100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: Own A Gun? Go To Jail In ILLINOIS ... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Okay ... who's surprised that this 'legislation' springs full-blown from an ILLINOIS General Assemblyman's 'mind' ... ? HB5832 makes carrying a firearm without a valid FOID card an offense that will land your asss in JAIL for ONE to THREE YEARS. Think this happened without encouragement from 'The ONE' ... ? Hey - it's ILLINOIS. Say 'Chicago'. Nothing in politics happens by 'accident'. This is a trial run for the larger application ... better start making phone calls if you live in IL.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.infowars.com/illinois-senator-wants-to-imprison-gun-owners/ Illinois Senator Wants to Imprison Gun Owners Illinois gun | May 5, 2010 The Illinois General Assembly has passed HB 5832 a Bill that makes carrying a firearm in Illinois without a valid FOID card a mandatory 1-3 years in prison. Under current law, carrying a weapon without a valid FOID card allowed for probation but once enacted the new law removes any and all chances of probation even for a first time offense. The Bill has yet to be signed by the Governor but it appears to be a done deal unless a grassroots effort is made to stop it. The new law was sponsored in the Illinois Senate by Kirk Dillard, who was recently endorsed by the ISRA for Governor on the republican ticket. HB5832 sounds like a strong tool to fight crime until you actually read the “Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon” Law in Illinois (see link below). Under section 24-1.6 the mere carrying of a firearm is considered an Aggravated offense. This includes carries on or about ones person or in any vehicle. It is a victimless, damage-less, non-violent crime that will put a lot of Illinois gun owners in prison and may jeopardize over the road truckers and neighboring state friends for transporting their gun in violation of Illinois law, which in most states is only a ticketing offense. Illinois is financially broke. Governor Quinn has already suggested that upwards of 10,000 prisoners be released from Illinois prisons. The new law will add to the Illinois prison population thus incurring additional expense that the people of Illinois can not afford. Links of interest: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K24-1.6 http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/illinois.gun.law.2.1663475.html http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K24-1.6 These types of laws ruin lives, yet the Daley machine is applauding the change. The State has a history of dragging its feet on FOID card renewals. With the new law you better NOT be caught with a firearm and an expired FOID card or it’s a mandatory 1-3 years in an Illinois prison. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hummmmmmmmm so what is the problem as long as they have the correct up to date paper work in order to carry???.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proof. When you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.
I place money, the cops don't go anywhere near ghettos or projects to take the guns away from the Gangs and dealers, 'specially at night. In Arizona and Texas, gun crimes are pretty low. Gang-bangers, illegals, and drug dealers don't know who might be carrying. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Odd that this would come up now in the forums, because.....
I just went today and got mine renewed for another year. TMF 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hummmmmmmmm so what is the problem as long as they have the correct up to date paper work in order to carry???.....
my thoughts also.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had a brother that lived in Pinedale Wyoming and every body there carried a side arm. That was just 20 years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many people don't know there is several cities where you are not allowed to own a gun.San fransico,New york city,Washington DC,and a few others I can't think of.They are all in violation of "Right to bear arms".The only reason the law stands is because nobody has taken them to court over it yet.This very stupid idea of taking away peoples guns has never led to lower crime.They tried to outlaw them in entire countries and always had a spike later.
