control, and they know how to control it: get rid of guns. We can point out all day long that that is simply impossible, and they don’t care, because they ‘know….’ They also spout the line: So we should give up? The response is, of course not; but let’s attack the root of the problem, not the tool. IOW, get the criminals off the streets. But, nope, can’t do that, because they have rights, it’s expensive, and they have rights.
As long as the average American keeps believing he/she/it ‘knows what they know,’ the problem can’t be solved.
Take this article: there is no evidence (other than anecdotal) that says “safe storage” will reduce accidental shooting, crime or suicide. But the “leadership” says it will, and enough people believe it, so it gets done. Knowledge isn’t there, and education just isn’t wanted.
So sad, really.
We will lose a few generations to this absurdity (we have already lost a lot of young people simply because our educational institutions can’t get their students to believe they need education!). Colleges and universities have to make students attend classes that are, in essence, high school classes in order to get then to write coherent sentences, or understand the basic formulae to plug into their calculators.
Sorry this is so long, but it had to be said.
One more good reason to NEVER allow your government to know whether you own guns, or how many. TX has no manner of registration, in the circumstances described a judge would have to be satisfied with a restraining order saying you can’t shoot your wife, or otherwise making it more illegaler to do illegal things.
“… in the circumstances described a judge would have to be satisfied with a restraining order saying you can’t shoot your wife,…”
It depends on the working in the restraining order, and how it is presented. If the order demands surrender of access to all firearms, prohibits possession of firearms, and is accompanied by a court-directed search of your property, your guns can be confiscated even though there is not public record of ownership. Even if you have no guns on premises, just the public use of a firearm result in a law-abiding citizen becoming a felon.
Precisely. Can you just imagine if all the good ol boys in any legislative body had their own homes torn apart by police goons looking for guns they did not own? Suddenly our problems would be THEIR problems, as well, and those laws would be changed but quick.
Wouldn’t they, though.
Well FU ILLinois Carry. With friends like you we might as well have an ugly Jabba the prickster govner. Who’ll win anyway. I wish I could leave…sigh. Anywho I have bought several rifles and shotguns in nearby Indiana with a 1 day wait. I have no doubt they’ll do THREE…if they want my business(hint:they do).
I think based on the governor’s position and how the Texas Republicans have been positioning themselves you can expect Red Flag laws to be tried in Texas next legislative session.
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
and for the people smiling in the photos above, it will come back to haunt you.
a lot of this nonsense can’t get before the newly formed SCOTUS soon enough!…
Illinois Carry is about 150 people who “think” they know what they are writing about and nobody will dare challenge Valinda R or Molly B as she is known. It’s basically a useless forum and organization. It’s a bunch of people who constantly argue with each other, think they are lawyers and have NO idea on how the legal system actually works. I doubt many of them have ever had the pleasure of being in a court room and seeing how the legal process REALLY works. You have about 50 people who evidently are unemployed who constantly post idiotic nonsense daily. They mean well but are very misinformed. At one time I thought it was a decent 2A organization but it’s really just a bunch of infighting amongst members. “I wont vote for Rauner because he signed HB40.” WTF does that have to do with 2A issues?
HB-2354 is a BAD bill plain and simple. It just makes Illinois a worse state then it was but Molly B says differently so it must be true. Screw due process. In the end it doesn’t matter, next year they will have a new anti 2A governor and every bad anti 2A bill will pass. I’m glad I moved out of that trainwreck of a state. I had to, in a year and a half Illinois will be worse then California when it comes to gun laws.
I have a big newsflash for all of you people on that site that think that Rauner has a chance. Absolutely not, your next governor is JB Pritzker whether you think your members make a difference or not. “Illinois has 2 million FOID card holders, if we can just get all of them to vote for Rauner”. No YOU cant, most people in Illinois don’t care, FOID card holder or not. Fight about that on your site along with other nonsense.
I think Illinois Carry means well but it’s 50 people who do the majority of the posting and they are watched closely by anti 2A people. Actually the anti 2A groups have probably gotten some great advice from that site. The ” backroom” has been compromised and some of the members are a bit “unbalanced”. I suggest you read some of the nonsense on that site, it can be pretty amusing. The moderating can be pretty loose so foolish arguments can go on for weeks. “Alex Jones wrote on InfoWars” – yeah that’s all the proof behind your argument I needed to read.
150 “useful idiots” didn’t make one bit of difference. Two BAD bills were signed. Valinda you are not half as smart as you think you are. Spin it anyway you want, chalk it up as a loss to Illinois but the worse is yet to come when Pritzker takes office.
Waiting fort Sam I Am to chime in. He seems very invested in this topic. With what, two dozen or more comment in this thread.
There are some good peeps at Illinois Carry among those 150 members. Including a few with incredible dedication.
Since you counted two dozen or more comments attributed to me, you can understand my puzzlement at your entry: “Waiting fort Sam I Am to chime in. He seems very invested in this topic. With what, two dozen or more comment in this thread.”
Did I inadvertently exceed a commonly understood limit on comments? If there is one, I can live within it.
As to your characterization about Illinois Carry members, I am supportive of efforts to limit damage when faced with potential disaster. Absolutism (I am a complete absolutist), no matter the entertainment value, has yet to win a case at bar. That is the matter in which I am “invested”.
