Breitbart: Republican Gov. Proposes Gun Confiscation Orders, 72-Hour Wait Period on Firearm Purchases.
On Monday, Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner (R) proposed gun confiscation orders and a 72-hour wait period on firearm purchases.
His proposals were made via proposals to legislation currently pending in the Illinois legislature.
The Chicago Tribune reports that “the provision that would allow confiscation of guns from people who are deemed dangerous” would last 14 days initially. The two-week period gives the state time to build a case for keeping the firearms or else the guns must be returned.
Rauner described the 72-hour waiting period as a “cooling off” period that extends Illinois 24-hour waiting period two more days. He said, “If someone is perhaps on the verge of committing suicide, if someone is potentially a dangerous person and they have violent acts in mind, that extra two days could make the difference between life and death.”
He did not mention what a single mom in fear for her life is supposed to do if she has to wait three days to acquire a gun with which to defend herself and her children. more here
if someone wants a gun bad enough to commit a crime they aren’t going to wait 72 hours to be checked out- they will just buy one off the street corner…….
What about bridge crossing? Everyone should wait 3 days before crossing, otherwise someone might jump or get pushed or have violent acts in mind. Maybe use a lorry to push cars and pedestrians off.
“the provision that would allow confiscation of guns from people who are deemed dangerous” would last 14 days initially.
Thank goodness, because we know it often takes at least this long to track down members of the Crips & Bloods. That’s who he means by “deemed dangerous”, right??
The Republican Colorado candidate for Attorney General (and former DA) just got behind a similar gun seizure bill for those at significant risk. He said read the bill, it has protections. We all know how those protections are meaningless once a bill like that passes and it is used to target certain individuals and groups.
What’s the limiting principle? If the “extra two days could make the difference between life and death,” why not two weeks? Or two months? Or two years? There is no logic to this other than to make progress toward gun confiscation adn the harassment of law-abiding citizens.
Hurray! This means there’ll be no shootings in Chitcago for the next two days!! Yea!
Right?!
Let’s get this show on the road, shall we, Rauner?
I deem your personal security thug squad to be dangerous.
In 72 hours…
Yet the supposedly greatest LE agency in the nation couldn’t find or stop the sale of a gun to a self identified school shooter when he identified himself (with absolute clear language) to a Mississippi bail bondsman in Sept. 2017 until his evil deed on Feb. 14th 2018 !
And they think that extending the obstacle course that decent lawful Americans have to traverse will make everything hunky-dory…?
Between this and the new tax proposal of 1% additional property tax, I expect a massive exodus of people and businesses to all sane states.
A little “bump stock” virtue signaling there.
If someone kills a pregnant woman will that act qualify as a 1+ murder?
Just wondering.
How many actual examples do they have where this theoretical construct
might have made a difference? ?Probably between zero and none.
@Uncle Al “Let’s get this show on the road, shall we, Rauner?
I deem your personal security thug squad to be dangerous.”
I deem all Demonrats and RINOs to be dangerous.
Why did Rauner run for governor if he’s going to hand the election to that fat crook Pritzker?
Illinois already has a 72 hour “cooling off” period for handguns, I can only suppose this is to apply to long guns as well. Illinois also has a “firearms owner ID card” (FOID) that takes months to get before you can purchase. Even if you already own a gun, you must “cool off” before each purchase.
This obviously does nothing to address the Chicago problem, it’s virtue signalling at it’s worst.
Rauner has serious problems with the finances of that state. Runaway spending and corruption that sets a standard for the world. Just soak the working folks with a little more property tax and smile that they are stuck with reduced property values as a result. Lose – lose.
I’m happy to be away from there.
Who gets to decide ‘Dangerous’?
If it’s me:
Anybody without work or obvious means of support, but has money for bling
Anybody wearing sunglasses at three in the morning
Neck tattoo
Weirdly drawn eyebrows (on women)
Ankle or foot tattoos (women again)
Neck beards
Smells like Cumin
Five grand in stereo in an eight hundred dollar car
Regularly drives ‘My Aunties’ car
this will cost Rauner in November.
This is a idiotic idea that could well cost him the governors seat in a what is considered to be a very tight race. Who thought this was a good idea?
Ya just can’t fix stupid.
@Poor Lazlo
“Who gets to decide ‘Dangerous’?”
I’d also add career politicians.
To the anti-gun loons, anyone with a gun is dangerous…. This has nothing to do with “common sense” gun laws and everything to do with disarming the populace.
“Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.” Geo. Orwell
It is telling that most of those in favor of this are using the word “deem”. It sounds good, hints at seriousness, and subconsciously suggests respectability and authority.
What it doesn’t mean is “due process”. This proposal says the govt wants to stomp on anybody’s natural, civil, constitutionally protected right to self-defense without bothering themselves with the hassle of doing it in a court of law where the intended stompee gets to argue against being stomped.
I deem this proposal to be dangerous.
@F4UCorsair May 15, 2018 at 3:34 pm – “And they think that extending the obstacle course that decent lawful Americans have to traverse will make everything hunky-dory…?”
They absolutely KNOW this will do nothing useful – other than advance their gun control schemes another step. That’s the actual goal, not safety and not crime prevention. They NEED gun crimes to happen so they can justify taking more rights away from lawful citizens.
Criminals don’t buy guns from reputable dealers, they don’t ‘cool off’, they don’t go through NICS, they.don’t.obey.laws, neither the old ones or these new ones. And the politicians know it.
@Phuzzy Logick – Amen!
“…they have violent acts in mind…”
As determined by the State Bureau of Mind Reading and Thought Control, no doubt.
No. Your move.