http://www.rense.com/general/failure.htm Four years after the Dunblane massacre, Britain's tighter gun laws have failed completely. Now there is a race against time to stop the UK from becoming as trigger-happy as the US. [Officers are being confronted by youngsters on mountain bikes with automatic weapons] Britain's gun control laws, introduced after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, have proven to be a disaster. There are now an estimated three million illegal firearms in the UK, perhaps double the number of four years ago, and the only effect the knee-jerk political reaction that led to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 has had is to shut down legitimate gun clubs. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html Sharing the shock of his people, the newly elected Prime Minister, John Howard — just two months into his eleven-and-a-half years in power — seized the chance to overhaul Australia's gun laws, trampling all opposition to make them among the strictest in the developed world. "I hate guns," he said at the time. "One of the things I don't admire about America is their slavish love of guns ... We do not want the American disease imported into Australia." Howard argued the tougher laws would make Australia safer. But 12 years on, new research suggests the government response to Port Arthur was a waste of public money and has made no difference to the country's gun-related death rates. Though he'd acquired them illegally, Bryant used guns at Port Arthur that were lawful in Tasmania at the time. Howard argued there was no reason civilians should be allowed to own assault weapons — and under the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) these were all but banned. At huge cost, the government bought from their owners some 650,000 of the newly prohibited guns, which police destroyed. It also implemented mandatory gun licenses and registration of all firearms, helping to restrict to 5% of the population the number of Australian adults who owned or used guns last year, down from 7% in 1996. But these changes have done nothing to reduce gun-related deaths, according to Samara McPhedran, a University of Sydney academic and coauthor of a soon-to-be-published paper that reviews a selection of previous studies on the effects of the 1996 legislation. The conclusions of these studies were "all over the place," says McPhedran. But by pulling back and looking purely at the statistics, the answer "is there in black and white," she says. "The hypothesis that the removal of a large number of firearms owned by civilians [would lead to fewer gun-related deaths] is not borne out by the evidence." Firearm homicides in Australia were declining before 1996 and the decline has simply continued at the same rate since, McPhedran says. (In 2002-3, Australia's rate of 0.27 gun-related homicides per 100,000 people was one-fifteenth that of the U.S. rate.) Of course, it's possible there might have been a spike in firearm homicides — and one or more Port Arthur-style events — if not for the gun law reforms. "It's very easy to raise what-ifs," McPhedran counters. "The what-ifs are interesting as discussion points. But, ultimately, for policy making, we have to deal with what is." And suicide by firearm? Here again, rates were falling pre-1996. And while the decline gained speed after 1996, suicide by other methods began declining then, too. McPhedran and coauthor Jeanine Baker say suicide needs to be examined in a broader context that includes growing public awareness of mental health issues and increased use of antidepressants. Other researchers have focused on mass shootings: there were 11 in Australia in the decade before 1996, and there have been none since. This appears to be a strong argument for gun laws designed to help prevent massacres like Port Arthur. But McPhedran argues that because "mass shootings have been such a rare event historically ... it's incredibly difficult to perform a reliable statistical test on such rare events." Massacres, she argues, are a separate research question. It won't seem irrelevant to some that McPhedran and Baker are affiliated with the Sydney-based International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting. But it should be, McPhedran argues: their analysis has been peer-reviewed, approved for publication and should be judged on its merits, she says. The authors are not recommending that the gun law be repealed, though they do write of their hope that their findings might give policymakers "greater confidence" in approaching firearms policy in the future. "We've set out to scientifically investigate what was happening [with gun deaths] before and after 1996," she says. "We are simply presenting the evidence as it stands." The new Kevin Rudd-led Labor government has no plans to review the existing laws. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many people don't know there is several cities where you are not allowed to own a gun.San fransico,New york city,Washington DC,and a few others I can't think of.They are all in violation of "Right to bear arms".The only reason the law stands is because nobody has taken them to court over it yet.This very stupid idea of taking away peoples guns has never led to lower crime.They tried to outlaw them in entire countries and always had a spike later. http://www.rense.com/general/failure.htm Four years after the Dunblane massacre, Britain's tighter gun laws have failed completely. Now there is a race against time to stop the UK from becoming as trigger-happy as the US. [Officers are being confronted by youngsters on mountain bikes with automatic weapons] Britain's gun control laws, introduced after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, have proven to be a disaster. There are now an estimated three million illegal firearms in the UK, perhaps double the number of four years ago, and the only effect the knee-jerk political reaction that led to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 has had is to shut down legitimate gun clubs. