Skip to comments.Gun owner: I, not cops, got bad guy
Posted on 01/22/2004 3:22:03 AM PST by kattracks
click here to read article
It depends on the reading, and how the commas are interpreted.
Nonetheless, Section 241 is quite clear and leaves no room for ambiguity.
You're F***ing welcome.
The NRA was there when we fought the Oak Park gun ban and they were there for the others. They gave matching funds for our fight and the best advice they could in a village that was a "nuclear free" zone. I moved soon after.
Now all you have to do is see that the Armed Females put their money where their mouth is and match the same funds the NRA is going to put out for the upcoming Winnetka fights. That's because instead of childish attacks against any gun group we have a bigger enemy to fight. Too bad the Armed Females don't seem to get that.
Correction: Any officer out there doing this shouldn't be patting themselves on the back, but hang their head in shame for being unAmerican.
How eloquent! Is that supposed to convince me that I'm wrong? If so, it didn't have the intended effect.
That's because instead of childish attacks against any gun group we have a bigger enemy to fight.
In case you didn't understand my first post, the message I was sending was to point out that YOU should stop attacking other pro-gun groups. Yes, it is a fact that the NRA is the oldest gun rights organization, and the largest by far. As such, it is only logical that it has far more in resources than any other group - probably more than the rest combined. I pointed out to you that I, myself, am a member and have been since 1989, so I am obviously happy enough with it to keep giving them my hard-earned money. What I am unhappy with is YOUR bashing of other pro-gun groups. Supporting and defending the NRA because you believe it to be the best organization that we have to help preserve (and re-take) our 2nd Amendment rights is fine - and is probably objectively correct. But attacking other groups that are also fighting for our RKBA is unacceptable. Just as we shouldn't denigrate the UK and Italy for failing to contribute as much to the Iraq War as the US did - because they ARE allies and ARE fighting for the same goal - so should you refrain from attacking AFA, GOA, CCRKBA, JPFO and any other group that is allied with the NRA in the fight to preserve our RKBA.
Too bad the Armed Females don't seem to get that.
As I indicated, I've never been a member of AFA. I'll add that I don't intend to join, either. Thus, I am NOT carrying any of their water. I addressed you about this AS A FELLOW NRA MEMBER because you have a habit of defending every single thing that the NRA does (and it is no more perfect than any individual is perfect), while simultaneously bashing every other pro-gun group. If you are honest with yourself, you'll admit that it is true. While I don't ask for and don't expect you to either admit it to me or to apologize to anyone, I do ask you to stop bashing other gun groups. As you yourself pointed out "...we have a bigger enemy to fight." It would be nice if you followed your own advice - because it happens to be correct. Focus on and fight the real enemies - the Schumers, Feinsteins, Bradys, Kennedys, Reeds, etc. - and leave alone the people pulling in the same general direction as the NRA.
(If you want on or off this Illinois ping list, please send me a FReepmail)
If you read the statutes closely, you'll notice that when the Unlawful Use of Weapon statute describes the requirement for an Illinois resident to have a FOID card when in possession of a firearm outside his residence or fixed place of business, it explicitly states that the FOID card must be current and valid. Likewise the statutes regarding sales of firearms require the recipient to have a current and valid FOID. The FOID act applicable to possession in one's home or fixed place of business, however, merely requires that the person possess a FOID card previously issued to the person by the Illinois State Police.
I'd be curious to know if anyone has taken this issue to court, since the difference in language does not seem to be accidental. Legislators could have had good reason to make the distinction, since it avoids making someone a criminal by default, and also prevents the state from making someone a criminal by failing to renew a FOID card in a timely manner. Someone whose FOID card application was sat upon by the state would not be allowed to buy firearms or ammunition, nor to transport firearms unless disassembled, but they could leave their firearms at home while waiting for the state to issue the FOID card as required by law.
Unfortunately, the Illinois Supreme Court has declared that cities may ban or arbitrarily restrict ownership of any type of firearms provided only that they don't absolutely forbid ownership of all firearms. I know that doesn't make such bans unconstitutional any more than a court declaration that "two plus two is five" would make it so. But the government that makes such declarations is more than willing to use force against anyone who would challenge them.
The language is not accidental. It is compromise language negotiated in order that cynical politicians could be on both sides of the issue at the same time. They target one piece of mail to gun control supporters "I supported taking guns off the street." They target another piece of mail to pro-gun voters "I fought for your right to protect your family in your own home."
They are currently running the Oberweiss campaign in Illinois. They are cynically exploiting the immigration issue the same way. Their position on immigration, and guns, and every issue is whatever will get them power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.