Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 05/21/2002 9:20:59 AM PDT by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: *bang_list
*bang_list
2 posted on 05/21/2002 9:21:58 AM PDT by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SJackson
Is the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence a pro-RKBA organization?
3 posted on 05/21/2002 9:30:56 AM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SJackson
The May 3rd victim did not deserve to die. But, the politics of gun control made her death a near certainty.

Damn right! If this woman had had a gun she wouldn't have even needed a TRO.

7 posted on 05/21/2002 9:47:10 AM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SJackson
This story is a textbook example of something that plays out daily in places where firearms are denied to potential victims of domestic violence. Restraining orders do nothing to keep an angry individual from kicking down a door and committing murder if that is what the individual has in mind. A restraining order may deny the ability to legally possess a firearm, but that doesn't prevent purchase of a baseball bat or french cook knife at the local department store. A person intent on murder doesn't really give a damn about whether possession of a firearm is illegal either. The intent to commit murder goes well past a simple firearms possession violation.
15 posted on 05/21/2002 10:30:01 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SJackson
- Immediately reconsider SB 604. If it had passed earlier this year, SB 604 would have provided an extra level of protection to women who, like the May 3rd victim, had sworn out orders of protection against violent males. Under SB 604, such women would have been allowed to carry defensive firearms just in case their tormentors ignored the restraining orders.

Unconstitutional as it allows a select group of non-government citizens special rights. Violates the equal protection under the laws clause I think.

18 posted on 05/21/2002 11:01:48 AM PDT by Centurion2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SJackson;spunkets;WhiteKnuckles;Lazamataz;MossbergPump;RedWing9;Chi-townChief;BillyBoy;Mojo-jo-jo
FYI, The following from Concealed carry Inc.

According to a Concealed carry Inc. source, the ICVH failed to make annual reports to the Illinois Secretary of State's office. The I$RA then filed for the name and now it belongs to either the I$RA or an I$RA operative.

31 posted on 05/21/2002 8:19:19 PM PDT by Barnacle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SJackson
As has been noted earlier on this thread, the ICHV name has been taken over by the ISRA since ICHV failed to file the necessary renewals to keep ownership of the name.

I was wondering, though, what are the implications of this with regard to things like checks made payable to ICHV? Could the "new" ICHV legally cash any checks made payable to "ICHV" or the "Illinois Council against Handgun Violence" if they came into physical possession of them?

35 posted on 05/21/2002 11:44:32 PM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SJackson
bttp. This story makes me sick.
36 posted on 05/22/2002 12:06:31 AM PDT by jslade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson