Illinois Decides To Go All In On Gun Ban

[Project972]

read a good thing on sherrifs today. might get a spark there.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Let me ask you a question: Do you see a problem with the way our country has operated in the last 100 years or so? If so, what do you recommend doing about it?

Of course I do, but taking draconian measures in an attempt to "right the ship" will not solve the problem.

 

[Whosyer]

Illinois Senate Democratic Caucus


There are some good comments on this FB page.

 

[Boiled Owl]

Sigh...and things actually looked promising for a minute there with the CCW ban overturn. I really hope this doesn't come to pass, for the sake of my loved ones that live in IL.

This goes back to my conversation with the ISRA about the full court press they face.....minute you cross mid court.....they smack you back to defending your goal. Which is all they can accomplish.

Remember releasing the names of FOID holders? Stopped that. Big win?

Maybe it would have been a great opportunity to rid the state of the FOID, proving that the keeping of that database is a can of worms. But that would take offense, how when you're continuously defending?

 

[CharlesGoodnight]

That State is a sink hole. It is bad enough that they cannot manage their finances - nearly bankrupt - but they continue to restrict the rights of their law abiding citizenry. The land of Obama gets what they deserve. Vote these people out of office.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I said suggested, not the actual implementation of law. But still, that does not address my premise. If a law has been struck down by the USSC as unconstitutional, then by defalt, all those that voted in favor or enforced it, have committed treason. It has already been indicated that those convicted of Treason are deserving of death.
You agree with this?

Can't be, Kut. There's this little thing called "ex post facto" that's forbidden as unConstitutional.
If it was legal/Constitutional when they did it, they can't later be punished for it.

 

[CVMA544]

Can't be, Kut. There's this little thing called "ex post facto" that's forbidden as unConstitutional.
If it was legal/Constitutional when they did it, they can't later be punished for it.

However, while it is tied up in the sloooow moving federal courts the Illinois State Police can charge ahead and have a few WACO's and lots of gun collections.

Then it will be just to hard to figure out what gun belongs to who so why give them back? We will just destroy them and cut you a $200 check from a bankrupt state that will bounce or be paid by a special fund paid for by the rest of the States.

 

[Ted]

I said suggested, not the actual implementation of law. But still, that does not address my premise. If a law has been struck down by the USSC as unconstitutional, then by defalt, all those that voted in favor or enforced it, have committed treason. It has already been indicated that those convicted of Treason are deserving of death.
You agree with this?

So how does that square with the only two constitutional definitions of treason by waging war against the United States, or providing aid and comfort to the enemy?

If we take your position, couldn't your rationale be considered treasonous as well?

 

[Ted]

......There's this little thing called "ex post facto" that's forbidden as unConstitutional.......

I wish that were strictly true, as the Lautenberg amendment would have remained overturned.

 

[cobber]

Goodness people, it is neither treason nor impeachable to propose legislation. It's United States legislative process -- the way it is supposed to work.

Is that so difficult to understand?

Shall not be infringed.

If they want to infringe, then the first piece of legislation must be repeal of the 2d Amendment.

How is it lawful to propose legislation that would limit the constitution's plain meaning?

We should take things like the Constitution a wee bit more seriously.

 

[cobber]

This would be fair, as I would call it more "overstepping authority," rather than outright Treason.

Or breach of oath to uphold the Constitution.

If you disagree with the Constitution, don't hold office in government. That's pretty simple.

 

[KG1]

Or breach of oath to uphold the Constitution.

If you disagree with the Constitution, don't hold office in government. That's pretty simple.

Exactly. That is the most important pre-requisite for the job. To Defend and Uphold the Constitution. NOT subvert or try to change it.

 

[Birds Away]

And If a private person chooses to write their congressman and ask that a "unconstitutional" law be passed, prompting the legislator to act, that would also be a treasonous act, worthy of death, correct?

Or how about simply talking about "how" a AWB should be passed for the benefit of the nation, although recognizing that it is "unconstitutional?" Is that treason, as well?

You are creating a very slippery slope, and I'm 100% confident that the founders would have found that your beliefs run contrary to freedom loving peoples.

I believe it is one thing for an individual to express an opinion. It is something very different when an elected official defies his/her oath of office. But I would have to see what oath is taken by Illinois reps. If the constitution of Illinois reads anything like the U.S. Constitution then there is a case to be made.

 

[nailknocker]

I am a simpleton, and it seems simple to me that this man is in violation of his oath,is it treason, I do not know.

The 2A has that infringement clause in it, also it has been through the SCoTUS, and we do have the right to keep and bear arms, so in my mind this man is in violation of both the Constitution and his oath to uphold it and should be held in contempt, and prosecuted under whatever rules apply, and soon!

If he is seeking a new amendment to the Constitution, then that is a whole can of worms.

 

[tom1025]

4. Join or renew your membership in the ISRA. Encourage your friends and family to join as well.

5. Make a generous donation to the ISRA by clicking the link below. We are in desperate need of your financial support to help beat back the onslaught of gun grab bills coming our way in 2013.

Please make a donation on-line here ,or over the phone at 815-635-3198.

Until proven otherwise, after reading lines four and five. I would say this is just a scare tactic to generate revenue.

 

[Butch627]

4. Join or renew your membership in the ISRA. Encourage your friends and family to join as well.

5. Make a generous donation to the ISRA by clicking the link below. We are in desperate need of your financial support to help beat back the onslaught of gun grab bills coming our way in 2013.

Please make a donation on-line here ,or over the phone at 815-635-3198.

Until proven otherwise, after reading lines four and five. I would say this is just a scare tactic to generate revenue.

Im 100 percent with you. People are all fired up about this on forums all over the place but I haven't seen a shred of evidence beyond that unsubstantuated story on ISRA.

 

[downzero]

I wish that were strictly true, as the Lautenberg amendment would have remained overturned.

Ex post facto clause doesn't even apply to civil cases. The Supreme Court so held in a case that predates judicial review. Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall) 386 (1798). This has been used as a justification to raise taxes retroactively as recently as the 1980s--with unanimous approval of the Supreme Court. United States v. Carlton, 512 U.S. 26 (1994).

 

[04FXSTS]

Most of the people on this forum know about how close we are in Illinois to CCW. The people who have gotten us there are the same people who have just found out about this and sent the warning. I trust these people and guarentee all they would not care to be expending energy fighting this. There is also a seperate magazine capicity restriction bill that will be introduced. This may be a ploy to get us to concentrate on the ban so the mag bill can be slipped through. Maybe it is to keep our side from concentratin on writing a good CCW bill that has been mandated by the courts.
Whatever the reason for the wording or the "lame duck" timing you can bet the farm if Cullerton and his co conspiritors can get it through it will become law.
I have been reading the discussion about "treasonus or not" this is not germain to the stated problem and is only counterproductive. I realize I am a junion member here and from Illinois but I will ask if the people discussing this would start their own thread. We have this on www.illinoiscarry.com also and it can be distracting. Thanks, Jim.

 

[Spot Me 2]

Was just informed this is HB 1263. Can't find any info on it yet.

And leave it to Illinois to be this dumb. "Hey look at the caged tigers. Lets go poke them with some sharp sticks" as they jump into the cage with them.....

 

[04FXSTS]

Was just informed this is HB 1263. Can't find any info on it yet.

I just heard that also. It came out of the house some time ago as a sexual offender bill. Cullerton will gut the bill and add all new language. Chicago democrats pretty much consider gun owners on that same level. Jim.