| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| In 180 days some form of carry for non LEO will be legal https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9464 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | In 180 days some form of carry for non LEO will be legal |
in all states... Illinois prohibition on civilian carry of any kind has been struck down. |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: In 180 days some form of carry for non LEO will be legal |
But I thought Obama was going to take away our guns |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
He has stated his desire to do so. This has nothing to do with him though unless he uses his pull to pressure them to make it as draconian as possible which will likely simply result in another lawsuit victory against the legislature. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: In 180 days some form of carry for non LEO will be legal |
While the existing law has been declared unconstitutional, how does that put an impetus on the IL legislature to act. Ohio's School funding process was declared unconstitutional, but it took them years to draft a suitable replacement. |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The court told them they had 180 days. I'd have to read the ruling but usually if a law making body goes outside a time frame it means it has no law governing the restriction of the activity - which means anyone can carry legally in any manner they wish so long as they aren't under a specific statute making their carrying an offense (such as they have been found guilty of a crime that explicitly prohibits the owning or carrying of a firearm). |
|
| Author: | Hopwin [ Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: In 180 days some form of carry for non LEO will be legal |
Rorinthas wrote: While the existing law has been declared unconstitutional, how does that put an impetus on the IL legislature to act. Ohio's School funding process was declared unconstitutional, but it took them years to draft a suitable replacement. Wait what? When did we come up with a replacement? I thought we were still waiting on that? |
|
| Author: | Aizle [ Tue Dec 11, 2012 5:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Elmarnieh wrote: He has stated his desire to do so. Show me where he has ever stated that he wanted to take away people's guns. This is good news. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: In 180 days some form of carry for non LEO will be legal |
I figured y'all worked it out while I was in Texas. You mean you didn't. Make that decades then. |
|
| Author: | Rafael [ Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Aizle wrote: Elmarnieh wrote: He has stated his desire to do so. Show me where he has ever stated that he wanted to take away people's guns. This is good news. He stated in the debates his desire to pass another assault weapons ban. A gun seizure is never performed outright, it's done incrementally. Restrictions and registrations are necessary before a seizure is possible. No one single president will ever take away guns; that is more likely under a monarchy/oligarchy. |
|
| Author: | Hopwin [ Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: In 180 days some form of carry for non LEO will be legal |
Rorinthas wrote: I figured y'all worked it out while I was in Texas. You mean you didn't. Make that decades then. Unconstitutional: cause that's how we do in Ohio! |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hopwin, you have Toronto's "Ikea Monkey" as an avatar. |
|
| Author: | Hopwin [ Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Talya wrote: Hopwin, you have Toronto's "Ikea Monkey" as an avatar. Leave my mom out of this, ok? |
|
| Author: | Aizle [ Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Rafael wrote: Aizle wrote: Elmarnieh wrote: He has stated his desire to do so. Show me where he has ever stated that he wanted to take away people's guns. This is good news. He stated in the debates his desire to pass another assault weapons ban. A gun seizure is never performed outright, it's done incrementally. Restrictions and registrations are necessary before a seizure is possible. No one single president will ever take away guns; that is more likely under a monarchy/oligarchy. Interesting, I had missed him bringing up an assault weapons ban. In principle, I'm torn on the idea of an assault weapon ban. There is a certain extra level of mass lethality that those weapons have and I can understand the desire of some to control them more. But in practice, I really don't see how a ban is going to do much so it becomes the usual complete waste of everyone's time. |
|
| Author: | Rafael [ Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: In 180 days some form of carry for non LEO will be legal |
Aizle wrote: Rafael wrote: Aizle wrote: Elmarnieh wrote: He has stated his desire to do so. Show me where he has ever stated that he wanted to take away people's guns. This is good news. He stated in the debates his desire to pass another assault weapons ban. A gun seizure is never performed outright, it's done incrementally. Restrictions and registrations are necessary before a seizure is possible. No one single president will ever take away guns; that is more likely under a monarchy/oligarchy. Interesting, I had missed him bringing up an assault weapons ban. In principle, I'm torn on the idea of an assault weapon ban. There is a certain extra level of mass lethality that those weapons have and I can understand the desire of some to control them more. But in practice, I really don't see how a ban is going to do much so it becomes the usual complete waste of everyone's time. The lethality of the weapons subject to the 1994 ban is not really an issue. The ban was only targeted at cosmetic features (collapsible buttstocks, pistol grips, military style flash suppressors etc.) IMO, the effectiveness of a mass shooter is not really imcreased by cosmetic or functional features between different small arms and even anti-personal so-called "destructive devices". It is almost entirely a function of the shooters creativity and ability to plan. Select fire weapon or increased magazine capacities, for instance, give someone ina firefight much more proportional advantage than a premeditated shooter slaughtering innocent, defenseless people. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2 |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have several much older rifles that are more lethal than my AR, more lethal by FAR. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: In 180 days some form of carry for non LEO will be legal |
