Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good!!! Imagine -- Obama requiring lawbiding American citizens to have background checks but for foreigners breaking the laws, he's going to reward them with a massive amnesty and no background checks.
Exactly!
When you buy a gun online it is required by LAW to be shipped to an FFL.. that means when it arrives at the FFL they are required by law - already to do a background check.. If you fail the background check, you don't get your money back on your purchase of the gun in some cases.. (i've already looked into this).
not all gun shows in all states require a background check though. Colorado requires a background check at all gun shows.. and look what good it has done Colorado..
All sales from licensed dealers at gun shows, which make up the vast majority of the sellers, require a NICS check. Federal law, no getting around it. In some states, sales between private individuals at gun shows do not require a NICS.
That's not true - US Supreme Court only ruled that complete ban on firearm (DC and Chicago) as unconstitutional so they don't rule on other gun control laws that many states have one.
That's not true - US Supreme Court only ruled that complete ban on firearm (DC and Chicago) as unconstitutional so they don't rule on other gun control laws that many states have one.
Their are about 3-5 other carry cases which have the possibility to go before SCOTUS in the next session. Read about Moore V Madigan. Here is part of the pro gun ruling, we are waiting to see if the Illinois AG will speak to SCOTUS, if she doesn't then Illinois will become constitutional carry in a few months if the legislator doesn't pass some form of ccw system, and the legislator is very conservative.
Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower. A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress.
Their are about 3-5 other carry cases which have the possibility to go before SCOTUS in the next session. Read about Moore V Madigan. Here is part of the pro gun ruling, we are waiting to see if the Illinois AG will speak to SCOTUS, if she doesn't then Illinois will become constitutional carry in a few months if the legislator doesn't pass some form of ccw system, and the legislator is very conservative.
Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower. A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress.
If IL allows but they will make CCW permit more difficult to obtain and they are very anti-gun state, except for rural area and southern part of this state.
I don't care about IL - if you are not satisfy with their gun law so don't relocate to their state.
If IL allows but they will make CCW permit more difficult to obtain and they are very anti-gun state, except for rural area and southern part of this state.
I don't care about IL - if you are not satisfy with their gun law so don't relocate to their state.
The legiator is conservative, they passed ccw reform a couple of times the last few years but the democrat governor vetoed it. They have three choice. 1. Appeal to SCOTUS, possibly affecting gun control in every other state. 2. Pass some form of ccw process that the republican state congress wants 3. Do nothing and in July everyone in the state that can legally own a gun will be able to carry concealed with approval.
My guess is they will appeal, the democrat governor is already pressuring the AG. This case causes a circut split and will most likely be taken it. It is a very strait forward, narrow case, which is what SCOTUS seems to be taking recently.
The legiator is conservative, they passed ccw reform a couple of times the last few years but the democrat governor vetoed it. They have three choice. 1. Appeal to SCOTUS, possibly affecting gun control in every other state. 2. Pass some form of ccw process that the republican state congress wants 3. Do nothing and in July everyone in the state that can legally own a gun will be able to carry concealed with approval.
My guess is they will appeal, the democrat governor is already pressuring the AG. This case causes a circut split and will most likely be taken it. It is a very strait forward, narrow case, which is what SCOTUS seems to be taking recently.
Affect all states? Unlikely until other round come in.
If in case with pro-gun, US Supreme Court will likely to tell IL to draft the CCW bill with regulation, regardless it is lenient or too strict, that all they care like they did to Chicago after struck the gun law down. My good friend left Chicago after realized about how is most difficult to obtain the gun in Chicago and the state is really terrible for gun owners.
If Illinoisans are serious with guns - move to other state like WI and Indiana.
They are not cowards if they represent the will of the people that voted them into office. They are representatives of the people. They were not elected by bogus opinion polls.
They are not cowards if they represent the will of the people that voted them into office. They are representatives of the people. They were not elected by bogus opinion polls.
That's true, and my question is why do people not want things to be safer? Why do they want dangerous people to have guns? When will Americans acknowledge that putting more guns into the hands of more people has done nothing to make the U.S. a safer place, but has given it catastrophic levels of gun violence?
Affect all states? Unlikely until other round come in.
If in case with pro-gun, US Supreme Court will likely to tell IL to draft the CCW bill with regulation, regardless it is lenient or too strict, that all they care like they did to Chicago after struck the gun law down. My good friend left Chicago after realized about how is most difficult to obtain the gun in Chicago and the state is really terrible for gun owners.
If Illinoisans are serious with guns - move to other state like WI and Indiana.
When SCOTUS rules it affects all states. Basically they are going to be asked "does the second ammendment apply to individuals outside of the home" if they answer yes that means all states will either have to
1. Issue permits to anyone who can legally own a gun (shall issue) like is the case currently in most states
OR
2. Allow people to openly carry handguns.
My guess is most states will go with option 1.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
