Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: License plate renewals plunge
Next Post: Bill would exempt manufacturers’ profits from state income tax
Posted in:
* Press release excerpt from a Tier One target…
Southern Illinois Senator Gary Forby is making a public stand with local gun owners and calling on President Obama to dial down the anti-gun rhetoric and recognize 2nd Amendment rights.
“Look around. The only gun problem we have in Southern Illinois is people trying to take away our rights. If there’s a problem in Chicago or Washington, D.C., fix it. But don’t take it out on the responsible gun owners of this region,” Forby said.
* AP…
Police in southern Illinois say a 3-year-old boy is expected to recover after he was shot when someone fired rounds into a Granite City home.
Madison County Sheriff’s Department Capt. Mike Dixon says the boy was playing on the living room floor when the shooting happened early Sunday. Dixon says three to four shots were fired into the front of the home from the roadway. One of the rounds struck the boy in the shoulder. Police believe the rounds were fired from a vehicle and that the home was targeted.
* SJ-R…
President Barack Obama’s plan to expand background checks for gun sales at shows, on the internet and elsewhere is igniting the usual firestorm of gun-related rhetoric.
But his plan may be much ado about nothing, at least in Illinois. […]
“I don’t think it’s going to affect us at all,” said Richard Thrasher, manager of the Central Illinois Gun Collectors’ shows held four times a year at the Sangamon County Fairgrounds in New Berlin. “We have followed state and federal regulations right to the letter. We watch it very carefully.”
Thrasher said that some skirting of the registration requirement may occur in Illinois, but that most reports of such avoidance of the law come from Southern states.
“It is minuscule in Illinois,” he said.
* Bloomberg…
In fact, Obama has hardly contradicted the will of Congress, let alone made it difficult for law-abiding people to obtain firearms. His proposed changes are far from historic, and their direct effect on crime seems speculative at best. The most politically contentious aspect of Obama’s executive actions is broadening the definition of a gun dealer. He targets sellers who operate from home, a weekend gun show, or via the Internet. Those sellers aren’t currently required to hold a federal firearm license or submit buyers’ names for background screening by the FBI.
But obliging occasional gun sellers to perform background checks wouldn’t have blocked sale of the weapons used in most recent mass shootings—including the December Islamic terrorist attack in San Bernardino or the December 2012 massacre at an elementary school in Connecticut. The killers in those cases used guns obtained legally through conventional outlets that did do background checks.
Moreover, social science research indicates that relatively few guns currently purchased from unlicensed sellers are sold directly to criminals. The Justice Department found in one survey that just 0.7 percent of state prison inmates in 1997 purchased weapons at a gun show. Forty percent of inmates said they obtained the gun used in their crime from a relative or friend—and those transfers wouldn’t be covered by the Obama proposals. Another 39 precent said they obtained a weapon from the black market, another transfer unaffected by the White House action.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 4:14 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: License plate renewals plunge
Next Post: Bill would exempt manufacturers’ profits from state income tax
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
These ammo-sexuals need to chill. Nothing in Obama’s plans are un-Constitutional…no one is taking any rights away…no guns will be confiscated…no one is going to jail for handing down their guns to their kids. These people just look stupid and more and more people are catching on to their lunacy.
Comment by Stupid is as stupid does Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 4:19 pm
If there’s one thing this issue desperately needs it’s more name calling and angry rhetoric.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 4:30 pm
==Nothing in Obama’s plans are un-Constitutional==
==obliging occasional gun sellers to perform background checks==
Broadening the definition of who needs to be licensed and conduct background checks to include occasional gun sellers would absolutely, to the word, contradict current federal Statute. Meaning he doesn’t have authority to do that.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 4:39 pm
It would not contradict the current federal statute. It would change the regulations under that statute, an executive function.
Comment by JackD Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 5:27 pm
Both sides are heavy in rhetoric. That’s nothing more than firing up the fringe of both bases. The trust by both sides is lacking, so real efforts cannot be accomplished. We need adults, reasonable people ho can see both sides. The children have controlled the debate long enough.
Comment by FormerParatrooper Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 5:44 pm
>> We need adults, reasonable people who can see both sides.
But is the implication here, that Obama’s proposals today represent unreasonable, fringe demands?
