IL State Rifle Assn: ERIC HOLDER AND U.S. DEPARTMENT PLANNING NEW GUN RESTRICTIONS

[tankarian]

URGENT ALERT!
ERIC HOLDER AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BEHIND DANGEROUS NEW PROPOSAL TO RESTRICT RIGHTS OF ILLINOIS GUN OWNERS

BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT: U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Illinois State Police are teaming up to pass legislation to destroy your right to privacy and your gun rights in exchange for federal grant money. More

These Obama administration jack booted thugs DOJ people and their mafioso boss Attorney General never give up, don't they?

[SilverTauron]

Looks like devils' hands have been busy this Monday.


Edit: Crafty legislative lingo. From the bill text, this passage essentially criminalizes any resolution of a Domestic Violence case outside of a jury trial ruling "not guilty".

-if the applicant or person who has been issued a Firearm Owner's Identification Card knowingly and intelligently waives the right to have that offense tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise, resulting in conviction for an offense in which a domestic relationship is not a defining element of the offense but in which a determination of domestic relationship is made under the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, an entry by the court of a judgment of conviction for that offense shall be grounds for denying the issuance of a Firearm Owner's Identification Card or for revoking and seizing a card previously issued.

From http://ilga.gov/legislation/BillStat...Session=&GA=97

[SilverTauron]

Do you not know that the Disarmament Lobby is a CHAMPION of states rights? They stood tall as they opposed the overreach of the Federal government when the liberators known as Schuman and McCarthy spoke against H.R. 822 and for the Tenth-

*whispered words are said in the background*

Oh.About Obamacare and the failed Assault Weapons Ban renewal, uh, ahem,there's an explanation somewhere.........

[rp55]

Wow! A 60 day wait. Makes CA look downright reasonable.

[Untamed1972]

Wow! A 60 day wait. Makes CA look downright reasonable.

I see some sort of "right to travel" violation there. Hasn't similar caselaw already settled on issues of treating "new residents" differently than current residents when it comes to Gov't benefits etc?

[Apocalypsenerd]

Is it just me or does that thing look like a slowball pitch for a legal challenge?