Oh, and thanks for the tip o’ the hat. It is an honor to be noticed by a well known person in the “gun rights” struggle.
“There are some good peeps at Illinois Carry among those 150 members. Including a few with incredible dedication.” – No John Boch, likely one of the unemployed Illinois Carry idiots.
I used to think that also but then started reading more and more of the inane ramblings of some of the lunatics on that forum. Valinda Rowe screwed the pooch with HB-2354 and then she tried to put a positive spin on. A bad bill is a bad bill, plain and simple. When you take away due process, it weakens the 2A rights of the Illinois people and eventually the RIGHTS of everybody. My suggestion is moderate your site, keep your mouth shut on how a bill that gets rid of due process is GREAT and ban some of the loonies. The whole country is fighting to keep our RIGHTS, we don’t need a lunatic fringe group like Illinois Carry hurt the entire USAs RIGHT of the people to keep and bear Arms.
Sorry that site and organization is complete nonsense, its almost as bad as MDA. Valinda Rowe likes to believe she has some special power with the ISP but she doesn’t. If you read some of the absolutely idiotic ramblings of most of the unemployed members then you will get an idea of how useless and possibly harmful Illinois Carry is. One that comes to mind is somebody named SteveTA1983, that guy is completely out of touch with reality and is like a child and he’s far from the worse. I check every once in a while to see what the unemployed people are fighting about on that site.
Illinois Carry’s showing at IGold was pathetic, the 40 or so unemployed “members” that showed up had nothing better to do. The main problem I have with that site is the moderating, they let a lot of things that actually hurt the 2A supporters go on way too long. A reputable site like USA carry would ban more then half of the members of Illinois Carry and probably has. Sometimes you have to and not give the 2A side resources that they wouldn’t have. Illinois Carry’s website actually HURTS the people who actually fight for 2A rights. With Valinda Rowe praising a bill that eliminates due process, it hurts us all. I didn’t move from IL to have a website actually give the antis help in taking away my RIGHTS in a different state.
Thanks Illinois Carry, can you think of any other way to HURT the 2nd Amendment?
Wow I actually went over to Illinois Carry and that website really is a bunch of nonsense. It seems that the SteveTA1983 guys big thing is posting tweets about nothing important at all. How that is considered a pro second amendment site is confusing. I think it’s a way for the people who run it to make money, the second amendment be damned. It’s a total scam, a bunch of 40 bums who post the same BS all day. I don’t think there is one person who actually has a job. This came up in my CCW class, my instructor said to stay away from that website, the woman Molly B is using it to make a living. He was right. I think most of the people on that website don’t even own guns, at least it seems that way. How can afford a gun if you don’t work? “My permits I the mail and I had to spend two welfare checks to get it.”
It’s almost a anti-second amendment website.
“When I was 17 I was convicted of armed robbery, how do I get that expunged so I can get a FOID card and then a CCL license? I was young and stupid 8 years ago.”
Sorry but if at 17 you were convicted of armed robbery I don’t want you to have a FOID card and I really don’t want you to have a CCL. Then Molly B walks them through the appeals process. No wonder she helps write snitch bills. There is plenty of ammo for the left on that website. Molly B is making good money so that’s all that counts, screw the hard working honest citizens of Illinois.
That website should be banned and Molly B should get a job.
I went to the website, and picked this thread to read. The first page seemed a rational discussion of what, if anything, to say to police in the aftermath of a DGU. The comments seemed a bit more respectful than often appears here.
From the link above (the only link followed), it would be difficult to conclude that Illinios Carry website is a trash heap, a scam, a website to avoid at all costs. Maybe one has to read everything on the website to get the negative view of it.
Oh, if self-defense using a gun is a natural, civil, and human right, where is the moral authority to strip a person of that right, permanently?
The Troll of TTAG picked a month old thread to post as proof of how great Illinois Carry is. 25 posts on this thread and counting.
Like others from now on your Trolling will be ignored. YOU should join Illinois Carry, your inane babbling would fit right in THERE.
Oh give it a rest. I actually cruised five different forum links. None has the vapid, insipid and just nasty toilet mouth comments that often appear here. Just noting the difference in tone, and the lack of offal on the Illinois website. That’s all.
As to trolling, if your idea of trolling is discussion vs. sloganeering and profanity, please return to the children’s section of the web, and avoid coming in contact with things that do not ratify your inflated ego.
Trolling has a recognized definition on the internet. You should read it sometime. Better yet, stay on the cartoon channels.
Are you proposing a limit on the number of comments per posted article? Are you proposing that alternate opinions are attacks? Do you consider questions an attack? Do you consider anything that is not in tune with your thinking is an attack? Do you propose that articles appearing here be answered only with slogans that reinforce an opinion? Do you understand what a conversation is, and that it may not be limited to one or two paragraphs?
A “troll” just instigates agitation, and disappears (or just watches the forum churn). I am here for education; to learn and to offer experiences and observations. I am not going away. So, like any free citizen, refuse to watch or listen to anything that causes you angst; turn the channel.
Ive heard two different sides to this, that the NRA didn’t actually do anything but mouth the words to stop this.