Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed a gun-control measure into law on Sunday that expands background checks to cover all firearms purchases in the state, closing what he said was a loophole that exempted gun sales between private parties.
The new law also requires all gun owners to report any lost or stolen firearms to local police within 72 hours.
"Guns are a plague on too many of our communities," Quinn, a Democrat, said in a statement. "Making sure guns do not fall into the wrong hands is critical to keeping the people of Illinois safe. This commonsense law will help our law enforcement crack down on crime and make our streets safer."
The expanded background checks go into effect on January 1, 2014.
This is hat TS hysterically calls "creating felonies."
These laws were being pushed by the Chicago Police Chief as what he needed to bring the violent crime problem in the city under control. Though more recently, he has said that their new strategy for addressing gang violence is what is causing this year's drop in violent crime.
ReplyDeleteWhile I wish him well on his efforts to combat violent crime using police work, I wonder at what point, someone needs to tell the top cop, sorry, its just not working out and show him the door.
He seems to be very adept at supplying excuses as opposed to results.
There's nothing hysterical (and I've understood TS to be a man, anyway) about telling the truth. Of course, this being Illinois, it's only digging the hole deeper.
ReplyDeleteYou really ARE a word purist. I wasn't mocking TS with the etymology of the word.
DeleteHysteria is a term that doctors used to use when they meant, the woman is crazy. As a supporter of women's rights, I expected you to know that.
DeleteYou really thought I DIDN'T know that? In my comment I referred to the "etymology of the word." What did you think I meant?
DeleteMikeb, we've discussed this before. You use sexist language against people you don't like.
DeleteYou know that's not true. Kurt caught me out ONCE and made a gigantic big deal out of it. That's what you guys do.
DeleteIn this case I used the common word "hystercal" with no sexist connection to its original meaning.
I never call people cunts or pussies even when I'm trying to be as insulting as possible in describing your psychological handcaps. Those are sexist terms. I don't use 'em and fuck you for sayin' I do. (Add that one to the couple of other times I've said "fuck you" to you).
No, but you do call female singers you dislike stupid cows.
DeleteHave you forgotten so soon what you called Rihanna? How about the woman with a gun who was walking her dog? When a woman does something that you don't like, you call her a silly cow. Perhaps you don't mean that in a sexist manner, but I've never seen you call a man that.
DeleteYeah, I think that's the one Kurt made a big deal out of. "Stupid cunt" is a sexist put-down. "Silly cow" is a poor substitute, certainly not enough to make a case out of like you guys are trying to do.
DeleteWhy don't you stick to the gun debate? Attacking me for other things is distracting from the business at hand.
Poor substitutes are your MO, Mikeb.
DeleteAnd nit picking on them and pretending they're serious is yours.
DeleteSo it's your position that it would be wrong for you to call her a stupid cunt, but using a watered down stand-in as a substitute is A-OK?
DeleteNo wonder you guys see "racist code words" and "dog whistles" everywhere! Apparently you use them regularly and are projecting your own bad behavior on the rest of us.
Oh, are you saying this law doesn't create a new crime?
ReplyDeleteI reject your formula. Laws don't CREATE crime any more than guns go off by themselves. People break laws and THAT creates crime.
DeleteAlright, I'll rephrase it for you: the anti-gun people created a law which means that when someone does something which is not immoral, non-violent, and has no victim of harm, and used to be perfectly legal... they will now be breaking a law, thereby creating a crime which could land them in prison for several years. Better?
DeleteAnd you say Greg is the word purist.
Mike, if you're going to nit pick that way, then look at what TS's words were: "Create a new crime," not "CREATE crime."
DeleteHe's not saying that your gun control laws Cause crime to go up, but that they create new crimes that can be committed, sometimes completely unintentionally.
Yes, Greg brought up the etymology of Hysterical--he did so to make a joke, not to be a word purist. A joke that is EVEN MORE funny because of your self serving choices in how to re-define what people say and what arguments they make.
TS is right. Laws criminalize certain behaviors and define what is legally a crime. For example, prior to 1919, alcohol production and consumption was legal. The 18th Amendment made it illegal, and people were prosecuted for this previously legal activity. In 1933, the Amendment was repealed, and the people who made or drank alcohol were not criminals any more. Same with a private gun transaction. Last month you could sell a gun to your neighbor and not be a criminal. This new law makes that sale a crime, and you (and the neighbor) criminals. Hence, the law creates a new crime.
DeleteActually, Mike, I looked into this bill a bit, and at first glance I am pretty much ok with it. This is because it doesn't create a new crime. Instead it provides a phone number to call and verify that it's a good transaction, which is what I have been saying I support for years. So are you hysterical over this, or can we agree that this is a better way to go about it than Schumer's ideas?
DeleteTom, the way you describe it you're taking the responsibility away from the person and blaming the law. That's not right.
DeleteTS, yes indeed I agree with that. I've always agreed with that. Sometimes I think you're so busy arguing with what I say that you fail to see where I agree with you.
Mikeb, you've advocated legalizing marijuana. I agree with you on that. The law there is making criminals out of people who are doing nothing wrong. The same is true about these gun laws.
DeleteWhat Tom said had no bearing on the responsibility of the people. It merely noted that at one point in Time, there was no crime when an act was done, and at another point, there was a crime committed--a new type of crime that did not exist to be committed at the other point in time.