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html Sharing the shock of his people, the newly elected Prime Minister, John Howard — just two months into his eleven-and-a-half years in power — seized the chance to overhaul Australia's gun laws, trampling all opposition to make them among the strictest in the developed world. "I hate guns," he said at the time. "One of the things I don't admire about America is their slavish love of guns ... We do not want the American disease imported into Australia." Howard argued the tougher laws would make Australia safer. But 12 years on, new research suggests the government response to Port Arthur was a waste of public money and has made no difference to the country's gun-related death rates. Though he'd acquired them illegally, Bryant used guns at Port Arthur that were lawful in Tasmania at the time. Howard argued there was no reason civilians should be allowed to own assault weapons — and under the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) these were all but banned. At huge cost, the government bought from their owners some 650,000 of the newly prohibited guns, which police destroyed. It also implemented mandatory gun licenses and registration of all firearms, helping to restrict to 5% of the population the number of Australian adults who owned or used guns last year, down from 7% in 1996. But these changes have done nothing to reduce gun-related deaths, according to Samara McPhedran, a University of Sydney academic and coauthor of a soon-to-be-published paper that reviews a selection of previous studies on the effects of the 1996 legislation. The conclusions of these studies were "all over the place," says McPhedran. But by pulling back and looking purely at the statistics, the answer "is there in black and white," she says. "The hypothesis that the removal of a large number of firearms owned by civilians [would lead to fewer gun-related deaths] is not borne out by the evidence." Firearm homicides in Australia were declining before 1996 and the decline has simply continued at the same rate since, McPhedran says. (In 2002-3, Australia's rate of 0.27 gun-related homicides per 100,000 people was one-fifteenth that of the U.S. rate.) Of course, it's possible there might have been a spike in firearm homicides — and one or more Port Arthur-style events — if not for the gun law reforms. "It's very easy to raise what-ifs," McPhedran counters. "The what-ifs are interesting as discussion points. But, ultimately, for policy making, we have to deal with what is." And suicide by firearm? Here again, rates were falling pre-1996. And while the decline gained speed after 1996, suicide by other methods began declining then, too. McPhedran and coauthor Jeanine Baker say suicide needs to be examined in a broader context that includes growing public awareness of mental health issues and increased use of antidepressants. Other researchers have focused on mass shootings: there were 11 in Australia in the decade before 1996, and there have been none since. This appears to be a strong argument for gun laws designed to help prevent massacres like Port Arthur. But McPhedran argues that because "mass shootings have been such a rare event historically ... it's incredibly difficult to perform a reliable statistical test on such rare events." Massacres, she argues, are a separate research question. It won't seem irrelevant to some that McPhedran and Baker are affiliated with the Sydney-based International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting. But it should be, McPhedran argues: their analysis has been peer-reviewed, approved for publication and should be judged on its merits, she says. The authors are not recommending that the gun law be repealed, though they do write of their hope that their findings might give policymakers "greater confidence" in approaching firearms policy in the future. "We've set out to scientifically investigate what was happening [with gun deaths] before and after 1996," she says. "We are simply presenting the evidence as it stands." The new Kevin Rudd-led Labor government has no plans to review the existing laws. With all of those damned politicians in the D.C., it's no wonder you are not allowed to own a gun. Could you imagine? Just thinking...(salivating)! OK, OK shaking head really hard to get that image out of my head! TMF  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hummmmmmmmm so what is the problem as long as they have the correct up to date paper work in order to carry???.....
my thoughts also.... My thoughts too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
those who give up liberties for a false since of security deserve neither liberties nor security
what happened to shall not be infringed????????????????? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kinda hypocritical that the ones who want to take away OUR rights (remember the 'Assault Weapons Ban'?) are the ones who think it's okay for THEM to own and carry weapons - up to and including full auto. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) was a sponsor of the 'Assault Weapons Ban' bill and owned (probably still owns) a FULL-AUTO M-16 ... but hey, HE's a 'senator', so it's okay. Sorry, but 2A doesn't put restrictions or conditions on gun ownership - 'senators' and 'representatives' do.
|
|
|
|
|
