Illinois Considering Ban on Firearms

reply to post by kerazeesicko


Seriously?

They aren't doing this with a good intent, if that's what you're assuming.

I worked as a consultant in Chicago during the late 90's. One project I worked on was the Shakman Audit. This consisted of a review of all job candidates, as well as the person who was actually hired, to confirm that the person hired for a Chicago job was actually qualified. So rampant were illegal hiring practices, one guy named Shakman hauled off, sued the whole city, and won. Now, every year, Chicago must hire a consulting firm to confirm that their hiring practices were sound and legal as one condition of Shakman's settlement.

Link to a 1987 article about the Shakman Decree

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
What is it with Illinois?

There's some high mucketymuck from there. What's that guy's name? It's on the tip of my tongue. Someone help me out here?



In all seriousness:

Labeled an "assault weapon":


Labeled a "hunting rifle":


Not only will the latter likely be more accurate, they're both the same caliber (.308) and will equally put a large hole in someone. The former just looks "scary".

And of course, a gun ban will TOTALLY keep guns out of Illinois.

/TOA

The fact of the matter is plain to observe from the outside.....
There is a definate move, by most goverments in the free world to ban guns totally.
That it is happening piecemeal, and state by state is a result of the 2nd ammendment.
Though explicit, the ammendment is being constantly undermined with conditions which states are putting on a simple and straightforeward law.
How the citizenry is going to stop such tactics over the long run is a problem which is growing with the passing of the older generations.
They intend to breed the 2nd amendment out of existance by attrition and the ignorance of the comming generations....
It will not take forever....the inroads on the 2nd have already been deep in some states...
The very idea of CCWs and other caveats is anti 2nd.
There is no answer to this encroachment but some form of revolution in politics.
The determination to keep politics within the bounds of the constitution is required constantly to keep refighting the same battle under different names.
High cap magazines,assault weapons etc etc.....
There is somethimg for the gov boys to fear in owning 50 cal rifles like the barret semi.
These weapons can penetrate the skins of vehicles and pierce light armour.
The goverment will always seek to further its control over its subjects.
this is an axiom of governence.
\it is up to free men everywhere to stand up to and keep in check, the machinations of those who would seek to control most every aspect of life.

My dad would support this law if this is on California. He believes the constitution is fine without the second amendment

Originally posted by TreadUpon
What gets me is that some of the best firearms in the world are manufactured in Illinois. When are they going to smarten up and move to a better climate...Tennessee is really nice.

Armalite (AR platform), DSA (FAL), Springfield (venerable M1A), Krebs (fantastic AK mods), Rock River Arms (AR platforms)...all these rifles and no small share of handguns.

Barrett likes it here!

There are quite a few manufacturers in states that hate them. Mass and CT are loaded with them.

Just this year Colt decided to open a plant in Florida and the CT legislature went nuts over jobs leaving the state. To save face Colt is leaving some skeleton crew on in CT while it moves operations to Florida.

They're so close I wish they'd move to NH. NH loves guns and has plenty of skilled machinists in need of work. And the taxes are far better than in MA or CT.

The only thing gun laws do is keep wepaons in the criminal and the police hands the average law biding citizen caught in the middle.

Complete and total fascism seriously what part of the second Amendment do they not get.

Reminds me of the book Tipping Point: A Tale of the 2nd U.S Civil War by Frank Clark.

Really good read with a very plausible plot about the break up of the Union starting with Texas due the the attempted repeal of the 2nd.

Book

r3axion- you an illinoisian? State worker here.

reply to post by crazyray


Yes sir, live about 45 minutes outside the city

You will be the first state to fall under Obama's 'Anti-American Revolution!'Obama's 'Anti-American Revolution!'

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
There are quite a few manufacturers in states that hate them. Mass and CT are loaded with them.

Kimber is a customer of ours and I was just at their Yonkers, New York plant talking with some of the machinists and there was a good deal of irony at the fact that these people make the weapons, have them in their hands at work and they have a very difficult time getting an application for one, particularly if they live in New York City (and forget trying to get a carry permit).

Another knee-jerk reaction by politicians to garner more votes, but I think this will backfire on them in the end.

How is this bill constitutional?

bout the same here. I live in a town formerly referred to as "The Gin" before the demographics changed drastically. =P Family are all police and military, this ban is just beyond assinine.

I live in Wisconsin,and the Laws changed here immediately after the Liberal Governor was out of office.

This is what happens when you put guns in the hands of Law abiding citizens.

Nazir Al-Mujaahid first told 12 News that when he saw a man holding up a sawed off shotgun threatening a cashier in Aldi's on Monday, he knew it was time to use his concealed carry training.

"The guy dropped the shotgun, dropped the bag of money, and people were safe. That's the most important thing, and I'm not suffering any consequences for practice my constitutional right," Al-Mujaahid said.

As for Al-Mujaahid, he had never been to that Aldi's before, didn't plan on going in and didn't see the No Weapons sign, but now he's the first conceal carry permit holder in Wisconsin to use a weapon for protection.

Man Who Shot Aldi's Robber Won't Face Charges

Thats how its done.

The ban on assault weapons is aimed at veterans more then any others. The biggest buyers of the AR platform are veterans that have been trained on the M4 and M16 and feel very confident in using them for self defence.

If you carried a M4 or M16 for 4 or more years and fired 10000s of rounds and had it save your life would you not want the same weapons system for self defence.
You know you can rely on it and operate it in the dark, heck many veteran can strip and reassemble it in the dark by feel only.

I know the democrats claim to support our veterans but do they really or is that just BS for votes.

I am a veteran and my go to guns for self defence are the same as i carried in the military
and they are the 1911 and the AR-15

reply to post by Asktheanimals


if i had to take a stab at it perhaps they are trying to get rid of shot gun shells as normaly shot guns are pretty hard to regulate and get rid of as they are a pretty usefull hunting tool but thats just my random guess