DeleteThe logic here is pretty blindingly obvious.
As for your agreement with TS, I thought you insisted on having records kept of every transaction, having FFL's do the background check, and having criminal charges to back up the requirements?
You're agreeing that it is better to create a system for private use, than to force transactions to happen at an FFL by making it a crime not to? Yes we talked about this numerous times, but at best you've said "you don't care", but you have always favored the FFL idea, and you specifically call it out that way.
DeleteNever give an inch, guys. Saying laws make criminals out of people is as ass-backwards as saying guns go off. Both wrong ways of expressing the idea take the onus off the human person who makes decisions and should be held responsible for them.
DeleteI often said going to the local FFL and paying a nominal fee is not the big deal you guys say it is. And that's one way background checks could be required on private sales with no change in the infrastructure, so to speak. I never said it had to be that way.
Except for all those times that TS suggested his proposal and you told him that it was absolutely unacceptable because it didn't leave a paper trail.
DeleteAs for the "making criminals" red herring you just threw out there, we said that these laws make new CRIMES. You are, again, trying to knock us off balance by changing the topic rather than admitting that you called TS hysterical for simply stating a fact.
When the law makes no sense by banning or restricting something that should not be covered by law, good people don't expect such foolishness or resist the violation. The responsibility lies with the criminal legislators and executives who push these laws in the first place.
DeleteYou're wrong, T. Go back and check TS's comments. He often called it "Mmaking millions of new felons." Not felonies, but felons, as in people.
DeleteRegardless of this nit picking of yours, the whole thing is wrong because it takes the responsibility away from the people and blames the whole thing of the laws.
Your comment in this post itself:
Delete"This is hat TS hysterically calls 'creating felonies.'"
After that, this entire thread of the comments has been discussing whether or not the law creates a new felony crime.
If what you just posted is an actual TS quote it is from a different discussion and therefore immaterial in this context.
If you want to discuss the idea of gun control laws "creating felons" then make a new blog post on that and we can hash that out. However, that was not the topic you chose to fight on here; instead, you chose to fight on whether a new criminal law created a new crime.
And how exactly is it removing responsibility from people to say that a new law creates a new type of crime--namely the violation of that law?
DeleteI often state how many once perfectly legal activities/people would be felonies/turned into felons by a law. I acknowledge that there will be a reduction in the number of activities/people because some will be aware and alter their behavior or dispose of a now prohibited item. But I don't have a problem saying the law turns people into felons- and that seems to be Mike's big beef. They weren't a felon before... a law got passed... now they are a felon. Could they have done something to not be a felon? Sure, but they wouldn't be a felon if it were not for the law as well- especially in the cases where one has to actively do something to not become a felon (like disposing of a 15 rd magazine).
DeleteMike seems to think there is no such thing as "bad law". So tell me, Mike, why do you call voter ID laws "voter suppression"? That takes away the responsibility from the people to go out and get an ID and blames the law.
Disclosure: I don't support voter ID laws. I like to point out cases of your hypocrisy by being consistent myself.
Mikeb opposes any law against something that he wants you to do. As long as you follow his prescribed behavior, you should be o.k. Until the next administration decides that we've always been at war with Oceania, that is.
Delete"If what you just posted is an actual TS quote it is from a different discussion and therefore immaterial in this context." Is that a new rule, T.?
DeleteNew laws don't "create felons or felonies," unless people break the new laws.
Ok, and voter ID laws don't supress anybody's vote. To say that takes away the responsibility of the person to go get an ID.
DeleteBanning abortions doesn't take away anyone's reproductive rights. To say that takes away the responsibility of people to use protection when the have intercourse.
And how would you describe a Republican attempt to pass a law that makes it a felony to be in this country illegally? I would call that turning 11 million people into felons. What would you call that? How do you phrase such a thing?
The fact that you cannot admit that a new law does not create a new crime that can be committed shows a shocking lack of logic that reveals that it's pointless to debate the issue of new laws turning people into felons when they accidentally violate them.
DeleteTS has asked several questions to Illustrate the point about creating criminals and felons. It will be interesting to see if you answer the questions and how you make your answers mesh with your stated rule.
From what I understand, an Illinois Firearms Owner's Identification card (FOID) is required to both purchase and possess a firearm. To get an FOID, the applicant is required to undergo a background check to insure they aren't a prohibited person. We just recently read here that the government actively come to visit when they revoke your permit.
ReplyDeleteIn a private purchase, the seller is required to check the buyer's FOID card. So in reality, there are background checks for private sales. But leave it to the government to do its best to make it plain they don't want you doing something by making you do things over again.
Dumbass law with no teeth...
ReplyDeleteYeah, it has no teeth and no penalties either. Why? Because there isn't any thing to call. There is no phone number yet and no offense if you don't call it. The transfer rules are still the same, you take down the FIOD card info and transfer the gun. That's it! Same as it has always been. No FIOD card? Well then your in trouble as a straw purchaser, same as it has always been.
ReplyDeleteThe question still remains with this "NEW" law however, will it ever get set up in the first place? A new entity that's going to cost millions. Will it get past the funding phase?
This new law was bone thrown to the anti's just so they could say they won something on this issue, nothing more. Its a non-law, nothing to call, no penalties for not calling. Nothing changes at all.
Read the law, its pretty funny.