Those people that want to ban "assault weapons" vastly overestimate the lethality of them, and rely on the fact that the military uses them to create the impression that they are some sort of super-gun. They certainly don't have any extra level of "mass lethality" compared to any other semi-automatic rifle, and civilians can't own most automatic weapons anyhow. In point of fact, full automatic fire does not really increase lethality anyhow, and in most shooting incidents would probably actually reduce casualties because the shooter would burn his ammunition much more rapidly, but the recoil would make the weapon much harder to control. Automatic fire on rifles and carbines is useful only at extreme close quarters for room-clearing where you simply don't have time to aim carefully, or for suppressive fire, neither of which pertains the the mass shooter. Weapons that fire on full automatic that are for actual engagement of targets are invariably crew-served weapons or mounted on vehicles. The only thing to understand about why people want to ban them is that they are afraid of them and not for reasons that really hold up to scrutiny. As to the school-funding comparison, you don't need to replace a handgun ban with anything complex. School funding is a complex issue. Issuing concealed-carry permits is easy. |
|
| Author: | Xequecal [ Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Rafael wrote: He stated in the debates his desire to pass another assault weapons ban. A gun seizure is never performed outright, it's done incrementally. Restrictions and registrations are necessary before a seizure is possible. No one single president will ever take away guns; that is more likely under a monarchy/oligarchy. I would seriously question this. Australia had more permissive gun laws than the US did prior to 1996, but in the wake of the Port Arthur Massacre gun ownership was almost completely banned throughout the country. It was done in less than a year's time, by one administration, which managed to bull rush over several court decisions against it to enforce the ban. IMHO, if guns ever get banned in the US, it's going to happen exactly like it did in Australia. All we need is one President who wants it badly enough and is also good at rhetoric. I suggest you read up on how John Howard got guns banned in Australia, that could easily happen here. He was so effective at demonizing gun owners to the rest of the population as dangerous terrorists who enjoyed killing that eventually the gun owners voluntarily turned in their guns and voted for the gun bans just to avoid the association. |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Was the percentage of the populations that owned guns anywhere near what it is in the US - with the US increasing in the numbers of gun owners from the 80's and 90's to today? |
|
| Author: | Hannibal [ Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Elmarnieh wrote: I have several much older rifles that are more lethal than my AR, more lethal by FAR. Such a shame we lost them in that boating accident. |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Along with the rest of my everything. It was very unfortunate. So much for the Poconos. |
|
| Author: | DFK! [ Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: In 180 days some form of carry for non LEO will be legal |
Rorinthas wrote: I figured y'all worked it out while I was in Texas. You mean you didn't. Make that decades then. Nope, still 100% unconstitutional. I wonder if I could not pay property taxes as a form of social protest, since the law itself is unconstitutional..... |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
well it's the distribution of the property taxes that unconstitutional, not the collection. However I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on the Internet. |
|
| Author: | Rafael [ Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Xequecal wrote: Rafael wrote: He stated in the debates his desire to pass another assault weapons ban. A gun seizure is never performed outright, it's done incrementally. Restrictions and registrations are necessary before a seizure is possible. No one single president will ever take away guns; that is more likely under a monarchy/oligarchy. I would seriously question this. Australia had more permissive gun laws than the US did prior to 1996, but in the wake of the Port Arthur Massacre gun ownership was almost completely banned throughout the country. It was done in less than a year's time, by one administration, which managed to bull rush over several court decisions against it to enforce the ban. IMHO, if guns ever get banned in the US, it's going to happen exactly like it did in Australia. All we need is one President who wants it badly enough and is also good at rhetoric. I suggest you read up on how John Howard got guns banned in Australia, that could easily happen here. He was so effective at demonizing gun owners to the rest of the population as dangerous terrorists who enjoyed killing that eventually the gun owners voluntarily turned in their guns and voted for the gun bans just to avoid the association. Australia has a much more homogeneous culture than the United States. The elite ruling caste in Japan voluntarily surrendered power during the Meiji Restoration in the 1860s for the sake of development and not because of threat of force. That doesn't mean such an event could occur anywhere else. As for the rest, you're completely wrong. First, it would take a registration scheme to effectively seize guns. There are well over 300,000,000 firearms in this country. The act of simply registering them all would take more than any President's combined terms, even if people complied in a timely fashion for registration. Then they would have to enact a confiscation and physically take possession of said 300,000,000 firearms, check them against their database they already spent years developing and ensuring was (nearly) comprehensive and dispose of them. Do you have any idea of what kind of logistics that would take? This is assuming that such an act isn't first declared UnConstitutional and held up in SCotUS and that the bills make it through Congress relatively unimpeded. None of that even addresses the political resistance the general populace/the states would exert in the case of such events. Simply saying it happened in another country, a "constitutional" monarchy at that, is evidence of it happening here is tantamount to saying loaves of fresh baked bread could spontaneously rise anywhere simply because it happens in a bakery. |
|
| Author: | Rafael [ Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Just to put it in perspective, to seize 300,000,000 of anything in 8 years, you'd have to average a seizure rate of over 100,000 per day. |
|
| Author: | Hopwin [ Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Rafael wrote: Just to put it in perspective, to seize 300,000,000 of anything in 8 years, you'd have to average a seizure rate of over 100,000 per day. Wow and that probably doesn't even include functional "antique" firearms? |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|