Comment by ZC Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 5:49 pm
“Nothing in Obama’s plans are un-Constitutional…”
Unless you have respect for the separation of powers and the role of Congress to legislate… .Obama cannot get his proposals through the House and Senate, so he usurps their functions
Comment by FYI Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 5:59 pm
Hello, this weekend is good in favor of me, because this point in time
i am reading this great informative article here at my home.
Comment by free viral video sites Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 6:38 pm
==It would not contradict the current federal statute. ==
Read 18 USC 921 and 922, then explain how considering an occasional seller as “engaged in the business” of selling is not contradicting that section, then I’ll ask what you’re smoking while reading it.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 6:58 pm
“While President Obama decries gun violence and presses for more laws to restrict ownership, his Justice Department has prosecuted 25 percent fewer cases referred by the main law enforcement agency charged with reducing firearms violence across the country, a computer analysis of U.S. prosecution data shows.” Washington Times
Comment by weltschmerz Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 7:08 pm
Can we retire the misogynistic word “skirting” already?
Comment by Truthiness Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 7:53 pm
Funny nobody comments on the exquisite irony to which Rich has call our attention: “Look around. The only gun problem we have in Southern Illinois is people trying to take away our rights;” “Police in southern Illinois say a 3-year-old boy is expected to recover after he was shot when someone fired rounds into a Granite City home.”
Comment by History Prof Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 8:21 pm
This is for the most part much ado about nothing. Illinois gun owners won’t be affected by this. Unfortunately this will have very little or no effect in reducing these mass shootings we have been living with. All Presidents, as they are nearing the end of their time in office start thinking about their legacy and that has a lot to do with the timing of this. I’m not saying that the President doesn’t sincerely care, I think he does and I think he’s a good man.
Comment by The Dude Abides Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 8:24 pm
ZC
>>
My original post was about the use of rhetoric by both sides, not anything specific about today’s announcements by the President. The President has, in my opinion, used rhetoric in the past about firearms. I had reserved my thoughts on the Executive Order as I had not read it at the time.
Comment by FormerParatrooper Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 8:46 pm
Fair, but even there, I’m not sure what the fringe rhetoric is that Obama has employed in the past.
Comment by ZC Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 8:51 pm
NONE of his executive orders would have prevented any of the 13 shootings that garnered nationwide coverage that occurred during his presidency if they had been implemented.
Comment by Gun Slinger Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 8:52 pm
He’s doing what he can and hopefully they will prevent future tragedies if not the ones that have already occurred.
Comment by JackD Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 8:56 pm
Perhaps none of the shootings referred to would have been prevented by these orders. Let’s hope some future ones may be.
Comment by JackD Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 8:58 pm
Sorry about the duplication. The website told me the first one was duplicative.
Comment by JackD Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 8:59 pm
Clinging to guns and Bibles is the most memorable, as I usually tune out when either side begins the rhetoric.
Comment by FormerParatrooper Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 9:09 pm
Then why do it at all and with all that tearful drama?
Comment by The unknown poster Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 9:20 pm
Moreover, social science research indicates that relatively few guns currently purchased from unlicensed sellers are sold directly to criminals.
This quote from Bloomberg should have preceded my previous post. My apologies.
Comment by The unknown poster Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 9:22 pm
I don’t think you can call Granite City typical Southern Illinois. Not a true comparison to talk about southern Illinois then throw in a story in Granite City as if it is typical Southern Illinois.
Comment by Crispy Critter Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 9:52 pm
I just renewed my NRA membership after an eight year hiatus(too many solicitation calls during dinner) and last night I bought some shares of Smith and Wesson. Thank you BO!
Comment by Blue dog dem Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 9:54 pm
@the unknown poster: How would social science or Bloomberg possibly know? How much is “relatively few”?
Comment by JackD Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 10:15 pm
Since the s
SCOTUS ignores the word Militia in the Constitution I guess we might as well gloss over the WELL REGULATED language as well.
Comment by Triple fat Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 10:36 pm
Triple fat, those words had different meanings when the Amendment was written and the modern definitions do not apply to the intent of the Amendment. Thats an example of one sides rhetoric when discussing the intent of the Amendment.
Comment by FormerParatrooper Tuesday, Jan 5, 16 @ 10:52 pm
Wasn’t Forby the “pro-gun” guy who guided Rep. Brandon Phelps HB183 “NRA backed” concealed carry bill through the Senate in 2013? How about “fixing” their own crummy carry bill?
