Posted on 05/09/2008 8:49:08 AM PDT by neverdem
Postcards with a picture of a handgun and children as targets started appearing in mailboxes and on windshields in a few central Lake County towns this week.
The postcards, distributed by representatives of the Brady Campaign, a national gun control advocacy group, criticize Republican state Rep. Sandy Cole of Grayslake for voting against legislation that would require background checks on all handgun sales.
"She is against universal background checks," said Jennifer Bishop, Illinois Million Mom March national program director for victims and survivors while handing out leaflets Thursday outside Cole's Grayslake office. "This bill is an extra layer of protection."
The bill was defeated in the Illinois House in April.
Cole's office released a statement earlier calling the mailers misleading.
"All Illinois residents who buy or possess firearms, including handguns, are required by law to have a valid (Firearm Owners Identification) card. FOID cards are issued by the Illinois State Police after they conduct a background check of the applicant (a 30-day process)," the statement read.
Cole said in her statement, "under current Illinois law, all private sales of firearms must include an examination of the purchaser's FOID card. The FOID card system and other controls on private gun sales work well here in Illinois."
Bishop says the FOID cards are not foolproof and that last year Illinois State Police reported that 1,000 people with valid FOID cards failed background checks at gun stores.
"With the FOID card you only undergo a background check every 10 years," she said. "It doesn't check everything."
Cole's 62nd Representative District includes all or portions of Gurnee, Grayslake, Hainesville, Lake Villa, Lindenhurst, Old Mill Creek, the Round Lake communities, Third Lake and unincorporated areas in northern Lake County.
The group is targeting a similar postcard campaign at state Rep. Dennis Reboletti of Elmhurst, who also voted against the legislation.
(...The Left believes that they can distract you with the national debate over gun rights while they make their move at the local level...)
The gun grabbing left is quite energized and sophisticated in its targeting of politicians who defend the RKBA this year.
I like what J.C. Watts said, “Guns are as responsible for crime - as chains are responsible for slavery.”
The Marxist left that is intent on disarming the law-abiding public (yes, the same leftists that do not prosecute criminals that commit crimes with guns) continues its efforts to neutralize the reason behind the Second Amendment. It is an obstacle to their agenda, as is the entire Constitution.
For Socialism to able able to advance unhindered, an unarmed citizenry is a must.
What did the NAZI party do first?
the National Socialist German Workers’ Party?
Outlaw all private handguns? - Why?
Almost all of these are probably for mandated alcohol abuse treatment after a DUI. Even so, I still think the number is exaggerated.
Almost all of these are probably for mandated alcohol abuse treatment after a DUI.
Why so? Does treatment for a DUI stop a NICS check?
BS on both counts. A full bg check is made and renewal/bg check is every 5 years.
Most oppressive regimes outlawed or restricted firearm ownership. It's one of the early chapters in the "Despot's Guide to Complete Power," and on the quick check list in Appendix A.
IL considers alcohol treatment for DUI a firearm disability. Fed law now requires the States to forward all know disqualifiers to the feds for inclusion in the NCIS dbase, that includes the fed and state disqualifiers.
Prior to the recent fed law that made this mandatory, the feds had asked the states to do so voluntarily. IL had always done so. VA did not, that's why VA's knowledge of Cho's adjudication of being a mental defective dangerous to himself, a fed disqualifier, never ended up in NCIS.
Where can I get one of these card so I can deface it, write a reason why and publicly post it to show my anger at the Left?
Thanks for the feedback.
Note: The NRA sponsored federal bill!!!
“The gun grabbing left is quite energized and sophisticated in its targeting of politicians who defend the RKBA this year.”
They can’t help it, it’s their nature to be a bunch of hand-wringing EMO’s. If things don’t change for the country we’re going to resemble Bosnia in a few years and they’ll be the first to go.
The NRA supported it. Only congress folks can sponsor a bill. What's the problem with preventing felons and those adjudicated a danger to folks due to mental defect from obtaining firearms through fraud and deciet? Do you think those with state disqualifiers should be able to lie and obtain firearms in violation of the laws in the state where they reside?
So you believe that a DUI should be grounds for removing 2nd amendment rights?
"So you believe that a DUI should be grounds for removing 2nd amendment rights?"
No, the State of IL does. They consider a person that drives intoxicated to be a danger to self and others, due to mental defect, and in need of treatment. The State of IL considers that person to be of insufficient mental capacity to possess firearms, until such time as they may be "cured".
The particulars of any of the various disqualifiers are irrelevant to the reason for the background check. They are separate concerns in the law. States have their concerns and the feds have theirs. The background check itself is intended to prevent the disqualified from purchasing firearms in the legitimate market. It serves the legitimate purpose of preventing those convicted and proven to be violent criminals, and/or psychopaths from walking into a store and buying what they want to further their parasitic and murderous intents. It is justified on that ground and has no detrimental effect on Freedom, because only those that have proven themselves to be vicious and unconcerned about the rights of others end up being turned down.
Those disqualifiers that have no relation to such an end, such as simple DUI, domestic misdemeanors, ect..., should fall on their own. The background check should not fall, because of the existence of those ridiculous disqualifiers.
As the law was written, a person could petition to get their Rights back which was something that wasn’t in the original law.
So do you think people should lose their Rights forever?
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.