I've talked (here and here) about Maryland's proposed ban on homeland defense firearms, and I've talked a bit the proposed new federal AWB, H.R. 1022, but until now, didn't have much to say about this year's version of the Illinois plan to disarm the law-abiding. The reason for that is that until now, there wasn't enough to Illinois S.B. 0016 to comment on.
SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED:That's how it stood from Jan. 31 until yesterday, when they finally decided to get around to telling us peons what they had in store for us (it's too long to post here--after all, they have a vast number of firearms they want to ban--but there's the link).
New Act
Creates the Assault Weapons Ban Act of 2007. Contains only a short title provision.
A BILL FOR
SB0016
1 AN ACT concerning criminal law.
2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:
4 Section 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the
5 Assault Weapons Ban Act of 2007.
It would ban almost all semi-automatic firearms, .50 caliber rifles (which still don't seem to have caused any deaths in America yet), and magazines that can hold eleven or more rounds.
This isn't about saving lives--this is, as the Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer said about the now-defunct federal AWB, about desensitizing the public to the idea of an all out ban on all firearms. That is always the agenda that drives every piece of restrictive gun legislation introduced.
I guess that's the kind of legislation (and those are the kinds of legislators) that $1.8 million of Joyce Foundation money given to the ICHV buys.
Don't forget about IGOLD a week from tomorrow. Our legislators need an education more than ever, and they need it in a hurry.
Stumble it!
4 comments:
I see nothing about pitchforks, tar, feathers, rails rope in there.
You should still have some tools to deal with the mentally challenged "representatives" that were elected by all the dead folks voting there.
we need to start passing "good for the goose, good for the gander" laws nation wide, since it's obvious that these corrupt bastards think that we have a caste system in the united states. No exemptions for cops, military, or anyone else.
If all else fails, Ohio could use some more gun loving, and freedom loving folks. Just stay out of the big cities...and no, we don't want any of the stinking anti-American scum thank you very much, we've got enough already.
HH--it gets worse. Today, during the committee hearing (the abomination passed, of course), the committee chairperson suppressed all opposing testimony, but allowed supporting testimony.
In a tactic as bad as the Soviet Union, Committee Chairman Susan Garrett denied gun owners the opportunity to testify against SB16 in senate hearings on the bill today. In effect, YOUR VOICE WAS SILENCED by Sen. Garrett. Of course, Daley’s Gun Grabbers were allowed to testify.
Apparently, the First Amendment means little more to these thugs than the Second does.
ve don't care vut you have to say! ve vant you to die!
Even looking back at Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), one sees that It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think [116 U.S. 252, 266] it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.
I wonder what they'd have to say about this abomination?
Take that and the arguments in the Miller case, and someone with some cash might be able to stick this crap back into these whore's holes where it belong. If only the system could be reset and honest, and based solely on AMERICAN law.
HH, thanks for the Presser v. Illinois ruling--maybe I can get that to someone who can do something usefl with it.
Post a Comment