An unelected Concealed Carry Licensing Review
Board, consisting of three feds, a retired Federal judge and shrink, who review anonymous hearsay accusations from any cop in Illinois, using the “standard” of preponderance of the evidence, the same level of “proof” as Chicago red light camera violations.
Criminal penalties of six months or one year for all gun free zones.
Duty to Inform with criminal penalties, while off duty and retired cops can carry anonymously in all 50 states.
What would we do without the Good Old Boys from southern Illinois looking out for gun owners? I’m sure the NRA will protect us from President Obama. Looking at their track record, maybe not.
Comment by Payback Wednesday, Jan 6, 16 @ 2:54 am
Only going to affect a very few people in Illinois, which is ahead or behind the game as far as gun laws.
As a gun owner and gun rights advocate, I personally see nothing wrong with background checks; an inconvenience, yes, but not actually a handicap to purchasing a gun. And, if I were selling a gun, I would certainly hope that no criminal was purchasing it to commit a crime.
Comment by downstate commissioner Wednesday, Jan 6, 16 @ 8:41 am
I’m not worried about Barack Obama.
ISIL isn’t.
North Korea isn’t.
Russia isn’t.
Syria isn’t.
No one is afraid of weak leaders like him.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jan 6, 16 @ 8:58 am
Cherry-picked much: Bloomberg found the statistic they needed to support their narrative by looking only at state prison inmates in 1997.
Comment by BeenThereB4 Wednesday, Jan 6, 16 @ 8:59 am
Let’s take a second to remember that Senator Forby also threw President Obama and Governor Quinn under the proverbial bus in 2012 when he went all in for coal and coal miners. He’s done it before.
He also has bucked national leadership in previous election years - including doing little for Gordon Maag in 2004 - so this shouldn’t surprise anyone.
Comment by Team Sleep Wednesday, Jan 6, 16 @ 8:59 am
All I can 77% of the American public support his actions…
Comment by Triple fat Wednesday, Jan 6, 16 @ 9:08 am
vanilla man
Your disrespect of the President of the United States is palpable. You list should only include Republican politicians and the Prime Minister of Israel. A ’strong leader’ would’ve taken care of them a long time ago.
Comment by Triple fat Wednesday, Jan 6, 16 @ 9:13 am
Most of those executive actions are a giant nothing burger. The background checks are required anytime a FFL dealer sells a firearm whether online, at a gun show, or a store. If you buy a firearm online it is shipped to a licensed dealer who completes the background check, federal transfer form, and appropriate waiting period. There is nothing nefarious in online sales. The only way what the Pres describes aka a felon purchasing a firearm online w/o a background check would require a private transaction with the internet serving as a classified add. Not much that can be done in regard to that.
The new definition of who is in the business is more of an issue because it is way to vague. As of yesterday there was no definition of what does and doesn’t constitute someone in the business. With the AG stating selling just one gun could make you in the business it’s very problematic. If my dad passes and I sell his collection of firearms am I in the business? I recently aquired the guns and am now selling them that is one of the so called factors?
Some real questions should be asked about why the others toook so long. Why has it taken 7yrs to require FFL dealers to report losses in transit? If ATF needs more bodies why now and not in the last 7yrs? Same for trusts etc.
As for legality it isn’t to the Pres, no matter which party to rewrite statutes. It is possible these tweaks fall inside the statutes as written not sure the business change does.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Jan 6, 16 @ 9:29 am
Did Sen. Forby shepherd the SB836 “improvement” to Phelps carry bill which snuck through on Sunday May 31? Lots of language in SB836 which would allow the State Police to conduct background checks at the Sparta shooting complex in southern IL, and treat it like a gun show so a few shotguns could be sold at events and pump up the depressed economy down south.
State Police were taking the position that Sparta did not qualify as a legit gun show, so out of state competitors could not buy guns or ammo there. In order to buy off the State Police opposition, gun seizure language was placed in the bill, reportedly supplied by the State Police.
How come the worst language in the gun bills comes from Sen. Forby and his counterpart Rep. Brandon Phelps if they are the “pro-gun” guys? If there is a gun problem in southern IL, it’s that most NRA & ISRA members don’t read.
Comment by Payback Wednesday, Jan 6, 16 @ 9:38 pm