Looking through some of the forum comments, like the one here. I don’t honestly think preemption can be negotiated. Anyone who’s read me for any length of time knows that I understand an incremental approach to progress on the political front, and I’m glad the folks in IL aren’t taking the path some other states did, and opposed a reasonable RTC bill because it wasn’t the perfect bill. But there’s a difference between a less than perfect bill, and a bad bill, and I think any RTC bill without preemption is a bad bill. Let me address some of the points brought up in this forum comment:
The idea that supporting a non-preemption law would give room to the gun grabbers in other states is idiotic. That would only be true if the NRA used the language of Barak Obama – you know, what works in Texas wouldn’t work in New York City, blah blah blah
No, it’s not. When NRA fights for preemption in other states, and argues it’s a bedrock principle, it doesn’t exactly help if they can point to their abandonment of the principle in the State of Illinois. Considering NRA is currently fighting preemption issues here in Pennsylvania, I prefer them taking a hard line position on it.
The idea that they want to protect their members from a “patchwork” of laws is idiotic. By that logic, they should only support a national carry law and oppose all state LTC laws.
NRA does support National Carry, much to my dismay (I think it’s only possible under the 14th amendment, not the commerce clause). But that aside, state lines are well delineated and marked, and in our federal system, people are generally aware that the law changes at state borders. Most people don’t know or think when they cross from one town to another, they could have gone from legally carrying a gun, to committing a crime. You’re going to be giving people piece of paper called “Illinois License to Carry Firearms.” Presumably they will also learn that it doesn’t mean it’s valid everywhere. But there will be gun owners who get stopped by the police, who find themselves saying “Get out of the car officer? But wait, officer, I thought it was Peoria that banned guns, not Springfield.” or “I’m sorry? I didn’t realize I had crossed into Urbana.”
The idea that they want to protect their members from a “patchwork” of laws is idiotic for another reason: as it stands now Illinoisans are both deprived of a civil right and prohibited from defending themselves. Is the NRA seriously suggesting that having to figure out a “patchwork” of laws is somehow worse than being defenseless and oppressed?
It’s a tradeoff. The place in IL people most need to defend themselves is Chicago, and this bill won’t help anyone there. It comes down to how many people will use their legally aquired guns to defend themselves, versus how many people will get in trouble if they get stopped in the wrong town, or have to use their gun in the wrong town. Will it be possible at all to carry and remain in compliance with the law if you’re traveling?
Even if everything the NRA was saying made sense, how is it acceptable that they lobbied BEHIND OUR BACKS against an LTC bill supported by this and other organizations????? Todd is on this forum. He knew about the position taken by IllinoisCarry and the ISRA. He has engaged in discussions about the pros and cons of the various bills. So someone (quite possibly Todd) owed us the courtesy of a clear statement on the NRA’s position.
I’m not going to bash NRA for wrestling the gun away from someone who was about to shoot themselves in the foot (from NRA’s point of view). I would prefer NRA remain neutral on the bill, but I understand why they wanted to kill it initially. How do you think members are going to feel when people start getting in trouble for getting stopped in the wrong town? Will an NRA member who loses his job because he has to go to jail for a few months feel good about the law? Will his family when he has trouble finding a new job because he has a conviction for a gun charge on his criminal record? Will people feel good about NRA when they don’t have the political power to fix the problem?
This is one thing people in the gun issue need to get: your personal voice is not the collective voice of NRA members, and just because you know other people who agree with you doesn’t make that any more so. I would not presume to speak for NRA or NRA members. I have my own point of view on things, and while I’d like to think I have more influence than average over NRA, I don’t expect or demand they adopt all of my opinions as theirs.
I don’t agree with NRA’s support of the parking lot laws, and I think the National Concealed Carry bills proposed by Congress, that they would back, are dangerous. But that’s my opinion. I’ve discussed it with people at NRA and they don’t agree with my view. That’s fine. In a civic organization, I’m one opinion, and one vote. I don’t expect them to agree with me on everything, consult me before making decisions on legislative or political matters. The only thing you can do is make your voice heard, and a lot of people are doing that. That’s positive. Members should feel free to air their feelings to board members and staff.  But NRA is a civic organization, meaning you wouldn’t approach it like you would a merchant selling a product. I get tired of hearing this notion that “NRA isn’t listening to its members.” because it won’t listen to you. One opinion out of four million. We’re not always going to get our way, and shouldn’t expect to. It’s frustrating, but it’s no reason to bash the organization as a whole.
Today we have yet another sad panda alert. Bryan Miller and the Philadelphia Inquirer are whining that Obama is reintroducing a modified version of the Tiahrt Amendment, which allows for more sharing of trace data with police agencies, but not politicians and the media. This is, naturally, outrageous: