ATTORNEYS LAW STUDENTS PUBLIC
TOP POSTS ALL POSTS SUBMIT POST
Share | Print | Report Post Second Amendment Chatboard

Re: Denied Illinois FOID card
Posted by Illinois on 3/01/08

    Illinois is the leader in taking away your rights. What’s next, will Illinois demand you put the 666 chips under skin for idefication and
    tracking purposes? My opinion as I look at what Illinois legislators are trying to do is break Illinois away from the constitution and
    the United States to form their own little country. Illinois makes you have a licenses for everything, fishing, hunting, drivers,
    firearms, etc, they also make grown adults were a seat belt in their own car and if you don’t want to go to jury duty, you go to jail.
    Illinois the communist State love or leave it, I guess. I am trying to leave it and return to the rest of the United States again, where
    state officials follow the constitution.

    On 2/29/08, -- wrote:
    > On 2/29/08, Guns wrote:
    >> Anti-gun Bills Poised to be Heard at Any Moment in the Illinois House!
    >>
    >> In the Illinois State House there are six bills that are aimed at weakening your Second Amendment rights.
    >>
    >> House Bill 731 would expand the current mandatory storage law and make it virtually impossible for law-abiding gun owners to store a
    >> firearm in a way that would leave it readily accessible for self-defense;
    >>
    >> House Bill 758 would create a virtual ban on the private transfer of firearms;
    >>
    >> House Bill 796 would create a new state-based licensing bureaucracy for firearm dealers;
    >>
    >> House Bill 4357 would ban countless semi-automatic firearms and .50 cal. rifles and ammunition;
    >>
    >> House Bill 4393 would place a limit on the number of handguns an individual may lawfully purchase;
    >>
    >> Finally, Senate Bill 1007 would ban the manufacture, possession, delivery, sale, and purchase of standard capacity ammunition
    >> magazines capable of holding more than ten (10) cartridges. This bill is worded so broadly that it would also ban certain firearms,
    >> such as some Henry rifles, which have attached tubular magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. This lever-
    >> action rifle, whose design dates back to the 1860s, could be prohibited under SB 1007, making this bill far more than a magazine ban.
    >
    > If the US Supreme Court decides in favor of Heller in "D.C. v. Heller" the proposed bills you have copied above will be dead in the
    > water whether they pass or not. What these bill try to do is exactly what "Heller" is going to decide.
    >
    > Here’s the questions presented in Heller:
    >
    > Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code §§ 7.2502.02(a)(4) [banning handguns], 22-4504(a) [banning gun carrying, including at
    > home], and 7.2507.02 [requiring all guns to be both unloaded and locked or disassembled] — violate the Second Amendment rights of
    > individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use
    > in their homes?
    >
    > (1) Does the Second Amendment protect a right of individuals?
    >
    > (2) If so, do individuals enjoy that right regardless of whether they are currently affiliated with a state-regulated militia
    > organization?
    >
    > (3) If so, then what purposes, of the various purposes for which individuals may wish to keep or bear arms, are constitutionally
    > protected?
    >

     
     

 
Google
 
Web Counsel.Net
  Site Map: Home Search Legal Jobs Classifieds Law Students Contacts Practice Areas Advertise
  © 1996 - 2008. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.